# 21 hour working week



## Badgers (Feb 13, 2010)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8513783.stm

I for one salute this! 
Chances of it happening are a little less than 1% but it is a nice idea in principle. Rents and house prices are the only thing I can see that would prevent this working for me. 

Of course the precious economy would suffer.


----------



## sojourner (Feb 13, 2010)

So that's the 3 day working week back again then?

It won't work for you bhaaji, but it will work for the fucking corporations


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2010)

bring back the three day week


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 13, 2010)

erm...............how would that work then, my finances are tight working 37 1/2 hours ??????


----------



## marty21 (Feb 13, 2010)

I remember the 3 day week, I thought it was a great idea at the time, I was only about 8 though


----------



## sojourner (Feb 13, 2010)

marty21 said:


> I remember the 3 day week, I thought it was a great idea at the time, I was only about 8 though



  i remember the power cuts too - we thought it was fucking great, with candles everywhere 

imagine how bereft you'd feel now, if you lost leccy for 2 days?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 13, 2010)

Oh, how I wish.

Looking at all the newstands this morning it seems it's not a good idea for the economy. Im don't understand why not. Pretty simple really. Everyone works 21 hours a week for double an hour what they worked 42 hours a week. Economic status quo is retained and everyone is much happier.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 13, 2010)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Oh, how I wish.
> 
> Looking at all the newstands this morning it seems it's not a good idea for the economy. Im don't understand why not. Pretty simple really. Everyone works 21 hours a week for double an hour what they worked 42 hours a week. Economic status quo is retained and everyone is much happier.



much as I would love to work 21 hours for the pay I get for 35, how does that mean the economic status quo is maintained, they are paying more money for less work


----------



## N_igma (Feb 13, 2010)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Everyone works 21 hours a week for double an hour what they worked 42 hours a week. Economic status quo is retained and everyone is much happier.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 13, 2010)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Oh, how I wish.
> 
> Looking at all the newstands this morning it seems it's not a good idea for the economy. Im don't understand why not. Pretty simple really. Everyone works 21 hours a week for double an hour what they worked 42 hours a week. Economic status quo is retained and everyone is much happier.



That wouldn't work though as they would have to employ more people therefore paying out a huge amount more in wages.......


nice as it would be can't see it catching on !


----------



## sojourner (Feb 13, 2010)

marty21 said:


> much as I would love to work 21 hours for the pay I get for 35, how does that mean the economic status quo is maintained, they are paying more money for less work



And it's not gonna fucking happen anyway, is it?

3 day week just means less fuckin money


----------



## Badgers (Feb 13, 2010)

mentalchik said:
			
		

> erm...............how would that work then, my finances are tight working 37 1/2 hours ??????



It would be tricky and would require a total change for many. What is the major outgoing though, I guess rent/mortgage? If the average earnings dipped by three fifths then house prices would have to drop accordingly. Commuting costs would drop pro-rata and taxes would have to change. 

Less cars on the road, increased quality of life, more time with kids, the list of positives is endless.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 13, 2010)

The traditional real world version is "work the same hours but skive more".


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 13, 2010)

marty21 said:


> much as I would love to work 21 hours for the pay I get for 35, how does that mean the economic status quo is maintained, they are paying more money for less work



And I bet some of you are going to try and argue that you couldn't do what you do now in 35 hours in 21 if pushed?

Very simply, you cut down on your U75 dribble and do some actual fucking work 

You're letting the country down!


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Feb 13, 2010)

I'd be in favour of reducing the standard work week to 35 hours, but I think 21 might be a little impractical.


----------



## Voley (Feb 13, 2010)

Last job I applied for is only 20 hours a week. If I get it, I'll still be decidedly poor but I'll have that elusive work/life balance thing sorted, I reckon.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 13, 2010)

Stanley Edwards said:


> And I bet some of you are going to try and argue that you couldn't do what you do now in 35 hours in 21 if pushed?
> 
> Very simply, you cut down on your U75 dribble and do some actual fucking work



and not all of us work in an office....................where i work would mean employing more people as the shifts run from 6am - midnight and no i couldn't do the same work in less time as it's not that sort of job !

I only use a computer at home !


----------



## Badgers (Feb 13, 2010)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Oh, how I wish.
> 
> Looking at all the newstands this morning it seems it's not a good idea for the economy. Im don't understand why not. Pretty simple really. Everyone works 21 hours a week for double an hour what they worked 42 hours a week. Economic status quo is retained and everyone is much happier.



Shit logic. 

