> The Big Shift > > I believe the 40-hour workweek is 50-year-old technology, an >outdated and >inappropriate model for work scheduling in today s world. It's the >equivalent of trying to run an engineering office with slide rules and >drafting pencils, or operating an international airline with >propeller-driven DC9s. The 40-hour week no longer serves the interests of >working people, and isn t good for business either. Consider the following: > > 1) The 40-hour workweek was designed for a time when very little >happened >on Sundays, and not much more on Saturdays. Today, most customers want a >full range of services every day of the week. > > 2) The 40-hour workweek was designed for a time when overhead costs for >land and equipment were low, relative to the cost of labour. Today such >overheads are high: about twice the cost of labour in most organizations. > > 3) The 40-hour workweek was designed for men with stay-at-home wives. >When the work day was done, they went home and relaxed. Today's dual-earner >workforce goes home from paid employment to the second shift: cooking, >cleaning, shopping and childcare. Working double-shifts has left them >exhausted. They are cranky and ineffective, at work and at home. > > 4) When the 40-hour workweek was put in place, in divided the available >work so as to create full employment. Dividing the work the same way fifty >years later leaves 1.5 million Canadians officially unemployed - three >million unemployed if governments were honest about the real numbers. > >THE STUCK PLACE > > We want the future to be like the past, only more so. That s how most >change happens: little by little, building on what went before. But, >occasionally, change needs to jump outside the old framework, and take a >big, all-at-once leap. > Consider the history of computers: until 1980 they were getting >bigger and >bigger, more and more centralized. The logical expectation for the future >was more of the same. The idea that ordinary people would work from their >own tiny personal computers seemed absurd. Most of the established players >in the computer industry dismissed the PC computer as a toy. That s why >Microsoft today is bigger than IBM: Microsoft jumped out of the old box and >began thinking about computers in a whole new way. > I believe we are at a similar crossroads in work scheduling technology. >Until now, we ve built our economy around a one-shift model. We have been >able to shorten the workweek a long way within that model, in a series of >incremental steps, from nearly 80 hours in the early 1800 s, down to 40 >hours by the late 1940 s. Shortening the workweek had great benefits: it >converted unemployment to leisure; it improved worker productivity; by >keeping unemployment low, it made for a robust and prosperous economy. But >shorter work times also carried a price: gradually increasing overhead >costs and decreasing hours of service. At 40-hours, we d pushed that >trade-off as far as it could go: reduce the workweek any further and the >increase in overhead costs would have been prohibitive. So the workweek has >been stuck at 40 hours for a very long time, despite the huge social and >economic problems that have accompanied steadily rising unemployment. > >THE TWO-SHIFT SOLUTION > > The way beyond the impasse is to imagine an economy built around >not one, >but two shifts. I don t know exactly how it should be configured; I m >guessing that as an interim step we might have one half of the workforce >working eight hours a day Monday to Thursday, and the other half working 10 >hours a day Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Soon, I expect we ll move to a >model where both shifts work eight hours a day, three days one week and >four days the next. > So what would a two-shift workplace mean for working people? > > 1) Every weekend is a long weekend: You ll have time for a life. > 2) Most workers will be able to work the same days as their spouse >works, >and the same days their kids go to school, far more so than now. (Schools >can be on two shifts too.) > > 3) Recreation facilities aren t overcrowded because we aren t all >trying >to use them on the same two days of the week. > > 4) Commuter traffic jams are half what they used to be because only >half >the workforce goes to work on any given day. > > 5) Any service you want, any errand, is available seven days a >week: you >don t have to sneak it in on your lunch hour. > > 6) You feel safer and more secure because a 32-hour workweek has >created >nearly full employment. Your grown children will get jobs and finally leave >home. > > 7) With unemployment low, your employer cannot bully you into unpaid >overtime or drop you to casual status or you ll go down the street and get >hired by someone else. > > 8) And finally, it means your taxes are a whole lot lower because a >million or more formerly unemployed Canadians are now working and paying >taxes instead of draining the public purse. > > And what does it mean for employers? > > 1) Plant and equipment can be used seven days a week: a move which will >eventually cut overhead costs by almost a third. > > 2) Employers can provide customers with seven-day-a-week service >without >overtime rates or the hassle of part-time staff. > > 3) Their workforce is