Would You Prefer A 21 Hour "normal" Work Week?

[AB Editor]

"A ‘normal’ working week of 21 hours could help to address a range of urgent, interlinked problems: overwork, unemployment, over-consumption, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, and the lack of time to live sustainably, to care for each other, and simply to enjoy life."

Source: http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/21-hours

It sounds like a nice idea, reduce the amount of time people work, improve mental and physical well-being of the populace and the knock-on financial effects...

But could it work? Are we too tied to the "protestant work ethic" and capitalism to make this work?

Thoughts?

[boxtops]

I couldn't afford to work a 21-hour week......

[society]

"Would You Prefer A 21 Hour "normal" Work Week?"

Only if I'd still get my 40 hours per week salary. Otherwise no way Jose would I work less hours. I like to see a 'fat' pay check :)

[Prudie]

Well if I got the same pay I'd be happy but that wouldn't happen. Also presumably the total 'workload' couldn't be completed in that time so others would need to be brought in to jobshare. Would improve unemployemnt but the reduction in consumption and carbon emissions would remain the same. I'd be bored silly too.

[Octavius]

Leisure time costs money, so I would be better off working my 50-60 hours a week and saving the money I would spend being out of it.

[AB Editor]

I think part of it is valuing the quality of work, rather than the hours put in. I suppose this depends on what you do and mostly ignores manual labour (not that I know what you do of course!)

If it was legally impossible to work more than 21 hours a week - would that bring the cost of living down do you think?

[craft1948]

I don't see how it would reduce the cost of food...........farmers couldn't work a 21 hour week.

[society]

"If it was legally impossible to work more than 21 hours a week - would that bring the cost of living down do you think? "

Cost of living down you say!? Not in this lifetime.

[stokemaveric]

id like a 5 day weekend with a sunday off ed...

[Old_Geezer]

Technology was supposed to provide shorter working hours. It was mainly garbage. The argument was and is that others will still work 'long hours' so our workforce must too, and the tech merely allows us to achieve more, which then becomes the norm. And each country or company points to the other to ensure there is no let up. Anywhere.

When I was younger I'd have loved fewer hours per week. (Not read your link yet.) But now all I want to do is find the ability to get out. Every day.

[VHG]

The trouble is it COSTS money for companies to employ people. Each person that works for them costs extra money in administration, overheads, pension, payments to government, maybe clothing, company car, computer etc.

So in a scenario like this you are asking a company to halve (roughly) the hours each person works, but then take on a load more people to "share" the work, with the increased overheads.

Also someone would need to "share" out the work to make sure you did not have times when everyone was in, and other times when nobody was in.

And of course most people would want to either start late, or leave early, so nobody would want to cover the mornings or evenings when they may need to pick up or drop off kids from school.

All in all it is terrible idea.

[jno]

it wouldn't bring the cost of living down directly, as far as I can see. If I want a new door and it takes 40 hours to build one, I'd either wait twice as long or I'd pay two people half-wages to do what would previously have been done by one person on full wages.

The savings might come in the fact that I'd no longer be paying the second one the dole for doing nothing and I might get away with paying fewer policemen because he'd no longer be out burgling all day.

I'm ingtrigued by the claim that average people work about 21 hours already. But perhaps it means the average of one person working 40 hours and another not working at all.

[Prudie]

Unless you started from scratch in a parallel universe it's a preposterous idea. The cost of everything would have to reduce by about 50% all at once. Come to think of it, a wall street crash/depression event could kick it off.

[Baldric]

A 21 hour working week!!
You expecting me to do overtime, or what?

[AB Editor]

LOL - okay. So is the answer "this would never work and is not even desirable"?

Even for the benefits it would provide?

[Zacs-Master]

My employer would have to employ more staff (probably twice as many) with all the resultant on-costs which this would entail, making the business unviable. I propose that this would apply to many small businesses. Hope the view is nice from NEF's ivory towers.

[Old_Geezer]

These sort of schemes ignore the fact that many jobs can't easily be split between different people. It needs one to know something inside out and work on it and not have someone make changes it takes you the rest of the day to figure out before continuing with it.

But if you work out the miracle way to get there (faster than union pressure gradually chipping away at the working week) then great.

[boxtops]

what benefits, ed? we'd have time on our hands and no money to do things with....

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

I'd love it Ed but there's no way I could afford to do it unless my wages stayed the same, which they wouldn't.

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

There are things that cost very little money but take lots of time. Learn to play a musical instrument, garden, read. Lots of things.

[Prudie]

aaah of course, penny drop, we'd spend more time on AB :-)