Fig. 1: Calendar 2000, Variant A

 

(2) Working Hours: 35-hour Week

The formula "reduction of the working hours is proportional to the positions freed" seems to be a solution to the problem of strikes and is therefore frequently discussed: In Europe the 35-hour week is at the focus of this debate. In this case, an average reduction of 5 hours a week will produce a total reduction of working hours of about 750 million every week if we assume 150 million employees in the European Community. This means that we get 20 million "free" positions in addition if we treat the product of reduction of hours and number of positions as a constant equal to the product of new working hours and new additional positions:

Formula 1:

5 hours/week x 150 mill. employees = 750» 700 = 35 hours/week x 20 mill. add. employees

In the USA a similar result by this reasoning would hold.

However, I do not think that the introduction of a 35-hour week could really solve the present and future scourge of unemployment, and here are the reasons for my opinion: In most manufacturing countries, an employee has to work 40 hours a week, but in some fields of production he works only 4 days a week. A reduction of working hours to 35 ours a week or less would mean that we have only 3½ working days a week, that means work only in the first half of the week: the second half of the week goes without production. This system could be applied in some industrial sectors but some other sectors could not possibly work just half of the week. For example, certain commercial sectors (food trade, public services, etc.) cannot be entirely closed simultaneously altogether for 3½ days (from Thursday afternoon to Sunday evening).

Here are 2 reasons why the system "continuos work for 3½ days" is inconsistent and provides too short a working period:

1. In order to guarantee productive work, it is indispensable to have a period during which the worker can psychically and physically adjust himself to the work-process, he must "pull himself together". Assuming the employees begin to work on Monday, they need a certain period to get into their normal working rhythm again. On Thursday there is only half a working day, at noon their weekend begins already. So they can hardly be fully productive. The result is that de facto only 2 days, i.e. Tuesday and Wednesday, remain for high quality production. Under these circumstances, efficient production is impossible.

2. A similar argument applies to leisure time. Real relaxation needs a certain period of about 2 days until one is really able to get out of the daily stress. Subtracting the time of making arrangements plus the time for the to-and-from travel, than the remaining leisure time is too short for real relaxation. The solution is longer connected leisure time.

These 2 principal reasons gibe rise to a discussion of the possibility of extending the 7-day week to a 10-day week divided into 5 working days and 5 days off.

 

(3) Revising of the Calendar Structure

The technical organization of the orbital 10-day week looks like this:

1. Years

• A year has 12 months and 5 special days (resp. 6).
• The New Year’s Holidays (NYH) are general days of rest (not working days); they are 5 days, respectively 6, in leap years.
• Each year has 36 weeks and 360 days.

2. Months

• Each month is divided into 3 weeks.
• Each month has 6 halfweeks (HaWe).
• Each month has 30 days.

3. Weeks

• Each week is divided into 2 halfweeks: an anterior and a posterior halfweek.
• Each week has 10 days.

4. Halfweeks

• The anterior halfweek (AnHaWe) has 5 days: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
• The posterior halfweek (PoHaWe) consists of: Uranusday (6.), Neptuneday (7.), Plutoday (8.), Saturday, Sunday.

 

Anterior Halfweek
Monday	it’s always a 1st, 11th or 21st of the month
Tuesday	it’s always a 2nd, 12th or 22nd of the month
Wednesday	it’s always a 3rd, 13th or 23rd of the month
Thursday	it’s always a 4th, 14th or 24th of the month
Friday	it’s always a 5th, 15th or 25th of the month
Posterior Halfweek
Uranusday	it’s always a 6th, 16th or 26th of the month
Neptuneday	it’s always a 7th, 17th or 27th of the month
Plutoday	it’s always a 8th, 18th or 28th of the month
Saturday	it’s always a 9th, 19th or 29th of the month
Sunday	it’s always a 10th, 20th or 30th of the month

Fig. 2: The Days of the Week of the 10-Day Week.

Since January 1st is always on Monday, this construction of the calendar is fixed and means that each week has a fixed final date, see Fig. 2. One can also use an abriviated spelling for the new introduced days: Uranday, Plutday, Neptday.