fresher, more productive, less prone to making >mistakes or getting sick. > > 4) And finally, the formerly unemployed can afford to buy things again: >the choke-hold on consumer demand is released. > > The two-shift workplace will give the first nation that adopts it huge >competitive advantages: lower overheads, a more productive workforce, a >more robust domestic market, lower taxes. That nation will see a big boost >in its ability to compete internationally. I would like Canada to be the >Bill Gates of the Big Shift. > >WHAT ABOUT MONEY? > > Can we afford to drop from a 40-hour workweek to a 32-hour workweek >all in >one go? I believe so, if these four areas of savings are taken into account: > > 1) We could celebrate public holidays on our regular long weekends, >instead of taking additional days off. Stat holidays currently make up 4% >of total work days; drop them as paid benefits and the actual reduction >in work time falls from 20% to 16%. > > 2) Research has shown that typically about one-third of lost production >time due to shorter workweeks is offset by higher productivity: if >previous experience holds, a 16% drop in work time will only drop workers' >output by about 11%. > > 3) A 32-hour workweek would put a million unemployed Canadians back to >work, saving the public purse billions of dollars on the dole and related >social expenditures. According to my calculations, those savings to the >public purse work out to about 6% of the total national payroll. An >across-the-board payroll tax cut equivalent to 6% of workers wages would >reduce the wage gap from 11% to 5%. > > 4) And finally, the two-shift workplace will reduce employers overhead >costs. Those savings will be modest at first - perhaps initially saving on >average a sum equivalent to only two or three percent of payroll costs. >Over time, as Canada grows into the available unused capacity, those >savings will grow. Over the first three years we might expect an average >savings on overhead costs equal to at least 5% of payroll costs. > > If Canadian workers froze their take-home pay at current levels for >three >years, they could go from a 40 to a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay, >without increasing the cost of doing business in Canada. And the savings on >overhead won t stop growing after three years. After ten years they could >equal one third of total payroll costs. With unemployment lower , Canada s >unions will be in a good bargaining position to make sure that a fair share >of those savings wind up in workers pockets. > The percentages I ve given are both approximations and averages. >After a >more careful and thorough accounting, Canadians might conclude that a >shorter or longer wage freeze is warranted, and that special arrangements >are required to protect certain workers and certain industries. The details >will need to be worked out as we go. But the bottom line is that moving to >a four- day workweek with no loss in pay is a viable option so long as it >is done on a two-shift model, and includes some period of wage stability. > >THE BIG SHIFT > > There is one problem with the Big Shift: it needs to be done all at >once. >No one organization can make the Shift on its own: if it does its employees >will be out of sync with the larger community around them. They ll clash >with the school system, with the transport system, with the expectations of >customers and suppliers. No, the Big Shift needs to happen all at once if >it is to work. > I would suggest to you that where we stand in relationship to the >economy >is very similar to our position vis-à-vis the Millennium Bug. If we had >dealt with the Year 2000 glitch in DOS-based operating systems ten years >ago, we could have fixed the problem for a small fraction of the billions >of dollars it s costing us to make the fix now. > We put it off because it was too hard to think of changing over all >those interlinked computer systems all at once. But once it became clear >that if we didn t act quickly, come January 1st, 2000, we might have planes >falling out of the sky, and elevators and bank accounts and stock exchanges >frozen all around the world, suddenly too hard became irrelevant. We re >managing that difficult, change-the-whole-system-all-at-once transition now >because we have to, and because the consequences of not acting are >catastrophic. > If you were to draw a graph of the average unemployment rate over each >decade since World War Two, the result would look like a staircase: in the >late 1940 s unemployment was in the 3% range, rising to 4% in the 1950 s, >5% in the 1960 s, 7% in the 1970 s, 9% in the 19 80 s, and more than 10% in >the 1990 s. > As unemployment has moved upwards, the nature of economic growth has >changed. In the 1950 s and 60 s, workers produced more each year, earned >more and thus were able to buy more. Credit was the shock absorber for the >economy: people ran up debts and pulled down savings in recession years, >but paid down those debts and rebuilt savings during the good years. > By the 1980 s and 90 s workers were still producing more every >year, but >high unemployment had put a big downward pressure on wages, causing >earnings to fall. A massive and continuous expansion of public and private >credit was required