The ideal should be that earnings drop and cost of living drops accordingly. Firms could not absorb th cost of losing that labour. The country should have a slower pace of life though. I recall when working in Spain the culture shock was a big one, I could not get used to not waking at 6am to be at work for 9am.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 13, 2010)

Badgers said:


> It would be tricky and would require a total change for many. What is the major outgoing though, I guess rent/mortgage? If the average earnings dipped by three fifths then house prices would have to drop accordingly. Commuting costs would drop pro-rata and taxes would have to change.
> 
> Less cars on the road, increased quality of life, more time with kids, the list of positives is endless.



As i said it would be lovely but can't see it happening.............all sorts of different areas of life would have to all change at the same time.......


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Feb 13, 2010)

Badgers said:


> I recall when working in Spain the culture shock was a big one, I could not get used to not waking at 6am to be at work for 9am.



Tell us (if you want to) a little more about that. What time did you start work? What time did you finish, how long did you get for lunch and how many holidays- That sort of stuff. 

Be an interesting compare/contrast I think....


----------



## Badgers (Feb 13, 2010)

mentalchik said:
			
		

> As i said it would be lovely but can't see it happening.............all sorts of different areas of life would have to all change at the same time.......



I doubt we will see it but then catch myself thinking why? Seems a bit defeatist to think there is only one way of life but we are guilty of it are we not? Do we consume more partly due to the pace at which we live life?I would love to work 21 hours a week. 

While I rarely agree with Stanley (or even read what he writes) many people have to agree that the actual output they achieve is not near 37.5 hours a week. This is for me due in part that I have little free time. I wake at 05:30 and return home at 18:30 - 19:00 most weekdays, while I probably only get 20-25 hours of work done I spend about 12-13 hours a day (60-65 hours a week) doing it.


----------



## EastEnder (Feb 13, 2010)

What are the chances that the authors of this report are home owners, probably paid off a lot of their mortgages already, and earn considerably more than the national average - so won't be left impecunious by the reduction in working hours?

I'd say pretty good.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 13, 2010)

Badgers said:


> I doubt we will see it but then catch myself thinking why? Seems a bit defeatist to think there is only one way of life but we are guilty of it are we not? Do we consume more partly due to the pace at which we live life?I would love to work 21 hours a week.
> 
> While I rarely agree with Stanley (or even read what he writes) many people have to agree that the actual output they achieve is not near 37.5 hours a week. This is for me due in part that I have little free time. I wake at 05:30 and return home at 18:30 - 19:00 most weekdays, while I probably only get 20-25 hours of work done I spend about 12-13 hours a day (60-65 hours a week) doing it.



Depends on your job though.......i'm up at 6am, i start work at 8am and sit down for approx half an hour until i finish at 4...............no chance of standing about doing nothing as we would soon be picked up on it......i have a physically demanding job..........


i too would love to work for only 21 hours a week but i'm the only wage earner and have a household to support.........


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 13, 2010)

EastEnder said:


> What are the chances that the authors of this report are home owners, probably paid off a lot of their mortgages already, and earn considerably more than the national average - so won't be left impecunious by the reduction in working hours?
> 
> I'd say pretty good.



yup !


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 13, 2010)

For instance.....


if i dropped down to 21 hours a week on my current earnings i would be earning around £650 a month before tax..............



just wouldn't be feasible !


----------



## Badgers (Feb 13, 2010)

Oswaldtwistle said:
			
		

> Tell us (if you want to) a little more about that. What time did you start work? What time did you finish, how long did you get for lunch and how many holidays- That sort of stuff.
> 
> Be an interesting compare/contrast I think....



I worked in London but for for a Spanish property developer. It was maddening when someone would email me asking a question, I would contact people in Spain and expect a reply in 24 hours. Did a stint in Spain and was in the office (alone at first) for 09:00 waiting for people who rolled around 10:00-10:30. 

Start at 10 or half past
Lunch was a minor thing mostly
Siesta about 2-3pm 
Finish up about 7ish 

The number of hours worked was not as low as 21 but when you factor in the additional holidays, the fact that almost nobody works for all of August the difference is great. Now if I have a meeting I arrive in pinstripe suit half an hour early. In Spain I quickly realised that a meeting time was a 'guide' and all meetings were done in bars or a cafe with a rough agenda. 

Not saying Spanish attitude to work is perfect, it is mainly due to the heat but people here envy their ability to relax in the evening. I find that if I go for an after work drink everyone is rushed.


----------



## Funky_monks (Feb 13, 2010)

Badgers said:


> ............Of course the precious economy would suffer.



And in my case, so would the livestock.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 13, 2010)

Funky_monks said:
			
		

> And in my case, so would the livestock.



If there was two people both working a combined 42 week?


----------



## Funky_monks (Feb 13, 2010)

Badgers said:


> If there was two people both working a combined 42 week?



If there was that kind of money in farming. Its a nice idea though.

(and I'm a bit of a control freak, I like to know whats going on daily with the animals)


----------



## joevsimp (Feb 14, 2010)

In the current climate, 21 hours a week is better than no hours, especially given that I'm barred from JSA atm, but its not gonna catch on, even if every worker wants it to..


