Four day week

At the start of the industrial revolution factory owners wanted to maximise their profits by keeping machines running for as many hours as possible. It was common for working hours to be between 14-16 a day, 6 days a week. Even children worked long hours in the textile factories, mines and as domestics in wealthy people's homes.

Following various campaigns, eventually in the textile industry 10-13 year olds were limited to 48 hours a week and 14-18 year olds to 69 hours.

In the 1930s The Factories Act was established, laying down no more than 9 hours in one day for women and young people - limited to 48 per week. Adult men's working hours remained unregulated.

Now, in the EU
there are directives to limit hours worked, although I believe although most countries do follow most of the directives, they are not obliged to do so. (I believe there are exemptions for certain occupations).

maximum 48 hours per week
One rest day a week
4 weeks' holiday

It would therefore appear that not much has changed in the way of limitations on working hours for many years,save for a compulsory holiday allowance.

When each campaign to reduce hours was mounted there was an insistence, often from factory owners and the like, including MPs who represented their interests, that it would be ruinous to businesses and a block on progress to consider shorter hours.

The same rhetoric is used today. And yet there is much evidence to demonstrate that productivity can actually improve when less hours are worked.

Business Insider (July 2018)
"Studies show that Americans work longer hours than many people in Europe and Japan, with many US employees spending 50 hours at work each week.

"Though the average number of hours spent at work each week is not going down significantly in the United States, some American companies and local governments are joining other parts of the world in testing whether a reduction in the number of weekly work hours can boost employee productivity.

"There is research to support these policy changes. Psychologist Anders Ericsson, who specializes in the science of peak performance, suggests that people can only concentrate on their work for four to five hours in one sitting. And a 2016 survey of nearly 2,000 office workers in the United Kingdom claims that the average employee works for roughly three hours during an eight-hour day.

"Most recently, a New Zealand company's (Perpetual Guardian) staff worked for 32 hours a week during March and April. The 240 employees were still paid for five days of work, and the company wants to make the policy change permanent, The New York Times reported. .......

............"Perpetual Guardian supervisors saw improvements in employee attendance and creativity during the experiment.

"Company founder Andrew Barnes told The Times that a permanent policy change would benefit mothers the most, allowing them to complete a full-time amount of work in fewer hours. The policy could also lead to lower electricity bills and fewer cars on the road during rush hour, Barnes said.

............"Retirement-home workers in Sweden reported greater happiness during a trial of a 30-hour work week — but the city's budget took a significant hit.

"In Sweden, a government study selected a group of retirement-home workers to work 30 hours a week while receiving pay for 40 hours. (Most elder-care in the country is funded by municipal taxes and government grants.)......

........"Participating employees enjoyed their work more during this time, but the change was expensive: City officials needed to hire more than a dozen people to cover the shifts left vacated by the roughly 70 workers who got more time off.

"The payroll grew about 22% during the study. A local politician told The New York Times that lower unemployment costs offset this hike by roughly 10%, but the overall cost nevertheless increased.

"According to The Washington Post, the study also concluded that nurses working six hours a day were more active, less sick, and had less neck and back pain than nurses working eight-hour days."

In the Swedish care worker case, although workers were happier and more effective in work, there was a significant cost to reducing hours. However, Sweden already has good working conditions and social support - nursery care being only a fraction of the cost of nursery care in the UK. That in itself means there is far less financial pressure on Swedish families and a less stressful home environment, so it might be suggested that they have either to be prepared to pay even more tax or to not fund, or not fully fund, the reduction in working hours. My belief is that if the majority of workers' salaries were reduced, prices would anyway automatically fall to match that reduction. (In the same way that prices of land, homes, goods and services are cheaper in areas of low pay than in areas with a wealthy demographic).

It appears that many of the initiatives to reduce hours have been successful in increasing productivity and morale. Apart from commercial considerations, many families contain two earners, and there is a significant social impact of both parents working quite long hours. In the UK, expensive and not particularly good, childcare facilities place much financial, practical and emotional pressure on relationships and the family unit. Perhaps, in the long run, issues arising from these stresses, eg lack of time and energy to: spend with children and partner; prepare nutritious food, etc, etc, would be fewer. This would result in improvements to physical and mental health, educational attainment, anti-social behaviour, family cohesion, etc, etc, all of which cost significant amounts of money.

I worked 30 hours a week in-an admin role for ten years in a government funded post. When I resigned they decided to advertise it on the same terms & conditions on a 37 hour week with no extra duties. This was done to appeal to a younger applicant who would never have applied for a part time post so now my replacement does my job for more money with less work!

Well done, Eloethan

What type of operation is Perpetual Guardian? It sounds like an insurance company.

Someone in my family worked four nights per week, then time off followed by five days etc on a rolling shift.
The nights were 13.5 hours which took their toll and it was impossible to pursue any hobbies.

Our productivity is not down because people haven't been working hard enough. It is down because of under investment both by the government and the private sector.

This government, over a decade, has lagged behind most other countries. We must now have investment, but it must be investment for our future. That way there will be no reason why we should not be paid more for less of our time. I really do think some on here enjoy the hair shirt of sticking to the past. Perhaps we should pass them a bowl of gruel while the rest of the world moves forward to future prosperity. Is time we acknowledge that an unfettered, privately run economy has not served us well although it has served a few of the already very wealthy extremely well.

Really good to post Eloethan.

Gracesgran absolutely agree.

Pantglas2

If your job was government funded, was it being paid for by the taxpayer when the hours etc were increased?

One size does not fit all!

Extended hours for less days suits some areas but not all. And a lot of the areas it DOES suit already do it! We do not need to be ORDERED to all work the same way by an over paternalistic government.

