4 Day Week

Waiters, waitresses. Small shops, chemists, the list goes on, so much about big business, small businesses are dimissed , of no importance apart from the people who work for them.

I can't see it being restricted for long to those industries which can benefit from the AI. Those working in other fields will soon feel victimised if they are working for far less per hour than others, and will demand either shorter hours or a higher hourly rate. The cost per employee will rise, followed inevitably by a rise in the price of the service offered. Productivity will not rise proportionately.

Those in favour of this seem mostly theoreticians, Utopianists, or those in large firms in the mechanised sectors. Those with reservations are in the service section or smaller manufacturing or retail businesses.

There is a danger that decisions will be made by politicians with no industrial experience, heavy or light, or of the retail or service sector, (which they probably believe is made up of servants) or by captains of industry who by definition are driving big companies with thousands of employees and can redeploy them as they wish.

Well, I wonder how many who dismiss the shorter hours proposals out of hand, will be in favour of higher taxes and/or reductions in state benefits such as the pensions. Without a doubt, those measures will be required to pay for all the extra employment subsidies for those with little work, and for those with no work whatsoever full unemployment benefits for them and their families.

The choice will be simple.

Apologies Grandad but I'm afraid that your addressing as usual only the road haulage industry. There are other industries apart from haulage! Your explanation of a "rolling week would not work in the financial sector, for example, unless all companies worked on the same, mutually agreed days. It would not work in the retail sector, healthcare, manufacturing, education....... unless all companies agree that they would be available to trade and be able to communicate about the multiple aspects of trade on the same days.

The joys that await the country if Corbyn becomes the PM, Union power will be back,

We need to keep an open mind about this. Someone upthread mentioned education. My SiL, a secondary teacher, has opted for a 4-day week already. His subject, English, is now experiencing shortages and is especially marking and planning intensive.

The extra day ‘off’ allows him time to catch up on planning and marking from home. And, interestingly, the school has found it easier to recruit other teachers on a part-time basis. I’m hearing more and more of teachers solving their workload problems in this way.

It is true that some workers, would prefer the option of a 4-day week if they can cope financially. It is certainly not a problem for shops etc. to recruit on a part-time basis especially if that is PT and permanent.

I’ve been retired now for 13 years and even before then quite a few of my team chose to work on a PT permanent contract, usually 4 days. It didn’t mean they all chose the same days but the nature of the work meant there wasn’t an issue.

"Brilliant ideas" such as this do not have to be well thought out Jalima as they rarely (if ever) effect those who thought of them.

Maybe we should just go the whole hog/ cut to the chase and implement a 3 day week which is where we will all be anyway when JC and his cronies get into power. Closely followed of course by small business like mine going under.

True Gilly, small businesses are of no importance ,

There are attractive aspects to a 4 day week, OldMeg.

However, open minds consider the impact on all the sectors, they don't plump for it being the gold standard for all because it would suit their own industry. That is what I hear from some posts.

There is nothing to stop it being adopted where it is relevant and workable, but it is being talked about as though it will be move on to be extended to everyone, and we are all going to have full employment, plenty of money and long weekends to relax in.

It is not negative or cynical to suspect that just aint gonna happen. Work (and earning power) tend to expand to fill the space and time available and those who can exploit that get more of both. Or more likely some get more of the work and different ones get more of the earning power. Some groups will do better than others, the predicted trickle-down will stop before it reaches those who need it, and prices rise for all.

In the past workers actually worked a 6 day week, Sunday being the only day off they were entitled to, and some workers, (particularly domestic), didn't even get that. I would imagine the reduction to a 5 day week was met with the same objections as are being raised here. And yet there were no catastrophic results. As it is many people are using their options and working 4 days anyway, particularly when they have young children. Flexible working hours are being used more and more. It will happen one way or another.

Grandad 1943

Was there a truth in what I said?

" If a worker has a 5 day week and it is reduced to 4 days unless the reduction in days is pro rata in both pay and hours the cost to the employer is a 20% increase in wages and 20% loss in production time. That is for existing staff but the employer may well have to employ more staff to maintain productivity and that obviously incurs even more cost. On and on it goes.

This may be a simple way of looking at it but if I am not mistaken how do you for see a company that is not / could not fall under the catagree of becoming more automated find itself if it has an increase of 20% in wages bill and 20% less production time? The chasm between what type of employment we have is lost in the argument of Artificial Intelligence led workplaces only.

Reducing the working week to 4 days amounts to a reduction in productivity if the pay and hours is not pro rata. For any country to do this bilaterally it is running a huge risk of not competing globally and why would companies invest in the UK when profit is there end game .

We have debated ' The 4th Industrial Revolution ' on GN on occasion and nobody disagrees with the fact A I is indeed going to be / already is a subject that will / is already massively effecting the way we are employed .

Personally I just don't think using AI as a reason for a 4 day week whilst keeping the exact pay but working less hours being rolled out universally is remotely wise , in fact it is a possible causation for loss of employment because businesses may have to close or move abroad.

Looking at businesses and employment through the prism of A I is not reflective of employment in general. How would the NHS, Police , Care Companies fair by having to suddenly find a further 20% wage bill and loss of working hours . Please don't come back with they are already underfunded the government must fund it because that is just shifting the deckchairs .

