...to 32 hours within 10 years, with no loss of wages.
Collective bargaining will be introduced across different industries.
"This will allow unions and employers to decide together how best to reduce hours for their sector.
"And we'll set up a Working Time Commission with the power to recommend to government on increasing statutory leave entitlements as quickly as possible without increasing unemployment."
In other news, presumably, he will describe how market forces are going to be abolished.
|
>>..to 32 hours within 10 years, with no loss of wages
A company can afford to pay £x for their product to be built without increasing prices.
Let us assume that product takes 35 hours which are paid for.
But now they'll only get 32 hours, so they'll have to contract an extra 3 hours from somewhere increasing the labour cost by 10%.
So one assume that that extra labour cost will either come from McDonnell's magic coffers (taxation) or will increase the cost of the product. Either way people will be paying more for that product, so even though their wages have not gone down, prices have gone up.
And let's not pretend that the extra requirements will be filled form the dole queue saving welfare money to compensate.
Typical Labour financial management.
As they say, The Conservative Party don't care what you want so do whatever suits them whereas the Labour party think what you want is very important and therefore tell you what that is to make sure you get it right.
|
Re 4 day week.
There was an MD of an international communications firm being interviewed on R4 recently.
She has her staff working 4 days only and reports that productivity has increased as have profits.
The firm is manned for 7 days a week so there is a rota system in place and everyone knows their working patterns some time in advance. Not all of the days off were / are sequential.
What I cannot recall and what I cannot find online at the moment is whether they work compressed hours or reduced hours. (I am guessing it's reduced hours, otherwise it's a moot point.)
Obviously it will not work for all organisations - for example - if each task takes x minutes then reducing hours will not increase efficiencies, but for many it will. Then there will be the problem of the haves and have nots with regards working hours - another inequality for Labour to legislate for!
|
>>She has her staff working 4 days only and reports that productivity has increased as have profits.
So imagine, the MD suddenly is studying everybody's time keeping, working style and effectiveness/efficiency.
And swipe me sideways if productivity doesn't go up.
It's like a miracle.
There's rather more to productivity, behaviour and effectivity than hours on site. Microscope interest from senior management, for example.
One needs to look at the composition of a day as much as the length of it.
|
>>One needs to look at the composition of a day as much as the length of it.
Totally agree. Getting the time to do that is often the issue, which is why we have consultants
In the interview, she didn't give the view that she was micromanaging, this was a sizeable business.
|
>> she didn't give the view that she was micromanaging
No need for Micromanagement.
MD talks to Directors about modern thinking around productivity and changing hours. Asks for feedback on progress and success.
Directors inform Idiots middle managers that MD will be wanting feedback and reports and they don;t want their group to look bad compared to the others.
Idiots Middle Managers tell staff that life depends on reports looking good with impressive results. and that it will be the fault of the staff if they do not
Staff, never slow to work out the direction the window is blowing, realise that they are being watched and potentially blamed and so make "suitable" productivity reports with a varying basis in reality.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 23 Sep 19 at 20:08
|
>> Staff, never slow to work out the direction the window is blowing, realise that they
>> are being watched and potentially blamed and so make "suitable" productivity reports with a varying
>> basis in reality.
>>
>>
I think the increased profits were real!
|
Yes, I am sure that they were. At least some of them.
Again, things go better when they're being monitored, especially by senior figures. It may not be the actual change that has made that has made the difference, it may simply be that people are paying attention.
I buy my daughter a new desk which is 20cm bigger than the old one and every night sit there and watch her do her homework to see if it helps. Her marks get better. Clearly then it was the new desk. Right? So all parents should go and buy their children new and bigger desks, right?
Or was it simply that I was watching?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 23 Sep 19 at 22:36
|
Go on then, I'll mention it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
The trouble is it wears off.
I've seen at least two costly initiatives rolled out after an apparently successful pilot, with the outperformance reverting to the mean some time afterwards.
The early success was put down (with hindsight) to this effect in both cases, but I wasn't totally convinced. With new stuff, everything tends to get thrown at it. The best, most enthusiastic managers, extra staff, new equipment, new and novel promotional support, and training of course. Everybody knows it will mess up the analysis but they can't help themselves.
What effect or influence McDonnell has been subject to I can't imagine.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 23 Sep 19 at 23:07
|
There has been an increasing element of "presenteeism" in the UK workplace. Simply a matter of being seen to be there for longer hours.
Anyway, the Labour Party is still anchored in the 19th century, they still think of "factories" stuff being produced, which is why they still harp on about collective bargaining and unionised work places, the days of lots of workers all doing the same job in similar workplaces, working for local management and British companies.
Its gone, that's a stable door that fell off its hinges years ago, the horse bolted so long ago its now dog food.
|
Sorry, forgot the link.
It's all explained here. Surprised nobody has done it already.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49798357
|
There was a report on the BBC about 4 day working weeks, i think it Sweden, and they found that in the main it helped productivity.
Not in all cases of course but by and large it was a positive move.
|
If you were the employer you would certainly want it to increase productivity.
Since being a parent, my daughter has worked a 3 day week (for a reduced total pay). Like many such parents I'm sure, she has found that she does rather more than 60% of the work she did before.
It's probably called Nosnikrap's Law.
|
I can certainly do a lot more in the first 4 hours of the day than the next 4 hours.
Work done vs time at work is a far from linear graph.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 23 Sep 19 at 16:41
|
|
You are Spanish and I claim my free tapas ....
|
McDonnell promises to cut working week ... - No FM2R