 

(4) Public and Religious Holidays

For the new year’s holidays (NYH) we propose as general days off:

1st NYH: Christmas Eve 2nd NYH: Christmas Day 3rd NYH: St. Stephen’s Day 4th NYH: New Year’s Eve 5th NYH: New Year’s Day 6th NYH: intercalary leap day

The 3rd and/or 4th NYH can be declared as some special state holiday. The 5th NYH is officially the beginning of the new year. Hence it is written in the calendar one day before 1st January, respectively 2 days before in the leap year. Apriori the other 360 days are equivalent working days, also the religious holidays, which are equally distributed in the anterior HaWe’s and the posterior HaWe’s. Figure 3 shows these corresponding religious holidays (CRH):

 

CRH’s in the AnHaWe:		(Alternative dates in the PoHaWe)
Mo 11th April: Mo 1st May: Mo 11th June: Fr 15th August: Mo 1st November:	Easter Monday Day of Work Whit-Monday Assumption Day (of the Blessed Virgin) All Saints Day	(Sa 9th April) (Sa 9th May) (Sa 9th June) (Su 10th August) (Su 10th November)
CRH’s in the PoHaWe:		(Alternative dates are the same except 3.K.D.)
Ur  6th January: Su 10th April: Su 10th May: Su 10th June: Su 10th July:	Epiphany (Three Kings Day) Easter Sunday Ascension Day Whit-Sunday Corpus Christi	(=Su 10th January) (= Su 10th April) (= Su 10th May) (= Su 10th June) (= Su 10th July)

Fig. 3: Corresponding Religious Holidays

 

Since in Calendar2000 CRH’s are working days, religious employees may have difficulties with their religious duties. So it would be more convenient for them if all CRH’s could be placed in the PoHaWe’s as the dates in parentheses in Figure 3 show. (See also Fig. 1, Easter Monday e.g. is shifted here to Easter Saturday .) Keeping these difficulties in mind, different variants of the future calendar with a 10-day week have been explored according to different economic situations. We shall discuss these variants in a later section.

 

(5) Revised Schedule of Working Hours

The technical structuring of Calendar2000 introduced in the previous section allows for reasonably lengthy working and leisure periods on the one hand and on the other it creates many new jobs. And this is assuming an unchanged work load per year based on a 35-hour week with a 7-day week:

Formula 2:

52 (old) weeks at 35 hours a week about equals 36 (new) weeks at 50 hours a week.

To ensure high employment levels, new arrangements for working hours and variable working schedules have been discussed under the headings of "flex-time", job-sharing, lifetime, work load, personal vacations, part-time work, half-year work-contracts, new shift schedules, flexible weekends, gradual retirement, sabbaticals and even work decades (ten days’ work, four days off), Cf. [5]. In addition to the standards of living and quality of education, employment constitutes one of the three great challenges facing us by the year 2000, i.e. until the orbital epoch. For we have the spector to avoid of large industries’ closing down, as for example in various regions of the US and more recently in the UK, France, Belgium and now Austria as well, which causes massive unemployment [6].

The strategies for reducing working hours which have been presented [7], [8] can play an important role in dealing with unemployment as well as with a liberalization of work schedules. However, a more radical solution to these difficulties is really called for: the abolition of the 7-day week and its replacement by a 10-day rhythm! For the "buffering" function of work schedules in order to adjust disequilibria on the job market is only one aspect of the problem [9]. An even greater payoff would be the creation of more reasonable and more flexible work schedules in general by an "orbital reform" of the calendar.

 

(6) New Opportunities for Employment through a Revised Distribution of Working Hours

Ne jobs can be gained primarily in two ways: Mainly by introducing new shifts and secondly by increasing the commutation radius and other additional modalities. In this chapter we deal with the first one: new shifts. In those sectors which are flourishing or expanding, a second shift during the latter halfweek can be introduced, assuming that none of the employed workers (i.e. 0 %) does wish to work longer and in the case that markets can accept increased or more efficient production. Thus the positions or job-slots are practically doubled in this simplest case and we get a 100 % increase of jobs by introducing a new shift, if we look over the economy and pick out the flourishing sectors (computer industry, leisure, finance, etc.), their job total will roughly equal the number of potential new jobs (cf. Fig. 4). Let us assume these are approximately 20 % of all present jobs. Then in this simplest case we will get an overall increase of 20 % of the job total too.

