Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

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

86 replies

EssentialFattyAcid · 21/06/2012 17:37

OK not really....but would this not be a great idea?

Then there would be enough work for everybody who wanted to work,
income distribution would not be so extreme
parents could spend more time with their kids or dependent relatives
more people could become involved in voluntary work
this would help facilitate equality between the sexes

What would be the downside?

OP posts:
PogoBob · 21/06/2012 18:52

So if both DH and I are working 30 hours a week who will be looking after DD?

And how would reducing 'full time' reduce housing costs, if your mortgage is x, is the bank suddenly going to reduce it?

KatyMac · 21/06/2012 18:51

But I will have paid for my house by then.....the end is in sight (I hope apart from the need to re-borrow to put DD through college)

A pension? what's that then?

Original poster
EssentialFattyAcid · 21/06/2012 18:47

Your dh would get a pension in this alternative world, and you can work 30 hours but no more. Your costs however for housing etc would be less.

OP posts:
KatyMac · 21/06/2012 18:44

So as my DH is medically retired would I have to work 60 hours to make up the income short-fall

Oh hang on, I already do

Damn - s where is my extra money coming from if I cut my hours?

Original poster
EssentialFattyAcid · 21/06/2012 18:40

The idea is that both parents would standardly work 30 hours.

If nobody worked more than this, housing for instance would cost less. It would close the gap between rich and poor. The rich would earn less as they could only be paid for 30 hours work and more people would be able to work in the relatively well paid jobs.

At the other end of the scale there would be relatively little unemployment so less poverty. More women could work without paying the price for working in "part time" jobs.

If fewer people drew JSA and more people became economically active then taxes could go down.

OP posts:
monkeymoma · 21/06/2012 18:10

yes lots of work places don't replace people who go PT with another PT they just expect everyone to do more work

that is what would happen if FT went down to 30hrs where I work, as it is they don't cover mat leave, they wouldn't hire more people they'ld just stretch everyone even more! and everyone would be poorer and more miserable!

JarethTheGoblinKing · 21/06/2012 18:06

Businesses would just use it as an excuse to get more out of employees for less pay. Anybody I know who PT 4 days a week ends up doing the a FT equivalent work load anyway.

monkeymoma · 21/06/2012 17:58

no it wouldn't because there wouldn't be enough work that covered living for everyone who wanted to work!

People would be more likely to take second paid jobs than do volunteering

People are not managing on their 37.5 hours pay so how is reducing it going to help anyone?

GrimmaTheNome · 21/06/2012 17:57

This might be good in some professions but could be difficult in others. I work half time in software development and its perfect for me. Also, apparently I'm nearly as productive as full time colleagues - I suppose my mind is working on problems in the background while I'm doing other stuff. I'd never want to work full time again - 30 hrpw would be the max I'd want to do.

JarethTheGoblinKing · 21/06/2012 17:54

Well DP does 60 hour weeks, so 30 would be amazing.

The pay cut, less so Wink

JosephineCD · 21/06/2012 17:49

30 hours isn't enough to earn enough money to live on.

It wasn't that long ago that 45 hours a week was considered full time. Now it's 37.5 hours. How low do we want to go?

Swipe left for the next trending thread