----------



## Badgers (Feb 14, 2010)

Funky_monks said:
			
		

> If there was that kind of money in farming. Its a nice idea though.
> 
> (and I'm a bit of a control freak, I like to know whats going on daily with the animals)



I am a control freak with work too but a lot of people feel the same. On the subject of money I agree, few industries could absorb this but can you see the wealth distribution angle here? You must have some tasks that could be delegated. Would you be able to work 3 hours per day if you had trusted support? 

I understand the incomings/outgoings sitution that most people find themselves in right now. However it is not gonna improve if we retain the status quo is it? We will simply continue as we are and moan about how it can't work. I personally would rather go through a difficult adjustment for a better end quality of life.


----------



## Wookey (Feb 14, 2010)

Badgers said:


> I am a control freak with work too but a lot of people feel the same. On the subject of money I agree, few industries could absorb this but can you see the wealth distribution angle here? You must have some tasks that could be delegated. Would you be able to work 3 hours per day if you had trusted support?
> 
> I understand the incomings/outgoings sitution that most people find themselves in right now. However it is not gonna improve if we retain the status quo is it? We will simply continue as we are and moan about how it can't work. I personally would rather go through a difficult adjustment for a better end quality of life.



I'm totally on your side Badge.

Our increased industrial and economic efficiency, our increased productivity and our consequent increase in consumption is an upward spiral that I believe could be slowed by halving the 40 hour week.

We were told that our future would involve less work, more free time to enjoy life, more family time. The fact is our labours continue to be exploited by the shareholders (ourselves) for more money, more development and more of our lives.

I'm desperate to be independant of wage slavery, and the only option open to me is to create a business where I manage other wage slaves, and let that generate my income - and I won't do that.

But with taxes, bills and rent I am locked into a 40 hour week, like most other people, and even though I am lucky enough to have a good job that I enjoy, it's still utterly demoralising to think that the best part of my waking hours are spent with colleagues rather than family.


----------



## Kanda (Feb 14, 2010)

I don't see peoples 25 yr mortgage terms and payments reducing by 50% due to this. Bonkers idea.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 14, 2010)

Kanda said:
			
		

> I don't see peoples 25 yr mortgage terms and payments reducing by 50% due to this. Bonkers idea.



 

How about a 50 year mortgage instead?


----------



## Kanda (Feb 14, 2010)

Badgers said:


> How about a 50 year mortgage instead?



It's taken me till I was 37 to be able to buy a house.. 

It takes years to save to buy a house, that's not gonna be made easier by a 21 hour week. Not that people HAVE to own a home.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 14, 2010)

I know this too, am 35 soon and not gonna be buying soon. Not really a fan of home ownership but perhaps the reason you could not buy earlier is the fun system we have? 

I would be in favour of 100 year mortgages myself. Passing the property on in later life to children or next of kin. If no children or next of kin the bank simply sells it on. I know that this is not quite directly related to number of hours worked but mortgage/rent is most peoples biggest expense. 

Also I am a HUGE fan of taxing land not salary but that is possibly another thread.


----------



## Kanda (Feb 14, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Also I am a HUGE fan of taxing land not salary but that is possibly another thread.



First thought on that is bye bye agriculture production/farming in the UK 

I think it's something like 70% of land in the UK is farmland (Monty Don said something like that on his programme the other night)


----------



## Badgers (Feb 14, 2010)

50/75/100% mortgage plan
One per person or couple/family
Small deposit 
No stamp duty

50% deposit on investment property
Stamp duty 5%


----------



## Badgers (Feb 14, 2010)

Kanda said:
			
		

> First thought on that is bye bye agriculture production/farming in the UK
> 
> I think it's something like 70% of land in the UK is farmland (Monty Don said something like that on his programme the other night)



Good point but surely if land is used to feed people then it should be not be taxed? I am talking about residential/commercial property here, that would shake things up a little. 

If you own agricultural land but rent it out you pay tax on the income generated?


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 14, 2010)

but what happens if you're on, say minimum wage per hour ?

your income would be tiny !!!!!!!

nice idea but can't see how it would work at all in the current system...........


----------



## Badgers (Feb 14, 2010)

mentalchik said:
			
		

> but what happens if you're on, say minimum wage per hour ?
> 
> your income would be tiny !!!!!!!
> 
> nice idea but can't see how it would work at all in the current system...........



This is a change to the current system though (well a pipe dream maybe) and if peoples earning country wide dropped by three fifths it stands to reason that demand for housing will fall in the short term.