 

 

	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Ur	Ne	Pl	Sa	Su
Positions in Flourishing Sectors											WH AnHaWe (= WH 0-5)
New Positions											WH PoHaWe (= WH 5-0)

Fig. 4: Simplest Distribution of Working Hours.

If a certain portion of labor in the flourishing sectors wishes to work longer than a halfweek, then of course the job-increase will be correspondingly reduced. We need to subtract from the new-job total those positions (slots) which will be occupied by the people who want to work double-time and (1½)-time. Assuming now that everyone (i.e. 100 % of the work-force) wants to work (1½)-time in the flourishing sectors, then there will still be a 50 % increase in job-slots by creating a second shift (cf. Fig. 5). This will lead to an over-all increase of 10 % to the job total.

 

	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Ur	Ne	Pl	Sa	Su
1st Shift											WH 0-8
2nd Shift											WH 8-5
New Shift											WH PoHaWe

Fig. 5: Easiest Non-standard Distribution of Working Hours.

But in many cases only 50 % of the work-force in the flourishing sectors will wish to increase their work-time. Then we will have a 75 % increase in job-slots (positions) by suitably distributing them over the two halfweeks (cf. Fig. 6) and about 15 % new jobs (of the job total).

 

	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Ur	Ne	Pl	Sa	Su
2 Shifts with Normal Working Hours											WH AnHaWe
											WH AnHaWe
2 Shifts with Increased Working Hours											WH 0-8
											WH 8-5
3 New Shifts
											WH PoHaWe
											WH PoHaWe
											WH PoHaWe

Fig. 6: First Standard Distribution of Working Hours (50 % of the employees work more)

It is reasonable to suppose that 2/3 (= 67 %) of the work-force wants to work (1½)-time. If so, the number of positions in flourishing sectors will still increase by about 67 % and hence about 12 % overall (cf. Fig. 7).

 

	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Ur	Ne	Pl	Sa	Su
3 Shifts in Flourishing Sectors											WH AnHaWe
											WH 0-8
											WH 8-5
2 New Shifts
											WH PoHaWe
											WH PoHaWe

Fig. 7: Second Standard Worktime Distribution (67 % of employed workers work longer)

A weighted average of these 4 cases can be calculated: Let us assume a probability distribution over the flourishing sectors which indicates the number of worker who want to work longer. This way we can calculate more precisely, that this scheme leads to about 70 % more positions in flourishing sectors. A more detailed treatment of this and other cases can be found in Schimanovich (1979), Cf. [10].

A second shift can only be introduced in a halfweek in which regular employees have off. Late or night shifts would not be reasonable here, as production costs would become too expensive due to over-time pay. Therefore consider the following seven alternatives, which are equivalent to a 35-hour work-week based on today’s 7-day week shown in Table 1:

 

Case 1:	7	days’ work (at 5 hours per day)	0	days off
Case 2:	6	days’ work(at 6 hours per day)	1	days off
Case 3:	5	days’ work(at 7 hours per day)	2	days off
Case 4:	4	days’ work(at 9 hours per day)	3	days off
Case 5:	3 1/2	days’ work(at 10 hours per day)	3 1/2	days off
Case 6:	5	days’ work(at 10 hours per day)	5	days off
Case 7:	7	days’ work(at 10 hours per day)	7	days off

Table 1: Possible Working Hours (corresponding to a 35 working hour 7 day week).

Cases 1 to 5 are realizable in our 7-day week. But according to the various reasons, presented above, case 6 is obviously the best and it comes automatically with our calendar reform.

