Objectives and Implementation of the 35-hour workweek
– Create new jobs by making it more cost-effective to hire additional workers than pay overtime to current staff
– Pursue decommodification of citizens by reducing work hours without lowering their standard of living
– Take advantage of the changes to relax other workforce legislation
– Offer reduced payroll tax for businesses that lower working hours and hire additional workers
– Require businesses to sign agreements with unions to negotiate wage increases to compensate for reduced work time
– Aubry 1 law adopted in 1998 as an incentive for businesses to voluntarily shift to a 35-hour workweek
– Aubry 2 law adopted in January 2000, legally reducing standard hours worked per week to 35 for companies with over 20 employees
– Small businesses had until January 2002 to prepare for the shift
– Additional hours worked after 35 had to be paid at overtime premiums
– Businesses required to sign agreements with unions to negotiate wage increases
Amendments to the 35-hour workweek
– Raffarin government pushed for further relaxation of working time requirements
– Fallon laws extended maximum overtime hours per year from 180 to 220 in 2004
– Reforms reduced payroll tax cuts for companies implementing the 35-hour workweek
– Another law in 2005 extended possibilities of overtime hours
– El Khomri law in 2016 reduced overtime payments
Results of the 35-hour workweek
– Capital operating time in shift-work firms did not decrease, but intensity of night-shift work and additional overtime increased
– Non-shift-work companies decreased their capital operating costs
– No significant rise in dual jobholding due to reduction in full-time employment hours
– Some occupations, like lawyers, still work longer hours than the standard 35
– Aubry reforms credited with lowering unemployment and expanding the economy
Criticisms of the 35-hour workweek
– Businesses face overhead costs that do not adjust with operating hours, reducing the cost benefit of hiring additional workers
– Left-wing parties and trade unions support the reduction, while right-wing parties and employer federation oppose it
– Critics argue that the reduction failed to increase recruitment and instead increased hourly production quotas
– French employment regulations on labour flexibility make it difficult for firms to lay off workers during economic downturns
Related concepts and references
– Six-hour day
– Fair Labor Standards Act (United States)
– New Employment Contract (France)
– First Employment Contract (France)
– Organized labour portal
– References: Estevão, Marcello; Sá, Filipa (July 2008). The 35-hour workweek in France: Straightjacket or welfare improvement?; Gilles, Fabrice (15 March 2015). Evaluating the Impact of a Working Time Regulation on Capital Operating Time: The French 35‐hour Work Week Experience; Venturi, Richard (3 November 2014). Busting the myth of France’s 35-hour workweek; Chandler, Adam (10 March 2016). Au Revoir to France’s 35-Hour Workweek?; Economic Policy, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, BBC Worklife, The Atlantic Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek
The 35-hour workweek is a labour reform policy adopted in France in February 2000, under Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's Plural Left government. Promoted by Minister of Labour Martine Aubry, it was adopted in two phases: the Aubry 1 law in June 1998 and the Aubry 2 law in January 2000. The previous legal working week was 39 hours, established by President François Mitterrand, also a member of the Socialist Party. The 35-hour working week had been on the Socialist Party's 1981 electoral program, titled 110 Propositions for France, but was not pursued because of the poor state of the economy.
Time worked after the standard legal limit of 35 hours is considered overtime. The reform's aim is primarily to lower the unemployment rate, then at a record high of 12.5%, by encouraging the creation of jobs with work sharing.
