Is a 4-day working week inevitable?

[Mala591]

A major national/international recession seems inevitable with mass unemployment looming. The younger generation are likely to be most affected which could lead to serious social unrest and disillusionment.

If there isn't enough work to go round then why not have an INTEGRATED INTERNATIONAL PLAN to SHARE OUT THE WORK that is available?

A 4-day working week (or 32 hour week) seems a reasonable target.

More people in work means LESS TAXES TO PAY BENEFITS to those who are (through no fault of their own) out of work.

Imo this issue should be the no.1 agenda item at the next world summit meeting.

[Vino blanco]

Cheer up, my friend, it may never happen.

[bf2k]

I'd love a 5 day week at the minute!!!

Just wouldn't work on so many levels but most importantly financially its a killer. We briefly discussed it in a management meeting last October when Labour put it on their election manifesto. Taking the business I work for (which is a pretty typical engineering company working in a specific market) it wouldn't work. We work across the globe, literally, in a very niche market but because the market we're in produces low cost items there is a ceiling to what the product & service we sell are worth. We have to be 24/7 business as well. There for if we went down to a 4 day week we'd need roughly double the work force. That's double the overheads, at least half again if not double the office space & double the office equipment. Who will pay for this? The customer won't because that will be passed down to the consumer who won't pay more for the product.

Then with the reduced working hours comes a reduced wage. People are used to living on the wage they have now. A reduction in wage means less spent on goods.

[Paul Waine]

The French tried a maximum working week.... a lot of the younger French moved to London to get progress their careers, better jobs, earn more money.

Limiting the number of hours worked doesn't "share out" the amount of available work amongst the employed and the unemployed... it will just reduce the sum of work.

We can consider how sharing out the work would operate in football: before lockdown a PL team comprised 11 starters and 7 subs, after lockdown there continue to be 11 starters and subs bench increased to 9, with max 5 available. Footballers wages should be spread across 20 team mates, rather than previously just 18. Can anyone see these players all taking a pay cut of 1/9th as the work is shared out amongst them?

[Rowls]

If there isn't enough work to go round then why not have an INTEGRATED INTERNATIONAL PLAN to SHARE OUT THE WORK that is available?

Central planning has been tried many, many, many times. In various guises though most auspiciously through Communism.

Central planning does not work.

What is required is to nurture and encourage trade and business through the tried and tested methods of capitalism which has lifted millions and billions out of abject poverty.

Basically you need the following:

Property rights
Rule of established law
Low taxes, low regulation
Intellectual copyright and protection
Free trade

[KateR]

I don't see how a 4 day week shares out work at all, job creation is the fundamental basis for getting more people to work, that needs incentives, which is missing from Rowls list, although you could argue some of those on the list are part of the incentives required to drive the economy upwards.

One thing I do think should happen is companies working a 9 day fortnights allowing a Friday off every two weeks, moving to a two week payday, where every working Friday is a payday, every Friday you have something to look forward to. Traffic/environment wins, plus the use of certain people in jobs that can be shared through a 2/3 day week alternative where continuity is not essential.

Obviously the working from home I expect to move further as an outcome of the pandemic and am seeing certain companies doing it now but it's going to be a rough ride for quite a while, which brings me back to the incentives again.

[Billy Balfour]

Most people, I mean those who will be fortunate enough to still be in work when the real recession starts to bite in a few months time, will have outgoings, like mortgages etc, that are based on them working a five day week. Cutting their hours, and therefore their wages, will result in massive mortgage defaults and we all know where that ended up in 2008. If people want to do it voluntarily, then that's up them and their employer.

[dsr]

A major national/international recession seems inevitable with mass unemployment looming. The younger generation are likely to be most affected which could lead to serious social unrest and disillusionment.

If there isn't enough work to go round then why not have an INTEGRATED INTERNATIONAL PLAN to SHARE OUT THE WORK that is available?

A 4-day working week (or 32 hour week) seems a reasonable target.

More people in work means LESS TAXES TO PAY BENEFITS to those who are (through no fault of their own) out of work.

Imo this issue should be the no.1 agenda item at the next world summit meeting.

If you cut everyone's pay by 20%, then you find that the amount of work available had dropped quite sharply as people's disposable income disappears.

If a four day working week happens it will be driven by wealth, not poverty. Cuts in hours happen when the people doing the work have enough money that they can afford to work less.

[fzr162]

why not let older people retire at the age it was and give their jobs to the young.

[Hipper]

What is required is to nurture and encourage trade and business through the tried and tested methods of capitalism which has lifted millions and billions out of abject poverty.

..... and led to over population, massive pollution and Global Warming - a bloody disaster waiting to happen.

We need to find some other way of living that doesn't depend on endless consumption, not for me but today's young people.

