French Work Week

[Diezel]

I listened to an interesting piece on NPR today. The govenment of France seems to be ready to kill one of their National Holidays. They will make everyone work that day and take all money made and give it to the poor and disabled (IIRC.)

That isn't so interesting. What was interesting was to find out that France is on a 35 hour work week! And they have something like 14 National Holidays they are off of work!

Now, to me, this is astounding. In the US, we have a standard 40 hour work week. And most people on get only 6-8 National Holidays off (New Year's Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, plus eve's of some of those.)

Now, that varies from place to place. Our standard work week is 50 hours (yes, we do get overtime), with 60+ hour weeks not uncommon. But I also work for a company that gives us 11 holiday days off (New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Ash Friday, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and the day after, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, and a floating holiday, taken in conjuction with another holdiay to make a 4 day weekend.) We also only get 5 days of vacation after 1 year of work, 10 days after 2 years, 15 days after 5 years and 20 days after 20 years.

Anyway, I was amazed at the discussion of France's work week. From what I gather, the French government has been angry that the country is not working enough, but the people do not want to put in any more time at work.

But is there a point where you have TOO much free time? Some of the French workers actually think so, saying they don't work enough to make enough money to do anything with all the free time they have. I don't think this is a majority opinion over there, but it make sense to me.

So, I was just wondering what everyone's work schedules are like. Personally, I would like to work a 40 hour week. 50 starts to grind on me and lately all my vacation time has been eaten up on everything BUT a real vacation. But I think a 35 hour week would be too little. It is obvious they can't pay me the same types of wages for that little work, so I wouldn't want to cut back on my lifestyle, just to have 5 more free hours per week.

Do you think a country can maintain a strong economic force and producer, while only working 35 hours a week?

We are moving to (hell, we are) a global economy; should there be some type of International Standards on work hours? (we work with many international companies and I have meet many Europeans working over here that just can't get used to the long hours they have to work)

 

[Diezel]

After doing some more checking (which I should have done before posting in the first place ), they will ear-mark the money for the elderly, in response to the deaths caused by their recent heat-wave. http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/world/paris.html

And they only have 11 national holidays, not 14 like I cited above.

 

[geni]

EU law states a maxium of 48 hours a week and at least 2 weeks paid holiday a year (the second bit does not apply to thoes under 18). As you have heard France has reduced its working week still further. Weather this can be sustained remains to be seen.

 

[fishbob]

Don't most U.S. Federal, State, and other government employees get about 20 holidays per year?

And is that 35 hours working each week or 35 hours at work?

 

[geni]

Don't most U.S. Federal, State, and other government employees get about 20 holidays per year?

And is that 35 hours working each week or 35 hours at work?

It should be 35 hours at work but I suspect in some cases in means 35hours of pay

 

[Cain]

I posted the following on these very forums not long ago! It received exactly zero replies, but one european did PM me to ask if I was Swedish.

Work Week Woes 4/12/03

This op-ed appeared in yesterday's edition of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/opinion/12DEGR.html (Reg. Required)

A few snippets:

According to the International Labor Organization, Americans now work 1,978 hours annually, a full 350 hours — nine weeks — more than Western Europeans. The average American actually worked 199 hours more in 2000 than he or she did in 1973, a period during which worker productivity per hour nearly doubled.

What happened? In effect, the United States as a society took all of its increases in labor productivity in the form of money and stuff instead of time. Of course, we didn't all get the money; the very poor earn even less in real terms than they did then, and the largest share of the increase went to the richest Americans.

Working ourselves to death?

The harmful effects of working more hours are being felt in many areas of society. Stress is a leading cause of heart disease and weakened immune systems. Consumption of fast foods and lack of time for exercise has led to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Many parents complain that they do not have enough time to spend with their children, much less become involved in their community. Worker productivity declines during the latter part of long work shifts.

And finally a comparison to one of those "socialist" Scandinavian countries:

By contrast, over the past 30 years, Europeans have made a different choice — to live simpler, more balanced lives and work fewer hours. The average Norwegian, for instance, works 29 percent less than the average American — 14 weeks per year — yet his average income is only 16 percent less. Western Europeans average five to six weeks of paid vacation a year; we average two.