I am more interested in thinking about how it could be feasible. Right now it seems impossible but little is actually impossible, it just requires thinking  

Of course I worry about the shareholders, land bankers, developers, banks and such but they will be okay in time


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 14, 2010)

Badgers said:


> This is a change to the current system though (well a pipe dream maybe) and if peoples earning country wide dropped by three fifths it stands to reason that demand for housing will fall in the short term.



Yes but there would still be a huge difference between those earning minimum wage an hour and those earning say £25 an hour..........


why would the housing demand fall ?

i live in social housing, no chances of me ever being able to buy.....my rent would have to drop to a pittance to work in your system......


----------



## Badgers (Feb 14, 2010)

How is it not different now? 

A lot of people survive on minimum wage while others earn a fortune. Those that earn more have more.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 14, 2010)

sojourner said:


> And it's not gonna fucking happen anyway, is it?
> 
> 3 day week just means less fuckin money



People would need diff holiday schemes as 4 day-long weekends would surely reduce need for paid-holidays.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 14, 2010)

Badgers said:


> How is it not different now?
> 
> A lot of people survive on minimum wage while others earn a fortune. Those that earn more have more.



Yes but those on the bottom would be on _really_ low wages........or are you suggesting that all social housing etc would also be reset at a low rate of rent ?

For instance say this happened now and i went down to 21 hours my wages would not cover my rent and utilities............


i'm not having a go at your idea by the way just can't see it working........


----------



## Badgers (Feb 14, 2010)

invisibleplanet said:
			
		

> People would need diff holiday schemes as 4 day-long weekends would surely reduce need for paid-holidays.



If I was working 156 days out of 365 (3 per week) I would worry a lot less about holidays but it is a good question. A lot of people feel they 'need' a fortnight break because they are fucking tired though.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 14, 2010)

mentalchik said:
			
		

> Yes but those on the bottom would be on really low wages........or are you suggesting that all social housing etc would also be reset at a low rate of rent ?
> 
> For instance say this happened now and i went down to 21 hours my wages would not cover my rent and utilities............
> 
> ...



I am a dreamer on this but because some is the way it is then does not mean change can't come. Why should house prices not drop?


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 14, 2010)

Badgers said:


> I am a dreamer on this but because some is the way it is then does not mean change can't come. Why should house prices not drop?



Nowt wrong with being a dreamer........


house prices and social rents would have to take a _massive_ drop though......


in my dream people wouldn't buy property at all.........we would all be housed according to need and therefore no longer be shackled to mortgages/increasing rents etc etc......


*sigh*


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Feb 14, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Shit logic.
> 
> The ideal should be that earnings drop and cost of living drops accordingly. Firms could not absorb th cost of losing that labour. The country should have a slower pace of life though. I recall when working in Spain the culture shock was a big one, I could not get used to not waking at 6am to be at work for 9am.



why do you get up 3 hours before you work?


----------



## mozzy (Feb 14, 2010)

I have been working a 16 hr week for the last 2 years cause I can't find anything full time that is worth applying for up here, and i find it pretty managable due to the help of working tax credits - they are a huge help to my earnings. Working less hours means I can go to college and do a part time course too. I am definately in favour of this 20 hr working week. I would rather be poor and healthy than rich but knackered and too busy to spend it! 

Saying that, if a decent full time job was to come up, i would definately apply, so i reckon it is all swings and roundabouts!


----------



## Badgers (Feb 14, 2010)

ilovebush&blair said:
			
		

> why do you get up 3 hours before you work?



Breakfast, coffee, read news, make a lunch, shower, commute, etc..


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Feb 14, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Breakfast, coffee, read news, make a lunch, shower, commute, etc..



I do all that stuff in the evening and i only live 5 mins away from work so i get up at 7.30 to start at 8


----------



## Badgers (Feb 14, 2010)

ilovebush&blair said:
			
		

> I do all that stuff in the evening and i only live 5 mins away from work so i get up at 7.30 to start at 8



I make dinner in the evening and relax. Sadly my work is an hour away so can't really do that. I prefer doing those chores in the morning so when I get to work I have been up a while.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 16, 2010)

We are already short 11 days people, get with me on this  



> It was not until 1752 that the English calendar (and that of her American colonies) was finally brought into line with that of the rest of Europe. By then the change necessitated the removal of 11 days - to account for the fact that the new calendar, but not the old, made 1700 a leap-year. When Wednesday 2 September was followed by Thursday 14 September, there was rioting on the streets of London, vividly captured in a painting by William Hogarth, in which the angry mob carries a banner with the slogan "Give us our 11 days".
> 
> Recent research has established that the change produced no widespread unrest. But it did cause social and economic confusion. In spite of assurances to the contrary, labourers lost 11 days' pay, and many annual contracts were adjusted downwards financially to take account of the shortened period. And King George II chose to move his birthday from 11 to 22 June, so as not to shorten the length of his reign.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Feb 16, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> erm...............how would that work then, my finances are tight working 37 1/2 hours ??????



we just all work at about 1.8 x standard capacity, obviously.

although i did hear someone point out that the extra work would go to immigrants. not that he was a racist, you understand...


