The blog is pretty good too, and it is there that I found one of my pet subjects getting an airing under the heading “What would a shorter working week mean for us?”

I urge you to read it. http://www.redpepper.org.uk/what-would-a-shorter-working-week-mean-for-us/

It got me reflecting on the WORK chapter of my book, written a few years ago now – just before I took the plunge and joined the Green Party, so I have copied a couple of extracts below:

PART ONE

We work too hard, and for what? To perpetuate the cycle of consumer driven economic growth, if I am not mistaken. We are indoctrinated to believe that this is the only worthwhile measure of that collective goal we call progress. I refute every strand of this.

My own personal progress, in escaping the shackles of a twenty year teaching career, has involved a 50% drop in my gross income; c.90% drop in my disposable income, a massive drop in my productivity (however you care to measure that). Okay, it may not be a manifesto that will win many votes, but I seriously think we need to address our priorities. Indefinite economic growth is a patent absurdity. We cannot keep expecting more and more. Only the Green Party seems to have accepted this truth. Quality of life has to be a saner goal than economic growth.

A recent report by Nuffield Health suggested that the average Brit is too lazy to run for a bus or have sex! They suggest we need to join private health facilities to monitor our health more rigorously. They also suggest that we counteract our idleness and invigorate ourselves by joining a health club. They suggest that businesses should buy in such services for their employees, as healthier employees are more productive employees. And guess what? Thats right! Nuffield Health own private hospitals and recently procured a chain of health clubs. And naturally, they can provide attractive corporate rates for their on-site fitness services. Isnt that just dandy?

I have been there, done that and bought the tee shirt. I tried joining the local gym/health club and went every morning before work for more than six months. It was great. I arrived in work each morning much more alert and energetic. I was undoubtedly more productive. However, by 8.00pm every evening I was falling asleep while I flicked and ticked my way through the superficial marking of the 300 exercise books I was supposed to mark every week. My kids suffered. My wife suffered. Our sex life suffered. For fucks sake, who was benefiting? I had to re-address my priorities.

I have no idea who funded the Nuffield Health survey and report, but here is the pretty obvious truth of the matter. We dont run for buses or have sex because we are knackered. We cant be bothered because we are tired from overwork. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy, so the proverb goes. It is a proverb that apparently first appears in James Howells Proverbs in English, Italian, French and Spanish, published in 1659 – so it is hardly a recent notion but is perhaps best known for its appearance in the 1980 film The Shining. Jack Nicholsons characters descent into insanity is shown by his production of hundreds of sheets of typewritten paper covered in nothing but this proverb. Ignoring it IS insanity.

If you want this line of thinking propounded by a weightier mind than mine, look no further than my fellow humanist, Bertrand Russell. Back in 1935 he wrote: A great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work[1]

Surprise, surprise, as with most beliefs designed to subjugate us, hard work is not a virtue propounded by reason, but it is a virtue promoted by vested economic interests with the help of puritanical religious groups (although often they are one and the same people). This was certainly the case in Dickensian Britain as Jerusalem[2] was builded here, with those dark satanic mills!

I am not denying for a moment the satisfaction and reward that hard work can bring. I also acknowledge that the more you put into something, the more you get out of it, but this pre-supposes that you have a choice about what you put into something. The problem with the capitalist systems of production that have come to dominate since the agrarian/industrial revolutions is that the workers become just one of the inputs in the production line. There is no craft or skill to hone. There is no scope for creativity. The worker costs £x per hour in much the same way as energy bills accumulate. They are just cogs in the machinery. Consistent efficiency is all that is needed.

Profitability becomes the definition of success. Good managers seek to minimise costs and optimise productivity. In terms of workers this translates to get the most out of them and pay them as little as possible. So much for philanthropy[3]. From the workers perspective, in the absence of any personal benefit from working harder, it becomes a case of getting away with doing as little as possible without jeopardising your pay cheque. No wonder mechanisation at the expense of workers is seen as such a desirable goal from managements perspective. Machines dont get Bolshie!

I guess most people would associate this recipe for poor industrial relations with the era of militant trade unions in the sixties and seventies. It may have been high profile and highly organised at that time, but I have to say that I have seen it pretty much everywhere I have worked schools, shops, factories, banks. As an employee myself, I have worked hard if I felt in the mood, but have done as little as I could get away with if I wasnt in the mood. Neither scenario made me feel particularly good or particularly bad. This would necessitate caring.

PART TWO

I believe that there needs to be a blending of the wholehearted commitment to quality that we see in Japan, with an appreciation that a good measure of idleness is good and healthy too.

The answer has to be Edward Heaths greatest achievement the three-day working week[1]. Imagine four days off every week. Imagine unemployment eliminated at a stroke. The need for additional workers will benefit the elderly that want to work on and encourage many more people who choose to be economically inactive into the workforce. Okay, you also have to imagine a 40% drop in earnings across the board too, but that means counter-inflationary pressure.

Realistically, a four-day week is far more practicable in the first instance. It would be a step along the road of reducing working hours that goes back a long way. The concept of working hours does not really apply to subsistence economies. People would have worked as and when necessary, and as and when nature dictated, to meet their needs. Academic opinion varies as to whether this meant working from dawn until dusk, or whether they only had to work sporadically and far fewer hours than we tend to. If you compare it to the lives of hunters and gatherers among the animal kingdom, the latter is probably the more likely.

Things started changing drastically with the invention of money, and with religion also having an input. Throughout the Abrahamic world, the working week through much of history was six days of labour and one day of rest (the Sabbath). Hours became more regimented with the Industrial Revolution. Labour started to be seen as just another input in the system of production. Working days of 14 to 16 hours, six days a week, were commonplace, for men, women and children.

From the onset of the Industrial Revolution in the late 19th century, it was clear to some that people were now being used to produce all manner of things that we never had before. This was what could be called progress, but progress for whom exactly? Benjamin Franklin[2] recognised the realities way back in 1784, in a letter to a friend:

What occasions then so much want and misery? It is the employment of men and women in works that produce neither the necessaries nor conveniences of lifeCould all these people, now employed in raising, making, or carrying superfluities, be subsisted in raising necessaries? I think they mightIt has been computed by some political arithmetician that if every man and woman would work for four hours each day on something useful, that labour would procure all the necessaries and comforts of life, want and misery would be banished out of the world, and the rest of the 24 hours might be leisure and pleasure.

He scribed these words of wisdom more than two and a quarter centuries ago. It is truer now than ever. We do not need tacky plastic toys, blue slush puppies, overpaid footballers or telemarketing. We need healthy food, nurses and teachers and green technologies. But no one listened in 1784, and few people are listening today.

It took the development of collective bargaining and trade unionism to see any change to the culture of excessive hours. The initial benchmark achieved by unionists was usually ten hours a day, six days a week. By 1900, USA and British workers in unions were winning the fight for an eight-hour day. The five-day week wasnt widely achieved until the 1920s. The resultant 40-hour week has stood as the norm in North America and Europe until very recently. The 40-hour week now contains concessions for lunch and other breaks meaning that the norm is now more like six and a half hours work in an eight-hour shift 32½ hours work a week.

The next significant progressive step has surely got to be the 4-day week (if not the 3-day week just yet) and support is beginning to grow. For example, it is part of New Scientists blueprint for a better world[3]. They believe that a four-day week could boost employment, save energy and make us happier.

They put forward two versions of a four-day week to choose from. Plan A would involve switching from the 5X8=40 hour week to a 4X10=40 hour week. It is suggested that this would be particularly successful in office environments, where closing buildings for an extra day every week would save up to 20% off energy bills. A pilot scheme in Utah, it is reported, has seen 13% savings in energy consumption, high employee satisfaction ratings and significantly fewer days off sick.

