We need to work less.

We should have a

four-day week for all

 

Six papers by young thinkers

 

5. Kirsteen Shields

 

The world is in the grip of economic turmoil. Things are set to get worse. In the UK, we are already beginning to see the impact of the recession: welfare benefits cut, legal aid squeezed, youth clubs closed, libraries set to close, student riots and, then, real riots.
     Through an inverse relationship, those who have contributed least to the recession are the ones hardest hit by it. Without a clear strategy to distribute the hardships in this era of austerity, the trend of growing inequality will only gather speed and social chaos will follow.
     Yet it is in times of hardship that we find our greatest compassion. Amidst a history of economic downturns, factory workers, particularly car manufacturers, have become accustomed to sharing the burden of redundancy by agreeing to a shorter working week. On a similar basis I propose that the most effective way to tackle the recession is for us all to work less. I propose reducing the working week from five to four days in order to minimise the destructive impact of unemployment (which some of us know only too well).
     Realistically, could a shorter working week be implemented? The answer is yes; in fact it has already been done. The five-day working week is a relatively modern construct and a fairly unnatural one at that. Henry Ford is generally credited with establishing the five-day week in the 1920s (the working week had previously been six days). Just as in the 1920s, so too must we now shrink the working week in order to match the strength of our society.
     The figures stack up in favour of a four-day week. According to the Office for National Statistics, unemployment is at its highest for 17 years; 2.57 million people are currently unemployed in the UK and this number is set to rise. If this population was integrated into the 15 million who are currently working at least five days a week, the number of working days for each would fall from 252 to 215 per year. Taking annual and public holidays into account, this roughly translates as one day less per person per week. Shifting the goalposts in this way could generate a higher working population.

 

     The rolling out of a four-day week would demand resources. The greater availability of skilled work would generate greater demand for skilled workers, and this skills gap would need to be addressed. Wouldn't this be a good thing? Re-investing in education is the most empowering step the government could take at this junction. The riots in London, Birmingham and Manchester in August revealed, for a second, the true depth of the despair amongst pockets of Britain's young people. In many cases frustration over lack of life chances is justified. Replacing the social ladders that have been taken from these young people through real education for real jobs is the only effective response to the riots.
     The financial incentives of a four-day week are manifest. As more of the population experience the advantages of employment fewer taxes would be spent on supporting (and sometime punishing) our unemployed population. There would also be direct benefits for the economy; the previously unemployed would now have some money to spend and the rich would have more time to spend their money.
     As with any egalitarian policy, those at the upper end of the scale may feel unfairly penalised. Justifiably, some may fear that this move could only result in a considerable loss of earnings for the hard-working and high-earning. A certain levelling out of the playing field may be only desirable. This policy would incentivise individuals to work better rather than work more and could, consequently, combat excess at the top of the pyramid which is a greater threat to society than waste at the bottom. What's more, with retirement disappearing somewhere over the horizon, we may all wish to pace ourselves on the journey.
     Ultimately this policy could lead us to greater equality and that is its key strength. If we listen to them, the 'happiness' researchers have been telling us that we want a fairer society, not a richer one. Even the highest earners within society cannot buy lower crime rates or healthier communities. We can only achieve these things through greater distribution of wealth and education – work can be a conduit for both.
     Before we resign ourselves to the most socially regressive period in recent history, we must open our minds to all possible solutions. This may require rethinking some fundamental assumptions underlying the fabric of our society; in particular a re-evaluation of the relationship between time and labour is essential. In the brutalism of the recession we have an opportunity to redesign our society for the better; we must seize that opportunity with both hands.

 

Kirsteen Shields delivered this paper at last week's Young Scotland and Northern Ireland Programme organised by the Scottish Review team. She
is a lecturer of human rights at the University of Dundee