There is nothing inherently fixed about the standard working week of 9-5 Mondays to Fridays. ‘Normal’ work hours have changed over time, with the weekend and bank holidays as we know them today being the products of campaigning by workers and trade unions in the past.
Reducing working hours has been a longstanding proposal to improve working life and the balance between work, leisure and important unpaid activity such as care.
Supporters note that as productivity rises it is possible to take the gains as increased leisure time rather than income. This would have the additional benefit of spreading the available work more widely. Some advocates argue that it could even help increase productivity, as employees may work harder in their reduced hours.
Some supporters of reduced working time today are proposing a four-day standard working week. Others argue for a reduction in hours per day, which might suit working parents better. Others propose an increase in the number of bank and public holidays.
Critics of working time reductions argue that they would be expensive - even when productivity is rising in some sectors, it is not in all.
A key issue for proponents of reduced working hours is whether this would be accompanied by a proportionate reduction in pay. Workers in many countries (including the UK) already have the right to ask for shorter and more flexible hours, but this is very difficult for those on low wages. A key feature of many shorter working time proposals is therefore that this should not be accompanied by a reduction in pay, especially for low earners. This would increase its cost.
A widely cited template for a shorter working week is the German Kurzarbeit (short-work) scheme (summarised here by the New Economics Foundation), which has been resurrected in the light of Covid to help support workers through its employment impacts; the German industrial union, IG Metall, secured an agreement to move its members to a 28-hour working week. In New Zealand, Jacinda Arden has proposed a 4-day week as a way to rebuild New Zealand's economy after Covid, and there are many other examples.
The shorter working week is part of the International Labor Organisation’s concept of ‘time sovereignty’ for workers, which aims to reframe the concept of workers’ time to give them greater autonomy.
A survey by productivity charity Be the Business found one in five small British firms are at least actively considering a four day week. Nearly 300,000 small and medium-sized UK businesses and over 840,000 employees are already working a four-day week and over 1 million UK firms and 3 million employees could move to a four-day week in the near future.
A comprehensive report from Autonomy and the 4 Day Week campaign situates the shorter working week as a response to some of the fundamental factors changing the nature of work in the UK, such as precarious work, the threat of automation, and inequalities. More recently, in response to the pandemic, Autonomy has proposed a reduction in working time to tackle rising unemployment.
Ireland has began a six-month trial to test the benefits and effectiveness of a four-day working week, with businesses in receipt of training, support and mentoring to facilitate a smooth transition.
The impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and economic shutdowns have not been evenly experienced. The evidence shows that the effects have largely played out along existing lines of inequality. In the UK people living in the most deprived areas and on the lowest incomes, and those from black and minority ethnic (BME) communities, have been both most likely to die from the disease and most likely to lose their jobs and to face serious financial pressure.
Globally Covid has also been experienced in very uneven ways. Varying national responses to the virus have made a big difference, but within most countries it has been those on the lowest incomes who have experienced the most severe effects, and internationally countries with the poorest health systems.
The extremely unequal distribution of vaccines has exacerbated the crisis, with much slower rates of vaccination between richer and poorer countries. Vaccination rates will largely determine how quickly countries recover economically from the pandemic.
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz reviews the international evidence on inequality and Covid-19, and argues that systemic economic reform is needed to reduce inequalities.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies Deaton Review on Inequality has analysed how Covid-19 has affected various aspects of inequality in the UK. It shows how the pandemic has interacted with many longstanding inequalities, with those on low incomes and in disadvantaged areas, women and BME communities most affected by job loss and financial hardship.
The Institute for Health Equity's 'Build Back Fairer: The COVID-19 Marmot Review' examines the health inequalities and the socioeconomic determinants of health exacerbated by the pandemic.
A report by the World Health Organisation, UN Development Programme and Oxford University analyses the global distribution of vaccines and shows that the highly unequal rate of vaccination will largely determine the speed at which countries recover economically from the pandemic.
Over the past 18 months there has been an outpouring of appreciation for NHS staff, carers and other workers delivering key public services under extraordinary strain. Yet at the same time the pandemic has exposed a lack of resilience within many of these services.
It is now widely recognised that the task beyond Covid-19 is to rebuild public services so they are better equipped to handle future challenges: both acute shocks, such as another pandemic, and chronic pressures such as the ageing population. Public services will also play a crucial role in achieving long-term national goals, such as decarbonisation and reducing regional inequality. Other insights from the experience of Covid-19, such as the importance of digital access and data governance, could also inform future public service provision.
Even before Covid many public services were under severe pressure, particularly at local level. A decade of major reductions in public spending had been accompanied by other important trends in service provision, such as outsourcing. At the same time a measure of devolution to city regions had created opportunities for innovation and more integrated service provision.
There are close relationships between public services and the social security or welfare systems. See also our Improving work and welfare pages.
The Institute for Government’s report How fit were public services for coronavirus? found an acute lack of resilience across the NHS, local government, education and criminal justice systems, and blame underfunding over the previous decade.