[dsr]

..... and led to over population, massive pollution and Global Warming - a bloody disaster waiting to happen.

We need to find some other way of living that doesn't depend on endless consumption, not for me but today's young people.

How anti-capitalist do you need to be to regret that large parts of the world have been lifted out of abject poverty and universal early death?

[Hipper]

It's not being anti-capitalist - I recognise its achievements, particularly in Asia. It's about the consequent damage which we are now beginning to suffer and the likely possibility of worse to come.

We have mostly been ignoring this and to continue to do so is going to be a disaster.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

Central planning has been tried many, many, many times. In various guises though most auspiciously through Communism.

Both full on capitalism and full on communism are disasters.
Capitalism leaves people sleeping under bridges, unable to afford health care and terrified of being fired for a whim.
Communism leaves no incentive to better yourself, no career path and a miserable existence.
I was told when I was very young, if you take a globe and go around to the left you have communism and that is the Motherland, if you go around to the right you have capitalism and the fatherland. They meet up at the other side of the globe and it is the same effect working people being down trodden.

[Long Time Lurker]

What is required is to nurture and encourage trade and business through the tried and tested methods of capitalism which has lifted millions and billions out of abject poverty.

Looks around

Sees the banks and all the businesses pleading for state intervention and money from the tax payers to stay afloat.

How does that equate with free market, non intervention, capitalism ?

Communism doesn't work and Capitalism doesn't work. What is needed is a new ethos that treads the middle line, putting people on an equal par with profit.

A movement that recognises and rewards hard work or enterprise with a better standard of living, but also curtails the impetus towards outlandish greed at the expense of others.

The nordic principles of Hygge, Lagom and Sisu would be a good place to start

https://medium.com/better-marketing/a-s ... 6be124d10d

[dsr]

Looks around

Sees the banks and all the businesses pleading for state intervention and money from the tax payers to stay afloat.

How does that equate with free market, non intervention, capitalism ?

Communism doesn't work and Capitalism doesn't work. What is needed is a new ethos that treads the middle line, putting people on an equal par with profit.

A movement that recognises and rewards hard work or enterprise with a better standard of living, but also curtails the impetus towards outlandish greed at the expense of others.

The nordic principles of Hygge, Lagom and Sisu would be a good place to start

https://medium.com/better-marketing/a-s ... 6be124d10d

So if we didn't have pure capitalism, and instead we introduced things like pensions, social security, free healthcare, state subsidies, and so forth, wouldn't that be a good place to start?

[Rowls]

Some links for the catastrophizers and the Prophets of Doom

1. https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1269

2. https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2294

3. https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2171

4. https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2101

5. https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1906

Plenty more articles on that site which tear apart these baseless claims of the oncoming apocalypse.

[Hipper]

You think these articles prove that we aren't heading to catastrophe?

[Paul Waine]

I don't see how a 4 day week shares out work at all, job creation is the fundamental basis for getting more people to work, that needs incentives, which is missing from Rowls list, although you could argue some of those on the list are part of the incentives required to drive the economy upwards.

One thing I do think should happen is companies working a 9 day fortnights allowing a Friday off every two weeks, moving to a two week payday, where every working Friday is a payday, every Friday you have something to look forward to. Traffic/environment wins, plus the use of certain people in jobs that can be shared through a 2/3 day week alternative where continuity is not essential.

Obviously the working from home I expect to move further as an outcome of the pandemic and am seeing certain companies doing it now but it's going to be a rough ride for quite a while, which brings me back to the incentives again.

I think you are spending too much time in Houston, Kate. Those with connections with US will know that they've operated twice monthly pay days for a very long time. Back in the 90s, my colleagues in Houston worked 9 days in every 2 weeks - though this was to save their commuting time, they worked extra hours to make up their 40 hour standard week.

It depends a great deal on the type of work that people do. I can't see bar staff working from home, or car assembly plant workers, or nurses, or traffic cops or fruit pickers....

Back in mid-80s, firm I was with then moved all workers from weekly cash wages to monthly salaries. Hours were moved from 40 per week, plus overtime, plus all the other extra allowances to a standardised XXXX hours per annum - and all the allowances were swept away. It made a massive difference to productivity and pay rises were as high as +40% for the "work force...."

[Paul Waine]

why not let older people retire at the age it was and give their jobs to the young.

us older people live longer these days - well we did before covid-19 - so, we need to keep working for longer to have the money to "pay our way."

EDIT, but, if you are saying that the older people can retire and be kept in holidays and foreign travel by the young, well, that's an argument I haven't heard for a long time.

[Rowls]

You think these articles prove that we aren't heading to catastrophe?

They don't prove that, no.

They show that previous Prophets of Doom have been proven misguided and wrong. And they show that there are many causes for pragmatic optimism.