Plan B is to go from 5X8=40 hours to 4X8=32 hours, with a consequent 20% pay cut. As the recession hit in 2009, numerous firms started offering this option to employees as a way of avoiding job losses. The accountancy giant KPMG offered it to their employees in the UK in February 2009. About 85% applied to take it up! It may not appeal to all, but a survey of more than 150 firms that have implemented either Plan A or Plan B found that 64% believe it has improved morale, 41% report increased productivity. Only 9% reported adverse consequences for their business. It was the Great Depression of the 1920s that saw the big step from a six day week to the five day week. I believe the time is right to take the next big stride forward.

The biggest obstacle is in finding a strong, organised group to actively promote these shorter week proposals. Part of Margaret Thatchers legacy is emasculated trade unions. Shareholders in business see it as a risk to their dividends. Government is unlikely to run with it as it could hit tax revenues needed to service the absurd debts we have run up to pay for wars we shouldnt be fighting. They havent worked out how to tax leisure Time yet.

It ought to be in the manifestoes of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and the Greens, but I have not seen any sign of it there yet. The Green Party does at least acknowledge the principles[4].

It is an idea whose time will surely come, sooner rather than later.

Not many people realise that the Bridgend factory was actually the very first to become operational, way back in 1946, when times were much, much harder than they they are now, in the immediate aftermath of WWII. Since 1946, the state-owned company Remploy has been the UKs leading specialist employer of disabled people, with some 3,000 people on its payroll until recently.

Despite pleas from unions, workers and their families, Remploy executives say they have no alternative but to press ahead with the closures and sell offs, arguing that their hand has been forced by cuts in government funding. The company is making a loss of more than £50million per year, although union officials say this could be reduced to £7million by streamlining the management and other measures. A local Remploy worker argues that: Remploy is top heavy with non-disabled directors and senior managers who make no contribution to the Remploy factory network. About 80 per cent of senior management are able bodied . . . And they have bled the company dry. Indeed, while the vast majority of the factory floor (disabled) workers have been earning £13k, senior management (non-disabled) have been on £150k+. Bear mind that Green Party policy would have it that the maximum wage in any organisation would be no more than ten times the minimum wage in any organisation.

Those made redundant when the factories close will find it extremely difficult to find another job. They are at the back of a very long queue of 2.67 million unemployed people. And it wouldn’t be the first time the Government’s numbers didn’t add up too. A year claiming ESA amounts to £5k, which is still cheaper than the cost of supported employment for a year. But what about a lifetime of unemployment, and the costs to health services associated with the mental and physical effects of long term unemployment? We must then add the cost of decommissioning the factories, and paying redundancy pay to the employees and securing their pensions (assuming, perhaps naively, that the Government will honour these standard employment rights). The closure will probably be a false economy, making 1700 people redundant when millions are being spent on welfare benefits and welfare to work support.

In any case, and as we know, a decent society based on social justice is not just about the bottom line, the basis of decisions made by capitalists. Tories are incapable of understanding the value of dignity, self-respect and inclusivity. If it can’t turn a profit, can’t produce surplus value for them to feed their greed, they are not interested.

Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, said: This is a heartless decision by a government that has shown very little interest in protecting the livelihoods of severely-disabled people who need support in and out of work.

Phil Davies, of the GMB union, said: This is devastating news but not untypical from this uncaring government who cannot be relied on to protect the vulnerable.”

Glen Holdom, GMB officer for Remploy staff, says of the plans that taking jobs from disabled people should not be tolerated in a civilised society. It will not improve the countrys financial situation it may well make it worse.

Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, has denounced the action as barbaric . . . The government has sunk to a new low.
Despite unemployment standing at a 16-year high, the government is expecting these redundant workers to find jobs in mainstream employment. But what happened to those who lost their jobs in the first round of Remploy layoffs, started in 2008 by the Labour government when it shut 28 factories? 86% are still unemployed.

