Long-term reductions to working hours could improve work-life balance and productivity, according to an extensive research project by academics and employment researchers.
The research, carried out by Professor Phil Taylor from the University of Strathclyde with support from the Alex Ferry Foundation, the Institute of Employment Rights and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (CSEU), looked at working patterns and desired working arrangements across manufacturing sites in the UK.
The sites were chosen in sectors such as engineering, automotive and shipbuilding that tend to have high records of overtime.
In the first phase of their report, the researchers looked at six plants and almost 2,400 union members, finding that 93% supported a reduction in working time without a loss of pay. Almost nine in 10 (88%) supported extended weekends, and 82% were in favour of working fewer shifts.
Shorter working week
The second phase of the report reviewed in-depth case studies of 13 plants that had been negotiating on or conducting a shorter working week.
When the research was conducted, 91% were working contracted hours greater than those for the UK workforce overall, and a tenth were working 10 hours overtime each week.
The researchers found that respondents generally had little choice over which shifts they worked and there was little scope to change shifts at short notice, with a few exceptions to respond to family circumstances.
For many involved with the survey, the pandemic had prompted a reappraisal of attitudes towards work and work-life balance, however.
Four-fifths said that Covid-19 had increased their appreciation of the time they spend with their family, and nine in 10 said they thought a good work-life balance was more important.
However, despite a ‘drive for 35’ campaign seeking a 35-hour week dating back to 1989, this remained “unfinished business” in many employers.
Professor Phil Taylor pointed out that reductions in working hours without loss of pay are “owed and overdue” where the gains from the increases in productivity over decades have not been fairly shared with workers.
From this perspective, he argued, “shorter working time has already been paid for.”
The researchers considered current campaigns in favour of a four-day working week, which has been shown to be beneficial to workers’ mental and physical health without detrimental impacts to productivity.
However, respondents agreed that a slightly longer, 35-hour week would be a more realistic objective for workforces in engineering and manufacturing.
Physical and mental health benefits were those most cited where they had achieved a reduction in hours.
One respondent at Jaguar Land Rover commented that reducing absence by offering a shorter working week would mean “big money” because of the sums spent on sick pay when a higher proportion of the workforce is absent.
Another, based at a Bentley plant in Crewe, added: “Morale is a lot higher, productivity is better, people doing a better job because they are less fatigued, happier going home at three, they are off sick less, less chance of getting injured.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
HR business partner opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more HR business partner jobs
