Mandate a four day Work Week

Thanks to Pro for proposing this debate. It's an interesting topic, with much more involved than apparent. Note that mandating a four day work week does not directly limit the number of hours worked. The example Pro gave of government offices in Utah was the adoption of four ten-hour days. http://www.time.com... Since the number of hours is unchanged, it has no direct impact on number of jobs. "Mandate" means "to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law." The debate is about requiring a four-day week through legislation. 1. The government has no business telling anyone how many days a person can work. It is an unacceptable violation of basic human rights. A person may like working more than any other activity; government would be saying that people cannot do what they prefer. Scientists, authors, artists, financial moguls, and entrepreneurs often need long work weeks to accomplish what they want to do, so that a restriction becomes fatal to their entire undertaking. Perhaps we would have had to forgo the General Theory of Relativity had Einstein been forced to take three day weekends. The Sistine Chapel ceiling might have never been completed if Michelangelo was limited to four day work weeks. The resolution is a restriction on human freedom that would obviate many great achievements. Even if one's achievements are not great, there is no compelling reason to forbid people from doing what they want to do. The principle is stated in Article 23 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." http://www.un.org... If one is not allowed to freely enter into employment for more than four days per week, that is clearly a violation of "free choice of employment." Moreover, if one cannot support one's family with a four day week, as might be the case for a farmer or fisherman, for example, than that is a basic denial of the right to work. 2. Many jobs cannot be done effectively with four day week. Commercial fishing seasons are short and the fisherman must make most of their livelihood when the season is open, then they relax after the season closes. Oil workers on offshore drilling rigs work long weeks on the rigs then have several weeks off; transportation costs make any other schedule impractical. There is long list of jobs ranging from the merchant marine to farming to astronauts that are not practical to perform with a four day week. Many of the jobs alternate long work weeks with long periods off. Farmers must work long weeks during planting and harvest, but winters are slack. Fishing and timber cutting are seasonal. Motion pictures shot on location cannot possibly afford to have four day weeks, but the workers are highly compensated. For oil rig workers, "The work schedule is arranged by a 14/21-day rotation system where the employee will work 14 days on then 21 off." http://www.oilcareer.net... This arrangement is quite attractive to many workers, and there is no reason why the government should prevent it. Entrepreneurs are another large group for which a four day week is not generally suitable. "The latest Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index finds that small business owners today work an average of 52 hours per week. The majority, 57 percent work six days a week and more than 20 percent work all seven days." http://www.accountingweb.com...# Of course, some would be able to adapt to four day weeks, but for a significant percentage it would cause the business to fail. 3. Job stress is certainly a problem, but a four day week would not lower stress. "We worry about getting and keeping adequate employment. We worry about new types of work or new responsibilities. We struggle to climb a career ladder, overwhelmed by the demands. Work conditions may change, or we may have interpersonal trouble at work." http://www.articlealley.com... None of that is changed by working four ten hour days. People must still worry about keeping their jobs, about taking on new responsibilities, about career advancement, and disputes with other workers. The four day week just puts more problems into one day. Pro's reference to the American Stress Institute http://www.stress.org... establishes that too much stress is a bad thing, but it does not claim that rearranging the work hours would cure the problem. Their study shows "40% of workers reported their job was very or extremely stressful; 25% view their jobs as the number one stressor in their lives" That means that 60% do not view their jobs as highly stressful and 75% have worse sources of stress in their lives. That in turn suggests that things other than having more than four days in the work week are the cause of the problems. Since very few people have four day weeks, if it was the cause of stress there should be nearly 100% stressed out from the job. It's far more likely that having a bad ob is the cause of the stress, rather than the job occurring over more than four days. 75% have more stress off the job, so requiring more days off the job cannot be expected to help that. 4. The government office workers in Utah are likely to be among the least stressed of all workers. They have the benefits and security of government work. There is no chance a competitor will put them out of business, and no chance their jobs will be outsourced to China. Advancement is more due to seniority than strategizing or risk-tasking. Because they are in low pressure jobs, it makes sense that they can work ten hours in a day without being stressed out. I have no objections to them doing so, nor for anyone else who wants that arrangement. However, work involving intense physical labor or high-pressure decision-making is going to be poorly suited to long workdays. 5. The cost savings in Utah came from shutting off the heat or air conditioning on the day off. Most private employers have to serve customers more than four days a week. That is not just the obvious, like restaurants, but companies that have to ship goods on short notice, must answer sales inquiries, must provide services to customers, or have expensive manufacturing equipment that cannot be shut down affordably. Many government services must also work more than four days: police, fire, utilities, parks, transportation, permitting offices, trash collection, and so forth. Being able to shut down. Savings in commuting are modest. The average commute in the U.S. is 16 miles http://askville.amazon.com... and the average car gets 21 mpg http://en.wikipedia.org.... So saving a commute day corresponds to 1.5 gallons, which is $4.20 worth of gasoline. http://www.eia.doe.gov... Commuters tend to carpool, use economy cars, or use public transportation, making it even less. Also, it's unlikely that people will fail to drive on their new day off. With more a three-day weekend every week, they are likely to take more long trips. If there is any savings at all, it would be slight. I am all in favor of any savings that is practical, which means for those people whose jobs are suitable to working a four day week ought to do it. The slight savings do not rise to a compelling reason to mandate a four day work week. ================== The four day work week is a good idea for some people, and I am not suggesting it ought to be forbidden or discouraged. The resolution fails because it is completely unsuited to many jobs, and mandating it is both unwise and an unacceptable government intrusion into individual choices.