Shorter working weeks for all will help to create a fairer economy

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/18/shorter-working-week-fairer-economy

Version 0 of 1.

One byproduct of the recession has been more people, especially men, working part time – on four days a week instead of five, or 30 hours instead of 40. If we are on the road to "recovery", many will welcome the return of more "proper", full-time jobs. But in a New Economics Foundation (Nef) book out this week, Time on Our Side, we argue the opposite. A shorter, more flexible working week for all UK workers would be good for the economy, society and the environment.

Conventional wisdom has it that part-time work is uncompetitive and hinders productivity. Wrong. Part-timers are more productive hour-for hour than full-timers. Sick leave and absenteeism are often caused by working long hours and juggling paid employment with domestic responsibilities. Sick workers are less productive than healthy ones. Unscheduled days off are bad for the employer's balance sheet. When some people work 40-plus hours and others can't find work at all, that's a recipe for social inequality and conflict.

Long hours of paid employment leave too little time to be parents, carers and active citizens. Redistributing working hours so that more people are working fewer hours will help create more jobs and cut unemployment. That means fewer people claiming benefits and more paying taxes.

It can be done. The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Germany, all have considerably shorter average hours than the UK. Their economies are just as strong (or stronger). Learning from them, and from other ideas put forward, there are three good ways to make a start.

The first is to encourage firms to offer time off instead of a pay rise, trading productivity gains for a bit more time each year rather than money. This will work better for some kinds of employment than for others. The second is to follow Belgium and the Netherlands by enshrining in law the right to request shorter working hours and the right to fair treatment regardless of hours worked.

The third is to introduce shorter hours at both ends of the age scale. At one end, young people entering the labour market for the first time could be offered a four-day week (or its equivalent). That way, each successive cohort adds to the numbers working a shorter week, but no one has to cut their hours. Before long, there would be a critical mass of workers on shorter hours and others may want to do the same.

At the other end of the age scale gradual reductions could be introduced for older workers. For example, those aged 55 and over could reduce their working week by one hour each year. Someone on 40 hours a week at 55 would then be working 30 hours a week by 65 and – if they continue in paid employment – 20 hours by 75.

All this will need to happen slowly but steadily over a decade or more. No one is suggesting it will be easy. The most obvious problem is how it will affect low-paid workers. For many, shorter hours could mean abject poverty. But this is a problem of wages, not time. The answer is to tackle low pay directly, not to force people to work long hours to feed and house their families. Moving to shorter working hours can help to manage a sustainable, low-growth economy by sharing out paid and unpaid work more evenly across the population.

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.