
German Union Steps Up Fight for ‘Modern’ 28-Hour Workweek - joeyespo
http://www.industryweek.com/labor-employment-policy/german-union-steps-fight-modern-28-hour-workweek
======
samwillis
The title is a little unclear. They are asking for the _right_ for union
members to switch from their current 35hr week to a 28hr week for a two year
period then switch back. Sounds good for young family or other family
situations.

~~~
cmdkeen
It's also asking that employers top up their salary whilst doing so, that
appears to be the sticking point with employers. It is a major step beyond the
state doing the subsidising, as can happen with maternity/paternity pay. It
also strikes me as one of those measures that assumes that the good times
(good order books, low unemployment) are here to stay. It rather feels like
they're making themselves a hostage to fortune. Given some of Germany's
success has come from the Euro reducing what would otherwise be appreciative
effects on the deutschmark, it is worth remembering that governments / states
are happy to benefit when the factors beyond their control are positive, less
so when they turn against you.

~~~
ddebernardy
> It also strikes me as one of those measures that assumes that the good times
> (good order books, low unemployment) are here to stay.

42 people holding as much wealth as 3.7 billion might also have something to
do with it:

[https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jan/22/inequalit...](https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jan/22/inequality-
gap-widens-as-42-people-hold-same-wealth-as-37bn-poorest)

~~~
danbruc
One of the Oxfam reports [1] states »The 1,810 dollar billionaires on the 2016
Forbes list, 89% of whom are men, own $6.5 trillion – as much wealth as the
bottom 70% of humanity«. Let's assume they accumulated all this wealth in just
10 years, how much better off could everyone have been if we evenly spread the
money instead of putting it into the pockets of just 1,810 people? If we
spread it across all 7.6 billion people over 10 years everyone would receive
$85.25 per year or $7.12 per month or $0.23 per day.

So while the rich are really rich they are also very few and in consequence
spreading the wealth among the many poor has a much smaller impact than many
expect without doing the math. I am not saying that it would have no impact,
it could probably lift the about 20% of the world population still living in
extreme poverty - $1.90 or less per day - above the extreme poverty line if
spread among them but it certainly wouldn't make everyone on Earth rich.

If you do the math for other scenarios, for example calculate how much better
of all the employees of a company could be if the top executives would just
receive average wages, you almost always get similar results. That still
doesn't mean that I am okay with such situations, far from. I think more
equality would be a good thing on its own even if the difference for most
people would be relatively small.

[1] [https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/an-
economy...](https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/an-economy-for-
the-99-its-time-to-build-a-human-economy-that-benefits-everyone-620170)

~~~
petra
Haven't Bill Gates shown what these kinds of money could buy for billions ?
isn't it a fairer approach to judge such things ?

~~~
danbruc
They certainly helped to improve the situation of many but I am not sure that
they managed to affect a billion people. And you can certainly do a lot of
good with a couple of billion dollar but you can not make really many rich.
And that was my main point, the wealth of the very top is not what makes the
poor poor just due to an uneven wealth distribution.

------
zwieback
The reason employers in Germany are against this proposal is that currently
it's hard to find qualified employees to backfill the gaps. They'd rather pay
individuals more than hire more replacement workers.

A byproduct of the unusually low unemployment rate and booming economy in
Germany right now. The situation might be the reverse in a few years.

~~~
dmix
> The situation might be the reverse in a few years.

Which is the problem with all-powerful unions. Works great when you have a
booming industrial city like Detroit. But accelerates a downturn in bad times
or decelerates potential boom times, negatively affecting the wider economy
outside of the union.

In downturns those lucky enough to have a union job cling on to them and
continue to push for more power, creating a secondary class system within the
working class benefiting a portion of the populace while simultaneously making
their company far less competitive (far more relevant today in our global
economy), makes industry far less flexible to change, significantly
disincentivizes hiring new workers, etc.

It's like Keynesian policy but with QE on all the time regardless of cyclical
changes. Or how price controls on food markets have caused food shortages in
almost every country in history who has attempted it (including notably in
Venezuela repeatedly in the past decade). It's always done with good
intentions and typically works well initially but it's rarely designed to be
dynamic and flexible enough to reflect changing realities or appreciate the
changes the union itself is having on the company/industry which far too often
ultimately harm the union workers themselves rather than helps.

~~~
Daishiman
But German unions are actually quite rational agents who have agreed in the
past to not press for raises or increased benefits because it affects their
companies' competitiveness.

~~~
pishpash
Funny nobody ever asks how rational employers are, in squeezing the wages of
their consumers.

------
eganist
I mean, as automation takes over and more of the work becomes knowledge work,
this next step doesn't surprise me much.

Shoot, I work at a firm that offers something like 2 months off when bundling
paid time off together with corporate holidays, and that's not including all
the other tiny time-off incentives that are included that don't necessarily
get advertised to new hires. We're headed in that direction as it is.

~~~
marnett
While I agree, knowledge workers shouldn't have to work 40 hours a week (due
to simple cost-benefit of their true output), it just isn't the observed
reality in most knowledge-work industries (at least in America). I wouldn't be
surprised that, in 50 years, tech has gone the way of finance, where, in order
to attain that highly coveted lifestyle, you have to be willing to work 90+
hours a week at the beginning of your career, just to flatline to the
comparably reasonable 60+ hours when you progress. This trend is already the
norm in large tech companies with regard to their new hires; just throw heads
at the problem, as long as it meets the deadline nothing else matters.

