The Instigator
Purva_Thakkar
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
j.swins82
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Lowering Working Hours of Employees

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 312 times Debate No: 82904
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Purva_Thakkar

Pro

I believe that working constantly provides more productivity than working for longer periods with the inclusion of breaks or periods of inactivity ( after lunch hours mostly ).
Even Economics believes in Real Cost where the workers may get inefficient after long periods of time. Many developed countries have reduced the working hours of employees. It is simply logical that more productivity and efficiency is seen during less working hours than more working hours. I am in favor of reduction of working hours.
j.swins82

Con

Working through 8 hours is the most time efficient and cost efficient method of work. If you disagree. I'd respectfully request that you give me a little more precise idea of what type of schedule you see that will consist of lower hours but still output the same productivity. The typical 8 hour workday has proven that it is the most cost efficient to both the employer, and the worker. You have to consider the average persons needs, both financially and personally. The 8 hour workday fits extremely well into a time slot for people who have kids that are at school for around the same time. It is a good amount of time to earn enough money to make ends meet and to pay bills. The study of the counterproductivity of fatigue usually focuses on the hours beyond 8 hours. And most studies that do focus on the initial 8 hours do not reflect any type of substantial amount of fatigue that is leading to dramatic loss amongst the company. In order for the system to work (for let's say, a half work day), and remain the same as far as productivity for the company, and pay for the individual, you'd have to double pay, AND double productivity, in half the time.
Debate Round No. 1
Purva_Thakkar

Pro

The analysis provided by you was perfect but theoretical. Practical life is extremely different rather I'd say exactly opposite. More working hours are only and only cost effective if the efforts are consistently provided into the work and work is given prime importance. Most of the employees experience fatigue due to the long 8 hr schedule. Many a times unnecessary meetings, reports and discussions take away the time of employees. If these are cut short then there would not be any requirement of stretching the time. Unnecessary functions take away the time which was destined for the original and important work. You are telling that 8 hrs are extremely cost effective. But there are pharmaceutical, banking, investment, industrial and other service sectors which extend the hrs of employees even more than 8 hrs. The working hrs on paper are different and in reality are different. This absence of transparency leads to more frustrated workplaces and more arguments leads to workers working inefficiently or just slacking off despite of their potential just to show that they do not respect the management. For your kind information we are living in the 2nd decade of 21st century and it is perfectly easy and effective to work at home for urgent report works and other works connected with the departments through internet. Gone the days of typical 9 to 5 24/7 packed with 40 hrs of work. Many of the workers are unable to display their actual caliber due to excessive but unnecessary work load. They usually change their jobs after merely few years of working, My argument is from the employee point of view and probably your argument is from the employer point of you but still I'm fine with it. Because eventually ( according to the essential business ethics ) it is the supreme authority of the employer to keep their employees satisfied in order to get satisfactory work. Or else employees are humans and they would be unable to provide golden results for the shop, firm, company, bank, or govt. Where I live....we don't even get holiday on Saturdays and if we add traveling into the working hrs then it becomes 10 hrs not 8 hrs and hence we work 60 hrs precisely for the company not 40 hrs. Finally less working doesn't mean drastically less. Only 2 hrs less also holds good. And a very important point to be noted is of working women. More working hrs means more stress for women because they have to play the both the duties which equally take their time. Due to this stress ridden lifestyle they become resilient and over wrought. And negligible women in the workplace is making only the impression of the company bad. And of course if the employees are paid a fair price for more working hours...still I'd find that appropriate but most during poor trade cycles the newly recruited esp. fresh employees are charged negligible in spite of working long hours.
j.swins82

