Growing up in Spain, I am currently living back here after living over 14 years in Germany and spending most of my working life there. I am half Spanish and half German and have a good perspective on both mentalities in general. In my opinion the problem in Spain is definitely the mindset towards work and the way it is perceived. Here work seems to always be some tedious chore that keeps you away from social live. I do not know many people who truly enjoy their job.
A couple of years ago my girlfriend came from Spain to live with me in Germany and got a job. After the first day she came home at 10:00 pm (work ended at 6:00 pm). I was worried that they were making her work to hard the first day, but when she came home she told me she just stayed late doing nothing for the new boss seeing her put in the effort... That really really reminded me why I left Spain to work in Germany. I just do not get that kind of attitude, when I confronted her about it she told me that this behavior was expected in all the places she worked at. Leaving early (or even on time), even if you are effective and have done you work is frowned upon by both coworkers and managers. Paradoxically people might even consider you lazy.
So I am really expectant to see how this experiment turns out and if it achieves a change in mentality or if it is just a way to spend tax money and make some “friends of friends” rich as politicians like to do in Spain by subsidizing companies that once the state money runs out go back to normal.
I'm Spanish and I've lived in Germany, the UK, and in short stints in the US, and some of what you say resonates with me. In particular:
> Here work seems to always be some tedious chore that keeps you away from social life
This is just one manifestation of what's more generally a very poor work culture, in what amounts to a giant, self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. Management often lacks professionalism, salaries are poor, and employees are demotivated and must therefore look to anything but work for fulfillment.
To be clear, I don't believe this is inherently Spanish, due to our genes, the climate, or our love for fiesta: similar phenomena could be observed locally in the US or Northern Europe. The problem in Spain is how widespread these attitudes are, in a macro context where good opportunities have been scarce for decades, probably due to the lack of a vision for a national productive model and any effective policies in this regard.
Personally I believe any permanent solution will need to come simultaneously in a top-down and bottom-up fashion, with both effective state policies and a change in attitudes from individuals. The catalyst would likely need to be a multi-partisan, national and universal social pact rallying institutions (politics, education, unions, businesses, etc.) around a well-defined vision. Anyone who follows Spanish politics knows that unfortunately at present that possibility is extremely remote.
> The problem in Spain is how prevalent these attitudes are, in a macro context where good opportunities have been scarce for decades
This really nails it. I'm originally from Portugal (now living and working in the UK). Staying late and maintaining presence was a really big thing in Portugal. You really are looked down on when you leave early, it's a really terrible work culture, it genuinely felt like people would either overwork themselves or just generally do nothing with that extra time.
I tell my friends this story all the time: When I first arrived to the UK and started working, I asked my company about having my work email on my phone, my manager just had a completely blank face - "why do you need your work email on your phone?". I have been happily employed with this company for nearly 8 years now, never once feeling the need to stay late or go beyond the contracted hours. If I put in overtime, it's because I want to (most of the time because I actually enjoy the work). Oh, and I am paid for overtime. Completely unheard of in Portugal.
I know a lot of these things might be company culture specific, but there is definitely a level within geography - The lesser opportunities available, the more is expected out of you. As if having the opportunity to work should be seen as some sort of blessing.
The irony of this and the parent comment is the UK regularly come up as a country that the exact same problem happens in.
The UK has notoriously low productivity compared to Europe and the US, and longer average work hours than the rest of Europe.
These are larger aggregate studies. I wonder why both your experiences of the UK seem so at odds with the observed studies? Is it just the field you're in?
Tech, more than likely, contributes towards personal experience. I can safely say this about Portugal: this is a country where companies do not want to invest in a tech department. There is a culture of outsourcing all tech related work. This has caused the birth of manyyy "outsourcing tech companies" - the sort of companies that hire tech talent just to shift them over to "projects", where you go to work for someone else and are at the complete mercy of the client (who demands the world since they have an expensive contract with the outsourcing company).
This has been my woe, and the same can be said about many of my friends and uni acquaintances. I suspect other fields might not have it this badly.
I have found a completely different culture here in the UK, there is so much demand for tech workers, combined with a much better approach towards companies investing in tech - it feels like the worker has that much power, if I'm not happy I can just go get a job somewhere else, probably within a week of quitting. It's a very different dynamic when compared to Portugal: Jobs are scarce and the pay isn't great. Tech is non-innovation driven, you're not there to think about the future, just to fix present issues that are very specific to some random company.
I don't miss Portugal at all when it comes to work.
Have you worked for a business in a town, rather than one of the big cities? Or even a lot of the cities.
It's the same everywhere. Most of our businesses are terrible at using tech, view IT as a cost that's to be cut wherever possible and are completely inept.
I helped my last girlfriend automate her excel spreadsheet based job. It basically got rid of weeks or even months of work she was going to have to do manually moving numbers from some CSVs into spreadsheets. The company had something like 10 people doing the same job.
It took me about 2 hours to write that macro. This was a major garden centre chain in the UK, with hundreds of stores, completely clueless about how much money they were wasting on pointless staff busy work.
> The UK has notoriously low productivity compared to Europe and the US, and longer average work hours than the rest of Europe.
You should be very wary of productivity statistics coming from Europe.
I have worked most of the past decade in France. Like most highly educated employee in France, my contract is in days and not in hours. Officialy and legally, I have no set hours but for accounting purpose I have always officialy worked 37.5 hours a week. In reality, I have never worked less than 42.5 hours and weeks above 45 hours are both common and expected.
> Most of the numbers I can find for Europe is from surveys of employees, not gathered from data on labour contracts.
Then you are looking at it extremely poorly without obnoxious quotes.
Most of the official stastics on productivity like the one published by Eurostat are derived from the total amount of hours worked which is estimated based on contracts.
EU-LFS, which I referenced, is published by Eurostat, is a core part of the official Eurostat data, and is survey-based, not derived from estimates of contracts.
Here is Eurostat's EU-LFS data browser for "hours worked per week of full time employment":
You'll note they include asking for the same information (estimates of hours worked) several different ways (with and without overtime, and asking separately for the overtime) and that they include instructions to the interviewer for confirming that the result is internally consistent.
EU-LFS is the main source of data on those aspects for the EU. Measuring overall productivity then comes from matching economic indicators up against hours worked.
- However, simple international comparisons can be misleading. In particular, the UK position (mid-range) is distorted by the fact that, compared with most other EU states, the UK employs a high proportion of part-time women workers (working fewer than 30 hours a week).
- Amongst full-time employees, the UK shows high levels of long hours working (over 48 hours a week), especially amongst men where the UK has the highest level of long hours working in the EU. Just over one-fifth (22 per cent) of UK men working full-time work long hours compared with an average of one tenth (11 per cent) across the other EU member states.
- Full-time male managers work the longest hours in the UK and across the EU member states as a whole. However, (on average) UK managers do not work longer hours than their EU counterparts
To clarify, I said I lived in the UK just to lay out my bio, but didn't want to imply that everything is dandy there.
When I was there I lived in London, but occasionally travelled to an office in Peterborough. I therefore saw two worlds, one where opportunity abounds and another which was, in all honesty, pretty grim. I loved the people there to bits but their degree of dejection was very much comparable to what you see in Spain, if not worse in some regards (as many lacked, in my observation, the strong familial ties that support Spanish society).
I will say however that despite this very poor outlook for some regions in the UK, even in the worst of cases many British people seem to hold on to a certain optimistic national outlook and to an entrepreneurial or "trading spirit" that is much more rare in Spain. The culture, laws and economic structures seem to still support this, for example the conditions for sole traders are infinitely better in the UK than they are in Spain.
But otherwise yes, I know from both personal experience and from studies I've read through the years that the situation is far from utopian.
I'm part Spanish, grew up mostly in the US, but often have to engage with Spain in order to do paperwork.
Does anyone who's lived there for a while have any insight on why tasks that I could accomplish in the US in 12 weeks take like 5 years in Spain?
Why is every form and document and signature and approval process seemingly arbitrary? Why is the person you need for the next step always on vacation?
Is there some kind of a system where 5 people are drawing a salary for a job that 1 person could do, so they all mutually agree to do it as slowly as possible?
If you hold the US as a paragon of administrative velocity, you haven't completed your tour of countries my friend.
As a Dutchman, who is by no means a fan of the country, can only tremble in horror whenever paperwork abroad had/has to be done. There may be a difference between Spain and the US, it's insignificant between the NL and the rest.
Well, I hear good things about Scandinavian countries too. I haven't had the opportunity yet to work/live there, hope to get around to it though!
> To be clear, I don't believe this is inherently Spanish, due to our genes, the climate, or our love for fiesta: similar phenomena could be observed locally in the US or Northern Europe.
It is more or less the same here in Italy. Jobs are so scarce that one has to be grateful for anything better than straight unemployment thus enabling a whole ecosystem of low pay, asshole bosses and coworkers, and toxic work attitude all around.
I don't think this issue is specific to Spain - judging by the rest of the comments and my own personal experience (Croatia) this problem seems endemic to much of southern Europe.
I suspect at least part of the issue is due to climate. I wonder if there is a similar trend in the US?
I've thought about this and discussed it a few times with friends, but every conclusion I've ever reached seems quite unscientific, so I've never held on to any of it.
There are quite a few counterexamples of thriving economies with warm climates: California, Miami, Texas, Singapore off the top of my mind. Historically, the Greeks and Romans achieved splendor in the classical era in Southern Europe. In the modern era, the Ottomans and some Italic kingdoms did as well. Spain and Portugal most certainly did as well, but maybe these are all too similar to oil-rich countries nowadays in that they held quasi-monopolies over valuable resources of their time, so I'm not sure they would qualify as much as the others.
Conversely, there are quite a few examples of really bad economies in cold climates.
There may be some correlation between climate and the odds of success of a nation or region, but I believe the counter-examples prove there is no definite causation. It's too easy to fall into the fatalistic idea of "we're fucked because it's warm and cozy here" but I will refuse to accept that until I see unequivocal scientific evidence to back it up.
i used to work at an IBM office in the southwest. at the time we were considered lazy and laid back compared to the old school IBM offices back on the east coast
> and employees are demotivated and must therefore look to anything but work for fulfillment
It is a sad state of affairs that people are looking for "fulfillment" in work at all. Why are we still forced to work 40 hours a week or more to barely survive?
Note how I never said that work should be your main source of fulfillment.
But yes, I whole-heartedly believe that people should derive some meaning out of work, as they devote ~40 of their waking hours to that activity, and it can be a cornerstone of a person's identity. And meaning can take many forms: that you're doing something for yourself, for your family, for your community or your nation, that you intrinsically enjoy the task at hand, or a combination thereof.
This is a common characteristic of thriving nations I've observed in my travels and readings, and conversely, I think that nations that do not have this trait are bound to decline or even crash.
Note how I also do not entirely blame Spaniards for a problem that is clearly systemic; on the other hand, I do believe that we as individual citizens should remain strong in the face of adversity, and not succumb to providential fatalism, as this will also inevitably lead to national misery.
People should make living wages, without forced overwork, burnout, and other sorts of abuse. But if I get fulfillment out of my work, could I please? It's not for everyone, but for me it's everything.
We don't need to work 40 hours a week to "barely survive", these 40 hours give people a standard of living that was unthinkable centuries ago. If you accept the lower standards of living of the past you can work much fewer hours. On the other hand if you want modern housing, electricity, water, gas, Internet, a modern house, a car, a smartphone, a computer, fridge, freezer, washing machine, dishwasher, etc., then of course you need to work to afford them.
I’m yet another spaniard abroad for close to a decade and couldn’t agree more, it’s like night and day.
The only way to have a decent job in Spain is by working for a foreign company (as a remote worker or FTE if they have a spanish office) from which you can get a decent salary and work conditions or creating your own company if you’re successful. Otherwise, working for spanish companies in Spain is most of the times a death sentence and may as well make you hate your job forever.
Plenty of assholes bosses in Spain, in my experience I have been very honest from the beginning I had sick people I have to take care of and sometimes I have to leave early or I can't just go to work I was always willing to work remote that day when the job allowed it.
The worst part of working in Spain is the work is usually from 9 to 14 and from 15 to 18 or variations of that, instead of 8 hours straight.
Well, we have in Germany in a German company mandatory 42 minutes long lunch break. So 8 hours straight isn’t feasible. I would really love to ditch 42 minutes long break and have real 15 minutes meal break with punchcard sign out/sign in. Now we just have one hour long breaks taking a walk and eating afterwards.
Can't have that in Germany as labour laws require a 30 minutes break if working more than 6 hours and an extra 15 minutes if working more than 9 hours (including the 30 minutes break.
So the best your company could do would be 30 minutes instead of 42.
No one should work 8 hours straight but something like 7.00-15.00. Spain also has a mandatory break after 6 hours of work (15 mins and up) and it counts as working time.
In the steel industry there are three working times, 6.00 - 14.00, 14.00 - 22.00, 22.00 - 6.00 much better than working from 9.00 to 14.00 and from 15.00 to 18.00.
