This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.

Human beings require downtime in the form of sleep and rest in order to maintain their peak functioning. Long working hours cut into this rest and sleep time and therefore reduce their effectiveness as workers. A cap on the amount of work that people do per week allows for proper rest periods. Tired workers are prone to making mistakes, one of the mistakes they can make is to think they can skip necessary sleep with no ill effects. "While some people may like to believe that they can train their bodies to not require as much sleep as they once did this belief is false"¹

A mandatory cap on the hours they work removes the decision from them and avoids this problem.

¹Sarah Ledoux – “The effects of sleep deprivation on brain and behaviour” Biology 202 Bryn Mawr College 01/03/2008

While people do indeed need proper rest and downtime in order to perform to their maximum potential, exactly how much rest they need changes from individual to individual. A "one size fits all" approach through legislation will necessarily mean that some people who could work quite comfortably with no ill effects will be prevented from doing so.

The choice to work or not rightly belongs to them, as does even their decision to risk their health. It might be worth it to someone to take a chance on sleep deprivation in order to earn more pay.

According to the CIA World Factbook, non-industrialised countries have an average of 30% unemployment and industrialised nations have somewhere between 4-12% unemployment¹. Underemployment is considered to be even higher, though precise figures are by their very nature impossible to acquire. By capping the working hours of those in employment, the unemployed stand an increased chance of entering the workforce.

With no option but to hire more staff, businesses will have no choice but to hire the currently out of work to fulfil their labour requirements. This is economically beneficial, as the costs of long term unemployment to an economy are enormous. In industrialised countries the unemployed are already being paid via taxes, with this change there can be at least some productivity from them.

¹ "World unemployment figures by country" The Cia World Factbook, July 12th, 2011

If those who are unemployed were the right people to be doing those jobs, they already would be. Employers want to maximise their bottom line and will hire the best workers they can find. Forcing them to take on lower skilled and less able employees reduces competitiveness and causes inefficiencies.

"The bell curve for worker productivity can be divided into roughly four groups. People in the top 16% who produce the most (superior), people between 84% and 51% who produce more than average, people between 50% and 17% who produce less than average, and people in the bottom 16%."¹ Having to hire people from the lower 16% will cost businesses a fortune in lost productivity.

¹ Dr. Wendell Williams, "The Incredible Cost of Bad Hire" October 11th, 2001

One of the most fundamental principles of economics is that of supply and demand. By artificially reducing the supply (of hours) then demand must increase for other labour, ceteris paribus.

The only question once that is realised is what limit should there be on working hours to ensure full employment. (Or employment at maximum practical capacity.) The purpose of the economy is to serve people, and having a large percentage of people excluded when there is an easy and obvious fix is to fail in the economies mission.

improve this

Business will replace workers not with other workers, but with machines, especially in the age of robotics and other automated mass production methodologies. Businesses will replace the lost manpower not with more manpower, but with machines wherever possible. "Automation has eliminated some 10 million jobs, mostly in manufacturing" (between 1994 and 2004)¹

The actual effect will be to boost productivity AND increase unemployment for the economy that implements it.

The other alternative business can choose is to outsource labour to a country which doesn't have the same stringent standards, which also increases unemployment in the economy with a cap on worker hours. In such a case, the employment, production and business all leave the capped area.

¹ Gregory M. Lamb "Automation streamlines services and high-tech, but at what cost?" USA Today 30th August 2004

improve this

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 23 “Everyone has the right to work… to just and favourable conditions of work” and article 24 “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”¹ both relate to a fundamental freedom from being forced to work too hard. Working for too many hours per week can affect health, wellbeing and productivity over the medium to longer term. In extremis, as we can see in the “karoshi” phenomenon in Japan, people can work themselves to an early grave.²

Even in less extreme examples, we can see health issues affecting productivity and causing medical problems which require paying to treat.  The WHO estimates that work related stress costs $300bn p.a. in the US, to take one example.³

It goes without saying that all this avoidable stress and medical trouble needs paying for. That the businesses themselves manage to push those costs onto wider society or the state doesn’t make those costs go anywhere from the point of view of an economy as a whole. Therefore a maximum working week prevents business from externalising costs to others.

¹United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Workers already have protection from over work. They have the ability to say "no" and they also have the ability to find themselves other, less lengthy employment.

