FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Virtues of Work Sharing

by

Though Washington has been mired in gridlock over the past few years, work sharing is one policy that has enjoyed the support of Democrats and Republicans alike. And with good cause. Estimates suggest that work sharing has saved over more than half a million jobs since the Great Recession and is still a good policy to keep people in their jobs instead of getting laid off.

Work sharing, also known as short-time compensation, is a policy that lets employers adjust to slowdowns in business demand by reducing hours for workers rather than laying them off. This is accomplished by allowing workers to put in fewer hours while having much of the difference offset by unemployment insurance.

For example, consider a company facing a temporary drop in demand. Assuming this led to a 20 percent drop in production needs, the company might consider reducing the total number of workers by 20 percent. These layoffs would not only leave these employees out of work, but when production needs return to trend, the company would have to hire new employees and train new workers.Under work sharing, however, workers don’t have to lose their jobs. Instead, they can work 20 percent fewer hours and receive 20 percent of their weekly unemployment benefit to help make up the lost income. Using the example above, rather than working a full five-day work week, work sharing participants work four days. Instead of the $500 a week they typically earn, they get $400 from the employer as well as 20 percent of their $250 unemployment benefit for a total $450 dollars a week.

While a little less than their normal pay, this is generally preferable to being out of work altogether. At the same time, employers are able to retain skilled workers. In the 29 states that currently participate in work sharing, both employers and workers report satisfaction with the program. In an effort to ensure continued support for the program, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) recently introduced legislation to continue the financing of work sharing programs. Reed and DeLauro were also the original sponsors of legislation to finance work sharing as it was incorporated into the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.

At the time, the United States averaged around 2 million layoffs a month. While the unemployment rate has fallen sharply since 2012, there are still roughly 1.7 million layoffs a month, so the need for the program remains. Other countries, most notably Germany, have demonstrated the value of work sharing in protecting workers from the impact of recessions. Output in Germany actually fell by a larger amount in the Great Recession than in the United States, yet its unemployment rate actually fell from 2007 to 2010, even as it rose by more than 5 percentage points in the United States.

Work sharing is also a useful policy in the context of thinking about the 40 hour work week. In the decades prior to the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the work week for U.S. workers fell from roughly 60 hours a week in 1880, to about 50 hours a week in 1920. After the FLSA was enacted in 1938, hours settled at around 40 per week. In many European countries, however, many people work less than 40 hours a week and enjoy a standard of living similar to that in the United States.

In part, this is because employee benefits like healthcare and retirement have historically been tied to employment in the United States while in Europe they have been tied to government. This made the overhead cost to employers per worker, rather than per hour. That created an incentive to keep longer workweeks rather than hire more workers. Expanded healthcare coverage as brought about by the Affordable Care Act already allows U.S. workers to work less than full time and still have health insurance.

Defined-benefit pension plans have largely been replaced with 401(k)s, which are largely paid in proportion to hours worked. This means that the factors that have artificially prevented the continued shortening of the workweek in the United States have largely been removed. Work sharing can go along with other changes in policy and practices to facilitate a reduction in the average length of the workweek and work year, putting us more in line with other wealthy countries.

A final related point is that futurists and alarmists have been warning that robots are coming for or already are taking our jobs. That is simply not the case. In fact, what automation we see now and will likely see in the immediate future still requires a fair amount of human input and interaction. More automation could lead to a boost in productivity, but not to the extent that people are thrown out of their jobs. To the contrary, this increase in productivity could allow us to work a little less while enjoying a good standard of living. Policies drawing from work sharing coupled with benefits not tied to a 40 hour work week could help make that happen.

Alan Barber is director of domestic policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

This article originally appeared in The Hill.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
February 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
American Carnage
Paul Street
Michael Wolff, Class Rule, and the Madness of King Don
Andrew Levine
Had Hillary Won: What Now?
David Rosen
Donald Trump’s Pathetic Sex Life
Susan Roberts
Are Modern Cities Sustainable?
Joyce Nelson
Canada vs. Venezuela: Have the Koch Brothers Captured Canada’s Left?
Geoff Dutton
America Loves Islamic Terrorists (Abroad): ISIS as Proxy US Mercenaries
Mike Whitney
The Obnoxious Pence Shows Why Korea Must End US Occupation
Joseph Natoli
In the Post-Truth Classroom
John Eskow
One More Slaughter, One More Piece of Evidence: Racism is a Terminal Mental Disease
John W. Whitehead
War Spending Will Bankrupt America
Dave Lindorff
Trump’s Latest Insulting Proposal: Converting SNAP into a Canned Goods Distribution Program
Robert Fantina
Guns, Violence and the United States
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming Zaps Oxygen
John Laforge
$1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and “Fake” Cleanups
CJ Hopkins
The War on Dissent: the Specter of Divisiveness
Peter A. Coclanis
Chipotle Bell
Anders Sandström – Joona-Hermanni Mäkinen
Ways Forward for the Left
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Winning Hearts and Minds
Tommy Raskin
Syrian Quicksand
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Still Tries to Push Dangerous Drug Class
Jill Richardson
The Attorney General Thinks Aspirin Helps Severe Pain – He’s Wrong
Mike Miller
Herb March: a Legend Deserved
Ann Garrison
If the Democrats Were Decent
Renee Parsons
The Times, They are a-Changing
Howard Gregory
The Democrats Must Campaign to End Trickle-Down Economics
Sean Keller
Agriculture and Autonomy in the Middle East
Ron Jacobs
Re-Visiting Gonzo
Eileen Appelbaum
Rapid Job Growth, More Education Fail to Translate into Higher Wages for Health Care Workers
Ralph Nader
Shernoff, Bidart, and Echeverria—Wide-Ranging Lawyers for the People
Chris Zinda
The Meaning of Virginia Park
Robert Koehler
War and Poverty: A Compromise with Hell
Mike Bader – Mike Garrity
Senator Tester Must Stop Playing Politics With Public Lands
Kenneth Culton
No Time for Olympic Inspired Nationalism
Graham Peebles
Ethiopia: Final Days of the Regime
Irene Tung – Teófilo Reyes
Tips are for Servers Not CEOs
Randy Shields
Yahoomans in Paradise – This is L.A. to Me
Thomas Knapp
No Huawei! US Spy Chiefs Reverse Course on Phone Spying
Mel Gurtov
Was There Really a Breakthrough in US-North Korea Relations?
David Swanson
Witness Out of Palestine
Binoy Kampmark
George Brandis, the Rule of Law and Populism
Dean Baker
The Washington Post’s Long-Running Attack on Unions
Andrew Stewart
Providence Public School Teachers Fight Back at City Hall
Stephen Cooper
Majestic Meditations with Jesse Royal: the Interview
David Yearsley
Olympic Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail