English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...apart from reducing the unemployment figures, and increasing time for families to interact, it would also prevent accidents due to tiredness, who agrees with these sentiments?

2006-10-07 09:26:06 · 19 answers · asked by chris s 3 in Social Science Economics

for mgn2006, the idea is we get paid for 40hrs minimum, but work four 8 hour (max) days, that way if your on minimum wage, you still have enough to pay bills.

2006-10-07 09:39:06 · update #1

19 answers

When can we vote for you?

2006-10-07 09:28:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I agree with you whole hardly. 10 hours a day for 4 days great! Here in the U.S. A. it is badly needed. Maybe it would save many ways in the long run and bring families closer together. It may also keep a person healthy longer! I hate to tell you this but a person will only get paid for the hours worked regardless, anything else is only dreaming. It is very hard to survive here on minimum wage even if you work 60 hour weeks!

2006-10-07 09:41:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

The primary reason would be worker productivity would plummet in an economy that is already moribund. A person might produced the same number of binkets in an hour, but would produce fewer over the course of the year. Fewer binkets to sell would mean less income per person for the factory to pay for health insurance, retirement, and the like.

2006-10-07 10:53:39 · answer #3 · answered by Joe Cool 6 · 0 0

the simple fact is, we work less, we produce less, our income (both national income and individual wages) falls, and we are worse off. also, some people would continue to work 5 days, getting overtime pay for 5th day. this would increase costs of production, and cause inflation. to cope with raising prices, we would all have to do overtime, so we would be back to where we started, working a 5 day week. only difference is inflation would be worse. sorry to ruin the slobs' dreams, but reality sucks. and if we paid people 40 hours wages for 32 hours work, the economy would suffer even more inflation, and we would be less competitive in the international market. please never become chancellor, or we will be ruined

2006-10-09 00:32:24 · answer #4 · answered by mr. me 3 · 0 0

I agree with the sentiments but for those on minimum wage it is difficult enough to pay the bills without their hours being cut

2006-10-07 09:32:42 · answer #5 · answered by MGN2006 4 · 1 0

And how would that actually HELP millions of famillies who are already struggling to either pay thier mortgage/rent and/or pay off loans and credit card bills??? I just don't know how a lot of people manage (well, I don't think they do ) as it is, with the price of council tax, gas, electricity, road tax, petrol, TV. licence, etc. before they eat or start to enjoy themselves, ......lots of people have TWO jobs just to make ends meet!! I'm glad that's all behind me and I don't owe anybody anything, but I've been there and remember the three day week and the suffering it caused!

2006-10-07 09:53:56 · answer #6 · answered by coolbythepool23# 2 · 0 0

It is to avoid ending up like the French population : assisted and unsustainable.
Working is the right thing to do to maintain a sustainable society.
Anyway, working times in the UK are not as strict as in France, and are very flexible already: the less you work, the less you earn.
In France you still earn the same money whether you work or not, and it is creating serious conflicts within the staff in enterprises.

2006-10-07 09:40:50 · answer #7 · answered by Sweet Dragon 5 · 1 0

Europeans are effing lazy in the first place. The UK never wants to play along with the rest of mainland Europe. Therefore, why would the UK admit, legally, to having a bunch of lazy bums like the rest of the EU?

2006-10-07 09:44:10 · answer #8 · answered by shlomogon 4 · 0 1

The Westminster Parliament is already working a four day week.

Just waiting for it to catch on more widely.

2006-10-07 09:32:00 · answer #9 · answered by Rolf 6 · 0 0

that would be great but unfortunately for many people in this country wages are low already ,for the hours they work so how would they possibly live of the wage given then,more time for your family great except in poverty.

2006-10-07 09:41:31 · answer #10 · answered by batty 3 · 1 0

I do agree but why don't you give this suggestion to your MP, its worth a try?

2006-10-07 10:18:50 · answer #11 · answered by marizani 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers