Full time work to be re-defined as 30 hours a week

yeah where I work they've pretty much got rid of PROPER part time contracts, if they brought them back (used to be that every job was advertised as FT or PT now they're all FT) then there would be more PT work for those that want it.

if all jobs that could be shared, HAD to be offered as FT or PT job share, that would help!

I think there should be more flexibility for full time staff. Lots of office jobs can be shared and some people would be happy to work a bit less to give themselves more flexibility.

EssentialFattyAcid I am not falling into a trap of 'measuring standard of living by how much you earn'; in fact I am measuring a standard of living by working out if there is enough nutritional food on the table and a secondhand car to go for days out in. Not unrealistic since about 1960. £7x30=£210, not a lot. £7x48=£336, enouh (just about).
As for not having children unless you earn £10 per hour+, consider that many people have been made redundant and taken other jobs.

but they WOULDN'T hire more people to do the same job!
a lot of places already don't hire maternity cover etc now they just expect the same amt of work done by less people, just as if they dropped people's hours by 7.5/wk they would expect them to do exactly the same job they got done before!

I thought Greece was in trouble, hehe.

No, seriously, this wouldn't work. People just wouldn't work so few hours, especially when trying to keep a family with this rate of inflation. If it's 37.5 or 40 hrs now, why do so many people work over 48 hours, and much more? Presumably to keep an OK standard of living which they can't do with less hours, not because they are in love with their job.

but that's the basis of the high salaries too, they are for contracts and targets etc

(FWIW I would NEVER hire a painter and decorator on an hourly rate! can you imagine? I'ld only ever hire on a price per job + materials basis!)

First you want everyone in every kind of job to clock in and out and be paid according to how many hours they did

THEN you want to reduce FT

but the first part is the biggest most essential point of your idea so your OP is misleading

(even then it's a rubbish idea as employers would just expect more work from same amt of people in less hrs)

that's a COMPLETELY different proposal though, can't you see that?

aimum - would be workable. i do 30 hours a week, but sometimes do much longer hours if the job requires it, and then do a bit less other weeks to compensate. with some aspects of my job i can't just drop them after 30 hours - we would get high level customer complaints if i did.

Mmmm. Could be interesting. Imagine a teacher, ooops halfway through marking books but I've done my 30 hours so I'd better stop now. What about a busy A+E department. Do we expect the doctors and nurses to stop mid-emergency because they've reached 30 hours. In fact we'd probably end up with very inexperienced medical staff if they only worked 30 hours a week. How about if we have a boiler breakdown in the middle of a freezing cold winter and have to find a plumber who hasn't been busy enough to work 30 hours already - in fact, would I trust him if he wasn't busy.

"Your company directors earning £2m for full time would earn 80% of this"

are you SERIOUSLY saying that you think company directors are on an hourly rate?

"My view is that as a society we need to close the gap between rich and poor and foster more equality between men and women.

I think this could be a powerful too"

HOW?

FT being defined as 37.5 doesnt do this so why would 30? and as has already been pointed out the rich don't clock in and out at 37.5 hours now so they're not gonna do it at 30

this would only make the poor poorer, it wouldn't affect the rich, no wait it'ld make them richer as they wouldn't have to pay their workers as much!

wealth redistribution

Amazing

Directors, senior management, professionals etc. wouldn't earn 80% because contracts are not often negotiated based on hours worked and a rate per hour. They are based on doing a task to required targets. That means most working far longer than minimum and opting to waive things like the European Work Time Directive in the process. Whether the working week is 40, 37 or 30 hours, people will continue to work their own hours when it's worth their while.

Tradesmen wouldn't work 30 hour weeks for similar reasons. If a tradesman prices up by the hour and sticks to a rigid 30 hour week they'd have to accept fewer jobs and that means less money. Most would do what happens now i.e price up by the job and get through as many as possible, even if it means starting early and finishing late.

Sorry, but I think the people you aim to benefit i.e those in hourly-paid jobs, would lose out severely by creating a shorter working week. There would not be greater equality or a reduction in the gap between rich and poor. There would not be greater employment.

According to the contract DH has with the local authority he gets paid for 32 hours a week as a full time teacher - obviously him and all his colleagues work far more than that but they only get paid for 32.

Which is why any suggestion of strike action around work to rule would be very detrimental to schools.

Why do the rich earn 80% of their previous salary? 'The rich' get their income from a variety of sources, not simply paid employment. Bonuses, share options, profit-sharing, dividends. 'The rich' do not tend to clock in and out. All the company directors I know do not work a standard 40 hour week so a 30 hour week would have little effect.

The poor people may suddenly have jobs but, unlike directors, they are more likely to clock on and off, keeping to strict working hours. So they would have a job but it would pay 20% less than before meaning tax credits would be claimed for as top-ups. What we'd gain in lower JSA payouts we'd lose in WTC... The poor would be no further up the ladder but simply dependent on a different type of benefit.