From next door Portugal its the same thing exactly, negative feedback loop. Here we work to live, and in other northern countries they live to work.
I never forget I was on a plane next to a German fellow he asked me if I liked to work, I said "yes because I like to build stuff, but if I worked as cashier earning minimum wage I would not probably like it", he said "Why so? Even if making a small wage you are useful and you see people and greet them ..." that simply made me think and it broke a little bit of the negative feedback, and I really think that I was brainwashed to hate any job. By the way we are not all like that but most are.
I'm Spanish myself, I worked there for 10 years, and I never understood that mindset. Every place where I worked I would leave as soon as my working day ended. I'm now working in Japan, a country famous for inventing the word "karoshi" (death from overwork), I'm I do the same.
The only place where I would leave late was when I was working as a research assistant at my university, because my boss was super nice, the environment was friendly, my job was really interesting, and I was happy.
I have one of the most exciting jobs one can have, being an academic, and still in Spain the system does as much as it can to make it a tedious toil.
We are always swamped in huge piles of bureaucracy, it's difficult not to be caught in some evaluation or other that requires you to spend months devoting countless hours to mindless paperwork (for the last one, I literally submitted a more than 1800-page PDF. I'm not exaggerating, I just checked). There are so many evaluations (6-year research evaluations from the Spanish government, research complement evaluations from the regional government, evaluations of research centers, evaluations of the PhD program, 5-year Docentia teaching evaluations, accreditations for the countless positions in the scale, with the subsequent evaluation for the position itself...) that we are subject to several a year, each with their own CV format and their own forms incompatible with the rest and asking for different things. And then there is the day-to-day bureaucracy where buying a computer can mean filling 10-15 different forms.
Paperwork takes most of our time and being able to do some "real work" feels like a reward that one has to earn. Still the real work is rewarding, but I wish it were like in other countries (say northern Europe, the US...) where real work can be most of the time. (And why didn't I migrate? Because of attachment to my place and my loved ones, like many people here. If work were my main driver in life I'd have been out of here long ago).
As for the experiment, I hope it achieves success but I wouldn't hold my breath. Under the current political climate, I'm afraid even if it's an undisputable success, the moment a right-wing government is voted to office they will tear it down because it's "communism", "handouts", "will turn us into Venezuela" or something like that. It's difficult to achieve anything with the current political polarization (and the main party that was between both blocs, currently in danger of extinction).
To me, that attitude sounds like a good thing. It sounds like the Spanish, or at least the Spanish that you’ve come across, haven’t been sucked in by the unforgiving ideals of capitalism. It pleases me that they’d find ways to enjoy their life that don’t involve economic efficiency
I've been working 4 days since 2006, when our first child was born. I don't see myself going back to working 5 days a week, even when the youngest one is older. I get to spend more time with our children, and when they're in school (I'm off on Wednesday) I have the entire day to myself. It's totally worth the pay cut!
Fun fact: 50% of employed people here in The Netherlands are working parttime in some form.
In fact, 4 10s aren't much harder than 4 8s - for me travel time was dominant as I had to physically go run a lab. So I actually kept my salary while getting permanent three-day weekends. And I justified it by being able to get setup and cleaned up outside of normal work hours which was true and glorious.
This is true but in many companies they won't give you the 4 10s option. The reason is that the company can cut 20% pay but realistically set the same targets (where possible). So the expectations don't realistically drop by 20%, just the time you have to reach them and the pay. Depending on how much you were payed to begin with you may find this a reasonable compromise.
I did 4x9 also for a while, also with a long (1h15) commute. Was OK for a year, but I was glad that my next job was 4x8 again, with 1 day WFH. So 3 days in the office, 1 day from home. Perfect!
I did 36 hours for a good while (taking a friday off every two weeks); that was nice, but it wasn't as necessary anymore during lockdown, because I gained an hour a day for not commuting.
But another reason is that because of the corona, our company didn't do as good as expected and they didn't give anyone any raises, so working a few hours extra is a nice increase in wage as well.
Mind you, otoh I could make a lot more if I were to work elsewhere.
"The Workweek" is, surprisingly, a really deep topic.
Keynes' 15 hr work week prediction, for example, is a fascinating rabbit to travel down. The typical economics professors' "why it failed" explanations (at least circa 2005) are tellingly evasive. They preserve all Keynes' premises^ with a "what "happened" scenario that threads a tiny needle.
IMO, regardless of which rabbit hole you follow, it turns out that workweek is a very culturally defined thing. It isn't very reactive to economic forces at all. People get rich. Societies get rich. Women join the workforce. Efficiency rises by N000%. Workweeks remain similar.
Where quantity of work does change, it tends to be outside the workweek paradigm. Retirement became a big thing. Children don't work. Young adults do a lot of college. Women join the workforce, or don't. IE, we might work fewer years. Fewer people might work. Shortening workweeks rarely happens.
IMO, empirically, workweeks seem to be mostly a social institution... not an "economic" one. IE, economic explanations have very little predictive power because "out-of-theory" stuff is more important.
^[1]advancements in efficiency, [2] substitution effects, [3] income effects.
When my grandparents entered the workforce in Norway, the working week was typically 54 hours. When my parents entered the workforce it was limited to no more than 45 hours, and a couple of years later it was down to 42.5 hours. By the time I was born it was 40 hours. Before I entered the workforce, it was down to 37.5 hours for most employees (it is legally limited to 40 hours, but 37.5 has been the norm since 1986).
While you have a point that other factors like retirement age (and in recent years, a growing fear of an aging population) has certainly been part of the reason why it hasn't dropped as fast as some expected, in countries with a strong labour movement it certainly has dropped significantly, and even in countries with a weak labour movement it is still lower than it used to be.
I think you may be misunderestimating the original prediction.^ He predicted those drastic reduction in working hours within a generation or two, writing in 1930... It was supposed to happen by 1980.
The prediction was widely head, and relied on two non controversial ideas: income effect and substitution effect. Higher hourly wages make working more worthwhile, so people work more; Higher overall wages allow people to trade work less opt for leisure. It also relied on efficiency and gdp growth predictions which did really come true.
The orthodox reasoning for why the prediction failed is basically: We invented all this awesome new stuff. People prefer to work more, and buy more of this new stuff rather than work less. I don't believe this holds up, but it's what I was taught at uni.
Anyway... my point is that looking at the history of employment, it doesn't seem like these "economic" (in the literal sense) explanations have any predictive power. Actual changes in working patterns seem to be governed by "outside factors." Women joined the workforce. Children exited the workforce. People go to uni more. Retirement became statistically more common. Laws change. Norms change. Culture changes. Those things do affect how much we work. Economic factors like efficiency don't.
