if having a MAXIMUM of 30 work hours would "solve" unemployment ?

[cumfy]

After all employers would have to find the labour hours from somewhere or find efficiencies ?

Wouldn't work in all jobs though. For one example, i would prefer my child to have one teacher thoughout the whole week and not a jobshare of various.

And I'm self employed so wouldn't apply to me. (Would it?)

In my area (law) it would not work.

People would earn less, then spend less, so business would suffer and therefore employ fewer people.

A lot of people work more than their paid hours - it's expected in a number of professions (including teaching). I did when I was FT, and like a lot of colleagues regularly worked 1.5 to 2 FTE. Now I get paid 30 hours per week, I try to keep it down to 24 hours, max.

I think many people could not actually afford to live on 30 hours a week pay.

I agree with proudfoot, I also work in the legal profession and it just wouldn't work.

Also with only a 30 working week, how would we pay our bills, etc? I'm struggling to pay them on a 45 hour week.

increase beaurocracy - reduced efficiency - reduced competativeness - reduced profitability - reduced growth - fewer jobs.

Junior doctors would take forever to get the experience needed to progress safely.

Did they not do something like this in France.

I agree that lots of people could not afford to live on 30 hours pay. I think the rest of us may be forced to look at our priorities in life.

As a teacher I could not work 30 hours a week though.

YABU. Some employers would use it as an excuse to get a full weeks worth of work out of an employee, and only pay them for 30 hours..

30 is an example.
Could be 32,35 whatever worked economically.

Certain essential roles could be exempt (eg forces,meds,police etc)

But there seem to be a fair few people working 45-60 hrs per week in non-essential roles.
Well thats 2 jobs really, how about someone else do one ?

How do you define non-essential cumfy?

Also paying two people to work 30 hours each would be more expensive for the employer to pay one person to work 60 hours a week. Where are businesses going to get the money from?

What would happen to Legal profession with a bar on paid hours ?

Generally market forces would increase pay ?

sorry, but this would never work. Have you ever job shared with anybody? Plenty of people work up to 65 hours a week and only get paid for 40 btw, so not that simple.

How do you defining non-essential?

A1980

Some people do 2 jobs.

Tax rules could be tweaked.

There are plenty of things that just cannot wait in the legal profession. Emergencies arise with no notice and what about preparing for trial. I have spent more nights at work than I care to remember becasue the work just can't wait. But I don't get overtime for it.

I'd have to do the same on a 30 hour week in which case i'd be doing the same level of work for even less money. Some jobs aren't 9-5 you know. You can't drop everything in law because you're off the clock. If it needs to be done, you sit there until it is done, no matter how long you have to stay overtime.

Jareth

But why are people forced to work 65 h ?

A1980

Don't you charge clients by the hour ?

Depends what you class as non-essential, would you like two or three nannies caring for your children over the week? I'm a nanny and do 60 hours plus per week.

In some ways what you're saying is there's even more hours of work that could be being done by someone.

Just the employer can't/won't pay ?

How would market forces increase pay?

Also, you'd need to have two people skilled in the area to split a 60 hr workload rather than one skilled person. Doubt you'd find that kind of specific match up between the current jobless and the 60 hr workload.

maybe don't selll off all your industries, oh sorry too late

Maybe you should present a paper to the CBI OP

These guys did a paper ... 21 hours!