~~~
skgoa
35-38 hours pers week is the observed reality in Germany, though. 90+ hours is
virtually unheard of here. As is working on a Saturday. In fact 60+ is already
seen as inhumane. As soon as you work 50 hours in any given week, the employer
will have to pay you much more money. Hence, at my employer I literally am not
allowed to work more than 48 hours per week and only Mon-Fri, unless the
project is in extremely bad shape. And even then I would have to put in an
application and the worker's council might or might not approve it on a case
to case basis.

We also have a law in Germany that forces employers to allow employees to
reduce their hours. I believe down to 30 hours per week. This entails reduced
pay of course, but still a growing number of my colleagues are opting for this
or are seriously considering it. And I'm talking about people in their
thirties who are in the prime of their career. You can have a very comfortable
life working 30 hours on an engineer's pay grade.

------
matt4077
This is obviously intended mostly as an opening salvo in negotiations, and has
little chance to become reality. But there are similar ideas that seem almost
like common sense, yet are pretty rare in reality:

A right to reduce hours to, say, 50% minimum could seriously improve quality
of life for many. Of course you'd need some sensible limitations, i. e. a
restriction to larger companies where any fluctuations would average out. But
I've seen quite a few workplaces succeed with such a model. "Sabbatical"
programs (get 85% of your pay for 7 years, with the last year paid but free of
work) have even less impact on work.

~~~
ghaff
One of the challenges is that the cost of a lot of benefits would stay the
same even if someone worked a 20 hour week and was paid 50% of their full-time
salary. So you're left with potentially higher employee costs, cutting the
salary more than 50% to work half-time, or cutting out benefits for part-time
workers.

~~~
carlmr
This doesn't really make sense. They would be paying out the same before
taxes, just spread out over more years. What you get as an employee might even
be higher because taxes are progressive.

This is of course assuming a European social system where health insurance
etc. is taxes, so they're just a percentage of salary, not a fixed cost.

~~~
skgoa
Employers do have fixed costs per employee. E.g. office space, a desk a
computer, accident insurance etc. Fewer employees working more hours each is
cheaper than more employees working fewer hours. Even paying me 1.5x for
overtime hours turns out to be financially beneficial for my employer once you
figure in fixed costs.

------
fao_
I'm happy that at least one country has unions that are going strong. It seems
that in the UK they self-destructed (Thanks, Labour party...), and the US has
never really _had_ strong labour unions.

------
jnordwick
This article is over 3 weeks old talking of warning strikes to begin 2 weeks
ago. Something more current couldn't be found, at least after the warning
strikes were to begin or did begin.

~~~
germanier
There were warning strikes and negotiations are set to begin this week.

~~~
carlmr
I could see them yesterday on my way to work. They're well underway.

------
kome
Like France. Nice! That's the future.

~~~
ucaetano
> Nice! That's the future.

I've seen the "future" in France, nothing "nice" about it.

Permanently hiring someone (and emphasis on the permanent, firing someone on a
CDI contract is extremely costly, far easier just to leave someone without
work but still pay them until they quit) is so expensive that almost all new
jobs (~85% actually) are for temporary contracts limited by law to 12 months.
65% are for <1 month contracts.

Think about it: 2 in every 3 people who get a job offer in France this week
will be unemployed in a month.

And that's before we get into the cost of employment.

An employee in France making the country's average wage costs the employer (in
absolute terms) almost the same than an employee in Switzerland making that
country's average income (which in PPP is higher than France's).

I did the math a while back, and after accounting for all taxes, social
security and fees, the Swiss employee is making 70% to pocket (in PPP) than
the French one, despite costing almost the same to the company.

If you have to hire an employee, where would you hire, France or Switzerland?

~~~
wott
> _Permanently hiring someone (and emphasis on the permanent, firing someone
> on a CDI contract is extremely costly, far easier just to leave someone
> without work but still pay them until they quit) is so expensive that almost
> all new jobs (~85% actually) are for temporary contracts limited by law to
> 12 months. 65% are for <1 month contracts. Think about it: 2 in every 3
> people who get a job offer in France this week will be unemployed in a
> month._

You are twisting the statistics. Of course you don't sign permanent contracts
as much as temporary contracts: you sign one and you keep it for 3, 5, 10, 20
years.

The fact is that 80 to 90% of employees have a permanent contract. It is just
that the small pool of employees with temporary contracts generate a huge
number of contract because, well, they are temporary. And the very short
temporary contracts will generate an even bigger number of contracts that
longer temporary contracts.

Also, the limit for a temporary contract is not 12 months. In the general
case, it is 18 months (there are cases where it is 9 months, and others were
it is 36 months).

> _An employee in France making the country 's average wage costs the employer
> (in absolute terms) almost the same than an employee in Switzerland making
> that country's average income (which in PPP is higher than France's)._

No way.

Average wage in France is 2300 € net / month, which is 3000 € gross, which
costs the employer around 4000 €.

Average income in Switzerland is over 5500 € gross / month. I won't even
bother to calculate the employer's cost to give an employee such income,
because the figure is already _way higher_ than the French one.

