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 ?

In the 60s or 70s Wilson talked about the "white heat of technology" resulting in jobs which amounted to 1 - 2 hours a day as computers did it all and no more 8 hour shifts in the mine and in the factory and it doesn't seem quite to have resulted in that perahps because of the instinctive desire of many of us to work, the work ethic. Mind you there are vast numbers of work shy around too so perhaps we all balance each other out.

"Everyone gets to do some childminding and hobbies"

Hobbies??? If you need to work 40,50,60hrs a week - how on earth do you afford hobbies if you're only allowed to work for 30??? That is of course assuming you can still leave work at the end of your 30hrs and aren't expected to put in extra un-paid overtime.

OP, your idea was already tried in various countries. All failed, the most spectacular failure was USSR. This country should have less regulation not more if you want it to survive and still continue with level of social security it provides.

The thing is, there just isn't a fixed amount of work/jobs to be done. Just think how much productivity has improved over the years - it needs far fewer people to produce the same amount of food and other goods than it did 100 years ago. If there was really a fixed amount of work, we'd nearly all be unemployed! The way to increase the amount of national income (and therefore work)is to improve efficiency, not reduce it. Putting artificially low limits on the amount people are allowed to work would almost certainly reduce efficiency and therefore national income and probably employment.

Selfishly, we couldn't afford to take a 25% pay cut.

I'd also worry about childcare - as the travelling time to and from work would mean we'd need more than 30 hours, and as CM had after school mindees, I don't know how she could readjust her permitted 30 hours to cover her others and accommodate us, and I wouldn't have wanted to use two even if I could have found a matching pair.

Surely the real issue here is people not being paid for the work that they're doing? If everyone had to be paid for all the work they actually did, things would be very different.

Not least the good people would be easier to identify. I have been in jobs where the people who were good could do it in the contracted hours, while others were working day and night to keep up. That doesn't seem right to me either.

You'd just end up with people working far more unpaid overtime. Because lots of unethical employers (and that would be most large corporations with mainly unskilled or low-skilled workers, nearly all of whom have crappy employment practices) wouldn't want to employ anyone extra, workplaces would simply develop a culture of people being forced to lie about their hours and accept a pay cut, or be fired.

Problem is Sardine that in many jobs "finishing" your work in the contracted hours doesn't mean that you're good - it can actually be the exact opposite.

There was a drive in IT to make sure people only did 40 hours a week. But that was more about being paid for 40 hours but actually being expected to do nearer 60-70 hours. The problem was that employees worked longer hours all the time, rather than just as and when it was needed. Then the employers planned too much work for everyone, because they were getting so much done (in their 60-70 hours rather than 40 hours). So when there was a panic people ended up doing nearer 100 hours.

So people started saying "No. I do my 40 hours. What can't be done has to wait. Unless it is a genuine panic then fine but only occasionally." That seems sensible. You do your contracted hours but no more - except occasionally when really necessary.

As others have said, cutting peoples hours would just mean people doing more unpaid work rather than other people getting jobs.

Baroque in the jobs I've done the people who were good worked more efficiently and more accurately. It was that sort of job (to do with sums and that).

If people are producing substandard work then surely that will be picked up - at the moment or in the future.

I think the sight of people working 60 hours to do what should be achievable in 35 hours is really depressing - it makes their lives shit and stressful. The unpaid overtime is masking a lot of problems, basically.

It seems that our economy is based on shitloads of people only getting paid for about 2/3 of the hours they actually do - that seems to be fundamentally wrong to me.

Nice idea Comfy. Deserves to be given a try. But some broadcasters seem to have 2 or 3 jobs.

that does not seem fair with over 2 million unemployed.
Almost a million of them in the 18-24 year old
bracket.

We should try and substitute greed for fairness.(Just for a change)

There may well be a good del of fairness to be exploited in our society. Cameron once used the F-word, Just once. "Gabby"

Maybe in the jobs you're worked in - but certainly in the job I had finishing "on time" wasn't a sign of a good worker. Yes it might have looked efficient - but the reality was very different. If Mrs X was wanting to get up at 6.45 they would deliberately be "too busy" - or "not know" - or more often pass it over to someone else to do, knowing that Mrs X would take 1/2hr+ to get up, washed, and dressed. Or they would go and get her up, but not do it properly.

Baroque is the answer to that that employers sit back and watch people working 60 hours weeks when they are only being paid for 35 though?

If it is the case that it is too much work to do in 35 hours, then 60 hours should be allocated and the person doing it should be paid accordingly.

If people are doing substandard work than that is an issue whatever the pay and overtime structure.

Is the answer that they are paid for 30 hours weeks while actually working 40??

Gabby - since when did wanting to be able to pay your bills and keep a roof over your head become "greedy"?

Baroque all I am saying is that people should be paid for the work they do! I didn't realise it was such a contentious position

Of course with people who are training for very highly paid jobs / working in certain lucrative roles the long hours are a part and parcel of the deal, and people go into it on the whole with their eyes open.

For people on minimum/low/middle wages though I think expecting loads of hours for free is just taking the piss.

And what about when the person is paid for the work they do - so paid hourly - they're contracted for 28 1/2hrs a week, but due to a staff shortage they're asked to work for an extra day/night? And their contract is such that they can't actually refuse - at least not on a regular basis. Should they then expect to work for an entire day for nothing?

Well it happens - and more regularly all the time. \link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/unpaid-overtime-free-labour-flexible\£29 billion} is the figure quoted recently for one year. It happens in all sectors, in all job roles - from the top of the ladder to the bottom.

Yes there are lot of unscrupulous employers out there - but I find it hard to believe that if it was as easy as "employ an extra person to take on some of the work load" that more companies wouldn't do it. I don't think there's that many of them to produce the sort of numbers of people that are having to work over their contracted hours for no extra pay,

They get paid for it Baroque.

I'm not sure why this is being met with confusion!

If someone works 8 hours they shouldn't be paid for 4. If someone is contracted to work 35 hours their employers ahouldn't be allowed to give them 70 hours work a week and then sit back and watch. It seems all wrong.

"if it was as easy as "employ an extra person to take on some of the work load" that more companies wouldn't do it."

Why would they do that when at the moment they get it done for free?

of course it's all wrong - but if they employed someone else for 35hrs a week you can bet your bottom dollar they'd find 140hrs worth of work for the 2 workers they now have to do if their 70hrs a week.

"in" not if

Yes but I'm talking in an ideal world.

OP's ideal world everyone only did 30 hours.

I suggested that ideal world it would be better to start with paying people for the work they're actually doing.

Not "ideal world" maybe more "radical suggestions".

I am aware that what I am suggesting would never happen in real life.

Baroque...what about keeping 2 roofs over your head? And two four wheel drive cars?

Where does "greedy" start in your opinion Baraque? (One child grabbing all of the cornflakes with none left fore brothers and sisters?)

Come on, GREEDY must start somewhere for everyone. ( We are not all Right of Tebbit Tories)

Greed and Need is a great philosophical debate.

Good to see the sun today. Goodbye cloud. "Gabby"

In an ideal world people could work a 40 hour work and expect to be able to pay their bills and keep a roof over their head.

In an idea world when a worker goes on maternity leave someone would be employed to cover their shifts (didn't happen when I went on maternity leave - they used the other 2 night girls who didn't have specific days put in their contract to cover all my shifts).

This isn't an ideal world though - many people couldn' keep a roof over their head if they only worked 30hrs a week.