----------



## EastEnder (Feb 17, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> in my dream people wouldn't buy property at all.........we would all be housed according to need and therefore no longer be shackled to mortgages/increasing rents etc etc......


It's a laudable, socially minded theory, but subject to awkward practicalities. Imagine the single mother with 4 kids, given a heavily subsidised, 5 bedroom house in the suburbs, complete with ample garden & convenient, nearby child friendly parks. She lives there for 20 years, until the last offspring flies the nest. At which point she's given 1 months notice to vacate the premises - a suitable room has been found for her in a high density housing project designed for mature women with no dependants to care for. After all, she no longer needs the space, much better to free it up for the next generation. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 17, 2010)

EastEnder said:


> It's a laudable, socially minded theory, but subject to awkward practicalities. Imagine the single mother with 4 kids, given a heavily subsidised, 5 bedroom house in the suburbs, complete with ample garden & convenient, nearby child friendly parks. She lives there for 20 years, until the last offspring flies the nest. At which point she's given 1 months notice to vacate the premises - a suitable room has been found for her in a high density housing project designed for mature women with no dependants to care for. After all, she no longer needs the space, much better to free it up for the next generation. Wouldn't you agree?



Oh i realise that..........just a musing on the ridiculousness of the housing market/situation as it's developed here !


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 17, 2010)

Badgers said:


> We are already short 11 days people, get with me on this


It's true! 


> In October 1582, it was politics that decided the English not to follow suit when Catholic Europe complied with a papal edict decreeing that 10 days be removed from the calendar to bring it back in line with that in use in 325, at the time of the first Council of Nicaea, thereby helping the vexed question of how to calculate the date of Easter.
> 
> Across Catholic Europe that year, 4 October was followed by 15 October, apparently without much fuss. But in spite of the fact that the learned English mathematician Dr John Dee counselled that calendar reform was essential, Queen Elizabeth I's Protestant administration chose not to comply.
> 
> ...


----------



## Badgers (Feb 20, 2010)

This came up in conversation last night, everyone derided it as foolish whether public/private sector or self employed. 

I did think that this could be phased in though. Perhaps one hour a week reduction per year or similar? It would take a while of course but that is probably the best thing for companies and people. 21 hour working week by 2026?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 20, 2010)

I thought a reduction in the working week had recently been implemented in Germany, in response to the recession ???


----------



## Badgers (Feb 20, 2010)

invisibleplanet said:
			
		

> I thought a reduction in the working week had recently been implemented in Germany, in response to the recession ???



Not sure. 
Would it be better to ease into a shorter week than do it as a reaction?


----------



## spacemonkey (Feb 20, 2010)

I can we meet halfway and do a 4 day - 30-35 hour working week.

I would fucking love a 3-day weekend, every weekend. 

I think there would be a good case for this when fuel prices surge.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 20, 2010)

spacemonkey said:
			
		

> I can we meet halfway and do a 4 day - 30-35 hour working week.
> 
> I would fucking love a 3-day weekend, every weekend.
> 
> I think there would be a good case for this when fuel prices surge.



Would it be better to introduce a four day week or a three day weekend? Friday-Sunday as a weekend or keep the Monday-Friday week with staff covering all days on a rota? The overall result would be the same in output and traffic reduction but would keep us in line with much of the world. 

Given the four day week I would be torn between Friday off or Wednesday off. The drinking/partying me likes Friday off but as a long term routine I think the Wednesday would be better.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 20, 2010)

You still haven't said how this is going to work with regards to personal finances ?

and what about work that requires long hours day to day (hospitals say, for example)

It would be lovely to work less hours but can't see it happening !


----------



## Badgers (Feb 20, 2010)

mentalchik said:
			
		

> You still haven't said how this is going to work with regards to personal finances ?
> 
> and what about work that requires long hours day to day (hospitals say, for example)
> 
> It would be lovely to work less hours but can't see it happening !



Will address this Monday when I have a spreadsheet  

Hospital is a tough one but they are open 24/365 so people work shifts. If you work 40 hours then two people can work twenty hours without impact to service etc. The balance is not covering the workload, it is (as you say) personal finances.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 20, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Will address this Monday when I have a spreadsheet
> 
> Hospital is a tough one but they are open 24/365 so people work shifts. If you work 40 hours then two people can work twenty hours without impact to service etc. The balance is not covering the workload, it is (as you say) personal finances.



