Essay Example on a 4-Day Working Week

Introduction

Reductions in working hours are generally desirable, particularly when enforcing workers' freedom and rights in organisations with extensive labor utilization to maximize production (Wheatley et al., 2011). These reductions in work-time are profoundly wanted because recorded periods prevailed with a broad usage of work, showed decreases in occasions and expansions in the working day (Philp et al., 2005). As a result, debates have been extended to apply the neoclassical rational choice in explaining labor extraction that can also be used in the UK economy by considering an analysis of work patterns in the country. Karl Marx argued that workers would prefer shortening in working hours despite the consequences of reductions in pay (Philp et al., 2005). He likewise puts together his contention concerning free enterprise that class clashes on working hours are distributional in the feeling of surplus-esteem (Philp et al., 2005). Other theorists such as Smith and Ricardo focused on future development inherent in capitalist production (Kurz, 2010).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Work-time patterns have become more diverse due to technological, economic, and cultural influences and the tertiarisation, feminization, and casualization of the economy (Wheatley et al., 2011). This paper addresses whether reductions of working hours are related to production and value, particularly when Marx's theory on surplus-value and reducing the length of the working day is applied in UK organisations. It also analyses the perceptions of Keynes regarding the size of the working day. In the past years, the UK government did not embrace EU work-time regulation (Wheatley et al., 2011); therefore, this paper aims to study the UK's working time patterns and provide possible explanations to justify these patterns. This paper explores Marx, Smith, Hayek, and Keynes's contributions to reducing working hours, also challenging the validity of their theories because they create the basis for the UK's work-time patterns. Reductions in working hours are relevant because workers will have time to rest and satisfy their physical needs.

Working Hours Decrease

Several reasons have been debated on how and why working hours decrease, increase, or remain constant in the UK economy (Philp et al., 2005). Neoclassical economics, factory development, institutionalism, and Marxism have provided alternative theories to explain working hours' determinants (Philp et al., 2005). First, neoclassical approaches emphasise an individual's choice defined by budget constraints (Philp et al., 2005). On the other hand, institutionalism rejects neoclassical economics approaches and suggests that focusing on maximising behaviour can mislead. Institutionalism economics argued that some ideals or norms emerge from an institutional structure and influence working hours, for example, establishing a normal working day (Philp et al., 2005). On factory development, Keynes stated that full employment could be maintained through increased consumption, reduced average working hours, and sound investment policy (Philp et al., 2005). He argued that the cotton industry had increased its production costs above the competitive level due to extended short-time working (Philp et al., 2005). Marxism economists argued that working hours' determination arises from a class struggle between collective labor and collective capital (Philp et al., 2005). All these approaches indicate power and conflict, instead of an individual rational choice that explains the dynamics and duration of working hours in the UK.

Various explanations have been offered on the determinants of working hours. One clarification is that individuals decide to work specific hours, given their pay inclinations and recreation time (Philp et al., 2005). Such an explanation underpins the labor supply theory in neoclassical economics (Philp et al., 2005). From another perspective, people's hours can be determined by the economic situations and political power prevailing in the UK economy. However, Marxists and neoclassical economists challenge the scientific explanations without rigorous micro-foundations (Bowles, 1985). Generally, neoclassical economists provide micro-explanations on what determines working hours. For example, neoclassical economists would argue that a person would prefer to work for forty hours per week due to their income and leisure preferences. Institutionalism or Marxist economists would argue that it is the norm for that particular historical period to work for forty hours due to unemployment, per capita income, rate of growth, and economic development (Philp et al., 2005). Marxists would also argue that the distribution of working hours is dependent on class struggle and the extent of class cohesion.

Labor Supply

On the contrary, the classical political economy argues that labor supply is dependent on population dynamics, but neoclassical economics perceives labor supply to be separate from demography (Philp et al., 2005). In the neoclassical theory, the number of working hours results from a constrained-optimization challenge, in which people select working hours when they are given preferences for income and leisure. Employees choose working hours, depending on the principle of optimization. The substitution of leisure for income is equivalent to the slope of the budget line provided by wage rates per hour. However, institutionalism challenges the argument that working hours are rational choices and state that workers may be irrational. Still, they operate in an institutional framework that conditions and controls their behavior (Philp et al., 2005). For instance, in continuous industries, which serve throughout a twenty-four-hour period, there cannot be a gradual reduction in the number of work hours because it operates in shifts. Therefore, the Commons recommended introducing legislation that will restrict the working hours to eight hours (Philp et al., 2005). Keynes Perception of Working Hours

Most people would rather spend more time with their loved ones than spending time working (Elliott, 2008). However, even though most people know that they have their priorities set wrong, they find it difficult, spending fewer hours in their workplaces (Elliott, 2008). It is always hard to change preferences. Keynes (1930) predicted that in the future, the working week would be reduced to 15 hours as people would choose to have more leisure time after meeting their basic needs. Keynes believed that improving people's living standards in developed countries would create more leisure time for people (Keynes, 2010).

According to Keynes, in a hundred years, everybody will be eight times better economically than their current situations (Keynes, 2010). The change in welfare will be contributed by the economic and technological development that is continuously taking place. Technical efficiency in the workplace will improve, and therefore the productivity of the workers will also improve. According to Keynes (1930), technological efficiency and capital accumulation would improve workers' productivity, consequently reducing working hours. Keynes predicted that 2% of technological development per year would reduce working hours over a decade (Quiggin, 2020).

Keynes believed that the human effort needed in mining, transport, and manufacturing industries would reduce by a quarter (Keynes, 2010). The number of hours people need to work will be reduced due to the increased output per worker (Quiggin, 2020). With the reduction in the working hours, leisure will be optional for all instead of being an idea of the few rich people. Although technological change will bring unemployment in the long-run economic problems, people's well-being will be improved. With an improved economy, there will be an age of people who will have an abundance of leisure time as their immediate needs will be met. However, there will be a challenge of utilizing free time as human beings have been trained to toil in their jobs but not enjoy (Keynes, 2010).

According to Keynes, humanity will solve economic problems, eliminating the need for people to work to survive (Keynes, 2010). In return, people will let go of all the economic norms they hold on and accept the new norm. Improved leaving standards will make people realize that they can satisfy their needs through fewer working hours. Keynes predicted that people would work for fewer hours with a less money-driven society and spend their leisure time in self-development (Keynes, 2010).

Conclusion

Keynes's perception that working hours would reduce with improved economies has been proven wrong over the years. Despite improved leaving standards in the developed countries, the number of working hours has remained constant in several decades. Workers in western countries have been working for longer hours to counter economic competition from the eastern states. If Keynes's perception were right, most people in western countries would be working for four days a week (Elliott, 2008). Another reason why Keynes's perception was wrong is that some people enjoy working. Some people enjoy spending time in their workplaces (Elliott, 2008). People derive utility from the achievements they make in their workplaces. Finally, people with low pay have no option but to work for long hours and more days in a week to meet their needs (Elliott, 2008).