to cover the gap between what workers were producing >and what they could afford to buy. > That huge expansion of credit pushed the unemployment rate down >probably >two or three percentage points in the 1980 s and 90 s - but it has left the >economy very vulnerable. Canada is rapidly approaching its credit limit, >both publicly and privately. If the economy enters a recession now, we don >t have the room to borrow our way out of the worst of it. Instead, big >interest charges on current debts will be draining the disposable income of >consumers and pushing the unemployment rate up instead, probably towards >the 16 percent range. > I m not sure whether the mother of all recessions will come next >year, or >three years down the line. We could argue about it, if you like, but to my >mind that s a little bit like some of the debate I was hearing last year >about how long it was possible to delay acting on the Millennium Bug and >still be able to prevent a cybernetic meltdown. > The Big Shift to a two-shift workplace is a huge and very complicated >transformation of the economy, not without risks. That's why we ve put it >off so long. But I would argue that we ve reached the point where doing >nothing entails even greater risks, and that a bigger, scarier more >complicated and infinitely more painful transformation of the economy is >inevitable if we do nothing. If you re not clear about the price of waiting >too long, ask an Indonesian, or a Japanese national. > Government is the obvious player to initiate and coordinate the Big >Shift, >using its rule-making powers to ensure that everyone changes course at the >same time and in the same direction. Each province has the necessary >authority to mandate new school schedules, to set new employment standards, >and to broker a deal with the Federal Government for a province-wide >reduction in payroll taxes. As a first step, governments in Canada would >need to open a national dialogue with business, labour and the general >public to seek some kind of consensus about how the Big Shift should be >structured. > The Big Shift could be made on a trial basis in one Canadian city, >enabling the states to gather hard data on job-creation, on the impacts on >productivity and absenteeism and overhead costs, and the effects on social >expenditures. We would have an opportunity to learn on a manageable scale >how to link and coordinate two shifts, and what level of job-training >support is required. The media would love it: with a little encouragement >they could find a different story hook every day for a month. It would make >the Big Shift real, concrete, and possible for the rest of the country. > >MAKING IT HAPPEN > > As I see it, there are three keys to making the Big Shift happen: > >1) Ordinary Canadians: People often ask: Why don t our leaders do >something about this issue? Salary-based payroll arrangements have had a >bad habit of promoting workaholism, with the result that most of our >political leaders, most of our corporate leaders, even our labour leaders >are hard-core workaholics. Now what s the workaholic s solution to every >problem? You ve got it: work harder! Most of our current leadership will >need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Age of Leisure. Change >must come from ordinary Canadians. > >2) Get Moving: Past battles for shorter work times were won by big, >grassroots movements that captured the public s imagination with big bold >goals: the ten-hour day, the eight-hour day, the five- day workweek. We >need to create the same kind of movement today. Unions spearheaded past >movements for shorter work times, but they didn t try to go it alone: they >worked with churches, with women s groups, with political parties, with >progressive businesses, with anybody and everybody. > >3) Talk About It: Past movements for shorter work times made sure that all >working people understand clearly the price employed people pay to live in >a high unemployment economy: falling wages, job speed-up, loss of job >security, rising taxes. They raised the issue again and again at every >opportunity, at every public gathering. When almost everyone is stressed >out - either by unemployment or overwork - it will be necessary to create a > Psst, pass it on movement where a great many people do a little bit each. >Take a minute now to ask yourself: What small step could I take to bring >the Big Shift to the attention of my friends, my work-mates, my community? >This essay is in the public domain: if you like what it says, urge your >union newsletter, your church bulletin, or your community newspaper to >reprint it. > > There is one way in which the Big Shift differs from the Millennium >Bug. >There s no up- side to fixing the Millennium Bug: the best outcome we can >hope for is that we avoid cybernetic disaster. Implementing the Big Shift >will also prevent disaster, but it will give us ever so much more. It will >give us the opportunity to create a society where life is richer, fuller, >more secure, and less stressful. It will give us a society where our kids >have jobs and hope for the future, where we don t face an either/or choice >between jobs and the environment. And you won t have to choose between >having a job, and having a life. > >Bruce O Hara >