The House of Lords Public Services Committee’s report A critical juncture for public services: Lessons from Covid-19 identified a number of weaknesses in public service provision during the pandemic - inequality of access, over-centralisation, lack of integration - and outlines recommendations for reform.
The British Academy has conducted a major enquiry into the long-term social impacts of Covid-19 and the implications for the design and funding of public services in the 2020s. It sets out seven strategic goals for policymakers and five principles for a successful recovery by 2030.
The Women’s Budget Group Commission on a Gender-Equal Economy has laid out the roadmap for the creation of a 'Caring Economy', including recommendations both for particular public services (e.g. social care, health, housing) and for how public services are treated within the UK’s broader economic policy framework.
Extending the principles behind the NHS - universal services, guaranteed at a decent level to all citizens - to other public services is the rationale behind the proposal for 'Universal Basic Services'. See our analysis here.
In the decade before the pandemic, public sector pay fell behind the rising cost of living, so that on average in real terms the UK's 5.5 million public sector workers earned £900 less per year in 2020 than they did in 2010. Some workers have seen particularly sharp falls in real-terms pay, including teachers (£1349), local government residential care workers (almost £1900), firefighters (£2500) and early career nurses (over £3000).
In this context, the Government’s decision in November 2020 to freeze pay levels for most public sector workers has attracted criticism. Many argue that it undervalues the work of millions of 'key workers' who have already seen a decade of declining pay. Many economists have questioned the wisdom of cutting wages while simultaneously trying to stimulate economic recovery. Public sector pay restraint will also exacerbate inequalities, as women, members of ethnic minorities and those living in poorer regions of the UK are disproportionately likely to work in the public sector.
The wider issue is about maintaining public sector capacity and the quality of public services. Low and declining pay makes it harder to recruit and retain high quality public service workers.
The TUC's analysis of the pay and conditions of public sector key workers proposes a three reforms: raising the minimum wage, which would improve earnings for 2 million workers, giving meaningful pay rises to another 4 million workers, and banning zero-hours contracts, which particularly affect those working in health and social care, and wholesale and retail.
Prior to the pandemic, the House of Commons Library estimated that recruitment and retention challenges in health and social care in England had led to a combined shortage of over 222,000 full-time equivalent staff across the NHS and adult social care.
IPPR has proposed a post-pandemic workforce strategy for the NHS, drawing on polling of healthcare professionals and based on the principles of 'recover, reward and renew'.
The IFS calculates that teachers have experienced a 4-8% real-terms fall in salaries since 2007. This is considerably worse than for other sectors, and is likely to have serious consequences for teacher recruitment and retention.
The scale of the funding gap in addressing the environmental emergency has led many to suggest that private finance alone is not enough, and that public finance is particularly important.
Some propose that governments should increase their own borrowing to directly invest in critical projects that the private sector is reluctant to support, as well as those that are socially important but do not generate high returns.
Even before the pandemic it was argued that there was a strong case for greater direct public borrowing at a time of record low interest rates, which have since turned negative in many places.
The New Economics Foundation argues that the government has plenty of headroom to significantly increase its borrowing for green investment.
The Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) Fiscal Risks Report 2021 identifies unmitigated climate change as a "large, and potentially catastrophic," fiscal risk. The OBR notes that the costs of achieving net zero emissions are “significant”, but would be greater without “decisive action” and “early steps” to mitigate climate change. (Watch the OBR’s short video summary here).
The Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics argues that public finance is essential to make the green transition profitable for private companies. The economics of transition may not be initially appealing and up-front costs may be high.
It is generally acknowledged that social care services in the UK have suffered from a long period of political neglect, and entered the Covid-19 pandemic in a fragmented, under-funded and under-staffed condition. There is widespread consensus on the need for reform to make the care system more resilient, expanding access to and increasing the quality of services.
Investing in public care services would make a significant contribution to tackling gender inequality. Greater public care provision could relieve the burden on unpaid carers, the majority of whom are women. As 80% of the adult social care workforce are also women, action to tackle recruitment and retention challenges in the sector would so much to improve pay and conditions.
There is evidence of majority public support for extending the principles underlying the NHS to social care, making it free at the point of need and largely taxpayer-funded.
Over recent decades, as most of the UK's social care provision was outsourced from the public sector, private equity companies have taken over a significant proportion of care homes. It is widely argued that the 'financialisation' of care provision has undermined the quality of service.
Modelling by the New Economics Foundation for the NHS has analysed the economic and health cost to society of unpaid care work in England. NEF estimates these costs to be £37bn per year including lost tax revenue and mental health treatment. It argues that this underlines the economic case for greater public investment in care provision.
The final report of the Commission on a Gender-Equal Economy outlines eight steps required to create a 'caring economy'. These include the creation of a Universal Care Service. The Commission argues that a care-led approach to economic policy could form the basis of economic renewal, akin to the creation of the welfare state in 1945.
IPPR have laid out proposals for a social care system free at the point of need, supported by research on public opinion and on the effects of financialisation in the social care system.
The Women’s Budget Group has brought together evidence on the need for reform of social care, highlighting the problems of deregulation and privatisation in the care sector and the effects on gender inequality, for example through increasing strain on unpaid carers.
