Is it Better to Work Fewer Hours?

Texts of General Interest (link)

Dr. James Manos (MD)

January 1, 2018

Would it be beneficial if employees worked 3–4 days weekly?

A 48-hour weekly working time limit was a significant turning point in human history during the early decades of the last century. It was achieved not easily but followed years of violently suppressed protests. However, there has recently been a tendency towards working flexible hours, notably fewer than the usual forty-eight weekly hours. Employees often work fewer hours weekly or alternate between average and shorter working hours. The schedule that tends to prevail now is working three or four times weekly.

The exponents of working less time claim that this will benefit the employees as they will have more spare time to engage in leisure activities. So, they will feel less stressed when they do not have to go to work every day. On the other hand, the opponents of working less time argue that there is a violation of the right to work 48 hours weekly, as this was instituted to counteract the exhausting working time in the past, especially that of the post-industrial revolution era. However, it has lately reached the other side of the spectrum of minimum time. Opponents claim that reducing time at work means that employees will see their wages decrease and their health insurance payments dwindle. Accordingly, even though they will have more time to engage in recreational activities, they will feel unhappy. They will have to live with a lower salary, preventing them from spending money.

To put this into perspective, I incline to the opponents' view that cutting working hours is to the advantage of the employer, not the employee per se, who will now work for a lower wage, which will cause him or her frustration. Even if the spare time increases, the employee will be reluctant to spend money rather than save it.

Moreover, another aspect is the abundance of cheap labor from the developing world who are keen on being hired for menial jobs. Thus, this may create two-speed workers: cheap labor for the arduous work and the remaining employees who will work part-time or less than the 48-weekly pattern.

On the whole, although I appreciate the problem, I wholeheartedly disagree with the view that it would be beneficial if employees worked 3 or 4 days per week rather than 5 or 6 days as this will be only to the advantage of the employers and the financial Trusts, rather than the benefit of the employees. The former will earn more money, but the latter, although they will work less and have much more free time, will feel disappointed as they see their wages being cut.

Thanks for reading!