So what is the PR spin on this particular example of government callousness? Last year Liz Sayce, then chief executive of Radar, the Royal Association for Disability Rights (now Disability Rights UK), controversially called Remploy factories ghettoes operating a glass ceiling with non-disabled people largely running the organisation and disabled people working in it. Sayce has gone on to produce a government-commissioned report, in the name of Radar, which is now being used to justify the closures. The work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith was quoted as saying the state should not fund Victorian-era segregated employment. The Department for Work and Pensions added that: For many, Remploy factories can lead to institutionalisation and isolation of disabled people.

This is not the way the Bridgend work force see it (as reported in the Gazette). It is a black day for Bridgend, according to employee of 14 years Mike Ahearn, who was made redundant in January. Over the years, the factory has looked after countless disabled people and not only looked after them but provided meaningful employment he said. Helen Doyle, who will work her last day on March 28, said: It is the end of an era. It is sad, not only for the people working here now but for future generations of disabled people. There will be nothing for them once Remploy has gone.

Green Party policy states: The Green Party recognises that the majority of disabled people live in poverty and will work towards ensuring that this is addressed through its income policies and by ensuring effective equality of opportunity in education, training and employment (DY500). I am here to tell you that this would most surely mean not just a reversal of these callous decisions, but an extension of employment opportunities such that all who want to work for their living (at a living wage, rather than the inadequate minimum wage) will have the opportunity to do so – just like the rest of society.

It is increasingly clear that only the Green Party recognises that fair is worth fighting for.

The Green Party of England and Wales this weekend enacted what they describe as clause IV moment in reverse, as delegates at its 40th Spring Conference in Nottingham voted for a left-turn in the constitution.

The statement of core values, which previously focused only on environmental principles, was amended to include a commitment to social justice and a transformation of society for the benefit of the many not the few, on the day that the party celebrated being 40-years old.

A substantial majority 71% of conference delegates voted in support of the change, which condemns the dominant economic system based on inequality and exploitation and calls for a world based on cooperation and democracy.

Student member Josiah Mortimer proposed the motion, saying in his speech The past few years have shown that the Greens are the real party of social justice this motion is therefore fundamental in enshrining that shift into the partys core.

He added: At a time when Labour are failing to stand up to the coalitions austerity policies, it is essential the Greens make our position clear that we are on the side of ordinary people and the planet.

Party leader Natalie Bennett said: The Green Party has for many years been the chief champion of social justice in British politics. Our elected representatives and campaigners have led the way in living wage campaigns, in protecting essential public services and speaking up for benefit recipients, asylum-seekers and refugees and the disabled, in the face of demonisation. This change reflects the existing nature of the party.

At the same conference, Bennett called for an end to poverty wages, child poverty and pensioners being unable to heat their homes in her keynote speech.

See: http://www.positivemoney.org/2012/03/green-party-gets-it-on-monetary-policy/

Positive Money is apolitical and doesn’t support or endorse any particular political party. However, I thought the Green Partys policy document on money was well worth highlighting, as much of it is entirely consistent with Positive Money proposals. It is also by far the most detailed policy document Ive ever seen from any UK political party.

Here are some key paragraphs, with our emphasis in bold:

EC661 The world money supply has increased over the medium to long term. Almost all is created by commercial lending institutions. The resultant debts are an important promoter of economic growth and consumption, as well as instability. The emphasis in monetary policy will be to control and redirect the creation of money towards socially and environmentally sound areas of the economy, and away from unsustainable and consumption-driven areas.

Green Party Economic Policy

EC663 The current economic system enables commercial banks and other financial institutions to exert an unacceptably large influence on the economy. Their lending power should be reined in, enabling the emphasis of lending to be transferred to sustainable production.

Green Party Economic Policy

EC670 Mutual financial institutions are preferable to those owned by shareholders, since they are more likely to serve customer interests. The Green Party would provide financial incentives for governments at all levels to use mutually owned banks and financial intermediaries for their own business, and to encourage citizens to do the same.