You aren't taking into account people that already work shorter hours.....


for instance.......the dept i work in starts at 6am and finishes at 12midnight and 6.30am to 10 pm at weekends.......

the hours are worked out as an average over 2 weeks, there are 6 of us that work full time (there 40 hours but actually paid 37 1/2) with some of them also on a weekend rota (2 days off in that week) and the rest all doing slightly different hours (including weekends)......



really can't see how 21 hours would work without the employer having to employ extra staff and they certainly aren't gonna do that as they have been gradually cutting it back as far as is possible !




and yes, it would be more or less impossible money wise for me for instance !


----------



## scifisam (Feb 20, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> You still haven't said how this is going to work with regards to personal finances ?
> 
> and what about work that requires long hours day to day (hospitals say, for example)
> 
> It would be lovely to work less hours but can't see it happening !



Working tax credits if you're single, shared costs if you're not. You save a lot of money in tax, travel and so on, and, if you have younger children, you could save tons in childcare. I reckon that quite a lot of couples with kids could make it work financially - other factors might stop them doing it, not least that they might not _want_ to do it, but financially it would be feasible for many.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 21, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Working tax credits if you're single, shared costs if you're not. You save a lot of money in tax, travel and so on, and, if you have younger children, you could save tons in childcare. I reckon that quite a lot of couples with kids could make it work financially - other factors might stop them doing it, not least that they might not _want_ to do it, but financially it would be feasible for many.



So the state would have to shell out quite a huge amount to subsidise it...............another reason for it not being popular then....plus surely the tax take will go down ?


as i said for it to really work loads of other costs would all have to come down too !


----------



## scifisam (Feb 21, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> So the state would have to shell out quite a huge amount to subsidise it...............another reason for it not being popular then....plus surely the tax take will go down ?
> 
> 
> as i said for it to really work loads of other costs would all have to come down too !



Nope - if anything the state would save in childcare tax credits (and in unemployment benefits for those single parents who can work part-time but not full-time), so state subsidies could actually be lower. But yeah, the tax take would go down. I'm not saying there are no barriers to such couples both working part-time, but I am saying that, from many couples POV, it's not as impossible as you seem to think.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 21, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Nope - if anything the state would save in childcare tax credits (and in unemployment benefits for those single parents who can work part-time but not full-time), so state subsidies could actually be lower. But yeah, the tax take would go down. I'm not saying there are no barriers to such couples both working part-time, but I am saying that, from many couples POV, it's not as impossible as you seem to think.



Was being selfish and thinking of my situation..........would have to have a huge increase in tax credits to cover my costs.....as it is i only just manage because my youngest is in FE and i still get TC.......


21 hours a week would not cover my rent and utilities !


----------



## scifisam (Feb 21, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> Was being selfish and thinking of my situation..........would have to have a huge increase in tax credits to cover my costs.....as it is i only just manage because my youngest is in FE and i still get TC.......
> 
> 
> 21 hours a week would not cover my rent and utilities !



You might also be entitled to housing benefit as well as working tax credits, if your income were low. Might be worth looking into if you did want to reduce your hours - or if you ended up having your hours reduced for you.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 2, 2010)

So...... 

If you were earning enough to _just_ have a reasonable quality of life and were offered the following what would you do: 

*Option 1*
Pay increase of 50% 

*Option 2*
3 day working week on current money


----------



## Mation (Sep 2, 2010)

Badgers said:


> So......
> 
> If you were earning enough to _just_ have a reasonable quality of life and were offered the following what would you do:
> 
> ...


Option 2, no question.


----------



## girasol (Sep 2, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> Nowt wrong with being a dreamer........
> 
> 
> house prices and social rents would have to take a _massive_ drop though......
> ...


 
Yeah, and probaby get housed near work too, to reduce commuting - although that would fail for couples...  dreams soon turn into nightmares  

Oh but the thought of a 21 hour week, is making me dream again!!!

I'd also take a pay cut to work less hours, no doubt - but that's easy for me to say now, as we have a mortgage we could afford to pay if our pay was cut.


----------



## Biddlybee (Sep 2, 2010)

Mation said:


> Option 2, no question.


^ this.

Badgers, have you been offered this?


----------



## Badgers (Sep 2, 2010)

Mation said:


> Option 2, no question.


 


BiddlyBee said:


> ^ this.
> 
> Badgers, have you been offered this?


 
There is an outside chance. 
I will be discussing in November. 
Hoping for 6 months of Option 1 and 6 months of Option 2.
Will probably get neither.


----------



## Biddlybee (Sep 2, 2010)

12 months of option 2!!!


----------



## girasol (Sep 2, 2010)

Badgers said:


> There is an outside chance.
> I will be discussing in November.
> Hoping for 6 months of Option 1 and 6 months of Option 2.
> Will probably get neither.


 
I've been toying with the idea of going part-time too, not sure they'll accept it though...


----------



## Biddlybee (Sep 2, 2010)

Iemanja said:


> I've been toying with the idea of going part-time too, not sure they'll accept it though...


You can only ask. I've been thinking the same... would love 4 days, but would be quite a cut in money


----------



## Badgers (Sep 2, 2010)

The advantage I have is I _almost_ work on 'trust time' which was a concept I used when I had a team of web developers working for me. They were not customer facing, were writing code, could do it from home and knew their deadlines so I just told them to work when they felt most productive. Worked well and made for a very happy workforce. The tricky thing is I have some old school colleagues that fear IT and like people to be in the office.


----------



## starfish2000 (Sep 2, 2010)

What will happen in this decade I think is the end of full time work and sickpay etc. The CBI and IOD have been making noises about it for years, so this new modern precarity is kinda caused by big business and governments who it seems (certainly in the uk), are colluding to disempower the ordinary citizen/taxpayer by removing their rights and ability to economically empower themselves.

 If your a lower middle class person in the UK your pension, employee rights and ability to save money are currently all being stripped from you.

The Daily Telegraph did an article on the high amount of people in this recession working part time rather than be unemployed, it suggested that when, the good times return these people will return to full time work. As the beneficial savings in National Insurance contributions, sickpay, maternity pay are enormous to their employer. I would suggest that this does not happen and that in order to concede to the CBI. The ConDem administration will reform these rights to the benefit of large corporations. So in effect everyone will end up feeling the same financial insecurity as a freelancer.

i guess thats why Im considering going self employed. If Im gonna have to struggle Id rather set my own hours!


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 2, 2010)

^
that's certainly my experience in the social care sector


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 2, 2010)

sojourner said:


> i remember the power cuts too - we thought it was fucking great, with candles everywhere


Toasting fork by the gas fire! Our power cuts happened for a long time...weeks.....didn't realise it was because my Dad wasn't paying the leccy bill though. It wasn't that he didn't have the money, but my dad was unbelievably miserly.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 22, 2010)

For some reason this popped in my head again. 
Seems little progress has been made which is disappointing.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 22, 2010)

See, it's this kind of instability and dependency that makes me want to just buy/fit out a houseboat, rent a bit of land by the canal from a farmer I've chatted up to grow me own veg in, and just be as free as possible from working to pay 'The Man'.


----------



## Fiended*** (Oct 26, 2010)

It don't matter what you give them....people will always moan.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 18, 2011)

Bumped to try and out-do the 35 hour working week thread. 

/pipe dream


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 18, 2011)

sojourner said:


> i remember the power cuts too - we thought it was fucking great, with candles everywhere
> 
> imagine how bereft you'd feel now, if you lost leccy for 2 days?


 
I don't understand the question


----------



## ymu (Jun 18, 2011)

Badgers said:


> It would be tricky and would require a total change for many. What is the major outgoing though, I guess rent/mortgage? If the average earnings dipped by three fifths then house prices would have to drop accordingly. Commuting costs would drop pro-rata and taxes would have to change.
> 
> Less cars on the road, increased quality of life, more time with kids, the list of positives is endless.


Excellent proposal. I would chuck in a bill for employers to cover housing benefit and working tax credits claimed by their employees and we'll see jobs flood back out of the SE and cut commuting costs and time even further whilst saving us a fucking fortune on housing costs and not subsidising housing bubbles. 

Global GDP per capita is £6k. Global economic justice looks doable without the waste on cuntery.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 18, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I did think that this could be phased in though. Perhaps one hour a week reduction per year or similar? It would take a while of course but that is probably the best thing for companies and people. 21 hour working week by 2026?



Back to this point ^ 

Reduce 1 hour per year to keep testing the balance. It would remove shocks to the system and allow all factors to adapt over time. 

This is really idealist but would people make positive use of their free time? More growing plants? More family time, more cooking and planning time?


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 18, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Back to this point ^
> 
> Reduce 1 hour per year to keep testing the balance. It would remove shocks to the system and allow all factors to adapt over time.
> 
> This is really idealist but would people make positive use of their free time? More growing plants? More family time, more cooking and planning time?



Imagine the blow to the economy of people walking and cycling everywhere, and cooking and growing their own food!


----------



## Badgers (Jun 18, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Imagine the blow to the economy of people walking and cycling everywhere, and cooking and growing their own food!


 
If phased in gradually?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 18, 2011)

Another link - http://www.neweconomics.org/press-r...ek-soon-inevitable-forecasts-think-tank130210


----------



## Badgers (Jan 9, 2012)

Badgers said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8513783.stm
> 
> I for one salute this!
> Chances of it happening are a little less than 1% but it is a nice idea in principle. Rents and house prices are the only thing I can see that would prevent this working for me.
> ...