Norway is a small-sih country, and often an outlier, so IDK if it makes a good example. That said, I imagine that these changes in working hours were caused by rule changes: labour laws, union demands or somesuch. They aren't economic.
My point is that the model of the economy and the model of a worker used by Keynes to make the prediction, and by most commenters on the topic since are clearly bad models.At the margin, it doesn't even make sense to most workers. We (most of us) don't choose our work hours. We don't work 8% less because 92% of the money is enough. That marginal choice doesn't even exist. We work a job, and job hours are defined by convention.
Efficiency, GDP growth and such, over the last 91 years, haven't affected the number of hour we work. Work hasn't been static. It's just governed by other things.
If you met Keynes in 1930, you would be right to say "No. How rich we get, how technologically advanced or how productive our industries are will have no effect on how much we work...." You would have been correct. Keynes, and every economist from austrians to marxists would have been wrong.
Even today, after the prediction has long-failed empirically, economists have a hard time facing this.
I'm fully aware of the original prediction. The point is that while it was overoptimistic about the pace of reduction, working hours have declined, and have done so substantially.
I don't think you can suggest that economic factors like efficiency has not affected this - increased efficiency has been an enabler that allowed these reductions in working hours to happen without according income reductions. Without efficiency improvements, demanding these kind of reductions would not have been viable.
> Norway is a small-sih country, and often an outlier, so IDK if it makes a good example.
There is not a single country in Europe that hasn't seem a similar pattern of reductions. I used Norway as an example because I was familiar with the reductions, but this is not isolated by any means.
I don't think it's a question of pace. 20% over 90 years instead of 70% over 40 years isn't "pace." Also, Keynes predicted that people would choose fewer hours. I assume that what you are describing about Norway is an advancement of worker rights. That's not really the Keynes prediction.
It is a question, to some extent, of definitions. Does average workweek increase because more women joined the workforce? Decrease because children left the workforce? Does college count as "work? Does unemployment factor in? Should we consider Norway's average workweek shorter than Spain's because of unemployment rates? etc. There are lots of definitional issues. I'm interested in this, honestly.
The definition I'm interested is a the common sense one. What does "full time," generally, mean? Is there a normative choice, at scale, for a 15 hr workweek that is normative. The answer to this is no.
>> increased efficiency has been an enabler that allowed these reductions in working hours to happen
This why looking at old predictions is interesting. It's easy to narrate things that have already happened in ways that don't challenge our views.
Maybe there is a direct relationship between efficiency and working hours. It's just 50X weaker than Keynes (and current microeconomic theory still) predicts. That's it's an uninteresting theory. The difference between true and false is unimportant.
>> There is not a single country in Europe that hasn't seem a similar pattern of reductions
IDK... European countries are pretty different from eachother. Here in ireland, I think average workweek has increased just based on labour force participation. Historically, unemployment has been high here. In our generation it is very low. Female participation also went from very low to very high here. We also went from mostly self employed to mostly employed in that period.
Ireland was never very industrial, so the "standard" or union normative working conditions are not as specifically defined as it is in Germany, for example.
> “The only red lines are that we want to see a true reduction of working hours and no loss of salary or jobs.”
And there it is. (The proposal is the government pays a fraction of this for a few years before sticking the companies with this.)
It's basically just a minimum wage law but written the other way.
This always sticks the bill with the only person actually paying to begin with, the business owner. If society thinks people should be paid more perhaps it should mandate paying more for the company's products to compensate for making them pay their employees more per hour.
The reality is that wages have never kept up with productivity increase. Companies are extracting more and more productivity out of their employees, which translates to ever increasing profits.
But this is not an economical law. It's absolutely possible to sacrifice ever increases in growth for more worker time.
Not everywhere. There are many professions that do not take part in the growth of productivity. Medical Doctors for instance (even though some radiologists try hard to) are limited by interactions with their patients. The same holds for employees at points of sales, they only take part indirectly by selling more higher-priced goods.
So a shop owner that wants to stay open sees a 20% reduction in attendance by their employees. This is going to cost some people real money.
> Medical Doctors for instance (even though some radiologists try hard to) are limited by interactions with their patients
Strongly disagree, productivity increase is everywhere, surgery recovery times have been drastically decreased in the past decades, and recovery protocols accelerated across the board.
Just because doctors have a limit throughput of how many patients per day they can see, it doesn't mean that hospitals and clinics aren't increasing their productivity as a whole. If you are seing less of the same patients per week then your productivity has increased, as simple as that.
The key point GP is highlight is that productivity has basically decoupled from salaries since the 1970's, i.e. we are all collectively producing more value whilst collectively getting payed less in proportion to the value generated.
As a concrete example of doctors practices increasing their productivity: Video consultation preceded with automated triage to push more people to consultations with nurses, pharmacists etc. instead of going via a doctor first. The triage itself reduces the number of doctors consultations by removing a step in the process whenever the triage is successful.
Several companies does this (disclaimer: My employer is an investor in one of them).
> The key point GP is highlight is that productivity has basically decoupled from salaries since the 1970's, i.e. we are all collectively producing more value whilst collectively getting payed less in proportion to the value generated.
This thread is about Spain (which certainly has a lot of economic problems along with the rest of the EU), but wasn't that research mainly about the US?
My impression is some but not all of the cause is because "productivity" numbers are very confused because of how much exponentially more efficient computers have gotten. If you measure in 1970s computers, someone building a PC in 2020 has a million times more productivity.
Employees manning cash registers often also have other tasks they can do instead of operating the register for you - for instance fast food workers also make the food, and clothes workers stand there looking fashionable and tell you how good you look.
These are often things we'd all rather they be doing, in fact. Which is why McDonald's is still popular in Australia when the national minimum wage is ~20USD/hour and they have automated ordering stations.
On the question of MDs, here (in Europe, YMMV) we have doctors who have either have their own practice, and therefore work as little or as much as they want, or are part of hospital staff which is under its own separate legal regimen for work time (with more work hours than the average person, usually). In either case, I think they are not likely to be affected directly by changes to the "typical" work week.
The argument about increased productivity is a fallacy. Only the primary and secondary sectors have a long track record of increased productivity, in services on the other hands -which represent an ever growing share of the working population in western countries- productivity has been stagnating for multiple decades (in some industries it's actually receding, thankfully compensated by the few industries that have good growth).
not sure why this is downvoted. This is known as Baumol's cost disease. Policemen, school teachers, or painters today are no more (or barely more) productive than they were 50 or 100 years ago, yet their salaries have multiplied.
