OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[swaledale]

Not all correct Geoff.
To texturise a yarn, you are limited by physics, The higher the decitex, the slower the machine has to run.
there is no human element in it.
To cut coal, you are limited by the shear forces generated against a rigid object. The thicker the seam, the larger the drum, the slower it cuts. No human element in it at all.
No you can cut down on the man hours needed to achieve the said task with technology, but that isn't what we are discussing.
To say you can obtain the same results over 32 hours of compated to 40 hours of work is in no way true for everything.

Rolls Royce work round the clock to achieve the production of a jet engine. Is it the human element slowing this down? Is it **** as like. It's complicated and labour intensive. It has to be done right. Can you turn an engine round quicker in a reduced time limit? No you can't

Toyota turns out a car every 66 seconds. that's 2181 per 40hr week.
so how are you going to make up the 436 missing cars ?
I'd would assume Toyota uses the latest technology on its production lines.

Time doesn't exist. Interesting theory. It is claimed to be the fourth dimension.
time is linear and can be measured.
Eddington said-

It is vividly recognized by consciousness.
It is equally insisted on by our reasoning faculty, which tells us that a reversal of the arrow would render the external world nonsensical.
It makes no appearance in physical science except in the study of the organization of a number of individuals. Here the arrow indicates the direction of progressive increase of the random element.

Perhaps this is going off a tangerine here

Cutting down the man hours to achieve the said task is EXACTLY what we are discussing here! Your entire case was that there is that the working week could not be shortened without loss of productivity, yet you have just admitted thats not the case.

The fact you have wandered off into some fantasy world of your own and regurgitate crap you have googled is irrelevant.

[swaledale]

There may well be some people that over justify their existence and could work a reduced week, however it's unfair to expect that of everybody. A lot of people work over their contracted hours, many doing so unpaid, taking their work home with them, interrupting their family time and personal wellbeing. It is also not possible for people in services to reduce their week, whether that's retail workers, military or emergency. If they did, you'd either have to pay inflated overtime, or hire more people on reduced, and zero hour contracts.

Even (though I massively disagree) if you could magically deliver the same productivity over 4/5 of your current working time (and let's hope that schools had the same extra day off as employers), there is still a massive increase on salary cost as GP says, from the notion of "without reduction in pay". You have the following issues instantly requiring funding caused by this very notion:

Your hourly rates of pay increase. Assume a 40 hour 5 day week reducing to 32 hour 4 day week for ease...

Everyone currently working 32 hours or more, instantly gets a pay increase to a full time salary.
Your hourly rate of pay is no longer based on 40 hours, but 32, so your part time salary costs all increase - eg. if your full time equivalent salary is £30k, currently your part time hourly rate is 30000/52/40=£14.42 which becomes 30000/52/32=£18.03. That's a 25% increase.
(Above 2 points aren't me fantasising with numbers, its a legal requirement under the prevention of less favourable treatment for part time workers directive)
You then have the overtime issue. Again, assume you magically can do 5 days work in 4 so don't have to pay overtime on the 5th day (good luck with that) for staff who regularly work overtime, but you now have to pay their overtime rate with a 25% increase.
Add all that up, then add a minimum of 3% employer pension contributions, and 13.8% Employer NI Contributions, and you have a whopping increase in employment costs, which magically will return the same productivity as the 5 day week did.

Lets hope you have a huge profit margin to absorb that extra cost, else the following cost saving steps are likely to happen to try and avert bankruptcy:

All staff perks removed (anything from life assurance to staff discounts).
All contractual benefits reduced to statutory minimum (pension, company sick pay, holiday etc).
All enhanced redundancy benefits reduced to statutory minimum.
And ultimately, an endless stream of redundancy.

Standard unofficial formula for any company that attempts to survive. You may get some union protection on your T&C's briefly, but it won't stop you getting made redundant, it'll only speed the process up, though you'll want to get in while your redundancy terms are still in tact. A 4 day week for the same pay as 5 is a poorly thought out and dangerous policy.

Well those firms in the Uk that already do this must be wrong then! As must the countries where the average working week is 32 hours or less, whose productivity per employee is higher than the UK and whose economies seem to be fine!

[Manofpride]

No worries, Boris will sort it. Things are improving already and we're not out yet!

[AdiSalisbury]

Well those firms in the Uk that already do this must be wrong then! As must the countries where the average working week is 32 hours or less, whose productivity per employee is higher than the UK and whose economies seem to be fine!

Is it 25% better per employee? Do you have any empathy for the people that would lose their jobs?

[AdiSalisbury]

No worries, Boris will sort it. Things are improving already and we're not out yet!

The future is bright, the future is Boris!

[Trickytreesreds]

Cutting down the man hours to achieve the said task is EXACTLY what we are discussing here! Your entire case was that there is that the working week could not be shortened without loss of productivity, yet you have just admitted thats not the case.

The fact you have wandered off into some fantasy world of your own and regurgitate crap you have googled is irrelevant.

Bull**** answer
No reply on meeting quota's for orders or the fact that Continental shifts (from Europe) involve 7 day/24 hr production.
You're clinging to your desk and phone world.
In some jobs you can easily accomodate a 32 hr week. In many firms, they require it's work force to put in 48 hours to meet orders.
If you believe tht shop level workers won't see a reduction in wages, you're delusional.

[swaledale]

Is it 25% better per employee? Do you have any empathy for the people that would lose their jobs?

Why is it automatic that people will lose their jobs? I don't see high unemployment issues in countries that have adopted a shorter working week. This country has undergone immense changes in work and working practices and yet we have had to recruit immigrant labour?

[MadAmster]

No worries, Boris will sort it. Things are improving already and we're not out yet!

Why did he remove the clauses from May's poor deal on Worker rights, consumer rights and environmental protection? Thus far he has refused to explain why but it's pretty obvious that the new policy he has said will come will reduce worker rights, reduce consumer rights and watch for an end to the moratorium on fracking with all the consequences of that.

He is treating the Scots as a subserviant colony rather than the equal partner in a Union that he claimed before the election. He says he got te mandate to stop Indyref2 from the election, totally ignoring the fact that his party was all but wiped out in Scotland and that International Law allows Scotland to have an independence referendum.

Why is he against it? Simply because England claims much of the export of whisky and oil as their own because it goes from Scotland to England before being exported. Take those figures away from the "English" trade figures and England is buggered.

[swaledale]

Bull**** answer
No reply on meeting quota's for orders or the fact that Continental shifts (from Europe) involve 7 day/24 hr production.
You're clinging to your desk and phone world.
In some jobs you can easily accomodate a 32 hr week. In many firms, they require it's work force to put in 48 hours to meet orders.
If you believe tht shop level workers won't see a reduction in wages, you're delusional.

Well you've ignored the fact that there are countries that manage a shorter working week and higher productivity than the UK!

I've replied on continental shifts, you just don't read anything that challenges your perspective - on a continental shift pattern, there are varying shifts, but many work a 4 day on 4 day off rota, which they like.

Actually I'm not clinging to anything, I've worked with an industry where the operatives with the help of technology reduced their working hours to 35 from 40 hours per week and increased productivity by over 30%.

It rather depends does it not on the attitude of the management and owners of the firm as to how the benefits of increased productivity are utilised? A point which I have referred to time and time again in my replies to you, that the benefits of technology have not necessarily been shared equally.

But your missing the point of the debate, that it is possible to reduce the working week - a fact which cannot be denied as other countries have managed to do it.

Yes I agree there are and always will be roles where technology has its limits in reducing human input, though in the future that may not be the case, but it does not later the fact that across many sectors it is not only possible but has in fact been achieved.

[AdiSalisbury]

Why is it automatic that people will lose their jobs? I don't see high unemployment issues in countries that have adopted a shorter working week. This country has undergone immense changes in work and working practices and yet we have had to recruit immigrant labour?

Because the whole idea is based on "without loss of pay", if people had their pay cut by 4/5, the idea might be plausible