“I believe that people deserve to spend more time with their families, loved ones, hobbies and other aspects of life, such as culture. This could be the next step for us in working life,” the prime minister commented on the new proposal.

  • 001Guy001@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    That’s the right direction but it needs to make sure that the wages stay the same, otherwise everything becomes a part-time job and people are forced to find an additional job to get to their original earnings.

    Either way, we need Universal Basic Income

    • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      That’s equally valid of course, but unless you mean your birth family and not your own, the more appropriate and commendable route would be to remove yourself from the wrong family situation and figure out a new, working, one. It’s no benefit to anyone, least to yourself, if it’s not working out. Everyone will be happier for it ultimately, even if it requires some tough choices and a whole bunch of compromises, adaptation and potential heartbreak in the short term.

      I mean the same is true for birth family too, but at least there it doesn’t matter as much, since often the first priority and the more day-to-day impactful one will be your own immediate family, so you can simply minimize the need to ever interact with them.

      And there’s the moral implication, that you didn’t choose your birth family. But you did choose your own immediate family. So there’s a responsibility there in the latter that isn’t present in the former.

      Unless the situation is that you didn’t choose your immediate family either. If it’s not working out, it’s even more of a reason to figure out a way out.

      Unless there’s no way out. In which case, and only in this case, your sentiment seems agreeable and hopefully the situation doesn’t last. And if it does, hopefully you get as much time off as possible.

      • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Dude, it was a snarky comments and mostly a joke. Perhaps not really in good taste, idk. Don’t take shit I saw too seriously.

    • Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      My first thought as well. So often we see ex leader spouting this type of thing after the fact. But during their time, they toed the party line to keep the working class down.

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 hours ago

    1-size NEVER fits all:

    Neither legislating a 60h workweek, nor a 40h workweek, nor a 6d workweek, nor a 4d workweek, CAN fit all diverse kinds of people.

    Some are unhappy when NOT working all the time!

    Many autistic workaholics would need2 jobs, to be happy in her idea of good, but it wouldn’t ever work right ( 8d work every 7d week??

    There NEEDS to be some way for there to be 2 categories of employees: workaholics & humans,

    & the measured higher social-support ( including late-life health-care ) amplification for the workaholics obliges a higher tax-rate for companies employing those, in proportion with the percentage of 'em working that way.

    ( I’d be in the workaholics category, not in the “family” category, just so you understand I’m deeming my own category to be more-costly to social-support systems.

    But the Industrial Revolution was on us, not on the family-people.

    We are the blockheads who keep bashing-away at making technology work right, see? )

    /\ _