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

[EssentialFattyAcid]

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?

EFA - I'm really struggling to understand this idea.

If you're talking about the forced sharing out of jobs, nobody can work more than 30 hours a week, etc etc, then .. oh, there's no argument here.

The uber rich will still be uber rich, and the poor will still be poor. The people in the middle will likely feel no different.

I don't understand what you're getting at, tbh...

Jareth have you heard of the french 35 hour week? The 30 hour week would be similar to this.

What I am getting at is that the available work would be shared out more equally so that everyone who wants a job can have one thus low unemployment (personally I view this as a big positive).

Also most men and women would have 30 hour jobs thus serving equality between the sexes (another tick imo). All fathers would have the opportunity to spend 3 days a week with their children as would all mothers.

And the most highly paid people would earn less per annum, but more people would be paid at that higher rate since the most highly paid jobs would be shared by more people.

For those unable to work the savings on benefits for the unemployed could give them a decent standard of living.

For the super rich who do not get paid an hourly rate the 30 hour week will indeed have little impact, but I also think that there should be further measures so that the super rich are obligated to contribute much more to society and are less able to milk the rest of society.

YABU. Not everyone's a parent. Not everyone is in a couple. Quite a few of us enjoy what we do for a living. Why should we limit everyone's earning potential in this restrictive way just so that some can sit about at home doing nothing?

Who is sitting about all day doing nothing?
It's about equality and having a less divisive and materialistic society

I think there's a lot to be said for more regulation around working hours. The American system of long hours and very little paid holiday (ten days a year if you are lucky) is terrible for children and families generally. The French 35 hour week and longer paid holidays has got to be better in the long term for society.

To win the argument though on shorter working hours, you'd need to persuade people that the measure of success should shift from GDP (which ultimately is a failed system, in that it requires ever increasing, unsustainable growth) to GNH (gross national happiness). There are some great academic articles on GNH and I think Treasury is doing some work on how to start monitoring it too, so it's not pie in the sky stuff. The economic model has to change because what we've got now is fundamentally broken.

Well I like the idea as long as the 30 hours are over 4 days. In my ideal world both DP and I would work 4 days per week so we each had a day looking after the kids. But DP has always said (and I'm sure he's right) that going part-time harms your career and there is no need for both of us to do so. So I work 3 days and am almost always the one to take time off for doctor's appointments, sick children, sports day etc etc. My company recently said that anyone that wanted to reduce their hours to 80% (i.e. 4 day week) could do so automatically. But like others have said, they would have welcomed the saving but not reduced the workload.

30 hours???????? Don't be absurd. Say you were earning £6.50 an hour?

Ariel - I guess you're assuming the cost of living stays the same? If everyone worked fewer hours then the economy would contract and things like rents and house prices would go down so 6.50 an hour would go much further in real terms.

The wicked problem - which no one in govt has solved yet - is how to ensure that the shrinking pool of money is fairly distributed while the economy shrinks. The danger is that, as usual, the poor and vulnerable in society bear more than their fair share of the lost income.

Making full-time 30 hours a week does not improve equality and does not mean the economy contracts. Many would fill their spare time with additional jobs to make up the shortfall in household income or they'd opt to be self-employed. Tax credit claims would go through the roof. The gap between rich and poor would widen because giving poor people less opportunity to make a living does not mean the rich see their income reduced. There would be a short-term lift in employment rates as 1.2 people were required to do the work of 1. However, many of those extra people would be brought in from overseas as the local population works out that it's not worth going to work any more. The extra costs involved in recruitment would mean goods would cost more in the shops.

No-one has yet managed to stop any society being materialistic.

Wouldn't work. I work 60+ hrs per week, oh works 55 hrs per week. So 115hrs between us. If we only did 30 each we would loose 55 hrs a week of pay.

Living in central London I doubt many can afford 55 hrs less income a week

It's almost funny when people say one person works 37.5 and the other stays home but it's all so exhausting! Hmm really? Really?

The working week has reduced from 45 hours to 37.5 in the time I've been in the workforce - I entered in the early nineties. The unemployment rate has increased steadily throughout that time.

Can you answer the following questions for me?

1. Why would reducing the hours worked caused unemployment to go down when this clearly hasn't happened in this country within our recent history?

2. How would implementing this idea affect the decision makers at the big multinationals who choose which EU countries to set up business in?

3. Where does overtime fit in to this plan?

Cogito" The gap between rich and poor would widen because giving poor people less opportunity to make a living does not mean the rich see their income reduced".

But the poor people suddenly have jobs instead of being unemployed.
The rich earn 80% of their previous salary. So there is your income redistribution.

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.

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.

Cogito i refer you to my earlier post for your answer.

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

Unearned income is not part of the 30 hour week idea but clearly the 30 hour week is not supposed to right all wrongs in one rule as I already mentioned

please also refer to ScroobiousPip's comments about quality of life and cost of living

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.

I think the answers to your points are addressed earlier in the thread

wealth redistribution

Amazing

"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!

"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?

I am seriously saying that if as a society we wish to define company directors' pay in terms of an hourly rate and to reduce it by 20% then of course we can.

The top 1% of earners only earn a ludicrous amoutn aof money because the botton 99% allow them to after all

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.

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.

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

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)