There are few quick fixes for reducing zoonotic transmission of diseases. The causes are linked with the wider impacts of human activity on the natural world. Major global health bodies are calling for a One Health approach, with public health investment being based on the intrinsic connection between the health of people, plant and animals.
A range of policy ideas flow from this agenda. Improving food security, particularly in low-income nations, could stop international markets encouraging environmentally destructive food production.
There are growing calls for companies to do more to prevent deforestation and biodiversity loss. Reducing demand for meat and dairy products could also drastically reduce destruction of nature and improve health globally.
The Soil Association explores the links between zoonotic transmission and intensive farming. It states that pigs in particular are known to be vulnerable to coronaviruses and could be a key vector for transmission.
The Zoological Society of London argues that closing wet markets risks forcing activity into illegal and less regulated markets. The real drivers of zoonotic exposure are biodiversity loss and the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife.
WWF calls for global action to protect people and nature in response to Covid-19. It focuses on the impacts of human activity on the natural world as a driving force in the transmission of zoonotic diseases.
To keep businesses running and people in jobs during the Covid-19 crisis, the UK government established a number of emergency measures.These include the Job Retention Scheme, which supports companies to put workers on furlough rather than lose their jobs; a support scheme for the self-employed; and loan schemes for various sizes of business.
Specific measures and funding were provided for badly affected sectors, such as hospitality and the performing arts. At the same time the government temporarily increased the rate of Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits paid to those on low incomes.
These measures have supported many businesses and households. But there have been a number of criticisms. In January 2021 over 1.5 million self-employed people were estimated not to qualify for support because less than half their incomes came from self-employment or they had not been self-employed long enough.
The government’s business loan schemes have been criticised for favouring landlords, who in many cases continued to be paid rent in full while their tenants had to take out emergency loans. Meanwhile the significant increase in poverty caused by the pandemic has led to a widespread call for permanent increases in Universal Credit and child support levels.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted how many self-employed people were excluded from the Government’s support schemes and the impact of delays in payments and the reintroduction of the ‘Minimum Income Floor’.
The IPPR has shown that up to 45% of emergency payments made during the crisis, including the Job Retention Scheme, effectively go to landlords, banks, and other lenders, with ‘bounce back loans’ one of the government support measures criticised for channelling money primarily to those with assets.
Examining the impact of the pandemic on the finances of low-income households, the TUC has called for an increase in statutory sick pay, an increase in Universal Credit and other benefits to at least 80 per cent of the national living wage, among other measures. A coalition of health organisations including the British Medical Association have called for similar reforms.
A Women’s Budget Group briefing summarises a set of social security reforms which would help prevent the unequal gendered impacts experienced in the first lockdown.
The New Economics Foundation has proposed a ‘Minimum Income Guarantee’ that would prevent people falling through the gaps in current social security provision by setting an unconditional, non-means-tested income floor of £225 a week.
Excessive risk-taking in the financial industry could be disincentivised and how much people are paid and the way profits are distributed can play an important role.
Goldman Sachs made headlines by taking the decision to retain its dividends payout despite the Federal Reserve’s guidance against doing so. The UK’s Prudential Regulatory Authority has already requested that banks scrap dividends distributions throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, as have many other national regulators.
Some proposals go further, arguing that after anti-banker sentiment following the financial crash, the current crisis is the time for regulators to require that ethical banking become the norm.
The Bank for International Settlements argues that policymakers should impose blanket constraints on profit distribution and that authorities should attempt to harmonise these measures across jurisdictions.
The Centre for American Progress argues for a suspension of all distributions, including discretionary bonus payments, instead focusing on rebuilding capital.
Professor Nizan Geslevich Packin argues in Forbes that policymakers should introduce new measures to promote ethical banking during Covid-19. Her recommendations include a new fiduciary duty for banks, and for them to be required to be flexible with customers facing difficulties.
Central banks, such as the Bank of England, have a major role to play in combatting the environmental emergency. They can do this through their own lending and by how they regulate the financial system.
An international network of central banks has become increasingly vocal about the risks to finance from climate change. They anticipate that growing economic damage will threaten financial stability. They are also concerned about the potential for a financial crisis when fossil fuels are no longer overvalued.
Proposals for further action include penalising loans to high carbon activity and ensuring that quantitative easing only promotes sustainable investment. The UK government has announced plans for large companies and financial institutions to report climate risk in the next five years.
The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy argues that macroprudential regulation and monetary policy by central banks is critical to effective climate action.
The Grantham Institute produced a policy report arguing for every bank in the European System of Central Banks to adopt net-zero strategies, and explaining how to green their prudential and monetary policy.
The Green New Deal Group discusses the importance of coordination between central banks and finance ministries on climate change. Positive Money argues that the Bank of England must be given a green mandate.
The New Economics Foundation, 350.org and Positive Money propose measures that the European Central Bank should take on climate change. NEF outlines a series of proposals for how the Bank of England could respond, including stress testing financial institutions in the UK economy for how resilient they are to climate change.