You may well be and those who are employed by the Unions most certainly are in employment that could give themselves a 20% decrease in productivity and no loss of pay but if their job could be done on that basis with no knock on effect if I was a Union member I would ask why have they been paid as such over the years .

Yes AI , The Fourth Industrial Revolution will amount to loss of employment but so could a non pro rata reduction from a 5 day week to 4 and has that been appraised by the TUC and what were the findings ?

Bravo POGS

POGS I was in process of composing a post which said more or less that, but read yours before I had finished.

Yes.

The same pay for 20% less time is a far bigger change than the one from a 6 to a 5 day week. That was a 16% time reduction.

I am so tired of hearing how AI is going to create Shangri-La. Yes, it is increasing, yes it is inevitable, yes it can make manufacturing and paperwork so much more efficient, but there are many small businesses and services which can only use a small amount of AI. Their main strength is in personal contacts and in the detail of the day's work.

POGS the cost to the employer is a 20% increase in wages and 20% loss in production time. That is for existing staff but the employer may well have to employ more staff to maintain productivity
When the mill girls worked a 60 hour week, when sweat shops operated, when children went down the mines I imagine much the same arguments were made.
For example Thomas Wilson who owned collieries in Barnsley area said 1 object on general principles to government interference in the conduct of any trade, and I am satisfied that in mines it would be productive of the greatest injury and injustice. The art of mining is not so perfectly understood as to admit of the way in which a colliery shall be conducted being dictated by any person, however experienced, with such certainty as would warrant an interference with the management of private business. I should also most decidedly object to placing collieries under the present provisions of the Factory Act with respect to the education of children employed therein
There have always been objections to anything improving workers lives.

Robotics and AI are increasing all the time whether we want them to or not, and we have to start thinking ahead of the ways that we want it to affect our society.

We may think now that a robot can never take the place of a personal service, but already robots are being developed to work in care homes, to take the place of care workers. Who would ever have thought that could happen?

Waiters and people who work in the food services are already replaced by vending machines in many workplaces.

How often to we phone a company and instead of quickly speaking to someone we get an automated message telling us that "most of your questions can be answered on our website".

What the union is trying to do is to think of a way that most of the population can benefit from the savings and efficiencies that technology brings.

That in the long run will help small businesses because everybody will have some money to spend in them.

The unions need to stop and take a proper look at some of the massive benefits of AI.

How many dangerous practices are now carried out by robots? Spray painting, welding, bomb disposal, heavy lifting and repetitive production are just a few that sprint to mind but there are 100's more. How many industrial diseases and untimely deaths will be prevented because of this?

It should also be born in mind that robots cannot program themselves and neither can they design and build themselves without human interaction. We should respect that advanced technology can often change things for the better of mankind.

trisher

I'm sorry but your post is avoiding the issues that apply to employment today.

It is like raising the Suffragettes to make a point about voting at 16 or whether an individual chooses to vote or not.

If we look at the working conditions and progress then let's look at the history if that's where you want to take the debate.

1st Industrial Revolution
1780 - 1840. Water , Steam , Power, Mechanized production.

2nd Industrial Revolution
1870 - 1914 Electric power. Mass production.

3rd Industrial Revolution
1945 - 1970. Electronics and information technology. Automated production.

4th Industrial Revolution
1970 - ... Fusion of technologies.

That in the long run will help small businesses because everybody will have some money to spend in them

Apologies for bringing in the "B" word but it is relevant. We (personally) are already finding that some of our large manufacturing customers are taking steps to move all or part of their operations out of the UK post Brexit. Add a restricted working week plus unrealistic pay demands and we have a perfect storm.

I agree gillybob Let us hope that the benefits are felt by all of us.

Design and technology should be taught much more in schools, they seem like the jobs of the future.

POGS strangely enough (as I keep telling people) the Suffragettes are relevant today, because they were never a single subject movement. They wanted Equal work for Equal Pay. They wanted poor schoolchildren fed. They thought men could not be trusted to look after the interests of poor women and children. So your analogy is flawed.
What all the things you have posted should have done. is improve conditions for working people. In the 1970s I seem to remember we were promised a life of leisure and prosperity. If we were to look at why this didn't happen we might see that actualy at some levels of society it is true. Alas not for the ordinary working person.

I don't agree that any of this will help small (or large) benefits at all Ilovecheese sincere apologies for the misunderstanding.

As a small business this would cripple us. Our customers are already very touchy (re Brexit) and more regulations will just fuel the flames. Contrary to belief many SME's are not shopkeepers who rely on Joe Public to spend his pennies with them. Many of us work Business to Business. our customers are other (much larger) manufacturers who if they are hit with increased costs and reduced production will take steps to resolve the situation, they certainly won't be spending more money with us.

Ilovecheese

" I agree gillybob Let us hope that the benefits are felt by all of us. "

I am confused by your post to gillybob .

trisher

I am not being rude or trying to avoid you but I am interested in debating the current TUC proposals not harking to the past.

Yes me too POGS apologies. I missed a huge chunk out of it. Hopefully it is cleared up by my last post beginning "As a small business........"