Airtel Service Blue Printing

Day work: negotiation or coercion? Win

continue to respond to Hans Rothgiesser about the journey of four hours.
says Hans (and this seems to be the central disagreement with me, since we started this discussion) that agrees with the reduced hours, but that such a thing should happen as a result of "a process of negotiation", it will not be easy, but it is preferable to a strike. Dice that if we want to strike, the employer will say: "puff, with the technology that is now no longer need you" (not, but let's assume that it is).
Well, we follow the reasoning of Hans and we will negotiate. At the door of negotiation, our correspondent says: "There are two types of entrepreneurs: heartless and conscience. With the thugs can not be negotiated, and we can only do so with others (those who are employed by employers heartless folks are discarded along with their employers, without having had occasion to say a peep.) But no matter, follow the path of good Hans. Negotiate with the employer responsible, suppose man agrees to reduce the day.
What happens here? Very simple: our good employer loses immediately competitiveness over other companies vying for the same market as yours. Why lose competitivdad? Because their costs go up, obviously. Is headed for bankruptcy, for trying to act like good in a system that is not made for that.
Here comes the interesting part, because a reduction in the day, as we have seen, practiced unilaterally by an employer (or a country), would lead to bankruptcy, the same reduction, say, if instituted universally, yes get the goal and Hans I agree (yconste reiterates that agree) to search. I would get it because, being of universal application, this will prevent the "heartless businessmen, who do not accept the reduction, take advantage, unfairly, loss of competitiveness that employers" know "have been to accept they do, the reduced hours.

This is how the working day, or applied universally, or fails. That's why the 35 hours, applied for years in France, has been on the floor, and, recently, the European Community authorized days 60 and up to 65 hours per week . They have done so because they could not bear the loss of competitiveness to competition from Asian countries that, far from reducing the working day, lasted up to twelve or more hours. This is what is called "race to the bottom " (race to the bottom) are competing to see who gets further degrade labor standards.
So, if we set the reduction of the day, though it be through negotiation, we must do so universal. International negotiations, in an international forum also.
I see no other way to get to a negotiation of that level through international strike, that would put the item on the agenda. I can guarantee that if we go to a global strike (completely peaceful and democratic, of course), in a very short time we will be negotiating (as Hans wanted) with reduced business day. As I say in the book (which Hans has no excuse for not reading, because we have an exchange), I propose a deal to cut half an hour each month for eight months, up to four hours. Then, every ten years, will measure the increase in productivity for further reductions.
The issue of whether there are four hours or five hours (five and three quarters, my dear, is a disfuerzo), touch it later, but insist that is not important. If we start now with five, ten years we will have four. All roads lead to Rome.