None of this is very surprising, but it's the second most e-mailed article from the nation's paper of record today. Norway pulled out the top spot on the United Nation's yearly development index (the U.S. placed sixth). In Sweden, twenty-five percent of workers won't even show up on a normal day. Also in Sweden, mothers get 360 days of paid leave (something like 100% of their normal paycheck), plust another 90 days at (I'm not at all certain) 50%.

Needless to say, the country isn't overwhelemed with welfare mothers popping out children as quickly as possible. In fact, I believe the population trend is moving steadily downard, which is consistent with most Northern European countries.

 

[Diezel]

EU law states a maxium of 48 hours a week and at least 2 weeks paid holiday a year (the second bit does not apply to thoes under 18). As you have heard France has reduced its working week still further. Weather this can be sustained remains to be seen.

What is that standard EU work week then? (If France's is lower)

 

[Diezel]

Don't most U.S. Federal, State, and other government employees get about 20 holidays per year?

And is that 35 hours working each week or 35 hours at work?

Well, here is a list of all US National Holdiays, but I know they don't get them all off. I'm not sure which ones they do and don't: http://www.villas4all.com/american-holidays.php

And I am almost positive it is 35 hours at work, like our 40.

Actually, I am at work more than that, because I have a 1/2 unpaid lunch. So I work 7:00am-5:30pm, which is actually 10 1/2 hours a day.

 

[Tony]

I think the american work week is too long.

 

[Diezel]

I posted the following on these very forums not long ago! It received exactly zero replies, but one european did PM me to ask if I was Swedish.

Don't worry, I've started tons of threads that have received no replies. Actually, I started one topic 3 times, over the course of two months, with 0 replies each time. I guess nobody wanted to talk about it!

I haven't read the NYT article yet, but there is a glaring problem right from the start. They state "the very poor earn even less in real terms than they did then, and the largest share of the increase went to the richest Americans." I'm not sure what standards they are using, but everything I have seen does not come to this conclusion.

During that time, the "poor" have elevated themselves to a lifestyle only previously enjoyed by the lower middle-class, or even the middle-class (car, multiple TVs with satelitte hook-ups, etc...) And the amount of millionaires increased greatly, meaning many middle and upper middle class people became "rich".

I will read the article in full, but just that sentence has my BS/Biased Slant detector going off. I have heard that argument 100 times, yet once you dig deeper, it falls apart:

"The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer!"

No they're not, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.

"Well, maybe the poor are a little better off then they were, but the rich are getting richer at a much faster pace than the poor are getting richer!"

So?

Working ourselves to death?

I agree. That is why I ask "What is the best work week? The best mix of work and free time?"

I don't know the answer to it. It lies somewhere between 50+ hours and 35 hours.

And finally a comparison to one of those "socialist" Scandinavian countries:

I have heard this before. I will have to look at a few things, but I am weary of the way they go between their terms. Notice above the mention the poor "earn less in real terms", but then the give us a hard firgue for Swedish income (16% less)? Why do this? And what does "in real terms" mean?

This is a common method of creative writing that lets you play with numbers. In the above case, they may have found that the very poor are making more than they use to, so they try to slant it the way they want. What does "in real terms" mean? Does it mean buying power? Quality of life? Actually, it is meaningless, without any qualifier.

Yet they also come back with the 16% figure for Sweden. Why give us a figure? Because 16% doesn't look like much. But they don't tell us if we have equal buying power for the same money. They don't equate tax structures. They don't equate anything. They just give us a raw figure.

Tactics like this make me weary...

None of this is very surprising, but it's the second most e-mailed article from the nation's paper of record today. Norway pulled out the top spot on the United Nation's yearly development index (the U.S. placed sixth). In Sweden, twenty-five percent of workers won't even show up on a normal day. Also in Sweden, mothers get 360 days of paid leave (something like 100% of their normal paycheck), plust another 90 days at (I'm not at all certain) 50%.

Needless to say, the country isn't overwhelemed with welfare mothers popping out children as quickly as possible. In fact, I believe the population trend is moving steadily downard, which is consistent with most Northern European countries.

