Donate SIGN UP

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

Avatar Image
AB Editor | 11:53 Tue 10th Sep 2013 | Society & Culture
35 Answers
"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?

Gravatar

Answers

21 to 35 of 35rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Avatar Image
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...
12:09 Tue 10th Sep 2013
very few people could afford to work only those hours.
I can see the attraction. For years I worked far too many hours , normally I did 2 jobs. I was doing up to 60 hours a week in my main job and another 20 or so in a second job. Now I am semi retired and live on a small pension plus pension credit. With the benefits included ( I pay no rent or council tax, get free dental treatment , bus pass, train pass etc) I am very little worse off. A big bonus is that get far more time to help the family, with 5 kids and 12 grandchildren I am always busy. I fact I don't know how I ever had time to work full time. ps I even get a discount on fish and chips from the local chippy every Thursday.
Another bonus is no travel costs I was spending around £20 a week on fuel just to get to work.
Sounds a great idea- although i love work. I suppose the prices would have to come down, if everyone was earning less, so we might have to pay as much in subsidies, as we pay in benefits. In theory, a farmer could work 21 hours, by hiring workers, but yes, i think we would have to pay subsidies.
It is difficult to imagine how some people could spend more time on here ..........

I think some people would have difficulty in stimulating their minds with fewer working hours. How would people occupy themselves in their extra time? Most folk working a full time week don't realise how easy they have it now compared to generations ago. I have no doubt that many would still moan if they had a five day weekend.
One would spend less time here, one would find something away from any PC to do.

Whether one could afford those hours would depend on the renumeration. If it got welfare folk into jobs then that budget could be used to suppliment salaries.
as a retired, I am happy as I am thank you
Question Author
"ps I even get a discount on fish and chips from the local chippy every Thursday."

Have you ever had to give proof of ID Eddie?
As long as the work gets done in the time, people should be able to work fewer hours. There must be an awful lot of time wasted in many offices that people could spend relaxing. This wouldn't work for all jobs, of course, but where it could work perhaps it should be implemented.
Having been made redundant I managed to get a job with a 22 hour contract.
It took a bit of getting used to (especially the drop in money) but after more than a year and a half I find myself and the family are more relaxed and content with our lot.
I suppose it depends what you want from life.
Question Author
Some question the benefits of doing this at all. Here's two:

* More time with family helps build a better society. How often do you hear (in response to some horrible news story): "I blame the parents" or "where are the parents in all this". Usually the answer is they're slogging away at a coalface of some sort...

* Reduced costs to the state. With a shorter work week there is more jobs to go around, those who can work will work because they'll be able to secure a place - which means less unemployment benefit. Additionally retirement can be much easier delayed for those who wish to, saving the state even more cash in the long run.

There are others.... but I won't post them because I think that is where the NEF has gone for a bit of wishful thinking.
Question Author
That's interesting Douglas. What kind of schedule are you on?
A two day week alternating Tuesday & Friday with Wednesday & Friday, Ed.
Workwear supplied, non contributory pension and four weeks paid holiday plus a shutdown over Christmas and new year (also paid).
Working and child tax credit help a little too.
Question Author
Sounds good to me. Do you supplement your income with other activities while "at home"? Maybe some additional freelance work? And would you, if you could?
Sure do, anything and everything to keep the wolf from the door. :)

21 to 35 of 35rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

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

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.