The Virtues of a 28-hour Week: Work less, pollute less

THE VIRTUES OF A 28-HOUR WEEK
Work less, pollute less
Reducing working hours would give people more spare time, lead to a fairer distribution of labor and wealth, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. But this bold vision is too frightening for some, as became clear when France’s Citizens’ Convention on Climate withdrew its proposal for a 28-hour week.
BY CLAIRE LECŒUVRE Work less, pollute less, by Claire Lecœuvre (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June 2021)

‘The Land of Cockaigne’ by Pieter Brueghel the Elder.
‘How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% of their 1990 levels by 2030, while ensuring social justice?’ In order to tackle this problem, France’s Citizens’ Convention on Climate (CCC) initially suggested cutting the working week to 28 hours. But this was not among the 149 proposals presented to President Emmanuel Macron in June 2020 (later considerably diluted by the government and parliament); 65% of the members of the CCC — who are chosen at random — had voted against including it, for fear of starting a society-wide debate and because they doubted that it would have any direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions. ‘It’s more a question of wellbeing at work and social change than of lowering greenhouse gas emissions,’ said Mélanie Blanchetot, a CCC member.

All the same, the idea deserves serious consideration. A recent study concludes that the time we spend working and our carbon footprint are closely linked (1), though the authors say a lack of data and the large number of factors involved make it impossible to quantify that relationship precisely. In 2007 two American economists established that, if the US moved to the same average working hours as the 15 richest countries in the EU, it would reduce its energy consumption by 18%. Conversely, if the European Union adopted the US’s working hours, its consumption would grow by 25% (2). In 2018 another study showed that, in the US, 1% more working time would lead to 0.65-0.67% more greenhouse emissions (3). This confirms Swedish research, according to which a 1% reduction in working hours would lead to a 0.8% drop in household emissions (4).

Those who work least and have the lowest incomes have the smallest carbon footprint. Does that mean the whole world has to be poorer? ‘If people are more time rich, the environmental intensity of their consumption will be lower. By producing less in exchange for more spare time, we create wellbeing in a different way,’ said François-Xavier Devetter, an economist at the University of Lille. Having more spare time allows another type of enrichment, through numerous activities that we can do ourselves without spending money: cooking, DIY, sewing, gardening, repairing a bicycle or a car etc.

A weapon against the pandemic
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is essential if we want to avoid climate chaos, but is made more difficult by the link between emissions and the production of goods and services, with the energy consumption this requires. Replacing fossil fuels with other energy sources and improving energy efficiency will not sufficiently reduce industrial economies’ impact on the environment, and the idea that economic growth can be decoupled from greenhouse gas emissions is nonsense. However, the link between growth in wellbeing and growth in production — at least, production as it is conceived today — can be broken.

Reclaiming spare time (a lynchpin of workers’ struggles) through political and trade union action has proved to be both possible and realistic.

Work is the source of all real wealth and an essential lever of change. It reflects the organization of our society and the value we place on what we produce — or don’t produce — materially and socially. Economists like Jean Gadrey suggest we should think about a post-growth society, in which the metrics would not be linked to the amount we produce, but our ability to meet social needs (5) . ‘Adopting different metrics and integrating production into an environmental framework allows us to replace the tyranny of growth with concern for social needs, while protecting the natural environment and maintaining social cohesion,’ writes sociologist Dominique Méda (6). The question remains as to which areas of production to reduce, or even do away with, and which to maintain. This is why it is important to involve the population in the decision-making process.

The reduction of working hours has been one of the greatest leaps of human progress in modern history. Reclaiming spare time (a lynchpin of workers’ struggles) through political and trade union action has proved to be both possible and realistic. In France, the number of hours worked by each worker has halved since the beginning of the industrial era, from 3,041 hours per year in 1831 to 1,505 hours on average in 2019 (7). Other countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, have managed to reduce working hours even more.

In France the first law on working hours, passed in 1841, made it illegal for children under the age of eight to work, and imposed limits on the employment of those under 13. This was increasingly regulated, and finally banned in 1959, when school became compulsory up until the age of 16. The working day was limited to 12 hours in 1848, 11 hours in 1900 and eight in 1919. In 1900 the legal length of a working week was 70 hours; it then fell in irregular increments, reaching 40 under Léon Blum’s Popular Front government (1936-37), 39 hours after Francois Mitterrand’s election in 1981, and finally 35 hours in 2000. The first day of rest was won in 1906; paid leave came next, and grew to five weeks in 1982.

Today, progressive unions, leftwing parties and greens call for a further reduction in working hours. In May 2020, around 20 French employee organizations and groups of ecologists, led by Attac (the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and Citizen Action), the CGT union federation and Greenpeace, published crisis exit plan, comprising the reduction and the sharing of working hours, pegged at 32 hours a week, without loss of salary or forced flexible working. ‘Sharing working hours and improving quality of life ... would generate hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs,’ these organizations claimed in a May 2021 report (8). It concluded, ‘It is unjustifiable not to pursue this when we have nearly seven million people registered with Pôle Emploi [the French government employment agency].’ It is a question not only of combatting unemployment but also of fighting precarious employment. Some employers have quietly set about reducing working hours in their own way, by demanding ever more flexibility, imposing part-time work on their employees, and firing older workers.

The matter of sharing work is particularly pressing in view of the recession brought on by the pandemic. Progress in this area could help transform the employment rebound expected in the coming months. Even if the working week is legally fixed at 35 hours, a good number of French people do many more. In 2018 those in full-time employment worked an average of 40.5 hours a week. The figure was 39.1 hours for salaried workers and managers, about half of whom are paid by the day, work 46.6 hours a week on average (9). This is a sign not of the failure of the 35-hour week, but rather of its defects.

For decades, ideological opposition to sharing work has come up against an implacable reality: the number of workers is growing faster than the amount of work available. Between 1980 and 1989, the total number of hours worked was 38.5 billion per year, and France had an active population of 24.7 million. From 2010 to 2019, the number of hours worked was 38.5 billion per year, and the active population was 24.7 million. From 2010 to 2019, the number of hours worked averaged 41.9 billion a year, up 7.9%, while the working population stood at 29.4 million, up 15.7% (10). We live in a society where work is poorly distributed; some workers accumulate a large number of hours, while others are unemployed.
Reducing working hours is a first step that makes limiting consumption and production more palatable.

While the reduction of working hours can be part of the response to climate change, it is not a question of choosing between employment and the climate. Quite the opposite: transforming our societies in conjunction with the energy transition would make it possible to create a great number of jobs. According to energy thinktank négaWatt Association’s predictions, it could lead to the creation of 630,000 jobs by 2030 (11). And according to Gadrey, there could be a million more new jobs linked to the wellbeing industry (12) . But whatever the outcome it will be insufficient to plug the actual gap. Combining categories A, B and C (the people without work or in reduced work and required to seek employment), 5.7 million people are unemployed in metropolitan France — without taking into account all those who are not in work but have not registered as unemployed. It would still be necessary to find a better way of sharing out work and the value it creates.

Reducing production, particularly when it generates a large volume of greenhouse emissions, must take worker productivity into account. Reducing working hours almost always leads to a rise in productivity, lessening the strategy’s effectiveness in terms of the climate challenge — and that’s without mentioning the intensification of work that many people have been experiencing for years. Most company bosses who have reduced working hours or the number of days worked beyond what is required by the law have benefited financially, and indeed have done it mostly for economic reasons.

Increased wellbeing
Yprema, a company specialised in recycling materials for public works, made the decision to do so in 1997. The Robien law on the restructuring and reduction of working time, passed the previous year, made it possible to sign company ‘hiring’ agreements (under which new jobs are created) in return for a reduction in employer’s social security contributions. ‘It was an opportunity to get started. We chose the 35 hours over four days option,’ said Susana Mendès, company secretary of Yprema. ‘The quid pro quo was to add 10% more workers to the workforce. We started off with 42, and by the end of 1998 there were 50 of us. To reduce work-related fatigue, we wanted employees to have three days off for every four worked, and for the machines to work more of the time. This allowed us to be open longer and increase our weekly production hours from 39 to 43. We increased our overall productivity.’

Experiments at Microsoft in Japan and Perpetual Guardian in New Zealand produced similar results. ‘Our objective is to measure performance over production, not time,’ says Nick Bangs, head of Unilever in New Zealand, which in December 2020 began moving to a four-day week. In France, on 25 January 2021, against all expectations in the context of the pandemic and despite calls by several ministers for people to work more, employees of LDLC (a computer equipment distributor) moved to 32 hours over four days, without loss of salary (13). The initiative came from the company’s founder Laurent de la Clergerie: ‘Apart from stations where we cannot increase speed — packaging, for example — I think there are many where it is possible to be more efficient, without hiring. I’ve done the maths, and I’m certain that I will make a profit. When an employee is happy, the customer is happier.’ Mathilde Pommier, a purchasing liaison agent at LDLC, agrees with the studies: ‘When people are more rested, and fitter, they work more.’