Well, the NYT being the "paper of record" is very questionable at this time. And I think I have shown they are not as unbiased as they portray themselves. I'm not saying what they are reporting is false, I am just saying they have used some dubious tactics to lead a casual reader to a conclusion they want.

As for welare babies: This is a problem I see in all of these types of cross-cultural/International studies. While it might be true, not all the same cultural factors are at work in both places. And when it comes to things like welfare, culture determines the use/abuse more than any other factor. Like many other things, just because it works in one place, doesn't mean it will work in another.

 

[Ashi]

35 hours a week. Wow!

I am usually at work about 70 hours a week and this doesn't include the work I am required to do at home. My personal record (so far) was 128 hours in one week. I get the standard holidays now plus 3 weeks vacation so it isn't that bad. If I only worked 35 hours a week my company would have to hire 2 additional people just to get my job done. Overall we would have to triple our entire work force.

Geez, I've worked more than 35 hours straight at one time. I guess it all depends on what type of work you do.

 

[Tony]

35 hours a week. Wow!

I am usually at work about 70 hours a week and this doesn't include the work I am required to do at home. My personal record (so far) was 128 hours in one week. I get the standard holidays now plus 3 weeks vacation so it isn't that bad. If I only worked 35 hours a week my company would have to hire 2 additional people just to get my job done. Overall we would have to triple our entire work force.

Geez, I've worked more than 35 hours straight at one time. I guess it all depends on what type of work you do.

What do you do?

 

[Diezel]

According to the Census Bureau, no matter what the NYT was using as its standard when it says "are poorer in real terms", they are wrong.

The Census Bureau, in their summary on income over the last 50 years concludes that poverty is down almost across the board. The file is a .pdf and is mostly graphs, so I took a snippet of the contents:

Poverty
4.1 Poverty for Most Races Has Declined Since 1959 ............................................................................................................. 45
4.2 Poverty Among the Elderly Has Been on the Decline, While It Has Increased for Children ......................................... 46
4.3 Single-Parent Families Have the Highest Poverty Rate ...................................................................................................... 47

They base their conclusions on a real standard "poverty". Well, it may not be a real standard, but it is a standard. They determine what "living in poverty" is and judged each year according to that standard.

So it seems the Census Bureau is saying the very poor are actually doing better off, seeing as there are less very poor than there was.

I'm reading the report as I post this, so I will find better data as I go, but you can look at it all here: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p60-203.pdf

Edited to add:

Go to page 64 of that document to understand their definition of "poverty", then check out figure A-1.

 

[Ashi]

I am currently working as a desk engineer for a large oilfield services company. We work offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.

I used to work in the field as a supervisor (that was where the 128 hours a week came from). In the field we usually work 24 hour a day, 7 days a week, no holidays off. The only things that really stop work in the Gulf of Mexico are very bad hurricanes or getting the job is done. It is not unusual to work extremely long shifts (+30 hours) and it isn't unusual to be offshore for 3-4 weeks at a time.

 

[Suddenly]

When I was doing corporate law, I was expected to bill at a minimum 1800 hours a year. It takes about 1.5 hours to bill an hour, so were looking at 2700 hours. Add in the odd extra task and we get to an even 3K. I'm afraid to do the math.

All I know is that there were weeks when a partner or two had a trial, and I'd be in the noon Wednesday meeting and realize that I had already billed 50 hours that week (Sun -Sat.). Good news, as long as I hit my quotas they didn't care how much vacation or personal time I took. Ha Ha Ha.

Then I went half crazy.

So I got into public defense work. My current job, where I only post conviction proceedings like appeals and habeas corpus petitions, I put in an 40 hour week, come and go as I please, and I can do work at home. 16 days vacation, 10 days sick time, and all, and I mean all, state and local holidays. Of course I wind up visiting senic places like the Maximum security prison, and get to be in enclosed spaces with murderers and worse.

I took a huge pay cut, but calculated by the hour I'm actually making more.

 

[Cain]

Diezel, before replying I'll say again that this appeared on the op-ed page. So, yes, it takes a position. The author does not work for the TIMES.

