PS chairman Paul Magnette launched the idea at his election conference to have everyone work 32 hours for the same pay. With the nuance that he realizes that this is not for tomorrow, but that “steps need to be taken in that direction”. In Flanders, Magnette’s idea was immediately shot down by Open VLD and N-VA. Employer organizations also responded negatively.
Magnette’s proposal amounts to working six hours (or 16 percent) less for the same pay. This means that all wages would increase by 16 percent. For employers – who already complain that Belgian wages are among the highest in the world – the proposal is many bridges too far. Especially at a time when there is a major shortage on the labor market.
The government would also spend much more on extra salaries for its civil servants, at a time when Belgium has the largest budget deficit in Europe. These are also the arguments why labor economist Stijn Baert (UGent) rejects Magnette’s proposal for a large linear reduction in working hours while maintaining wages. “It is a deliberate destruction of prosperity,” says Baert.
First World War
Proponents of working less for the same pay refer to the past. The unions and socialists achieved a victory after World War I by reducing the working week to 48 hours, six 8-hour days, with no loss of wages. In the 19th century there was no limit on the number of working hours. Working days could last up to 17 hours, seven days in a row.
In the 1970s the 40-hour week was reached, reaching 38 hours around the turn of the century. This was possible because productivity – doing more with less – rose rapidly after the war and those productivity gains were converted into working less and higher wages.
Baert does not rule out that we will work even less in the future. “That 38-hour week is not a divine law,” he says, although he does not see much margin due to the aging population. “Future productivity growth is needed to pay pensions and cannot be used to work less for the same pay.” He also refers to the competitive position: “The large reductions in working hours in the past fitted into an international context in which several countries simultaneously reduced working hours, so that there was no competitive disadvantage.”
Time credit without motive
The ACV is open to Magnette’s proposal, but the trade union does not think a linear reduction in working hours is a good idea. “There are other ways to give people more time to combine work and family. Not everyone wants to work one day less per week,” says Maarten Gerard, head of the ACV research department.
The ACV proposes to give five extra days of statutory holiday, without loss of salary. It also wants to expand thematic leave and time credit. “We advocate the return of time credit without a motive. To give people who need it space in their lives. This way you can meet new needs – such as grandparent leave.” Until a few years ago you could take time credit to travel the world. Now time credit is limited to specific care tasks: for a child, a sick family member, education.
Gerard understands why a discourse about working less for the same pay sounds attractive to people. “We may officially work fewer hours than before. The mental workload has increased enormously, even outside work. Digital communication means that people are much more concerned with their work outside of working hours.”
According to Gerard, there is a payback effect for social security if people temporarily work less. This way they can stay healthy for longer. Baert also says he is not opposed to part-time work, but for less pay. “A lot of people feel like they have to hold up a lot of signs and run,” he says. “But there is no scientific evidence that those who work four-fifths have a lower risk of burnout.”
Miranda Ulens, CEO of the ABVV, supports Magnette’s call. “A shorter working week can paradoxically contribute to higher productivity through a better work-life balance, fewer burnouts and a healthier workforce. That can offset the higher costs of a shorter working week. Experiences abroad, including in Sweden and Finland, show that a shorter working week can lead to an improvement in employee satisfaction, health and productivity.”
