Is it the end of the 40-hour workweek?
Is the 40-hour workweek still relevant in today's society?
In a report issued last month, the International Labour Organization (ILO) noted that reducing work hours can have a positive affect on employment levels during a severe economic downturn.
It also discusses the use of work-sharing to generate jobs and for the preservation of existing jobs.
I can relate to the latter.
However, thanks to some creativity in the management department, they reduced my hours to part-time along with the next person with the least seniority.
It did save my job...for a while anyway, but it didn't go over too well with the other employee who also faced the reduced hours to save my job and the company money.
In the end, we were both faced with the grim reality of eventually being laid off due to more company downsizing.
Shortening work hours can be used to create more jobs for others, according to the ILO report. Fewer hours for one translates into more work time for others.
As employers cut back, many employees are forced to shorten their workweek. Some greet it with a sigh of relief while others, who depend on the full-time earnings, are left high and dry.
According to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), the amount of time we spend at work affects our time available for other activities including caring for family members, learning, leisure, volunteering and even rest.
However, it notes that employment also affects earnings and contributes to the overall economic productivity.
HRDSC statistics show that employed Canadians were working fewer hours per week on average in 2011 compared to three decades ago. Men worked on average almost six hours more per week than their female counterparts.
Reducing the hours in a workweek does not necessarily have to be in response to downsizing or the company's bottom line.
If a company introduces a policy to provide employees with a shorter workweek it can therefore spread the hours amongst more workers. This in turn provides more people with an opportunity to earn an income and to have more time for those other neglected activities.
By Donna Donaldson, MSN Money
What do you think about a shorter workweek? Do you think it benefits both employees and employers?
Posted by: chris5927 | Jul 14, 2021 6:10:13 PM
The problem with going to partime to stay on the payroll as I see it is that once you are laid off, depending on how many weeks you were on partime, it would affect the amount you would receive from UI.
Posted by: Syed kazemi | Jul 14, 2021 6:48:39 PM
Well well not a bad idea, if we get the same payment /salary for working 35 hours per week or less without cutting any benefits.,otherwise hopeless idea.
Posted by: Syed kazemi | Jul 14, 2021 6:51:14 PM
Not a bad idea if we get same pay per week as 40 hrs.week.
Posted by: clear and focused | Jul 14, 2021 9:58:50 PM
There is only ONE reason our Fascist, corporate-government and its Fascist minions (like Donna Donaldson - if the is her real name) are implanting the notion of "work sharing" in the brainwashed minds of the unwashed masses. Because if they can spread the ever-dwindling, current positions amongst more and more people, they can then claim that more "jobs" were "created" under their "watch". Such numbers are looked at when calculating the economic health of a country. In other words, they need to lie in order to perpetuate the illusion for as long as they can.
Our economy is crumbling just like the rest of the western world. This is because our "economies" are based on the "casino gulag" model... ie: fraud and financial terrorism... not sound economics.
Lets be clear - governments are incapable of creating jobs. Innovation is what creates jobs and drives economic growth... and they have killed any semblance of that. All a government can do is take money away from one group of people and give it to another (while taking an outrageous and unsustainable cut for themselves). That is all they are capable of doing... and what has that gotten us so far?
We are witnessing the death of Canada and the birth of a third world police state. Why do you think they are confiscating citizen's legal firearms and using "state of emergencies" to justify it? They need to set this legal precedent in order to normalize their police-state tactics, which will intensify in the coming months. Make no mistake - a real state of emergency is coming. The American dollar will crash and the Canadian dollar will follow. At that moment your job will be the last thing on your mind. You will be too busy scavenging for food and trying to defend your unarmed-self against others in the same boat.
Posted by: DrVex007 | Jul 14, 2021 10:52:21 PM
This article is comparable to manure. The reason Canadians are working less then they did a few decades ago, is because companies are reducing their workforce to part-time work, not to save jobs, BUT TO INCREASE PROFIT. Part-timers typically have little to no benefits, certainly no pension and productivity is much higher because they employee needs every penny and will work harder to try to solicit more hours. It is a win/win/win for the company, but a HUGE loss for the employee. It is somewhat short-sighted though as part timers have zero loyalty to the company they work for. Why should they? The company has zero loyalty to them. So part-timers are almost always job hunting and they almost always overlap their part-time jobs with other part-time jobs so when the company calls them in dire need, Sorry, I have to work at my other job today, so the company suffers. I find this to be true in the company I work for now. 75% of the staff are part-time. When I make a schedule I have to take into account a long list of availability conditions in order to fill it, and when they call in sick, it is typically unlikely that I can replace them. It cause severe productivity issues on a daily basis, but hey at least they saved that full time job cost. Overall, companies no longer invest in their staff. They hire faceless employee numbers. It makes me sad.