This is so because when salaries in productive industries start to rise every other sector also has to raise wages to attract any worker at all, which in turn raises prices. It's also why coffee is more expensive in Silicon Valley than in Podunk Idaho. It's not because baristas in California are more productive, it's because the region is richer and you can't buy your freshly brewed latte from China or India.
Some economists in Spain say that starting from this premise, and trying to apply it universally for the economy may have disastrous results.
The problem here is the effect on productivity. While there are some jobs where decreasing 20% of working hours while keeping productivity constant may be perfectly feasible, there are lots of jobs in Spain's precarious service-oriented economy where this is not possible.
For example, take all jobs depending on tourism: how is a waiter going to produce the same in four days of work than in five?
The same applies for Spain's public sector. Many public workers already have very good working conditions, but more importantly, the same effect described above also applies to them: it is not clear whether their working hours can be compressed without a significant loss of productivity.
To be clear I'm not against the idea, as there may be some merit to it if applied reasonably and on a tactical level, as part of much greater economic reforms. But I fear this is not what will happen; rather, populist politicians will take it and run with it because it sounds good, without any regards for its real implications, and without addressing the much harder and endemic problems of the Spanish economy such as the eye-watering unemployment levels and the lack of opportunities for our youth.
> how is a waiter going to produce the same in four days of work than in five?
By not being tired on the fifth, not taking wrong orders and not dropping glasses. Same as a software engineer would.
I see your point tho, and it is very valid. I am just playing angels advocate here.
But, iirc, earliest research on the topic was conducted in a hospital, which is a services business, same as a restaurant. Increases in production (I said production and not productivity) were found. Research is not solid.
If that's your view, then that means that capitalist oriented structures running those operations cannot justify their profit share. Since capital depending - doing more with less - is the only reason they are allowed to take a profit in the first place.
We can, of course, move all those operations to the Job Guarantee if that is your view of capitalism.
Personally I'm more optimistic about improved methods and machinery.
> capitalist oriented structures running those operations cannot justify their profit share
They don't have to justify anything, they're profitable. Out compete them, with your 80% workers, if you think it's a better way.
> Personally I'm more optimistic about improved methods and machinery.
The companies are optimistic about machinery too, as it'll help them achieve the elusive 0% worker. It feels like you're trying to devalue humans out of any possibility of employment, not help them.
"Out compete them, with your 80% workers, if you think it's a better way."
Once there is a guaranteed alternative job available - to balance the power discrepancy - then competition can be turned up to 11. At which point these operations 'profit' will be seen as what it is - under bidding labour in a system that is systemically short of work.
Workers need that 'no deal' option adding. And businesses need the "what about the jobs, can I have a bailout" option removing. Then competition will be 100% fair - and effective. Driving forward the capital improvements we need to have a better standard of living.
> And businesses need the "what about the jobs, can I have a bailout" option removing.
Hell yeah. Welfare for business is bad.
> Workers need that 'no deal' option adding.
Well, yes. But to some degree you're supposed to build that for yourself. Without that requirement you have no incentive to save and work smart.
I don't think bosses should have the power (ie, society should disrupt it, you're right) to keep people on the edge of poverty so that they have leverage, but I also don't think people should have much say over their boss other than to refuse the job. Either unbalances the market.
> This always sticks the bill with the only person actually paying to begin with, the business owner. If society thinks people should be paid more perhaps it should mandate paying more for the company's products to compensate for making them pay their employees more per hour.
You just said the business owner is the "only person paying" and then contradicted yourself by saying "people" pay more. Everyone pays for things because the economy is a cycle.
Intervening in the economy (eg with minimum wages and just giving people money) can improve the health of the economy by increasing money velocity; economists don't think it's strictly bad to do this anymore*. It can lead to inflation but that's fine, most developed economies don't have enough of it.
> economists don't think it's strictly bad to do this anymore*
Those same educated voices also tend to support UBI and other ... less than fully considered social engineering ideas. When it comes to government mandates I'm cautious, especially because you can't usefully go back. Even if they're a PhD they're in a field where you cannot test your ideas.
If you want to pay a worker more, actually do that. Walk up to a barrista and offer them a monthly cheque to make up the difference between their wage and your proposed minimum. Your vote that Starbucks must pay more usually isn't accompanied with a certain minimum purchase guarantee that they can use to actually fund this.
> You just said the business owner is the "only person paying" and then contradicted yourself by saying "people" pay more. Everyone pays for things because the economy is a cycle.
Not usefully in that sense. I'm the only one paying my rent. You're not doing anything towards it. Even if you shop at my employer and indirectly pay my salary, you aren't putting money towards my rent. I'm the one who makes the food/fun/shelter tradeoff. If there's a slack month or unexpected expenses, I suffer.
If you actually paid the store an extra 15% line-item specifically to use to pay their employees then I would accept that.
" If society thinks people should be paid more perhaps it should mandate paying more for the company's products to compensate for making them pay their employees more per hour."
If you pay people more, then you can. Basic Henry Ford.
If people pay you more, then you can. Ford's money came from products and they have to be priced to cover his higher salaries. That helped his workforce but made cars more expensive for everyone else.
It also only worked because he had a huge first-mover advantage and wasn't facing price-pressure from competition. His grand plan could have bankrupted him in a week if the market hadn't been right for it.
"Ford's money came from products and they have to be priced to cover his higher salaries."
When you drive additional volume you get cheaper output due to economies of scale effects.
There isn't a fixed amount of stuff, any more than there is a fixed amount of money to make that stuff.
Sales depend upon people having the money to buy things. Wages are the major component of profit. And quantity expanding firms will always outcompete and destroy price expanding firms.
Aren't fewer workdays better for employment, because more people can be employed? I'm guessing it's more complicated, but is there some clear tendency?
Part of the complication if the enormous taxes and bureaucracy involved in companies hiring workers, it's a real pain for start-ups and smaller companies.
I will give you one concrete example: companies in Spain with more than 50 workers must carry out salary audits to avoid gender discrimination [1]. These and other perverse incentives keep many companies from growing, which in turn hurt the economy and reduces demand for workers, driving wages down.
It starts earlier than that: payroll tax in Spain is 36%.
If you're a micro-company, you can probably get away with paying each employee cash, or via B2B payments.
Once you reach any reasonable scale, you have to formalise those contracts.
This is a problem across the EU, apart from areas like the UK and Scandinavia which don't have payroll taxes (where interestingly tech seems to be flourishing).
If you make the definition of fulltime worker 30 hours a week instead of 40 hours a week, it certainly does make more people fulltime employed, but it also seems like cheating.
