Just a small pointer because I assume you're a non-native english speaker: you never (I think) contract an auxiliary verb before an unconjugated main verb. You have to write "I had to Google ..." The only reason I mention it is because it's an easy error to make but one that makes people have to read the sentence a few times to figure out what it means. If "to Google" was conjugated, you could write "I'd Googled that last week ..."
As a native speaker, I've never thought in terms of auxiliary verbs, unconjugated etc, or known what they were. So I'm trying to think of the way native speakers learn, the natural rule.
Doesn't it depend on whether there's a stress/emphasis on the verb? I'd to seems wrong because the had in I had to is stressed, so the had just seems missing. In I'd love to - the would isn't stressed. If it is, like "I would love to, but I can't" then the contraction isn't used. It's how contractions arose in the first place, I guess.
I believe the experience of "stress" that you feel in this sentence is because "had" is being used as a modal verb. That is, it's being used to qualify the verb "to Google" rather than specify it's tense like in "I'd Googled that last week". Modal verbs are a type of auxiliary verb.
I don't know the "real" rule for when you can contract and when you can't, but I'm sure that there's some linguist somewhere who has written a paper on it. The reason that I didn't try to explain the stress that native speakers feel by talking about modal verbs is because I don't think that you can say in general that you never contract a modal verb. For example you can say "I would talk to Jim" or "I'd talk to Jim" where is "would" a modal verb modifying "talk". Maybe it's the case that the only time you have a phrase in the form of [auxiliary verb] [unconjugated verb] is when the auxiliary verb is being used as a modal verb? I don't know. I don't have any expertise in linguistics, I just know the terms because I took a class on it in college.
The important context here is that in Germany you already have a right to reduced hours. You just don't have a right to getting your old hours back. This is important because the hours might very well have been given to other employees, permanently hurting your income and/or your career. (unless you find a different employer) Hence many new parents not daring to ask for reduced hours. This new demand/proposal by the union would result in a similar "re-employment guarantee" as those new parents who stop working completely for a number of months get already.
I mean currently it doesn't matter. We're always asked to up our contract to 40h again. The only question is if you go part time and then a crisis hits. In that case employers would be reluctant to bring you back up.
> Unfortunately unless worldwide culture changes such that demand for produced goods drops dramatically in favor for intangibles (humanities, happiness, etc.) any small union that does this will basically become irrelevant in no short time. It's important to note that the union in the OP has huge leverage.
This is exactly the theory behind socialism. Capitalism is great at increasing our productivity, but past a certain point, you can't continue valuing productivity more than worker happiness. Socialism is less efficient than capitalism, even Marx admitted that, but at some point it begins to make sense to shift our values. When will that point be? Probably not yet, maybe not as soon as people think, but probably not never. If the metalworking industry is productive enough so that it makes sense to shift their values, then more power to them.
The problem with shifting to socialism completely is lack of incentives. Also central planning doesn't work. Voting with money by what you buy has shown to be a much better planner than any government could hope to achieve.
What we need to do is change the mindset of what is considered a normal workweek. The shift from 7 to 6 to 5 days and 14h days to 8h or 7h days was also a change in mindset more than a change in political system.
In a capitalist system you also need the mindset of most people to change at the same time. I mean a lot of things that we need for living that have a somewhat constant demand (rent/house prices, food, toilet paper, ..) will have the price at which profit is maximal. Which is why with the advent of women working you didn't have families with two incomes being able to afford twice as many houses, but families with one income not being able to compete with two income families to buy a house. The prices of necessities will always adapt to what people can afford.
If everyone switched to a 28h workweek at the same time, it wouldn't be a very big problem because all the other prices would adapt and you could afford the same basic lifestyle with a bit more basic luxuries. If you're the only one switching you can't afford a basic lifestyle anymore.
For a solution to be a solution, it has to work, right? I would argue that there are a great number of proposals in humanities and social sciences, but the fact that we are still plagued by war & depression means that the proposals either didn't work or cannot be implemented for whatever reason(s).
A toxin is a poisonous substance produced within living cells or organisms [...]
Toxins can be small molecules, peptides, or proteins that are capable of causing disease on contact with or absorption by body tissues interacting with biological macromolecules such as enzymes or cellular receptors.
Quote from my #1 ref. below:
"Analysis of the currently available peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals molecular effects induced by low-intensity RFR in living cells; this includes significant activation of key pathways generating reactive oxygen species (ROS), activation of peroxidation, oxidative damage of DNA and changes in the activity of antioxidant enzymes."