Green Party Economic Policy

Note in particular:

EC676 Since these restrictions on bank lending will severely restrict the money supply, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England will be instructed to monitor the need for increase (or decrease) in the money supply, based initially on maintaining the amount of money existing at the time of implementation of these measures. Criteria will be developed in the light of experience, aiming to avoid both inflation and deflation. It will accordingly instruct the Bank of England to create any supplement needed, on a monthly basis, and credit it to the Treasury to be spent by the government on projects that help society and environment. If the occasion arises that a surplus is threatening to cause inflation, the Bank of England will receive back and cancel an appropriate amount of money.

Green Party Economic Policy

This is entirely consistent with Positive Moneys full reserve proposals, with the caveat that we would rather see banks lose all of their ability to create money (rather than simply have it partially limited through the use of regulation).

EC677 The Bank of England will continue to be the institution for the regulation of the national currency and the setting of base interest rates. However, it will not focus on narrow economic indicators such as the rate of inflation, but instead will take a broader view on the impact of its decisions on the economy as a whole. Final decisions on the setting of base interest rates will be made by a democratically accountable committee made up of representatives selected from the different regions of the country.

Green Party Economic Policy

Of course, as with our draft bill its easier to get it on paper than to get it through parliament, but its encouraging to see that there is at least one party with an understanding of the monetary system and its effect on the economy.

Introducing Howard Thorp

Howard Thorp Follow @hgthorp, Cheshire, United Kingdom

I am a member of the Green Party, and the Green Party Campaigns Coordinator.

I believe in social justice, the importance of living in harmony with the environment and the economics of need – not greed. We can have thriving businesses without damaging the environment and without exploitation of working people. I believe that public services are best delivered by the public sector without the profit motive. Views expressed here are my own.
http://capitalism-creates-poverty.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/are-there-green-red-lines-you-bet-its.html

Since the general election in 2010 the Coalition government has been waging class war against the people of the UK. In his ’emergency’ budget in 2010 Chancellor George Osborne inflicted £81 billion of austerity cuts on the poorest and most vulnerable people in our country, including the low paid, the unemployed and disabled people. Women have been disproportionately hit by these cuts and 700,000 public sector workers have lost or will lose their jobs as a result. And all this after those very people helped to bail out the banks and financial capitalism with their hard earned taxes.

We are told that the purpose of the austerity cuts is to ‘reduce the deficit’ and save the economy. But that is a lie, and austerity hasn’t reduced the deficit. The real aim of austerity is to use the economic crisis to destroy the welfare state, and privatize the NHS and public services for the benefit of capitalists and their corporations. Austerity is working, and working very well for the richest, who are gaining wealth whilst living standards for the rest of us have fallen. Austerity is class war. Those who have read the book ‘The Shock Doctrine’, by Naomi Klein, will know that, in times of crisis, capitalists and their tame politicians use the crisis to roll back the social and economic gains made by the 99% by imposing ‘free’ market ‘policies’ such as welfare cuts, privatisation and deregulation.

In the UK, the Coalition government has tried to deflect blame for the cuts by making councils impose them at a local level. Councils have already had to impose cuts but we are now at a stage where some of the most savage cuts in benefits are being introduced, including changes to council tax and the so-called ‘bedroom tax’, affecting the disabled, unemployed and low paid. I have always opposed all of the government’s austerity cuts but now, as more and more people are becoming aware of the brutal nature of the cuts, we have reached a stage where it is possible to launch a real fightback and make the ‘bedroom tax’ into this government’s poll tax.

As far as the Green Party is concerned we have opposed the cuts from day one, and we showed in our 2010 manifesto how the crisis could be resolved without privatization or cutting public services. Our Green council in Brighton and Hove has worked hard to do its best for the local people in very difficult circumstances and has been supported by the Party. The question is – are there any red lines for our councillors? When do we reach a point where we can no longer impose austerity cuts on the poorest? The answer to that has to be now, with the advent of the ‘bedroom tax’ in a months time.