In the US underemployment was blamed on laziness, lack of training, etc etc for years but the actual cause is the Fed setting interest rates too high, and when they stopped we got more employment than ever (as of Jan 2020). If you simply make employers compete more to hire people, they will do a good job training them, making them more productive, ignoring minor criminal records and so on.
Yes, if you lower the bar for the definition of employment more people will fit the category. This doesn't fundamentally improve or worsen any problem. You are just redefining a term. The underlying reality hasn't changed.
Well, with a reduced work week, some jobs ( mostly service jobs that need to provide full coverage) would require more workers to cover the whole week, so i really don't see the issue here with regards to unemployment.
We are talking about Spain, where most people work in service jobs for very small companies that are already struggling to stay alive. If a bar needs, let's say, four bartenders now, they are not going to contract a fifth one with the increment of costs that implies (with no increase, at all, in their income). They probably cannot even afford it. What they will do is to keep the same four bartenders and pay a part of their salary in black money, increasing the submerged economy, and in the long term being detrimental for the economy and, therefore, employment.
We need more high quality jobs, not paying more for the low quality jobs we already have.
It's not necessarily less work per person, it's less time per person. That matters in cases where coverage is needed ( medical personnel, police, fire department, secretaries, phone support, hospitality, etc.) but in others where only the output matters ( like software engineering, lawyers, marketing, even factories in some cases etc. ), there have been multiple studies around the subject and they all claim that fewer work hours increase productivity.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I think we should be careful with this discourse.
Rather than increases in productivity, increases in production should be emphasized. And yes, you cannot increase labor production without an increase in productivity, everything else equal.
Iirc, increase in production is about 40%. So working Monday to Thursday, you produce the same as someone, working 5 days produces Monday to next week's Tuesday morning.
You're right. It's time spent and not work performed. Original comment edited.
However, in many professions being available for a given number of hours is often a major part of the job, and that means there will be a direct requirement to hire more people in order to cover the reduced working hours.
Simple, remove or reduce all barriers to employment:
- No minimum wage laws.
- Reduce or remove taxes paid by companies.
- Reduce or remove forced social contributions by companies on behalf of the workers.
- Remove bureaucracy and taxes to start companies.
- Facilitate capital investment by foreign firms.
It's simple but not easy, because people vote for policies that sound good but are actually either ineffective or directly give the opposite result.
Everybody needs something to do with their day. And those you really need to be working a full week to produce what we really need will only do that if there is something material for them to exchange for their efforts.
Of course you will downvote me, but as an inhabitant of such country, the truth is, this is the result of the socialist and incompetent government that is in power due to the even more incompetent opposition.
It's been long since we were the leaders of employment creation in the eurozone, back when Rajoy was in power.
Maybe they're downvoting you because they are also Spanish, they know who Rajoy is and what he did, and what effects a pandemic produces on your economy regardless of the party in the government.
I certainly do not miss Rajoy, but I whole-heartedly believe that a social-communist government is possibly the worst alternative to get us out of this hole.
We need jobs, a lot of them, not only in the public sector, and I think that our current government is tremendously ill-equipped for this task.
Has anyone noticed how members of the government rarely, if ever, talk about job creation anymore? Politicians will lie about anything, but they don't even dare lie about this - they simply avoid these murky waters altogether.
My theory is they know full-well that the only path to growth and private sector job creation is by taking measures (that moderates like Minister of the Economy Nadia Calviño possibly support) like modifying labor laws and lowering taxes which sound right-wing and therefore sit especially poorly with the communist wing of the government.
The only alternative to that is, as some communists like Iglesias or Garzón are consistently pointing out, to nationalize a bunch of industries (they've talked about examples ranging from banks to media companies) and turn to a centralized economy.
I hope I'm wrong but I clearly do not see how the situation will improve under the current circumstances.
Come on, the government is not "communist" in any practical sense of the word, anymore than the right is "fascist" as people in the left usually call it. Those words work well to inflame the masses and polarize political campaigns but not for serious political analysis.
Sure, some individual members of the government (with very limited decision-making power, being the minority members of a coalition) declare themselves so. In an already very diluted way. And they do some political posturing with nationalizations (which aren't even a communist thing. If nationalizing a few strategic industries is communism, then what was Spain in the 80s with lots of nationalized industry? The USSR?). But it's not really going to happen. They know it, we know it.
Macron has also set forth the idea of nationalizing some industries to face the COVID crisis, and I actually think it's more likely to happen in France (with its notoriously non-communist government) than in Spain.
> with very limited decision-making power, being the minority members of a coalition
You seem to follow Spanish politics, so surely you must have seen how moderates like Calviño are often put in extremely rough spots? The communist wing of the government is not nearly as powerless as you claim to be.
We'll see what comes out of labor reform, for example, but I suspect there won't be any measures that are conducive to the creation of good jobs, or any jobs at all.
> I certainly do not miss Rajoy, but I whole-heartedly believe that a social-communist government is possibly the worst alternative to get us out of this hole.
Why is that? We said we needed a new labour law so you can lay off people at no cost, because they said that was the reason the unemployment rate was so high here in Spain. And we did it. And we still have the very same law, nobody is changing it. They also didn't raise taxes very much, in fact not as much as Rajoy did when he took office.
Instead, I think one of the reasons our economy is so vulnerable is because we are so much dependent on tourism and also there seems nobody can innovate and create a business other than a restaurant. But this is hardly our current government's fault.
(Of course, calling this government "communist" is a joke in poor taste, but people from outside Spain may believe this country is the new Soviet Union).
> Of course, calling this government "communist" is a joke in poor taste, but people from outside Spain may believe this country is the new Soviet Union
Many members of the government (eg, Iglesias or Garzón) repeatedly define themselves as communists, though. And they regularly use the term "social-communist" to literally define the government. So maybe they are the ones joking and deep down inside they believe in an innovative market economy, albeit progressive?
> Instead, I think one of the reasons our economy is so vulnerable is because we are so much dependent on tourism and also there seems nobody can innovate and create a business other than a restaurant. But this is hardly our current government's fault.
Because while I agree with the opinion that the government is not at fault for the lack of innovation or productive model in Spain, I seriously doubt a government that is so left-leaning (and in which part is literally communist, and wants the nationalization of many industries) is going to foster an environment for innovation and entrepreneurship...
I don't read any of that drivel, this is a term that Garzón or Iglesias themselves repeatedly use. So I guess I just can't take them for their word on that one, and that they're in fact progressive capitalists who believe in private property and have clear ideas on how to make an innovative market economy out of Spain.
Isn't it true that Garzón and Pablo Iglesias identify themselves as communists?
