Antiwork

It's a blatant attempt to lower the benefit cost. If we are under 40 hours a week we lose full time benefits at the end of the year, no exceptions. We are having a meeting to discuss the 40hrs in January. I believe this is unreasonable to begin with, but many people at the company don't have steady work, they get sent home early except during the holidays and promotions. Working 40hrs a week isn't possible. When HR was confronted about the shortage of work, she said that we don't have to worry they are doing things about it. It was like talking to a telemarketer. I wanted more ideas of how to approach the situation, questions to ask in a group setting. I believe the group setting will put the pressure on, and I have encouraged coworkers to say how it affects them. Also, I'm in Washington, in case…

The question of kids came up, and I tried to relay the difficulties of having them, but she wouldn’t have it. I’m a software engineer, and my salary is decent, but with the economic climate it’s still not feasible. She continues to tell me that her generation was the hardest working one (boomer). And that I just need to work harder (more hours). Can anyone give give me some solid sources that show it was better for them vs us? Any help is greatly appreciated.

If inflation is say at 7%, isn’t this after tax. So to get a pay rise that beats inflation won’t it need to be a minimum of 9% (or so) as everything we buy is is after we have been taxed. (This makes sense in my head, but correct me if I am wrong)