I haven't read the NYT article yet, but there is a glaring problem right from the start. They state "the very poor earn even less in real terms than they did then, and the largest share of the increase went to the richest Americans." I'm not sure what standards they are using, but everything I have seen does not come to this conclusion.

I do not see anything controversial with these statements in the piece.

"The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer!"

No they're not, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.


"Well, maybe the poor are a little better off then they were, but the rich are getting richer at a much faster pace than the poor are getting richer!"

So?

Here's the thing: people, average people, are working harder and longer, but they're getting a smaller part of the pie. CEO salaries, as well know, has surged in the last few decades. I do not have precise figures off the top of my head, but 1960 CEOs made, what, 40 times their employees? Now they make over 500 times?

I have heard this before. I will have to look at a few things, but I am weary of the way they go between their terms. Notice above the mention the poor "earn less in real terms", but then the give us a hard firgue for Swedish income (16% less)? Why do this? And what does "in real terms" mean?

In real terms means controlling for inflation and hours worked. I'm not sure what you're getting at on the 16% figure. The author says they (Scandinavians) work 29% less and only make 16% less, which suggests, rather directly, that they make more money per hour.

This is a common method of creative writing that lets you play with numbers. In the above case, they may have found that the very poor are making more than they use to, so they try to slant it the way they want. What does "in real terms" mean? Does it mean buying power? Quality of life? Actually, it is meaningless, without any qualifier.

On the contrary, I see nothing creative or deceptive here.

Yet they also come back with the 16% figure for Sweden. Why give us a figure? Because 16% doesn't look like much. But they don't tell us if we have equal buying power for the same money. They don't equate tax structures. They don't equate anything. They just give us a raw figure.

No, again, the 16% stat clarifies the 29% stat (which pertains to fewer hours worked).

Pollsters have regularly asked Swedes if they would work more hours to make more money. They consistently say they prefer leisure to higher income. But hey, I'm sure there are more than few Scandinavians who browse these forums and can educate us all with their first hand experience.

The Census Bureau, in their summary on income over the last 50 years concludes that poverty is down almost across the board. The file is a .pdf and is mostly graphs, so I took a snippet of the contents:

The article's starting year is 1973. Comparing the last *50* years is apples to oranges.

There's something slightly off topic that I want to add. The government's standard for determining poverty, most economists agree, understates the problem. Agencies want to update the criteria, but no sane administration will allow poverty to "increase" on their watch, so it gets blocked. Comparing poverty rates in the United States to Scandnavian countries is instructive.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Don't most U.S. Federal, State, and other government employees get about 20 holidays per year?

And is that 35 hours working each week or 35 hours at work?

No, it's closer to 12.

But don't forget, the banks get those same days off so it's not just them lazy byurohkrats.

Of course I write this in a 48 hour week after working two 84s (make that an 84 and an 85 for the time change on Saturday night).

 

[corplinx]

The problem with the government acting like a labor union (as in France) is that people will elect whoever promises more paid time off and less work hours.

That, and once you grant time off via government law it will never be repealed since every whiner will protest.


Bad, bad, bad..........

 

[a_unique_person]

I am currently working as a desk engineer for a large oilfield services company. We work offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.

I used to work in the field as a supervisor (that was where the 128 hours a week came from). In the field we usually work 24 hour a day, 7 days a week, no holidays off. The only things that really stop work in the Gulf of Mexico are very bad hurricanes or getting the job is done. It is not unusual to work extremely long shifts (+30 hours) and it isn't unusual to be offshore for 3-4 weeks at a time.

That is an incredibly dangerous work practice, and one that would not be allowed in Australia. I have read that there is no difference in your reactions and judgement between suffering lack of sleep and being over 0.05% alcohol.

This is one of the reasons I fear the Libertarian type of politicians. (And even if they don't win any seats, they do have a major influence on the Conservative political parties).

Working conditions will go down the tube and we will mostly be reduced to wage slaves. As Shanek says, there is no level playing field.

 

[a_unique_person]

Don't worry, I've started tons of threads that have received no replies. Actually, I started one topic 3 times, over the course of two months, with 0 replies each time. I guess nobody wanted to talk about it!

You shouldn't start threads with titles like "Do You Find My Bald Head Sexy" then.