Hard work and the Big Society

15 Jan 2011 at 08:07

Andrew Lang

A shorter working week as you say would be a good thing for the country but it will never work because individual people are too greedy, who wants to give up having holidays or driving a car? To do this would need significant investment, where will that come from in the present times where we are fighting, as a country, to pay our debts. I have been personally worried about redundancy for the last three years and thinking that I will work part time if I am made redundant, but I'm in a lucky position of not needing to buy a house and my children are grown up, but for younger people just starting out there is no option but to work as much as possible. I like the idea but I don't think it will work.

17 Jan 2011 at 13:02

Francis Barton

I'd like to offer a more optimistic view on this, Andrew. Yes I know making ends meet is tough for many people, but I can easily imagine a trend towards getting by with less, learning that we can live without luxuries (as a large % of the population do anyway). It needs a cultural shift in what we expect and what we want. But I know plenty of younger people who have realised that the consumerist ideal does not give them what they really want, and that they can be happier with more time, more fun and fewer expensive treats. The current financial crisis and the problems in the property market may well lead to more people thinking "Why, actually, do I need to buy a house and have a mortgage?" We could move to a continental European model where renting an apartment is the norm. Rents are much more affordable in, say, Germany, though, than in England. In the medium term, as more people shift to working fewer hours, prices will adjust as a consequence.

22 Jan 2011 at 11:16

Terry Doyle

A gradual decrease in hours would work as you start hiring the 2.5 million unemployed (many of whom have skills and experience as well as a whole band of young, newly educated teenagers and graduates). Yes, people would earn less but this could be offset with lower income taxation - this could be paid for by the savings made from the unemployed taking up newly created jobs and no longer requiring as many unemployment-related benefits (Welfare is the Government's biggest area of spending). Most people want to earn, people don't want to be dependent on benefits. If the Government offered everyone to decrease their working week by an initial 4 weeks and in return got a tax rebate based on Government savings in benefits to partially compensate then I suspect there would be a lot of interest amongst the workforce.

25 Jan 2011 at 23:16

Deborah

I'm old enough to remember the 3-day week in Britain in the 1970s, when they were saying they were getting the same productivity for many less hours! I also remember the belief held in the 60s that by now we would all be working very part-time and would need to be very good at leisure! I have been working 4 days pw for a number of years and have noted that I get as much work done as fulltime workers - more than many of them. I have the energy to just put my head down and work, knowing I'll be free on Friday. I take very little sick leave as I can generally wait till Friday, although I rarely catch colds or flu these days. I go to doctors and dentists on my day off, so I generally save my employers a lot of money. I earn less but have accepted this as the price to pay for better mental and physical health. There is also some saving in costs by only going to work 4 days pw - in transport, clothing etc. I certainly found that 2 days for a weekend was not enough to find myself and my balance before going back into the hurly-burly of work and I was gradually losing energy and health. So I think that everyone could work 4 days pw - and get paid for 5!! Or at least 4 1/2. And there would need to be jobs created to ensure enough people are manning the phones, shops or whatever every day.