Comments

Good job Tom is not a Euro resident - he would have been breaking regulations for the last 40 years like most of us.

I try to achieve a work/life balance but we need plenty of both in my view!!

As one of my friends said ... Sleep is often over-rated!

Warm regards Madeleine from a fellow Brit!

Trevor

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 16, 2005 12:32 PM

That´s a great topic Madeleine. I don´t think the main problem with the white collar revolution can be reduced to just the amount of hours worked. But sometimes I also think we´ve got too many leisure hours in Europe. Not a joke. It´s something I usually talk with my father. He always says this kind of working system (he means working so few hours) cannot stand for a long time.

Apart from the white collar revolution we´ve got the "frontiers out" revolution. How can you be competitive with countries like China that not only have a human capital cost very inferior to Europe but also work much more hours than we do.

How can you do it? I know Tom´s answer is you can´t do it, but still it´s a problem.

Posted by felix gerena at May 16, 2005 12:46 PM

I think reducing European values to something influencing competitive edge is a bit short-sighted and does not reflect the subtlety of values wherever they come from.

A good read on this by Peter Whybrow: http://www.peterwhybrow.com/. This is the site of his book American Mania.

Posted by Eric Briys at May 16, 2005 2:00 PM

Eric, I think Madeleine, Trevor and me are talking from a european perspective, this is what we are experiencing in Europe in the present economical moment. It cannot be short-sighted.

There´s clearly a difference between the way we work in Europe and the way do it in China, I think that´s a fact, not a theory.

Posted by felix gerena at May 16, 2005 2:22 PM

I think it’s ridiculous for any government to mandate, across the board, how many hours a worker can or cannot work. Some industries are cyclical. For example, some publishing companies, or departments in publishing companies, have monthly deadlines. A week or two before publication, the pace picks up and people pour in extra hours. Then post publication, in other words, at the beginning of the cycle, they’ll come in late, take two hour lunches, leave early, and that’s the rhythm of their job.

Then there are other industries, like game development, that have a reputation for taking advantage of workers, making them work 70 to 80 hour work weeks, Electronic Arts being the recent high profile example.

There are also many workers who make a big show of staying in the office until 9pm when they haven’t done a lick of real work since 2:45.

Generally speaking, if we work smart, there should be no reason, given normal conditions, why we should not manage to complete a full day’s work inside of a regular work day. There are some things you can’t regulate. In my view, the EU should be suggesting guidelines, not making rules.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 16, 2005 2:40 PM

I worked in France for several years. Limiting the hours someone can work is anti-capitalist and stifles competition - both for the employer and the worker.

Tom - in "Re-Imagine" you keep telling us the rules have changed. The EU is trying to establish rules that fit the past. We all know workers are more mobile now than anytime in history and can find new work if they are not happy. Why restrict those who are happy to work, learn and produce more so they can ultimately become more valuable?

Posted by Tim Kubista at May 16, 2005 2:47 PM

I'm in the US and as an entrepreneur I set my own hours - that said, under these guidelines I would have a severe problem working in Europe.

For one - and this is not such an easy question - "what is work"?

Seriously - as a consultant am I working when I read and search/monitor the web? When I'm thinking about a client's problems in the shower? What about when I attend a networking event in the evening? (Martha Stewart recently had this problem due to her attending an event - she claimed and I would tend to agree - that her attending such events was part of her job)

And for another, a lot of my work and those of many other consultants and IT professionals is cyclical. I spend relatively resonable hours in research and preparation, in the meeting with clients and preparing, but then frequently may have extremely long hours as we reach significent milestones and deadlines. (One project involved a call Friday morning, working all day and night to understand an app which had failed, then all day meetings on Saturday and Sunday to create a solution which could be rolled out early morning on Monday).

Which points to just one of the other issues involved - extra time is frequently needed in the middle of crisis - and it is unlikely that people will be looking at their watches and in the middle of critical events leaving saying "well that's my 48 hours for this week - see you next week" (if anyone I ever worked with did this, I doubt I would ever work with them again. Yes there is a time and often a need to take a break and recover, but there is also at times a need to stay and finish.