We need to resist the bedroom tax with all the peaceful democratic means at our disposal. We need to learn from the successes of UKUncut, by using protest action and direct action, including supporting victims of these benefit changes whom councils try to evict. We also need to look at all the measures that councils can use to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax, including the re-classification of rooms in social housing. Its heartening to see that a recent meeting of B&H Green Party passed a motion on the bedroom tax, supported by our MP Caroline Lucas, which stated: “The Green Party of Brighton and Hove therefore resolves to:

1. Publicly condemn the ‘Bedroom Tax’ as an ideologically-driven attack On the least well-off in our society.

2. Request that the Convenor of the Green Group makes a clear public statement that no household will be evicted from a Brighton and Hove City Council owned home as a result of rent arrears accrued solely as a result of this cut to Housing Benefit

3. Request that the Chair of the council’s Housing Committee instructs officers accordingly.

4. Publicise this position, externally and in our own publications and websites.”

Its time for our councillors to grasp the nettle and lead the fight against this pernicious bedroom tax. If they fail to do so we will lose credibility as a Party nationally. Parties which support austerity get rightly punished by the electorate as recent elections in Europe have shown. As a Party, we have to make a breakthrough to make a real difference in UK politics. We can only do this by leading the resistance to further cuts and providing people in England and Wales with hope for the future with our positive alternatives to austerity.

Peter Allen (Green Left) has invited us to sign a pledge

“Here’s the chance to do our part. Take the pledge with me today.”

Help us gain the signatures needed to stop DLA from being abolished Please help support our campaign to stop the UK government from abolishing disability living allowance. Take our pledge and show the world how much you can about the rights of this that need this money to gain vital support. …See More SIGN THE PLEDGE 43,447 others so far took this pledge

The Green Party put itself firmly on the side of the trade union and working class movement when they passed a motion at the National Conference, moved by Pete Murry of Brent Green Party and the Green Party Trade Union Group, on the party’s relationship with the unions.

The motion said in part:

The Green Part believes that the Trade Union movement plays a vital role in defending the interests of working people and continues to play a leading role in the long march towards equality and social justice in Britain and around the world. Therefore the Green Party encourages all its members to be active Trade Unionists wherever this is possible.

I am looking to start some constructive dialogue with local Trade Union officials in the near future.

Andy

Lets consider that for a moment. It may come as a surprise to some, but nowhere in the Green Party Constitution is there a Right Not to be Offended. The right that is protected is the Right to Free Speech, the right to be heard. A freely expressed opinion is always likely be offensive to someone, but we tend to assume that it will generally be our political opponents – generally not our supposed comrades in the same Party.

Some issues, however, legitimately divide opinion in even the most cohesive of Parties. Those that follow this blog will probably be thinking of a couple of issues that I have flagged up recently that would fall into that category for the Green Party – namely the Hospital Chaplaincy issue and, much more significantly, Population Policy. The former was aired at Conference in a very considered and dignified manner; the latter was aired in an atmosphere of thinly veiled contempt. At least three times the phrase “I find that offensive” was uttered by antagonists on one side of the argument. It undermined not only their arguments (which I actually share in part), but also their pretensions to be serious politicians.

We need to get over being offended as a means to win a debate, and instead construct sound arguments to defend our point of view in a considered, rational and (when among colleagues at least) unemotive way. Stifling free speech, even if it offends, will inevitably lead to a loss of essential freedoms, and we cannot allow that to happen – in society as a whole, but within the Party for certain.

This was clearly a poorly thought through ‘fob off’ response to which I duly responded on 22 January.

I am pleased to report a rather more considered response from the DECC Correspondence Unit this time around, which still contains too many subjective opinions, alongside acknowledgement of lots of uncertainties. It also, particularly in the Ministerial Extract (pts 3&4) details the seismicity precautions they are supposedly putting in place that should, if applied stringently, put a considerable spanner in the works of Cuadrilla and co.

See the attachments: