Mandate a four day Work Week

I did not argue that a mandate could not be enacted, so Pro need not have devoted space to arguing that it could. The resolution is a "should" resolution, so if it were necessary to amend the Constitution to bring it about, then that "should" be done if the resolution is adopted. My point was that "mandate" is a requirement, not a suggestion. 1. Pro asserted that the shorter week would reduce stress, but gave no reasons why. I listed the specific causes of job stress and pointed out they were all due to merely having a job: worry about keeping the job, worry about performance and advancement, and conflicts with fellow workers. Pro did not make any counter arguments. Stress would not be reduced. 70% of stress is not job related, so if there were any reduction,for unknown reasons, it is unlikely to have a significant health impact. 2. I argued that it was a basic human right for a person to be able to determine how much they worked and when they worked. Pro did not dispute that basic right. He pointed out there is also a right to equal pay for equal work. That's true, but irrelevant to the debate. There is nothing discriminatory about allowing people to chose their work hours. Pro also asserted a right "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." A right is something that a person may freely choose to exercise. The right to freely practice religion does not translate to a requirement whereby a person must practice religion. The right to time off means that a government cannot require working seven days a week, per Chinese sweatshops. It does not mean that a budding Einstein can be forbidden from fiddling with equations seven days a week if he wants to. Moreover, the resolution is not limiting working hours, it is mandating the arrangement of working hours. I don't think the limitation on working was in any case meant to apply to people who are self-employed. It makes no sense to forbid a person from milking his cow every day on grounds of human rights. 3. I pointed out that there are many occupations that cannot be performed under the resolution. Fishing must be done during fishing season, and crops must be harvested when they are ready to harvest. The fish cannot be required to wait through three day weekends, nor the crops required not to ripen. There are also jobs that are impractical to perform under a four-day work week. Oil workers cannot be practically shuttled every four days; and it is to their benefit to work two weeks on followed by three weeks off. Pro granted this argument, but pointed out that there are jobs where a four-day week makes sense. I believe that this negates the resolution. I agree that a four day week ought to be used where ever it makes sense. The resolution is whether it ought to be mandated when it does not make sense. Pro seems to grant that there are such situations where it makes no sense, and therefore the resolution fails. Pro points to a reference, "groovygreen.com," claiming that offshore oil drilling should be banned, because then we will use less oil. That argument is nonsense, as we would just import more oil, but it is irrelevant to this debate. There is no generic argument that all jobs unsuited to four day weeks ought to be banned. That would include farming, fishing, timbering, and, I suppose, astronaut exploration of space. Pro asserts without evidence that entrepreneurs could adapt to a four day week. I offered solid evidence to the contrary. Sure, some entrepreneurs could adapt, but many could not. It is absurd to require that all enterprises that cannot succeed within a four day week ought to be outlawed. That makes no economic sense, and is a gross violation of the individual's right to spend time as he wishes. 4. I gave reasons why the energy savings claimed by Pro are unlikely to be achieved: many business must operate more than four days to serve customers, expensive fabrication facilities cannot be economically left idle, and workers are likely to drive on their extra day off anyway. Government, the only example Pro used, is almost unique in not having to satisfy customers by providing good service and not having expensive machinery making product. Pro did answer any of my arguments, but merely reasserted his claim that 13% energy saving could be achieved. ================== The resolution is good in that it promotes thinking about the unintended consequences of sweeping government mandates. A resolution along the lines of "a four day work week should be promoted" might be reasonable, as sometimes a four day week makes sense. However, the resolution is that a four day work week ought to be mandated. The resolution fails on grounds of individual freedom and it's economic impracticality for many jobs. The resolution is negated.