AHC: West-european-alike labour codes and social security level in the 1990's USA

iVC

Donor
With any reasonable PODs past 1920s make USA states commonly implement west-european style (or maybe even OTL Scandinavian or East Germany style) of labour codes and social security/welfare system, while staying in the mainstream of 'American Dream' expectations.

So, more or less, by the year 2000 american society, legislation and business practice must embrace following things as 'taken for granted':

- minimum wage as a living wage for most causes of employment
- at-will employment goes to extinction and being replaced by employment contracts massively
- contingent work and McJobs are commonly treated as employer sins
- strictly controlled overtime work
- compulsory health insurance
- compulsory maternity insurance and paid leave
- compulsory sick leave and disability leave
- compulsory yearly paid holidays no less than 2 weeks
- occupational pension instituion implementation
- educational leaves etc etc

This thread was inspired by massive AH discussions of 'why there can be no national healthcare in US' style ;)

Bonus: Additional points for making this in the 1950's - 1990's time period.
 
Last edited:
You'd best start by butterflying away the Red Scare if you can, and making it so that improving the lifestyles of all American workers is part of the goal. The Great Depression and World War II had the same effects on the United States society that it did on European ones (and for that matter Canada and Australia) but the United States went in a different direction.
 
I think of the American Dream as a person's children doing better than they did. That's probably the most personal and important definition.

Now, for people who don't have children like me, I've also heard the dream defined as home ownership and/or owning your own business.
 

iVC

Donor
but the United States went in a different direction

So your point is to aviod discreditation of words like 'social... whatever' because ITL United States never experienced 'you speak like a communist' hysteria?
 
Much easier to do with a 1916 or 1915 POD, avoiding entry into WWI would really give the American left a kick in the pants

Easiest way with a post 1920 POD is to kill Stalin at the most inconvenient time during Barbarossa, USSR is gutted as a threat, Mao doesn't get Manchuria handed to him and stays a guerilla hiding in the hills, US Public has paid a lot more blood and treasure to win WWII and wants compensation. Absent Communist threat much reduced Marshall Plan, Europe recovers slower, thus the 50's and 60's are less of a boom for the US, US public is more concerned about things like welfare and such while the New Deal consensus is holding, and Communism/Socialism is less of a boogeyman, no conservative backlash or liberal split due to Vietnam so the consensus holds longer, and such ideas are entrenched when it finally breaks
 
. . . Easiest way with a post 1920 POD is to kill Stalin at the most inconvenient time during Barbarossa, USSR is gutted as a threat, . . .
Stalin, in fact, had a mental breakdown during Barbarossa at least for some number of hours. And when he got his shit together, he merely did average for a centralized dictator.

His breakdown was actually a pretty good time for a military coup (and Stalin had first thought the rest of the Politburo were going to arrest him). If, for example, we had gotten a general who was a fair to middling delegator, the Soviets probably would have done better.
 
Last edited:
Stalin, in fact, had a mental breakdown during Barbarossa at least for some number of hours. And when he got his shit together, he merely did average for a centralized dictator.

His breakdown was actually a pretty good time for a military coup (and Stalin had first thought the rest of the Politburo were going to arrest him). If, for example, we had gotten a general who was a fair to middling delegator, the Soviets probably would have done better.
The problem with a coup is the question of who is going to succeed Stalin, whatever faults he had, he was clearly and unquestionably in charge. Anyone trying to take over from him, will not be clearly and unquestionably in charge, best case is that there is some period of command confusion/paralysis (and consequent reduced effectiveness) before things are figured out, worst case (what most inconvenient time implies) is near civil war and ineffective command and control until it is over

Any general trying to take over is not going to be trusted by the Party or NKVD who were paranoid about that, Beria is hated enough he can't take over without a reign of terror, closest figure who could is probably Molotov, but if he is not in the country...
 
No world wars. That would create the capital needed. Couple that with the Depression (it was coming despite JP Morgan's attempts to stop it) and FDR being more aggressive with his social policies.
 
Top