Union conditions could sink 9 day work proposal

The only people to feel the financial pain from a nine day work fortnight would be employers and the taxpayer if union conditions were to apply, says Alasdair Thompson, chief executive of the Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern).

“The whole idea of shortening the working fortnight was to save jobs; it was not to keep the incomes of people in work necessarily at the same level,” Mr Thompson said.

“Businesses in financial difficulty due to a fall off in demand will have to look for ways to save money by reducing their payroll costs, but the unions are saying employers and taxpayers should have to pick up all of these.

“The 9-day proposal is for employers and taxpayers to each pay for half the tenth day off work, and for the taxpayer to pick up the pay equivalent for the added cost of training on the tenth day.

“On that basis employees lose no income at all, but gain additional skills while the costs of it are transferred to the employer and taxpayer.

“The alternative to reducing work hours of the equivalent of 10 per cent across the board is for firms to restructure and make about 10 per cent of their workforce redundant.

“By putting a condition of total income protection on the 9-day fortnight, the unions are saying they prefer to see people put out of work as the way to cut payroll costs, rather than reducing overall work hours.

“The unions appear more committed to saving their members income than saving jobs, and this will make the 9-day fortnight proposal in its present form either ineffective or too costly for employers and taxpayers.”