Take for examply our largest employer: the NHS.

Longer but less days works well on wards and most wards do it.

It would NOT work well for the thousands of screen/office workers

It would NOT work well in chemo or day treatment units where it is proven that giving high risk treatments like blood transfusions in the evening is LESS safe.

It would NOT work well in day surgery, see previous point (same reason)

It would NOT work well in interventional radiology where staff have to wear heavy lead aprons for most of the duration of their shift.

Yes Calendargirl. Lord knows what she’s been doing for the other 7 hours a week - there were times when I struggled for work and resorted to clearing out cupboards an£ stuff just to stop being bored!

Saying that productivity increases with a four-day week may wellbe true, but what about occupations where productivity can't be increased? If people work shorter hours for the same money without being able to increase productivity, then employers have a 20% increase in costs without a 20% increase in income to pay those costs.

The costs would be the same with the same pay per hour, but the total hours spread over fewer days - but that makes the days longer for the employees. Closing down completely for almost half a week is not always feasible either, nor is leaving costly machinery and equipment idle.

It has to be tried on a case-by-case basis by individual firms to see if it suits before becoming universal. If it works, it is possible that more people could be employed to keep the business operating for the other two or three days - but if it isn't it could go back to previous hours.

Most of what is considered "full time" employment contracts in present times are now for thirty six or thirty seven hours per week. What the Labour Party are proposing is those hours would be reduced to a thirty two hour four day week brought about over the next ten years.

Those proposals give any Business more than ample time to consider how they would adapt to that change, and in that, necessity is the mother of invention.

By example, I was an HGV driver in the Road Transport Industry in the 1970s when prior to the Health & Safety At Work Act coming into being huge amounts of manual handling was carried out throughout the industry, and trailers were all " flatbed ropes and sheets" type construction. It was stated that such work practice and equipment were an essential requirement of the industry and everyone agreed with that thinking.

However, with the introduction of the above act manual handling was severely regulated, therfore forklifts and Palletization of goods quickly came about and curtain side or box trailers were introduced along with tail lifts throughout the industry. Within a few years we all became much more productive, healthier and safer in our jobs to the benefit of not just the employees but also the employers.

Therefore, should the Labour proposals come into being there will be a ten year period for all industries and employers in those industries to bring forward and develop working methods and practises that will incorporate the new regulations.

Legislation always places a floor under all that it encompasses and therefore equality in competition. It was child employment legislation that eventually prevented chimney sweeps pushing kids up chimneys to the benefit and credibility of the whole nation

Any new legislation on working hours should be viewed in the above light I believe.

I wish I'd ever had a job when I had time to clear out cupboards. :-(

Grandad I can see that a 32 hour week would work in some sectors, but it's difficult to see how it would work in others.

Could somebody please say where this story originated? As far as I can work out, John McDonnell commissioned a report, but Lord Skidelsky concluded that a four day working week across the board isn't feasible.

Believe me Growstuff- no one with any gumption would want a job where there wasn’t enough work to fill the contracted hours!

There’s nothing more soul destroying than knowing you’ve done everything for the day and then have to look busy for a couple of hours when the boss is around!

I worked in another full time job (Council) which only had a mornings work to keep busy but was told it as funded as a full time post and would remain that way! It was suggested I slow down and shut up.....I lasted a month!

Why didn't you go and get a job in a private company, if it was so bad?

Believe me, it's no fun working a 70+ hour week.

All my jobs until the last two were at private companies where of course they got their money’s worth!

Never had a problem with a hard day’s work for a hard day’s pay but found the stringing it out malarkey in the public sector more tiring and taxing than the former.

Imagine having to ask for more work rather than less Growstuff! Beggars belief doesn’t it?

Maybe you should have trained for a front-line job in the public sector. You wouldn't ever have had to ask for more work, although you might have been frustrated at how lazy some admin staff are.

I’m sure the problems with lazy folks abound in both sectors - I was lucky not to have met many!

Just been to see Ken Loach's new film 'Sorry we missed you' - about a couple from Newcastle. She working for an agency looking after the elderly in their home- and the other down and out and getting a 'supposedly franchise job' = zero contract, inhumane delivery van job. Both working all hours and falling further and further backwards - harrowing. Just don't know how it fits into a 4 day week- for sure.

Will never ever complain at a delivery man- if you order from Amazon and co- make sure you go watch the film- and know the reality behind. No wonder some delivery men drive like crazy, a phone to one hear and tapping on another device at the same time. Sick.

Maybe not, but you obviously weren't very productive.

I’m sorry Growstuff was that for me? In what way wasn’t I productive?

To be honest, jura, I think the idea of a four day week is an irrelevance. For some people, it would work, but it wouldn't for others and would be almost impossible to enforce, especially as approximately one in seven people are self-employed.

I really think politicians of all parties fail to grasp the realities of current working practices, insecure contracts, low wages and high prices in areas such as rents and transport - the essentials. They're all more interested in appealing headlines, which don't seem to take into account unintended consequences.

You've just admitted you weren't! You spent half your time looking for extra work, so you obviously weren't good value to whatever organisation employed you.

Ha ha! I know you’re cleverer than that Growstuff (given the job you do and your qualifications to get that far) and are choosing to misinterpret my work ethic - for whatever reason.

I left one job after a month because I wanted more work and they couldn’t/wouldn’t give me any and the last one (30 hours) I retired early from and they’ve now got a young girl doing exactly the same work spread over 37hours and are paying more for it!

Every other clever person I’ve told that story to thinks it’s ludicrous and most are totally peed off that public money is being wasted that way!

If this is personal you need to explain fully as I haven’t the foggiest why!