No, the work week as it currently stands is only a result of union fighting and corporations giving in.

You misunderstand me, perhaps deliberately, as outlined here.

That said, technology most likely could allow people to work less, but capitalist and social pressures really make it hard.

Technology does allow people to "work" less. Compare the amount of physical labor performed 100 years ago vs. now. Hell, compare farming to hunting and gathering. Why I say "the work week is, at a basic level, tied to productivity" is that the amount of work put in by the majority of the "working class" at any point in history is related to the comfort level of that class.

The trade-off would mean that some people make less overall, but would mean that more people are making a decent wage.

The argument has long been that in order for everyone to be equal, the strivers need to be hobbled. This is in absolute and total violation of the American work ethic - hell, even the French rebelled against the 32 hour work week.

What you say could just as easily apply to a 60 hour work day, or an 80 hour work day. There is nothing magical about 40 hours.

I said fuckall about the "magical" 40-hour work week and fuck you for suggesting I did. I said, for your reference,

"The problem is working 40 or 50 hours a week doing something that isn't fulfilling that doesn't compensate you adequately and provides no safety net."

You want to have an argument where I'm defending the 40-hour work week. I'm not. I'm skewering the notion that making people work less is any sort of panacea for anything, and I'm doing it in very simple terms.

Would you like to try again? Sorry for the venom, but I'll bet I'm the only person on this page who is actually in a union, who comes from a long line of union workers (on both sides of his family, no less) and who is actively involved in a labor dispute at the moment and I will not have my position misrepresented for cheap internet points.