Prejudice and caricature
French hourly productivity has been growing steadily since the industrial revolution. The most dramatic change happened between 1949 and 1973, when it rose 5% per year. The pace has slowed down since the 1990s and it is now unusual for productivity to improve by more than 1.5% in a year. But can it continue rising indefinitely? And wouldn’t that also risk increasing the intensity of work? There have been several proposals to reduce hourly productivity, the intensification of work and carbon footprints. ‘With better sharing of work, fewer hours and possibly less intense work, the volume of work will be at once better shared out and less harmful from an environmental perspective,’ Devetter thinks. The goal would be to increase wellbeing and stop taking into account only the market value of production. This would make it possible to reduce the production of materials in real terms without harming the standard of living. But it a means making serious decisions about society, and therefore having a collective debate.

‘If I have time off, I travel,’ objected a member of the CCC at a debate on the idea of moving to a 28-hour week. Indeed many fear that with more spare time and the same income, people will consume more and pollute more. This is a difficult risk to assess. Sociological studies carried out for Dares, the French Statistical Office for Labour and Employment, after the move to 35 hours showed that time gained was mostly spent taking care of children — helping them to do their homework or meeting teachers for example. And it’s the richest households that pollute most.
According to a 2020 study, the richest 10% generate 2.2 times more CO2 than the poorest 10% (14). But our social model sees such overconsumption, and the compulsion to satisfy all our desires, as a sign of success. So Devetter argues a cultural change would be needed in order to collectively succeed in producing less. ‘We must on the one hand reduce working hours to improve work-sharing and, on the other curb growth, possibly even stop increasing production by passing on the gains of productivity not in the form of income, but in the form of spare time. And all that will become acceptable if we shine a spotlight on what we gain — time — as opposed to what we lose: a kind of consumption that ultimately is not really synonymous with pleasure and happiness.’
According to a 2020 study, the richest 10% generate 2.2 times more CO2 than the poorest 10%. But our social model sees such overconsumption, and the compulsion to satisfy all our desires, as a sign of success.

‘Reducing working hours has two benefits,’ says Jean-Marie Harribey, a member of the Économistes Atterrés (dismayed economists) group. ‘First, bringing a number of unemployed people back into the workforce without the need for rapid economic growth. And second, potentially developing another concept of human wellbeing. Must we always work more in order to consume more, or rather work a little less so that we can all work — at least those of us who wish to — and do other things?’ (15) Reducing working hours is a first step that makes limiting consumption and production more palatable. It could serve as a lever for societal and psychological change, alongside the transition to green energy, and help with the sharing of work.

However, in France, the call to reduce working hours continues to be the target of prejudice and caricature. The 28-hour week proposed by the CCC ‘was a red rag to a bull, economic and social suicide. It has already been ruled out,’ Patrick Martin, president of the employers’ federation Medef (Mouvement des Entreprises de France) wrote in June 2020. ‘To my mind the 35-hour week was a mistake,’ economy minister Bruno Le Maire said on RMC (4 December 2020). ‘The real strategic issue in France is our overall volume of work, and therefore the wealth we create, and our prosperity ... Everyone must work more ... We must collectively produce more.’ In an Institut Montaigne report published in May 2020, economist Bertrand Martinot wrote, ‘The particular characteristics of this crisis ... demand that we take robust measures to support supply. In other words, investing, working more, and increasing overall productivity must become the central goals of our economic policy in the coming years.’ Tunes from the old free-market songbook are sounding out again on all sides.
‘The argument today is “The economy has slowed by 10%. This is not the right time to reduce working hours”,’ explains Michel Husson, another member of Économistes Atterrés. ‘Yet average working hours are falling each year. The reduction will happen, either in an individual manner, or a general one.’ Many employers seek not to reduce working time, but to break it up. Part-time jobs have practically tripled since 1975 (18.1% of workers in 2019) and the creation of precarious employment statuses such as ‘independent contractor’ allows them to outsource without responsibility. The result is increased inequality, the perfect conditions for stirring up fears of unemployment and negotiating workers’ rights down.