If the leader of a party identifies himself as a Nazi, it's a nazi party. If the leader identifies as a communist, it's a communist party. That's it. That's the truth.
If a nazi is in power, how would you call the government? The same applies to the communist.
Stop reading Escolar, that guy didn't even finish his degree.
It is a modest trial of a four day work week. You are so far from disaster. This can only be a good thing, if it doesn't work they stop doing it, but probably it will work because people are more productive when they have time to breath.
Spaniards don’t appreciate research, we only nod when solutions sprout out of the blue.
In fact, less work hours will be a complication for many -as they are used to justify the work done by sitting for extra-hours at their desk. It’s sad, but it’s also my daily routine.
Check out Czechia. We have a communist party that supports a cabinet lead by a billionaire capitalist who literally sacrificed thousands of lives for better election results.
You should get better opposition. Do you have a functioning Pirate party already? It seems dormant. Maybe try to revive it?
In years to come we will look down on the 5 day working week in the same way we currently do with 15hr factory shifts during the industrial revolution.
It absolutely blows my mind that 99% of office roles are still 5 days / week, Monday to Friday - why is there basically no variation on this model?
Four 8 hour days. Australia the norm is 7.5 for a working week of 37.5hrs. This proposal would mean 32 hours of work.
I think a real 4 day working week would be closer to 28 hours or less: it should mean employers get somebody else for the fifth day or three three days left in the week: closer to jobshare, no overtime, people work less but the work is shared around.
Spain is a country where most of the people work in the service sector, I see this reduction complicated for this sector. And with the loss of competitiveness and industry in recent years, I think this measure would only be applicable to civil servants (For those who do not know, Spain is a special case, there are a lot of civil servants, well paid, and besides, it is almost impossible for them to lose their job unless... they assassinate their boss for example). And coming from where the proposal comes from, I would not be surprised if this were the case. They seem intent on destroying any private initiative...
We had to go to 0.8 FTE due to trimming costs when covid hit - along with furloughs etc (UK based). We're all back up to 1FTE pay now, but we're basically still working 0.8.
Fridays are now "flexible". This means that you should check slack/email for fires, get your house in order for the next week, and, if there's something urgent you're working on (actually urgent, we haven't just reclassified all work as urgent) then you should probably be progressing it. Otherwise, enjoy the rest of the day.
I left my job and created a software consulting company two years ago just to be able to work 3/4 day per week it turns out to be more profitable than my previous jobs. I kept even a smaller salary.My company has enough funds to pay my salary for 4 years without working or revenue. The more this number is bigger the more I become happy. I'm trying also to build products to have more revenue streams (no success so far)
I never quite understand things like this and suspect they are political dog and pony shows.
Many people already work 4 and 3 and 2 and 1 day weeks. Many of these people's schedules would not be affected by these laws. The only point of these laws is to see what what happen if you enforced them systemically en masse. If you don't do that, you are exactly where you started which is a few people having this privilege but not everyone.
And most of the potential rewards as well as potential consequences are only going to expose themself when the policy is enacted en masse. Like of course the few people you give the privilege to are going to happy. I don't really think that was up for debate. The question is is what effects will it have on the broader economy and running a trial with .05% of the population tells you nothing about that.
It seems that we're slowly heading to a place where salaries are going to be much lower, because of less working hours and loss of the kinds of jobs that paid a good living wage.
Or those same jobs will just pay a lower salary.
It could be good or bad.
The good part is, less buying. Less shopping. Smaller homes. Lower needs. etc.
The bad part, all of that part of the economy that was depending those incomes is going to have to transition to something else.
Maybe it could lead to more people moving to lower cost countries... OR... more people living like how people live in Bangkok, Beijing or Bali.
Either way, the end the middle class as we know it in America is quickly coming to an end.
I definitely see lower wages due to less employment (as is rife in the UK with our zero hour contracts). House prices will rise unabated, compounding the cost of living issues.
I’ll only support reduced work weeks (because it’ll inevitably be used to reduce wages eventually) if our housing problem is fixed.
Automation does not reduce jobs. It is impossible to run out of jobs, because 1. demand is infinite 2. jobs are based on "comparative advantage", and people have comparative advantage with automation because they're the same species as their customers.
Also, this isn't even happening. It's mostly an artifact because productivity of e.g. computer manufacturing looks super efficient if you measure each 2020 computer as containing a million 1970s computers.
> Wages will continue to decline with an oversupply of labor.
This is called the "lump of labor" fallacy. Increasing the number of people increases both supply and demand, and therefore improves the economy, and therefore may raise wages.
(Economists don't simply use supply and demand for the labor market anyway, they consider things like monopsony and search models.)
It doesnt have to be. Overall productivity is increasing (or at least has been for the last decades). So only the product of work hours times productivity determines if salaries get much lower or not. (Of course if from one day to the next you work only 50% then your claim is true)
House prices not necessarily. House prices are driven by demand and by ability to borrow. If everyone takes a pay cut, everyone can pay less and house prices should go down. The only reason house prices have gone so silly recently is insanely cheap credit has let everyone bid against each other to drive house prices up.
That's only part of the story. Current house prices are so high that only the absolute top of the income class can afford to pay off a mortgage.
Just an example: In Berlin you will pay around 850.000EUR for a newly-built single family home of around 160qm on a 600qm plot. With realistic interest rates of around 1.5 to 1.8% it will take you around 4.8% per year to pay this off in the (roughly) 25 to 30 years you have left of working years if you are a mid-thirties professional. This (conveniently) gives you a factor of 0.004 per month to pay for this house. That's a whopping 3400EUR per month.
Now normally you should not pay more than 33% of your net income for living. That means, such a house is affordable, even with the relatively low interest rates, for families with a net income of 10kEUR per month. How many mid-thirty families have that kind of income?
So what drives these prices is actually inherited wealth. Inherit real estate and you can cut that price easily in half. 1700EUR a month is much more reasonable and that does not even account for the even better interest rates you will see. Notably you just transfer your inherited wealth, you do not lose it.
>So what drives these prices is actually inherited wealth.
This is so true for Germany/Most of Western Europe. Buying property is a pipe dream at this point, even for white collar professionals, if you have no help from the bank of mom and dad.
Building has just not kept up with demand (can't build and dilute the value of established NIMBY property owners) and wages have not kept up with the rising property prices.
And rent freezing for the established ones further increases the cost for those new to the market. So good luck building wealth for a mortgage when you'll be paying over half of your net income for big city rent.
I feel like unless something changes, we're looking at some massive revolts in the next decades if things continue along this path of squeezing the middle and lower classes to further transfer their wealth to the rich, all carefully enabled by the ruling politicians.