Shannon

Posted by Shannon Clark at May 16, 2005 3:17 PM

As Noel notes - it's about working smart - not about filling up hours. Working as a free agent, I get more done in 40 hours than many in Corporate America can in 80. The amount of CYA, "make work" and "meetings for the sake of meetings" is boggling (and demoralizing for potential change agents.) Further, any designated number of weekly work hours for white collar workers is an artificial number - with no direct correlation to productivity or creativity. Sometimes you need to work 25 - others 80. Depends on the idea, project, tasks.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at May 16, 2005 3:26 PM

Tht´s also my point Mary. It´s not only the number of hours but how you take advantage of them. Just one more thing, the law does not tell you how many hours you have to work it just says how many hours are the legally correct for any employer that has employees at his or her charge. It has legal effects in many fields but you can work as many hours as you want (always more than the legal ones).

Posted by felix gerena at May 16, 2005 3:38 PM

Felix, could you be more precise? What does 'legally correct' mean? Will there be a limit on hours or not? If yes, and you surpass the limit, would either you or your employer be breaking the law? If no, then what is the purpose of this law?

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 16, 2005 3:51 PM

I work more effectively in less hours now that I am self-employed.

I simply did not realise how ineffective some of the 'hours worked' are in the large organisation until I left.

Frankly if many peoples hours were halved the efficiency would probably go up!

The issue is not so much how many hours people are 'at work' - it should be more about 'how many effective hours are worked'

I think this should be seen as 'guidance' rather than law and I sincerely hope individuals working alone and self employed will be allowed to choose their own hours.

Great discussion

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 16, 2005 4:51 PM

Don't get ME started on work/life balance! :)

Posted by walter white at May 16, 2005 5:25 PM

Shannon - I completely agree with you. I'd have some issues if I was in Europe too. If my thought time for a client or my business in general was logged as 'work time' then I'd be doing the work of at least 2.5 people in Europe.

This mindset is just one of the problem's with a socialist approach to business & government. Not trying to dive into politics, I just think that's a major problem there. I personally believe that type of approach actually contributes to less "ownership" employees give their jobs.

Personally, I work way more than that, but have no plans of forcing that on any employee.

Trevor, I agree with your last thoughts there.

Posted by Tony May / Mayday Media at May 16, 2005 6:08 PM

Following up on Shannon's thought, if I'm not "working" to begin with, it's hard for me to think I need to cut back. (Life in Free Agent Nation.)

Posted by John O'Leary at May 16, 2005 6:35 PM

35 hours - now max 48 hours - the EU unemployment and growth rates are always at the precipice of stagflation and recession - now this stab at something new - rather than enhancing free markets and free enterprise.

Posted by Sean at May 16, 2005 7:10 PM

It is somewhat amusing that many of the people who insist on self-entitlement are the same ones who are completely baffled by budgetary shortfalls and unemployment. Capital will efficiently flow where return is highest. If Johnny Lunchbucket in the EU can be more productive in 45 hours than an PhD in Engineering in Hydrabad working 80 hours, this is certainly the right move. I have personally watched one multi-national shed about a quarter of its American tech workers who were both allowed and willing to work 60+ hours a week because the overseas economics were better. It's a noble idea, but it's better left to personal choice.

Posted by Tom at May 16, 2005 9:38 PM

Noel, I´m sorry for not being very clear, it must be "the dark side" having influence on me :)

I meant that if you are a freelance or self employed you can work as many hours as you want. If you have employees you will have to respect the legal limit save you agree with your employees more hours are needed, and you pay them for it which not always happens to be an official income. One thing is the law and the other is the reality, but it has influence in your human resources costs, because internally the hours worked and their costs have to be real unless you are cheating yourself.

Posted by felix gerena at May 17, 2005 4:05 AM

So the EU are encouraging a black market which will lower tax revenues as work under the table skyrockets! Don't they have other things to meddle in? Like important road survey statistics to accumulate or grain surplus calculations to attend to?!

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 17, 2005 4:40 AM

Are we approaching this one with too much of a white-collar perspective? I generally agree with Trevor about "effective hours" but I think that some legislation on working hours is good. Do you want to be driving down the highway overtaking a truck whose driver is just notching up his 13th hour of the day at the wheel? Do you really want to go to a public hospital on Sunday night and be seen by a junior doctor who has been on duty since Friday morning? (This happened to me recently!)

This seems like one of those issues that starts out as sensible legislation, e.g. drivers' hours regulations or legislation to stop abusive practices, but it then grows into a monster and ends up affecting all sorts of areas that weren't originally envisaged. Personally, I think a blanket limit on hours per week is dumb and I'd favour an approach that gave guidelines, allowed individuals to choose their hours within reasonable limits and left it to Employment Tribunals to consider the merits of individual cases if a worker felt he was being exploited. This is another area where one size certainly does not fit all...!

Posted by Mark JF at May 17, 2005 5:03 AM

Great Post, Madeleine. Great comments one & all. All I can say is, Holy Moly! I have never seen a 48-hour week. (What's that?) And I'd never hire anyone who gave 48 hours. What's McKinsey gonna do? (48 hours are expected in the first 2 days of the week.) What's Microsoft gonna do? (This is worse than the anti-trust settlement!) Is Bloody Europe legislating against Excellence? Did Picasso limit himself to 48 hours? What about the new Pope? Is he covered by this?

Posted by tom peters at May 17, 2005 5:32 AM

Good morning Madeliene. Let me assure the readers of this blog that all my partners in the UK squeeze 25 hours out of everyday. Hard to keep up with their pace! Madeliene, my issue with the long hours in the US is how many of them are productive hours, and how many of them are merely doing time, so the boss won't think you're slacking off.

Posted by Mike at May 17, 2005 9:33 AM overnight viagra delivery without prescription

Of course your point is well taken, it's just that it seems absurd to me to try and legislate such stuff. (Vote "No" on the European constitution?)

PS: Yo Brussels, ever hear of CHINA?

Posted by tom peters at May 17, 2005 11:24 AM

Tom, to answer your question, a 48 hour week would be you at 50% capacity. :)

Posted by Tony May / Mayday Media at May 18, 2005 11:31 AM

I like the idea of "personal choice" very much. You mentioned Picasso. He follows his own idea and took the complete risk for his financial security. Or think about Hemmingway in his Paris days. There is a wonderful book about it. But we learn also that they had to stay in the wintertime in a cafe because it had a heading! When I studied at Hochschule der Künste Berlin we lived in a old flat with broken heading and invest our money in materials for artworks or books or some wine :-). The society in Europe tooks the cost for security and charge it equally to people with idea, who invest and took risk, and to people without idea, who are riskaverse and count hours. It´s not the sum of hours per week, it's the quality of ideas and the energy bringing them to the market. The personal price is always painfully hight. Don't missunderstand. We all need help from time to time. But it seems to me, that it is common sense to think in terms of quantity, not in terms of quality. When we think in terms of quality, everything offers us a chance. Why don't we think about a system based on investment and quality of results?

Posted by Andreas Kulick at May 19, 2005 2:48 PM

Of course more is done in 80h than 48h so let's work 80h. By the way, there was a time when people worked on WE. Why couldn't we go back to the good old days? The GDP of UE would increase dramatically !
The thruth is that:
- The high flying white-collar workers of London are very unlikely to be affected by the regulation. It is primarily made to address the abuses suffered by people who do not have the qualifications that are required to benefit from the contemporary economy.
The regulation voted will, by the way, be flexible in order to adapt to the D and business cycles of various industries. In this respect, it is very much the same as what happened in France when the 35h have been imposed: the labour have been made much more flexible to compensate. Hourly productivity is there the highest in the world behind Norway (where the weight of Oil production biased the figures)
- J.Rifkin has recently suggested that Europe has made the choice to go for a better balance work-leisure which implies that happiness is not only rooted in indivdual wealth.
US workers work an annual average of 1 877h while their French counterpart only spend 1 562h at the workplace (OECD figures) That is almost 10 weeks more...but French are 7% more productive.
As the productivity keep increasing, we will have to decide what we want to do of the extra wealth: more time or more money.

Posted by JJ at May 19, 2005 3:43 PM

The more of a stranglehold bureaucracy gets on people, the less people pay attention to the rules. The more micro-managed we are, the less the authority is respected.

Rules, rules and no judgment ... and people rebel. The only solution is to become more flexible and stay out of areas that are unnecessary to regulate. Not every aspect of our lives requires a policy manaul.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 20, 2005 5:41 AM