Britain faces an environmental, social and economic crises. A 21 hour working week is one approach to this triple crunch.
Our guest writer is Anna Coote, head of social policy at the new economics foundation
There’s no such thing as a new idea. But sometimes an old idea deserves a fresh look because things have changed and its hour has come.
One such idea is to shorten the working week. This is proposed in a new report by nef (the new economics foundation) as one way to tackle the environmental, social and economic crises that are shaping politics in the 21st century. But the idea is more radically framed than it used to be. Instead of a minor reduction to, say, 35 hours, the call is for a substantial shift in the balance of paid and unpaid time, moving towards 21 hours as the new standard.
The crises we face are inter-related – the combination is unprecedented. We have rapidly depleting natural resources and accelerating climate change; widening inequalities and growing concern about social fragmentation and disorder; collapse of global financial systems, a deep and intractable economic downturn and astronomical levels of government debt. All this calls for a bold response.
Economic growth over the last 30 to 40 years has depended on a volatile mix of depressed wages and escalating material consumption. People have worked punishingly long hours and then borrowed to consume what they still cannot afford. Hence the credit bubble that brought the global economy to its knees.
Over the same period, the gap between rich and poor has grown dramatically. In the wake of the recession, nearly two and a half million are unemployed. The government is deeply indebted and gearing up for a massive cull of public sector jobs. Meanwhile, many are working long hours to hang on to their employment and increasing numbers say they find it hard to combine paid work with caring for children or having any other kind of life.
People on modest incomes struggle to pay for things they think they need to secure their place in society and to keep up with the pace of life – a car, a second car, household appliances, computer games, airline tickets, ‘convenience’ foods – and much, much more. We have come to regard these accoutrements of middle-class life as our entitlement, signalling identity and status. Now we are urged to buy more to help the economy recover and grow. But the consumerism that sustains western lifestyles is squandering precious natural resources and the climate clock is ticking.
A new, much shorter, ‘standard’ working week would provide an opportunity to spread paid and unpaid time more evenly across the population. That way, more people would have a chance not only to earn a living but also to do the other things that make human society possible – being parents and carers, friends and neighbours, creative individuals and engaged citizens. It would prompt us to adjust our values and expectations, to buy less stuff and live more sustainable lives. It would make it easier for men and women to share paid and unpaid work more equally. It would challenge the discredited model of global capitalism that is fuelled by credit and shopping.
The most obvious objection to a 21-hour week is that it will reduce earnings and hit low-income groups the hardest. nef is proposing a gradual transition, over a decade more, with time to put compensating measures in place. These would include trading wage increments for shorter hours year-on-year, giving employers incentives to take on more staff, limiting paid overtime, training to fill skills gaps, raising the minimum wage, more progressive taxation and arrangements for flexible working to suit the different needs of employees – such as job sharing, school term shifts, care leave and learning sabbaticals.
The French experiment with a maximum of 35 hours, or 1600 hours across the year, had mixed results. Introduced in 2000, it was popular with women with young children but less so with those whose employers made unpredictable changes to when they put in their hours. A key lesson is that people care as much about control over their time as they do about the number of hours they work.
The move to a 21-hour week should not be a matter of coercion. Some will want to work longer hours and that should remain a matter of choice. The point is to change what is generally accepted as the norm. And to consider it as part of a larger transition aimed at building a sustainable future – by safeguarding natural resources, building a more equal and cohesive society, and developing an economy that serves the needs of people and the planet, rather than stripping their assets.
40 Responses to “Britain needs a 21 hour working week”
David Ellis
Philip Walker: `It’s called progress’.
But what a crooked path that progress takes eh Philip? Capitalism relies on growth to compensate for mass unemployment. That compensating factor just disappeared with functioning banks.
Joe Mulhall
It is progressive policy ideas such as this that could really make a difference at the next election if Labour where bold enough adopt them. It might also put pay to the rise of the far right in economically deprived areas. It could provide the much needed jobs for people who currently feel abandoned. On that note, not sure if anyone else on here got today’s email from the Hope not Hate campaign regarding a new publication. I just donated and would encourage others to do so as well. Unison are doubling every donation!!!
http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/DoubleDonation
Anna Coote
Thanks for all the comments and a good debate. It is a pity some of you get so angry but perhaps that is due to stress arising from overwork, unemployment or anxieties related to earnings, consumption and status. If you read nef’s report, “21 Hours”, you will see that our proposal for moving to a much shorter working week is designed to address all of these problems – and more! As we argue, the assumption that the economy should keep on growing simply isn’t feasible, for social, economic and environmental reasons.
Tom Walker sent me this observation from JK Galbraith (1958), which underlines my point that there is no such thing as a new idea, only good ideas that deserve a fresh look. “If we are concerned about our great appetite for materials, it is plausible to seek to increase the supply, to decrease the waste, to make better use of the stocks that are available, and to develop substitutes. But what of the appetite itself? Surely this is the ultimate source of the problem. If it continues its geometric course, will it not one day have to be restrained? Yet in the literature of the resource problem this is the forbidden question. Over it hangs a nearly total silence. It is as though, in the discussion of the chance for avoiding automobile accidents, we agree not to make any mention of speed!”
And for those who worry about an over-bearing state, it is worth remembering that, among much else, the state (with the unions) brought us our weekends, paid holidays and parental leave.
Unions and environmentalism – uneasy bedfellows? | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC
[…] Second is the call for a 21 hour working week made by NEF authors in 21 hours and summarised here at Left Foot Forwards. […]
SLK
I think this is a cause worth campaigning for. What does the rest of the EU say about this matter? I believe that 21hours could be the basic working week as opposed to the massive 40hours (or a lot more). It is too much and cannot be sustained for a lifetime. People are not machines.
However, I think this really depends upon the sector. In manufacturing (blue collar jobs) 21 hours a week would not sustain the company or the worker. As it is, people all over the world in office (or white collar jobs) enjoy greater flexibility in work and the labour process – though some would say that office work brings its own sort of dissatisfaction.
In this case there has to be benefits (should such a decrease in the hours of a working week occur) for people in production.
Ceridian – The Future of Work
The moral basis for 21hours a week is based on the idea (I believe) that if living standards are improved (for example – time for leisure, health, good food, family etc.) that people will get by with less money. There may be some middle way between the existing system and an imposed 21 hour working week. Germany would entertain this idea at least as their culture is very family orientated (for instance – they do not open their shops on a Sunday so people who work in the retail sector do not have to work on this day). Here in Britain, on the other hand, this would never wash. We work the most hours in Europe.
Blame Thatcher and Reagan.
Seriously though, the 21 hour week is thought of as a measure to improve productivity overall and reduce levels of national unemployment with the effect of alleviating the social defecit of this. On an individual level, 21 hours may or may not be enough as it is almost certain that wages/salary will not increase if the working week is downsized.
If this were to be brought in -the worst part would be the initial period when people readjust to having less wages but more spare time. The implications of 21hours a week of work for all would be huge and extensive.
People live to work and I think this attitude can be traced back to, what Max Weber called ‘The Protestant work ethic’. This label is more relevant to the times in which this socioligist deemed it a phenomenon of industrial society (19th Century). But the idea of a ‘work ethic’ or a moral obligation to work oneself into the ground (in effect) with excessive hours of gainful employment dominates the culture of work.
I work around 20hours a week and earn enough to get by. I like to have time to think. I have always been told that ‘time to think’ is a dangerous thing. I think this goes hand in hand with the notion that ‘the devil makes work for idle hands’.