A trap
Germany and the Netherlands make heavy use of part-time work; in 2019, 28.6% and 51.2% of their respective workforces were part-time, according to Eurostat. This allows them to reduce unemployment, which in the Netherlands stands at half the figure in France. But these practices often pull wages down and increase inequalities between women and men, as was seen in Germany with the arrival of ‘mini-jobs’ and the rise in poverty (16).
The idea of reducing working hours generates a number of fantasies: that to do so would increase the cost of labour, cause productivity to plummet, destroy the value of labour... The chaos and compromises involved in the move to a 35-hour week have left a sour taste in people’s mouths, and created uncertainty that the political right and many management-friendly commentators have been quick to exploit. ‘This is the measure that took longest to debate in full assembly,’ recalls Erwan Dagorne, a facilitator at citizens’ dialogue organisation Missions Publiques and mediator within the CCC. ‘Each time the subject was discussed collectively, whether with 30 people or with 150 (when it came up to be voted on), it gave rise to very strong opinions. Some were put off by the memory of the 35-hour week and its implementation. They saw it as an “explosive” subject that would be difficult to communicate to society. From a strategic perspective, they didn’t want to fuel distrust of the convention by putting it forward.’ Rémy D, a member of the Produire et Travailler group and proposer of the measure, noticed the same fears: ‘The first thing that scared people was the memory of the 35-hour week. The second was, “How will people react if they have more spare time? Won’t they just pollute more?” But, for me, it was the measure most likely to achieve change and social justice.’

The Covid-19 pandemic has shown the dangers of failing to prepare. In order not to suffer more and more from the effects of climate change, it is time to choose solutions that benefit as many people as possible. Looking at the 28-hour week — a proposal designed to shake up our thinking — in a historical perspective allows us to think differently about the organisation and distribution of work, to question our relationship to production and to demystify growth. The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions lends urgency to a real societal question: are we ready to work, produce and consume less in order to live together more fairly?
CLAIRE LECŒUVRE
Claire Lecœuvre is a journalist.

(1) Miklós Antal et al., ‘Is working less really good for the environment? A systematic review of the empirical evidence for resource use, greenhouse gas emissions and the ecological footprint’, Environmental Research Letters, vol. 16, no 1, Bristol, January 2021.
(2) David Rosnick and Mark Weisbrot, ‘Are shorter work hours good for the environment ? A comparison of US and European energy consumption’, International Journal of Health Services, vol. 37, no 3, Newbury Park (California), July 2007.
(3) Jared B. Fitzgerald, Juliet B. Schor and Andrew K. Jorgenson, ‘Working hours and carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, 2007-2013’, Social Forces, vol. 96, no 4, Oxford, June 2018.
(4) Jonas Nässén and Jörgen Larsson, ‘Would shorter working time reduce greenhouse gas emissions ? An analysis of time use and consumption in Swedish households’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 33, no 4, Thousand Oaks (California), August 2015.
(5) Jean Gadrey, ‘Idée reçue : “La croissance, c’est la prospérité”’, Manuel d’économie critique, Le Monde diplomatique, 2016.
(6) Dominique Méda, ‘L’emploi et le travail dans une ère post-croissance’, in Isabelle Cassiers, Kevin Maréchal and Dominique Méda (ed,), Vers une société post-croissance. Intégrer les défis écologiques, économiques et sociaux, L’Aube, La Tour-d’Aigues, 2017.
(7) Olivier Marchand and Claude Thélot, Le Travail en France, 1800-2000, Nathan, ‘Essais et recherches’, Paris, 1997.
(8) ‘Pas d’emploi sur une planète morte : sauver le climat, gagner des droits, créer des emplois’, Collectif Plus jamais ça !, 7 May 2021, https://plus-jamais.org
(9) ‘Les salariés au forfait annuel en jours’ (PDF), Dares Analyses, no 48, Paris, July 2015. The ‘forfait jour’ counts working time by the day, with a maximum of 2018, rather than weekly hours. Pay is not tied to the number of hours worked.
(10) Calculated using ‘Les comptes de la nation en 2019’, Insee, mai 2020.
(11) Philippe Quirion, ‘L’effet net sur l’emploi de la transition énergétique en France : une analyse “input-output” du scénario négaWatt’ (PDF), working document no 46-2013, Centre international de recherche sur l’environnement et le développement, Nogent-sur-Marne, avril 2013; ‘Un million d’emplois pour le climat’, report by the Plateforme emplois-climat, collectif d’associations et de syndicats (Greenpeace, Attac, Alternatiba, Solidaires, etc.), December 2016.
(12) Jean Gadrey, ‘On peut créer des millions d’emplois utiles dans une perspective durable’ (five articles), Debout !, 21-30 November 2014.
(13) Olivier Bénis, ‘En Nouvelle-Zélande, Unilever va tester la semaine de quatre jours (avec le même salaire)’, France Inter, 2 décembre 2020.
(14) Antonin Pottier et al., ‘Qui émet du CO2 ? Panorama critique des inégalités écologiques en France’, Revue de l’OFCE, no 169, Paris, November 2020.
(15) Cf. Jean-Marie Harribey, Le Trou noir du capitalisme, Le Bord de l’eau, Lormont, 2020.
(16) Read Olivier Cyran, ‘Germany’s working poor’, Le Monde diplomatique, September 2017.