Since the OP the New Economics Foundation think that perhaps 20 hours would be better than 21 it seems?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/08/cut-working-week-urges-thinktank


----------



## EastEnder (Jan 9, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Since the OP the New Economics Foundation think that perhaps 20 hours would be better than 21 it seems?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/08/cut-working-week-urges-thinktank


I had never heard of them before, but since reading that article I now have no respect whatsoever for the views of the New Economics Foundation. They have mooted a naively idealistic solution to a very real, very serious problem. Yes, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all work 20 hour weeks and yet still manage to pay the rent & buy lots of beer. And in the land of happy pixies & frolicking fairies, where everyone is the bestest of friends, skipping to work every day under a bright pink sky, just such a system works very well indeed. Out in the real world, where people are ever more desperate to cling onto their jobs in an increasingly moribund market, it's nothing but frivolous fantasy. Think tanks that espouse such unrealistic proposals are just out to court publicity - they're like the lib dems before they got into power. If no one's going to do what you say, you can say whatever the hell you want. If people might take you seriously, you have to balance idealism with pragmatism. Given that the NEF do not do this, one can only assume that they don't think anyone will take them seriously - an assumption that I, for one, am happy to confirm.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 9, 2012)

EastEnder said:


> I had never heard of them before, but since reading that article I now have no respect whatsoever for the views of the New Economics Foundation. They have mooted a naively idealistic solution to a very real, very serious problem. Yes, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all work 20 hour weeks and yet still manage to pay the rent & buy lots of beer. And in the land of happy pixies & frolicking fairies, where everyone is the bestest of friends, skipping to work every day under a bright pink sky, just such a system works very well indeed. Out in the real world, where people are ever more desperate to cling onto their jobs in an increasingly moribund market, it's nothing but frivolous fantasy. Think tanks that espouse such unrealistic proposals are just out to court publicity - they're like the lib dems before they got into power. If no one's going to do what you say, you can say whatever the hell you want. If people might take you seriously, you have to balance idealism with pragmatism. Given that the NEF do not do this, one can only assume that they don't think anyone will take them seriously - an assumption that I, for one, am happy to confirm.



How about this post from earlier in the thread?



Badgers said:


> I did think that this could be phased in though. Perhaps one hour a week reduction per year or similar? It would take a while of course but that is probably the best thing for companies and people. 21 hour working week by 2026?


----------



## EastEnder (Jan 9, 2012)

The problem with that is that in the early years you're shortening the working hours but not by enough to stimulate job creation (as suggested in the NEF article). Imagine the situation after 10 years - everyone is working 10 hours less a week, companies need to make up the difference, so they create lots of 10 hours/week jobs? That'd be worse than the current situation! Either everyone switches to a 20 hour week overnight, or the status quo remains indefinitely. I'd like someone to prove me wrong (with a practical example, not more pie in the sky wishful thinking), but I just can't see it happening.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 10, 2018)

Britain is chronically overworked. A four-day week would liberate us | Owen Jones


----------



## colacubes (Nov 10, 2018)

Badgers said:


> Britain is chronically overworked. A four-day week would liberate us | Owen Jones



For a year or so in my last job I worked a 4 day compressed hour week. It was a fucking revelation. Slightly longer days and shorter lunch, but that extra day a week was amazing.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2018)

colacubes said:


> For a year or so in my last job I worked a 4 day compressed hour week. It was a fucking revelation. Slightly longer days and shorter lunch, but that extra day a week was amazing.



I have worked 4 days a week in my old job and this new one, all together for the last 3.5 years. I will never go back to working a five day week again. I would prefer to have less money and more work/life balance. The extra day is amazing...I am happier, more productive and healthier.


----------



## Chilli.s (Nov 10, 2018)

Now that retirement has been put up to 67 (state pension) I'm thinking that if I made it that far I'd probably be too fucked to enjoy anything. What with bad back, poor eyesight, deafness etc. etc. So why not try and be part time work and live a better life on less money, but with more time off to enjoy a few more adventures while health is still relatively ok. Work in winter and then have all summer off perhaps.


----------



## BristolEcho (Nov 10, 2018)

I had a look this week to see if I could afford to drop a day a week but sadly I don't see how I can. I have no doubt it would improve my wellbeing.


----------



## The Fornicator (Nov 11, 2018)

I do a 25 working week (22.5 in practice), I live alone in Brixton (social housing) and - with a universal credit top up - get by quite well. 

I've never been that interested in money so it suits me.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 17, 2020)

Four-day working week to be introduced by Morrisons as support for concept grows in wake of coronavirus crisis
					

More than 1,500 staff will be paid same for doing day less as supermarket giant overhauls its way of working




					www.independent.co.uk
				




Interesting


----------



## Badgers (Jul 4, 2021)

World’s largest ever four day week trial ‘overwhelming success’
					

Unions in the country are following up the trial by negotiating agreements that cut hours




					www.independent.co.uk


----------