That's why so many desperate young ones are gambling their savings on GME and other memes, since they realized that unless you're born into wealth, the game is rigged against you building wealth no matter how hard you work. So then, why bother working hard as that just makes the rich even richer but not you.
Real estate rarely goes down, outside of a total bubble deflation. People just hold onto it longer, unable to profitably sell, further trapping others in a cycle of rent.
The current bubble will drain money from producers to the value-empty mortgage sector for decades.
Your model that people can afford to hold onto an asset with maintenance costs forever seems like it can't be true. It's possible for your primary residence, but that's because homes have a use - you can live in them. If you're using it and paying the mortgage then it doesn't matter if you're underwater.
Anyway, this can be solved by waiting for them to die, and in the meantime building more houses with more efficient land use.
It's almost totally true for homeowners who live in the "flooded" home, trapped and unable to move. For investors it depends if they can afford the loss from selling at below purchase, and how much profit they have to eat into. Large companies can afford to liquidate and leave the space temporarily, putting their real-estate funds into development or something other than retail rent. Small investors with only a few houses are the ones who most impact retail house rent (not apartments) and this is where the rent trap is, they aren't living in these homes (cancelling rent with ownership) but their reluctance to sell for a new reasonable price means their renters are denied a chance to get ahead.
As for new builds, much of that money is held by the large rental companies and needs them to transfer out of the rental space, which they won't do until the market looks sane. Maybe not as long as waiting for people to die, but still painful.
What a trap we built by trying to make our residences an investment.
My city Pittsburgh would also like to have a word with you. It's doing well now after a 40 year downturn. Long enough to ruin many peoples lives permanently where they couldn't outlast the cycle.
There are A LOT of places in the US where real estate has not been a panacea of wealth accumulation.
The immediate implications of reducing workweeks varies a lot by job type.
Doing 8 hrs of work done in 5 is not possible for a dental nurse, waiter or an air traffic controller. Those jobs literally need asses in seats for N hours. The hour reduction game is almost 0-sum. Do less work. Hire more employees. Pay less. Charge more.
This is a lot of jobs.
For a software developer, hr executive, or user happiness advocate... reduced working hours is not necessarily 0-sum. What we think of, when we think of reduced work hours depends on which of these is our anchor.
I worked in one... engineers didn't work quite that much but about 60 hrs a week. Saturday a full day is standard all year around. The peculiar thing was that right next to our cubicles there was a level 1 phone tech support team. Those guys worked exactly 40 hour weeks. Or team of test engineers were paid $600/month. The tech support guys only $400. I would often ask the engineers if they were cool with the fact that they made the same pay as a phone guy but had to work much harder. At first they were all puzzled, then I'd point out their hourly wage. They all would respond that it didn't matter, it was about social status. Even some of the ladies working in designer bag stores made better pay than them, but didn't have the statis in their view. It kind of blew myind, status means nothing to me, but I am considered eccentric. Anyway, thankfully my base pay was higher than both groups due to nationality.
My friends who work those hours make well over double what I do from their bonuses. They work these hours because they do datacentre builds and these cost the company a fortune for every day. Doing anything to shorten them is worthwhile and it encourages the type of people who'd work in the oil fields.
There's no way a FAANG could hold onto staff requiring 72h/w without paying huge bonuses.
I wish it would be the beginning of something but I doubt it will.
Businessmen in Spain sees the worker as another machine in the factory and a lot of them work actively to fired the workers that try to unionize. I talk from experience having worked in 2 some what small (50 to 150 workers), family-owned companies, where in one, the union representative was the son of the owner and in the other there wasn't any union because 2 years before I entered, the person who tried to create a union office in the company was fired and reported to the police with false pretences.
You have exceptions of course but the vast majority are very very conservative with ideas between right wing or extreme right wing.
My opinion is that the wealth, like in any place, is very very bad balanced.
Studies are viewed as useless, because they won't give you a good job or because there are some part of society that sees them as something not cool.
We don't have a solid STEM-based industry like for example Germany or France.
Also, We are highly dependant from tourism, being tourism the largest sector in our GDP (in some regions is the 25% )and we don't re-invesment that wealth in R&D, which is arround 1,25%.
Plus political instability from various populism movements is the perfect mix for a country stuck in time. Without any project of future.
My feeling is: spanish business is a somewhat feudal system.
I do not believe that business owners are trying to maximize the efficacy of their resources. If it were so, this kind of proposals would be accepted by the business community, given research on the topic. I believe this proposal is a tremendous opportunity.
I believe business want to control people. As such, one less day is less control. In exchange for Business controlling your life you get different degrees of financial security. Feudalism.
This attitude is reinforced by tradition and misconception. And both employees and employers are at fault. Gee, I am at fault! I haven't worked a 40 hour week in my entire working life. On my defense I would say that I have sent juniors and interns home... But still.
I have also said that research on the topic is not solid, but of this proposal were to be properly implemented could help solve that issue.
Politicians doing a proper policy implementation is a different can of worms. I was hoping that some progressive business would actually start doing 4 hour weeks, rather than a top down approach.
I agree with you. I didn't know how to label it but feudalism sounds right.
And I think that employees are greater at fault that employers. We must know when to say enough is enough.
In the second company, I had a couple of interns and I saw that the first week they where doing like 1 or 2 hours every day more than they should by contract (4 hours/day contract). I invited them both to a coffee outside the company and talk about them about doing more hours for free.
I still have contact with one of them and before this thing of Covid exploded, we talked and said that he had with his intern the same conversation I had with him about free hours.
I think that we need a strong class / work mentality, something lost in recent years, and that it comes from education.
Other thing most people don't understand is that unpaid overtime is actually tax fraud.
I have never seen paid overtime in Spain. I read someone in HN saying she got paid overtime tho.
A couple of years ago my girlfriend came from Spain to live with me in Germany and got a job. After the first day she came home at 10:00 pm (work ended at 6:00 pm). I was worried that they were making her work to hard the first day, but when she came home she told me she just stayed late doing nothing for the new boss seeing her put in the effort... That really really reminded me why I left Spain to work in Germany. I just do not get that kind of attitude, when I confronted her about it she told me that this behavior was expected in all the places she worked at. Leaving early (or even on time), even if you are effective and have done you work is frowned upon by both coworkers and managers. Paradoxically people might even consider you lazy.
So I am really expectant to see how this experiment turns out and if it achieves a change in mentality or if it is just a way to spend tax money and make some “friends of friends” rich as politicians like to do in Spain by subsidizing companies that once the state money runs out go back to normal.