The fact that jobs with long hours exist is proof that people are happy with the situation. A survey of people opting out of the European working time directive shows that 1 in 4 workers opt out of a limit to their working hours.

"The survey also demonstrates that working hours have not substantially changed since the introduction of the new rules because of the large-scale use of the opt-out clause."

Not only that but workers can already claim for work related injuries, stress and maltreatment via the tribunals and courts, so a deterrent already exists for businesses to overwork their employees.

¹ Liza Morgan "Little option But To Opt Out under Working hour Rules"

improve this

Human beings require downtime in the form of sleep and rest in order to maintain their peak functioning. Long working hours cut into this rest and sleep time and therefore reduce their effectiveness as workers. A cap on the amount of work that people do per week allows for proper rest periods. Tired workers are prone to making mistakes, one of the mistakes they can make is to think they can skip necessary sleep with no ill effects. "While some people may like to believe that they can train their bodies to not require as much sleep as they once did this belief is false"¹

A mandatory cap on the hours they work removes the decision from them and avoids this problem.

¹Sarah Ledoux – “The effects of sleep deprivation on brain and behaviour” Biology 202 Bryn Mawr College 01/03/2008

While people do indeed need proper rest and downtime in order to perform to their maximum potential, exactly how much rest they need changes from individual to individual. A "one size fits all" approach through legislation will necessarily mean that some people who could work quite comfortably with no ill effects will be prevented from doing so.

The choice to work or not rightly belongs to them, as does even their decision to risk their health. It might be worth it to someone to take a chance on sleep deprivation in order to earn more pay.

According to the CIA World Factbook, non-industrialised countries have an average of 30% unemployment and industrialised nations have somewhere between 4-12% unemployment¹. Underemployment is considered to be even higher, though precise figures are by their very nature impossible to acquire. By capping the working hours of those in employment, the unemployed stand an increased chance of entering the workforce.

With no option but to hire more staff, businesses will have no choice but to hire the currently out of work to fulfil their labour requirements. This is economically beneficial, as the costs of long term unemployment to an economy are enormous. In industrialised countries the unemployed are already being paid via taxes, with this change there can be at least some productivity from them.

¹ "World unemployment figures by country" The Cia World Factbook, July 12th, 2011

If those who are unemployed were the right people to be doing those jobs, they already would be. Employers want to maximise their bottom line and will hire the best workers they can find. Forcing them to take on lower skilled and less able employees reduces competitiveness and causes inefficiencies.

"The bell curve for worker productivity can be divided into roughly four groups. People in the top 16% who produce the most (superior), people between 84% and 51% who produce more than average, people between 50% and 17% who produce less than average, and people in the bottom 16%."¹ Having to hire people from the lower 16% will cost businesses a fortune in lost productivity.

¹ Dr. Wendell Williams, "The Incredible Cost of Bad Hire" October 11th, 2001

One of the most fundamental principles of economics is that of supply and demand. By artificially reducing the supply (of hours) then demand must increase for other labour, ceteris paribus.

The only question once that is realised is what limit should there be on working hours to ensure full employment. (Or employment at maximum practical capacity.) The purpose of the economy is to serve people, and having a large percentage of people excluded when there is an easy and obvious fix is to fail in the economies mission.

improve this

Business will replace workers not with other workers, but with machines, especially in the age of robotics and other automated mass production methodologies. Businesses will replace the lost manpower not with more manpower, but with machines wherever possible. "Automation has eliminated some 10 million jobs, mostly in manufacturing" (between 1994 and 2004)¹

The actual effect will be to boost productivity AND increase unemployment for the economy that implements it.

The other alternative business can choose is to outsource labour to a country which doesn't have the same stringent standards, which also increases unemployment in the economy with a cap on worker hours. In such a case, the employment, production and business all leave the capped area.

¹ Gregory M. Lamb "Automation streamlines services and high-tech, but at what cost?" USA Today 30th August 2004

improve this

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 23 “Everyone has the right to work… to just and favourable conditions of work” and article 24 “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”¹ both relate to a fundamental freedom from being forced to work too hard. Working for too many hours per week can affect health, wellbeing and productivity over the medium to longer term. In extremis, as we can see in the “karoshi” phenomenon in Japan, people can work themselves to an early grave.²

Even in less extreme examples, we can see health issues affecting productivity and causing medical problems which require paying to treat.  The WHO estimates that work related stress costs $300bn p.a. in the US, to take one example.³

It goes without saying that all this avoidable stress and medical trouble needs paying for. That the businesses themselves manage to push those costs onto wider society or the state doesn’t make those costs go anywhere from the point of view of an economy as a whole. Therefore a maximum working week prevents business from externalising costs to others.

¹United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Workers already have protection from over work. They have the ability to say "no" and they also have the ability to find themselves other, less lengthy employment.

The fact that jobs with long hours exist is proof that people are happy with the situation. A survey of people opting out of the European working time directive shows that 1 in 4 workers opt out of a limit to their working hours.

"The survey also demonstrates that working hours have not substantially changed since the introduction of the new rules because of the large-scale use of the opt-out clause."

Not only that but workers can already claim for work related injuries, stress and maltreatment via the tribunals and courts, so a deterrent already exists for businesses to overwork their employees.

¹ Liza Morgan "Little option But To Opt Out under Working hour Rules"

improve this

Complying with any regulation has a cost attached, and so does policing that regulation in order to make it effective. How would anyone know who was working where and for how long without either a very accepting populace or a very draconian state?

At best there will be ignored regulations - 14-16% of the economy is already avoiding legal responsibilities¹ and with employers dissuaded from taking risks that are larger than they would otherwise be, a working week cap has the effect of making the "shadow" economy even more attractive to businesses.

¹ Friedrich Schneider with DominikEnste, "The Growth of the Underground Economy" IMF Paper 2002

That's right, even more jobs would be created by hiring people to check on procedures, workplaces and hours worked. When there are literally millions of displaced potential workers and all the social and economic problems unemployment can cause this is no bad thing.

Not only that but there are already policing of business operations present in all advanced economies, this function could be simply added to the list of things to check for by those agencies. New employment within existing organisations is therefore created, so there is a doubling effect from this policy.

Long hours which reduce worker effectiveness already make a business less competitive. The invisible hand will remove those businesses which exploit their workers, or who don't take into account employee motivation and what they need to get maximum productivity far more effectively as they are beaten in the marketplace by those companies which do take those things into account.

Improvements in worker conditions always come first from the private sector seeking to maximise profits. This has been true as far back as the industrial revolution.

Given the market is already moving in such a direction, there is no need to wait for the slow whittling away of the less optimal when it can be done right away by legislation. This will give a huge head start compared to any economy which uses the market mechanism and make any economy who takes this road advance in terms of productivity.

improve this

The transaction, hiring and human resource costs of forcing businesses to take on more workers mean that productivity is reduced and resources are wasted. While GDP might rise because of these actions, GDP will rise due to a fallacy of the "labour theory of value"¹ kind. Effort isn't in and of itself productive, though it will add to many measures of GDP. Currently displaced workers would be better served inventing new products and services for the economy they are in.

¹ Mick Brooks "An Introduction to The Labour Theory Of Value Part One" Marxist.com 15th Oct 2002

It isn't actually being suggested that we reduce the total amount of work done. What is being suggested is that we have some of the unemployed be allowed to get access to the labour that is required via limiting the hours existing workers can put in. GDP growth can still be achieved as the amount of work remains unchanged.

In fact, as more of the population become involved in the workforce a lot of other problems and costs will disappear from the economy and society that imposes a maximum working week." two economists argue that a drop of two percentage points in unemployment would mean a 9% decline in burglary, 14% in rape and robbery and 30% in assault."¹

¹ Prof. Rudolph Winter-Ebmer ""Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime" CEPR Discussion paper, 2001

improve this

Each new worker has certain fixed costs associated with their employment. Tax, insurance, training, office space, record keeping, background checks, sickness, disciplinary as well as necessary equipment, the actual cost of hiring them and advertising for them and other benefits (usually this adds up to 1.25-1.4x base salary per worker.¹

¹ Joe Hadzima "How Much Does an Employee Cost?" Boston Business Journal (reprinted for MIT 2005)

improve this

Only some SME will be affected, and those on such a knife edge financially would probably not have lasted long in the face of competition in any event. Such enterprises are really being subsidised by taking advantage of their workers at the expense of those workers health.

improve this