~~~
ucaetano
> Average income in Switzerland is over 5500 € gross / month. I won't even
> bother to calculate the employer's cost to give an employee such income,
> because the figure is already way higher than the French one.

Oh, no. You forgot about the tax wedge. Everyone forgets about the tax wedge.

Swiss tax wedge: ~20%

French tax wedge: ~50%

In France, you cost your employer about 2X your salary. In Switzerland you
cost your employer about 1.25X your salary.

Source: OECD.

So your Swiss costs €6,875/month and your French costs €6,000/month.

~~~
estebank
It is also true that cost of living is lower in France than in Switzerland[1].

[1]: [https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-
living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-
living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Switzerland&country2=France&city1=Zurich&city2=Paris)

~~~
ucaetano
Indeed, but not that more expensive.

Despite costing in the same range (€6,875/month vs. €6,000/month), the Swiss
employee is probably making about €4,500 to €5,000 net, while the French one
is making €2,300 net.

Cost of living in Paris (from your source) are about 30% lower than those in
Zurich, so let's divide the French income by 0.7, then we get:

Swiss employee: €4,700/month net PPP

French employee: €3,285/month net PPP

So the Swiss employee is making on average, in this calculation, 45% more
money for the same work, using GP's numbers.

------
tomohawk
I'm blessed with work. I'm glad I don't have some union telling me I can only
work 28 hours a week.

In the good times, the steel workers union got great benefits from Bethlehem
Steel. Those times changed, and all those people lost their jobs. Tens of
thousands of jobs never coming back.

~~~
fwdpropaganda
> I'm glad I don't have some union telling me I can only work 28 hours a week.

There's always a guy that comments without reading the article. Don't be that
guy.

~~~
tomohawk
No, I'm a guy who lives in the US and knows how unions in the US are.

~~~
Daishiman
And you clearly don't know how the unions in Germany are, so why are you even
commenting?

------
ancorevard
This explains today's tarnished image of German engineering. It really hurts
me to see what's happening with the engineering found at Volkswagen et al.

------
sharpercoder
It has become clear to me that sub-40 hour work weeks don't really work from
many perspectives. The most important factor is that many jobs require a
minimum degree of attention. More focus does translate into better results.

So instead of sub-40 hour work weeks, we should maybe introduce partial yearly
roles. So for example if you want to do 30 hours per week, simply work 3/4
weeks per year (39 of 52), but do work these weeks 40h.

~~~
news_to_me
> It has become clear to me that sub-40 hour work weeks don't really work from
> many perspectives

Can you elaborate? This seems interesting and not intuitive to me. Personally,
I feel more productive at around 20-30 hrs/wk

~~~
sharpercoder
1) I personally need a certain amount of focus to be really productive. Pure
focus on one thing with enough "cadence" brings me in the zone. 2) Employers
often have the idea as well. Although part-time jobs grow year-over-year, the
ones getting promotions are still usually the employees dedicated 40 fulltime.
I don't know if this is just a matter of perspective or based on tangible
results (e.g. proven better productivity). 3) The "10 000 hour rule"

I should emphasize that the 40 hours should be spend well and the employee
should use enough time for relaxation, rest and leasure. 40 hours for e.g. a
head of family in busy waters may quickly be detrimental.

~~~
carlmr
If you ask me a 40h workweek is very susceptible to _Parkinson 's law_

>work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion

I'm less focused sometimes because I know I have time to do something than if
I know I don't. And I might be doing more work if I had less hours to fill and
knew I had to use them.

------
tabeth
Unfortunately unless worldwide culture changes such that demand for produced
goods drops dramatically in favor for intangibles (humanities, happiness,
etc.) any small union that does this will basically become irrelevant in no
short time. It's important to note that the union in the OP has huge leverage.

It seems this kind of action is only possible for certain organizations in
certain circumstances. In '95 this same organization was able to get down to a
35hr work week, but it's worth noting that metal is relatively expensive to
ship and they're the largest union so there are some unique circumstances
here.

EDIT: Seems my point is misunderstood. It's not that people shouldn't strive
for less hours, it is that a sufficiently large amount of leverage is really
the only way these things happen. Given that there's plenty of retaliation
against those who try to unionize, it's pretty critical that they have plenty
of leverage, first.

~~~
henrikschroder
We've shifted to the 10-hour work day and the 8-hour work day before, despite
a worldwide economy with an increasing appetite for stuff, and despite
employee protections being much, much weaker back then.

~~~
marnett
We've also gained mandatory arbitration and at-will employment; let's not get
ahead of ourselves. Not to mention most knowledge-workers work more than 40
hours a week with no hope of overtime. Of course, at least in America, we
won't see 'white collar' jobs shift from the 5 day work week, but they have
shackles of a different kind.

~~~
lhopki01
Working hours have gotten longer in the US with the decreased power of unions.