[KateR]

I think you are spending too much time in Houston, Kate. Those with connections with US will know that they've operated twice monthly pay days for a very long time. Back in the 90s, my colleagues in Houston worked 9 days in every 2 weeks - though this was to save their commuting time, they worked extra hours to make up their 40 hour standard week.

It depends a great deal on the type of work that people do. I can't see bar staff working from home, or car assembly plant workers, or nurses, or traffic cops or fruit pickers....

Back in mid-80s, firm I was with then moved all workers from weekly cash wages to monthly salaries. Hours were moved from 40 per week, plus overtime, plus all the other extra allowances to a standardised XXXX hours per annum - and all the allowances were swept away. It made a massive difference to productivity and pay rises were as high as +40% for the "work force...."

not sure about the Houston quote, the Company I used to work for had offices in London with around 2,500 staff and in Aberdeen with 500, all working 80 Hr/2 weeks but working for 9 days, all on bi-weekly payroll. It also applied to quite a number of countries around the world, for them it is the best model and one I liked a lot, amazing how you got used to that Friday off and planned around it, when I had to work I didn't like it, especially when it was for free lol.

The companies I am working with at the moment all have plans for keeping people on working from home but of course not everyone but definitely many could and this has now been proven, it has added benefits such as traffic and pollution reduction. Of course there are numerous jobs that can not do that but they are the same ones that can't do what the thread title is about. I have not been paid overtime since the early 80's but have been on numerous projects where overtime was an integral part of the financial planning so it has to be part of any companies thinking

[AndrewJB]

A major national/international recession seems inevitable with mass unemployment looming. The younger generation are likely to be most affected which could lead to serious social unrest and disillusionment.

If there isn't enough work to go round then why not have an INTEGRATED INTERNATIONAL PLAN to SHARE OUT THE WORK that is available?

A 4-day working week (or 32 hour week) seems a reasonable target.

More people in work means LESS TAXES TO PAY BENEFITS to those who are (through no fault of their own) out of work.

Imo this issue should be the no.1 agenda item at the next world summit meeting.

I think it’s a great idea. I remember reading this book on it back in the ‘90s: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/ ... edir_esc=y

For those claiming that it would damage the economy, does that mean we should go back to the 48 hour week? Or the 80 hour week as we had in the 19th Century?

[AndrewJB]

Central planning has been tried many, many, many times. In various guises though most auspiciously through Communism.

Central planning does not work.

What is required is to nurture and encourage trade and business through the tried and tested methods of capitalism which has lifted millions and billions out of abject poverty.

Basically you need the following:

Property rights
Rule of established law
Low taxes, low regulation
Intellectual copyright and protection
Free trade

Britain had all those things by 1832, and poverty remained as bad as ever. It was only when things you’ve left off your list, such as the vote, universal education, universal healthcare, union rights, working rights, health and safety, social security, and an interventionist government did poverty really fall.

Central planning is something most corporations do. Is it also wrong then?

[UnderSeige]

A major national/international recession seems inevitable with mass unemployment looming. The younger generation are likely to be most affected which could lead to serious social unrest and disillusionment.

If there isn't enough work to go round then why not have an INTEGRATED INTERNATIONAL PLAN to SHARE OUT THE WORK that is available?

A 4-day working week (or 32 hour week) seems a reasonable target.

More people in work means LESS TAXES TO PAY BENEFITS to those who are (through no fault of their own) out of work.

Imo this issue should be the no.1 agenda item at the next world summit meeting.

This would likely make large companies more competitive in relation to smaller companies. It would follow that smaller companies would start going out of business.

International Plan? Would this involve governments signing a treaty to put themselves under some sort of International authority? I am not sure that China and certain other countries would be signatories.

I think that, in a 'post Covid-world' countries that thrive the best will be those that can produce goods for themselves. The pandemic has highlighted how quickly shortages can appear in countries that cannot do this. The idea that the UK can be a 'design centre' with most of the manufacturing being carried out overseas has been severely challenged.

Perhaps we can create jobs here by using tax incentives to get companies to manufacture their products here. Government procurement could also be skewed this way. The pharmaceutical industry would be a good start.

[Lowbankclaret]

I know Rolls Royce are looking at a 4 day week with a 20% cut in salary to save some jobs.

[UnderSeige]

why not let older people retire at the age it was and give their jobs to the young.

'Age Discrimination' would be one reason. As long as someone is fit and healthy enough to work you can't morally just sack them to give their work to a less experienced person.

In an era in which discrimination is under scrutiny 'age discrimination', 'discrimination against the disabled' etc. are just as important as 'racial and gender discrimination'.

[sanderson370]

I've been doing 4 day week for 2 years love it long weekends and still doing 38 hours.