Con

Maybe our ideas of what practical life differ, but I hardly see how my analysis was impractical. I work a 9/80, which is 44 hours one week and 36 the next (equivalent to 40 hours a week). I have never been an employer, or even a manager for that matter but I do work for a major aerospace company that I feel hires many practical employees and gave us a pretty practical schedule (keeping in mind the average American works 46.6 hours a week). I had a VERY physical job that required a serious choice of either 1) attention to detail or 2) injury. My coworkers and I performed these tasks at our 100% until the clock winded down. SURE we were VERY tired at the end of our shifts. Sure we WISHED we could work less. But if given that option, we would be struggling to make ends meet. So I guess my question is, if we have a system where employees can perform up to and past the company's expectations while meeting the employees financial needs, then why and how would anyone ever possibly change that system? You mention unnecessary job functions in an argument on lowering work hours while I would mention it on how to maximize efficiency and minimize distractions (such as unnecessary meetings, reports, etc.). In situations like yours, I would absolutely agree on lowering working hours and doing much more to change your current situation. But I wouldn't sign a bill that just says "lower working hours" because MANY people are working as much as they need to to make ends meet. Many of them are not working these hours because their job requires it but because they need the money (which is crappy as well). I agree that negligible employees, or any employees for that matter are a bad reflection on the corporation, and if the general populations consensus is that 46.7 hours is too long to be worked in one week, on top of whatever their home life is, then they'd request less hours or find work elsewhere. And that's very harsh to say and I even feel bad saying it, but that's the cold hard truth. If we look at extreme cases of labor then I agree with your points. But if we're talking 46.7 hours, the average Americans work week, then I can't agree.

(An aside: If anyone, man or women, cannot balance work and their personal obligations, then maybe they should have considered those obligations a little more carefully OR considered a line of work that will compliment their obligations more generously?)
Debate Round No. 2
Purva_Thakkar

Pro

Tx for considering some of my points. Starting from your ending.....we cannot decide whether the company is prepared to provide obligations or not. Many of the fine details are not discussed during the negotiations and are realized after the recruitment procedure. Surely that can also happen in the case of getting the wrong employee. But the important point is about the working atmosphere is not experienced before the recruitment. And certainly if any of our past colleagues or friends have been in the company for years they may not understand our limitations and may not be able to provide the exact information about the company. Many of them won't even provide the 50% correct information....maybe because they are new or not an insider or don't want the impression of company turning bad.

Hardly any company provides fair pay share to both the genders then at least they should lower the working hours of the employees. That's it. If the company is providing a hefty amount quiet much corresponding to the job profile then I don't have a problem. But less increments, more working hours, less holidays, more work load, less no. of employees and more donkey - work is nothing but exploitation. We have studied types of unemployment years ago. This is the golden example of disguised unemployment. Putting less workers in the office and making the remaining workers work like donkeys is utterly inhuman practice.

I'm not even asking about any other services or holidays. I am telling that lowering the working hours is the best option available to satisfy employees already working in a less paid job or stressful job. If they get rest and leisure they'd work far more superior....and submit the 100% proper work before dead line.
j.swins82

Con

I feel that with proper research of a position, and the corporation worked for, and questions asked during an interview, that you should be able to get a good idea of the average work week and the type of demands that a job requires of you. I feel that's the time to decide whether both your personal needs, and the companies needs will be met. And that is usually when I feel someone would decide whether or not they can meet that jobs required hours of work. But I don't think that lowering the working hours would be beneficial to most people. Just the people with "special circumstances" or people who think that 46.7 hours is unfair. I see validity in some of your statements, but I don't think that "lowering working hours of employees" should act as the rug to sweep all the problems under. I understand that the homework done on a company is not ALWAYS correct, but if you truly take the time to learn you can USUALLY get a good idea of what it will be like to work for that company and even if you're not directly spot on, it should only take small adjustments to be able to perform up to par. And if not, then maybe you work up a little experience then find a new position that can be a little more accommodating for you.

I agree that women are underpaid. And I will tell you that I think equality amongst every employee should be standard. But I don't see how you think that lowering working hours of employees would help even that gap.

I agree that understaffed companies who work their current employees far past the national average do deserve lowering working hours. But I feel that by placing a blanket statement of "lowering working hours of employees" across every spectrum of job, that you are also taking the hours from the 46.7 hour employees (such as myself) who are perfectly fine working those hours and who are content with the wages they are earning.

I believe the argument is extremely situational. And when something is situational it needs to be treated as such. Which can be handled with a trip to HR, or conversations with management, etc, etc. But to say that the majority of Americans are being slave driven and need a break I feel is kind of extreme. And I feel that people in those types of situations usually have the option of working their butts off and finding a position elsewhere that is not placing those impossible and debilitating demands on them.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.