REDUCING THE HOURS ON THE CLOCK DOES NOT REDUCE THE WORK DONE:

Economists and activists had already been pushing for a shorter work week in Europe even before the coronavirus hit, but the pandemic's effects make the idea even more worthwhile, said Aidan Harper, a member of the 4 Day Week Campaign in the UK. "The idea is that you reduce the working week to distribute work more fairly across the economy, and so reduce unemployment," he says. "People staying in work and having money in their pockets--that's essential for an economic recovery. They spend locally, they employ more people, the money circulates. It's essential that people spend during a downturn."

Last August, the think tank Autonomy published research showing that, if the public sector switched to a 32-hour week, it would create between 300,000 and 500,000 new full-time jobs, at a maximum cost of £9 billion--6% of the current spend on public sector wages.

For a brief period, it looked as if the UK might move in the opposite direction. In mid-January, the government prepared to review its adherence to the European Union's Working Time Directive--which the UK is no longer compelled to follow, post-Brexit. The directive gives people the right to work no more than 48 hours a week, although people who have second jobs or take on unpaid work frequently overshoot that limit. After opposition from the leftwing Labour Party and unions, Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, said last week that the review wouldn't take place: "We will not row back on the 48-hour weekly working limit."

Activists like Harper offer plenty of proof that people are as productive--if not more--in shorter working weeks as in full-length ones.

Tweet   @brothersjudd