If working hours should ever be reduced to 32 hours a week (in some distant future), in case it is required in a future economy, the 7 cases discussed above look like this:

 

Case 1A:	7	days’ work (at 4.6 hours per day)	0	days off
Case 2A:	6	days’ work(at 5.3 hours per day)	1	days off
Case 3A:	5	days’ work(at 6.4 hours per day)	2	days off
Case 4A:	4	days’ work(at 8.0 hours per day)	3	days off
Case 5A:	3 1/2	days’ work(at 9.3 hours per day)	3 1/2	days off
Case 6A:	5	days’ work(at 9.0 hours per day)	5	days off
Case 7A:	7	days’ work(at 9.3 hours per day)	7	days off

Table 2: Schedule of Working Hours Corresponding to a 32-Hour Week.

The main objection to a 10-day week (case 6 of Table 1) is that 10 working hours a day is too long. Although in some cases it is still in use, e.g. in December when employees often earn leisure time to prolong the official holidays by working 1 hour longer each work day. This objection dies not apply to Table 2. Since a future economy needs many highly trained specialists who have to constantly retrain themselves during their leisure time (to stay at the top of their field), a working week of generally 32 hours (per 7 day week) would be reasonable for the future economies in Calendar2000. Since 9 hours’ work each day are already widerspread today, they therefore should not present a problem in the future either, in spite of the fact that case 1 or 2 (1A or 2A resp.) in both tables are more convenient for many people who like to work a half-day job.

 

(7) Additional Modes for Employment

Increasing Commutation Radius: If the unemployed workers from outlying regions are transported to places of employment in flourishing regions where new jobs are being generated, then again we will have a considerable increase in employment. With a halfweek of 5 days off, workers can accept even longer collutes. With 10 days of work and 10 days off in special situations, even very long commutes of hundreds of kilometres could be managed. This could conceivably create a 3 % increase in employment opportunities, or a corresponding 3 % decrease in unemployment.

Additional effects of our calendar reform, such as the creation of growth of various economic sectors (e.g. leisure-time and vacation industries led by investment increases due to overhead savings in industries with improved work-schedules), would perhaps yield another 2 % employment increase. We can thus foresee an overall increase in employment due to our proposed calendar reform amounting to about 20 %.

Formula 3:

20 %	=	15 %	+ 5 %
New positions	=	additional shifts in flourishing sectors	+ by longer commutes, etc.

 

(8) Scheduling Modalities in Various Sectors

Employers in industries (sectors of the economy) whose products are not especially in demand on the market and who in some places are faced with short-time work (e.g. the steel industry), could work in other industries or sectors of the economy (e.g. customer-service) in the time remaining.

Another way to distribute working hours or employment, respectively, would be if everyone works 9 (or 10) days but only half-time. For example: only in the morning (8:00 to 13:33), during the whole 10-day week except Sunday (Cf. Fig. 8).

 

	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Ur	Ne	Pl	Sa	Su
											WH a.m.
											8:00
											13:33

Fig. 8: Forenoon Employment

(If we do not rule out an universal Sunday off [11], it is also possible to work every morning (8:00 - 13:00) of the whole week). In management such a change to forenoon work would not be so hard to accomplish, for almost all offices have working-times from 8:00 to 12:30; in other fields clearly not. Moreover, in this model many housewives have the possibility to carry a "full-time-job" (= 50 working hours per week, e.g. as saleswomen), even if they work only in the afternoon (from 13:27 to 19:00, except e.g. Monday) because of the fact that during rush-hours demand increases (Cf. Fig. 9).

 

	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Ur	Ne	Pl	Sa	Su
											WH p.m.
											13:27
											19:00

Fig. 9: Afternoon Employment

 

According to this schedule of working hours, it is possible that both partners in a marriage can be employed full-time even in families with little children. E.g. the husband works during forenoon (while the husband washes the dishes and/or the car). Or: the husband works in the anterior halfweek and the woman in the posterior halfweek (except possibly Sunday). Thus it is guaranteed that one of the parents is with the children and can attend to them all the time.

Although I find a halfday job of maximally 5½ working hours per day throughout both halfweeks (except Sunday or some other day) better than a fullday job of maximally 10 hours per day during only one halfweek; nevertheless the opinion should be heard that there should not be a regimentation which forces a fixed form of occupation upon all employers and employees. In general we can expect that for every country a stable distribution of forms of employment will emerge after a certain period of progress and transition:

People who work all day in the anterior halfweek (AnHaWe), People who work all day in the posterior halfweek (PoHaWe), People who work half days in the forenoon (a.m.W), People who work half days in the afternoon (p.m.W), People who work in the anterior halfweek and the first 3 days in the posterior halfweek (WH O-8), People who work the last 2 days in the posterior halfweek and through the anterior halfweek (WH 8-5), People who work in double employment: they are working successively in the anterior and posterior halfweek in the forenoon and the afternoon (WHW), People with irregular work schedules (WH irreg.).

Table 3: Different Employment Modalities.

Since in Calendar 2000, weekends are not universal days off, working and nonworking periods are more homogeneously distributed and better proportioned. For this reason, the stressing of the general infrastructure during rush hours and weekends (roads, trains, streetcars, planes, buses, cinemas and theatres, hotels, inns, pubs, bars and bistros, etc.) is greatly diminished. Thus it cannot happen as it does today, that on Friday afternoon all the city inhabitants stream to the country and on Sunday evening all the highways are clogged (and e.g. due to the traffic jams occurring, the accident rate shoots into the sky). In our 10-day week model, only half of the working people would return with their family to the city (on Friday evenings or Sunday evenings), and in that way the roadtraffic would decrease considerally.

Also in the tourist industry, our calendar reform would permit a more profitable management of restaurants and hotels. In the leisure time industry, cinemas and swimming pools would not be so crowded on Saturdays and Sundays as they are today, since only about half of workers have them off as do today. Each nonworking period of the corresponding cohort of working hours (AnHaWe, PoHaWe and WH 8-5) lasts not merely two days, but up to five, which gives rise to a much more profitable situation in the leisure time sector. This applies also to a.m.W and p.m.W.

 

(9) Distribution of Leisure Time in Calendar2000 and Future Models

The main idea of Calendar2000 (i.e. the introduction of the 10-day week) is connected with a general liberalization of the labor market. Therefore it is easier for Christian employees to get time off for CRF’s. But for organizationial reasons, it would be better if all CRF’s take place on a fixed day, say Sunday. (Which is generally a working day but nonworking for WH 0-5, WH 0-8, WH a.m. ((Fig. 8), WH 0-9 or WH irreg.) Usually couples will have "parallel" working hours (but with their days off in common). But for families where the husband works in the AnHaWe (or a.m.W) and the wife in the PoHaWe (or p.m.W respectively), they do not have days off conjointly. For these cases an additional law can be passed that couples must have (at least) 1 day off in common. Religious employees which cannot choose work schedules with Sunday’s off or CRF’s off should be allowed to include a job-sharing condition to their work contracts. Another solution to this dilemma would be if firms would employ flexibly and diversely trained standby workers who are able to work at many jobs. A similar argument applies to anti-parallel workschedules to garantee joint days off.

In the model of Calendar2000 we dealt with up to now, a development can be expected which leads us from the ordinary form of employment (anterior or posterior halfweek) to half-day employment or to the double time (or 1½-time) employment. This fact was taken into account in the varying projections of the reformed calendar which it could pass through after the year 2000.

We expect polarization among the employees: some highly skilled specialists will work with only a little time off while the bulk of the less skilled employees will work only about 25 hours in a 10-day week. The employment contracts of the specialists in the calendar models after 2000 will not differ essentially from those in Calendar2000. But for the bulk of the unskilled workers we suggest the following possible solution for the model Calendar2010: the enter mainly into employment contracts 1 yearly. Instead of working 25 hours a 10-day week (— that corresponds to half-time employment or short-time work —), the laborers should work 50 hours a 10-day week (corresponding to the usual AnHaWe or PoHaWe jobs) but only 6 or 8 month a year.

It is possible in principle to work 6 months a year, for example in the Summer, and then spend a long vacation in the Southern Hemisphere during the Fall and Winter half of the year. But it is also possible to work during the Winter (from October until the end of March) in South America, South Africa, Australia or somewhere else in the Southern Hemisphere, where because of the warm Summer conditions (during the European and North American winters) the employment rate is higher at that rime of year. It is obvious that the employment system conceived in this way has numerous variants and is able to offer the workers many opportunities of which they can nowadays only dream.

Such radical changes obviously means the creation of wide opportunities in the field of labor policy. Thus the standard concept of obligation to pay double health insurance (in case of tow jobs) should be abolished, too. Of course the incidental costs for every work place should be decreased strongly (health and emergency insurance, pension, extra payments and benefits, bonus for workers, etc.). Following this line of thought, other scenarios like Calendar2020 and its variants ought to be explored. Since the Austrian National Bank rejected a grant for research in this field, I would be glad to make contact with any scientist interested in joint work on this subject. And I would also be interested in forming a society to further group work in the field of calendar reform.

 

(10) Special Regulations

According to special circumstances, some working positions (directors, top managers, administration, data-processing staff) have longer working hours than 50 hours per week. The salary of these double- or (1½)-time employees should not be the arithmetical sum of both partial salaries (i.e. not double or 1.5 times the regular salary), but some appropriate amount of money. For the administration of industries and the public sector, Calendar2000 offers a further advantage: the need for office space decreases, because not all employees and officials work on the same days. So it is possible that 2 clerical workers share a room at different times.

A field of organization which can only very loosely be adapted to the new structure is the educational system. For primary, intermediate and for secondary schools (preparatory schools, high schools) the following special regulation is proposed:

1: In principle all schools should be maintained as all-day-schools in order to compensate for the reduced time for homework (because of the diminished learning capacity during the long period of 5 days off).

2: The holidays should be reduced to only one month (and be staggered alternately between the states).

3: The days off from school are to be strictly correlated to the days off in the economy. There are to be no more special days off from school such as All Souls’ Day or the Christmas holidays during December. Only the 5 (or 6) New Year’s Holidays are taken off jointly — in school as well as in industries and factories.

4: One day of the halfweek off is entirely reserved for homework: the "homework day". Doing homework should be adjusted in such a way that the pupils need (at least) a whole day to work during the free halfweek. Parents may prefer sending their children to study halls in school. The other part of the homework will be done in the afternoon during the 5 school days since schools must be held as all-day-schools (until 5 p.m.).

5: These temporal and organizational changes in school schedules should be quite sufficient to master the present school curriculum. With additional regulations, the negative consequences of the long time off can be mastered too.

6: Half of all classrooms can be doubly utilized, one class in the anterior and one class in the posterior halfweek. The other half of the classes is used by children whose parents have WH 0-8 or WH 8-5 schedules.

7: For those children whose parents have only a short time off, additional day nurseries or kindergartens (places where the children can stay in the afternoon) have to be organized.

 

Schedules and special regulations for universities are different:

The great task involved here does not permit a solution using a system based on week-halves. Because of the relatively great independence of the students from their parents, a complete change of the organization of studies and the introduction of quarters is necessary (as practised today successfully at Stanford):

1. Fallquarter (October, November, December) = approximately Winter semester, (in US Fall term),
2. Winter quarter (January, February, march) = appr. semester holidays,
3. Spring quarter (April, May, June) = appr. Summer term (in US Spring term),
4. Summer quarter (July, August, September) = Summer holidays.

Each quarter can be used for going to lectures, for preparing for exams, remedial/review courses, tutorials or holidays. (E.g.: Autumn: lectures, Winter: review, Spring: lectures, Summer: work.) But one can also study continuously all through the 4 quarters on a half-day schedule and work the other half-day. The savings made in regard to lecture halls and office space can be invested in supplementary staff. Only on Sundays are there no lectures, but other university activities can take place on Sunday, too.

 

(11) Leisure Time Flanking Actions

Since the calendar reform offers workers/employees much more leisure time, they obtain more opportunities to develop other skills: with the new calendar it is easily possible to continue one’s education, for the free halfweek provides enough time off to be able to study (in a high-school or college) and simultaneously to have a job. On the other hand, the students have the opportunity to take a job in addition studying, perhaps even a full-time job (of 5 days per week or 10 halfdays the whole week long). But they also can accept a part-time work (2½ days per week), since the new schedules which result from the calendar reform turn out to demand more part-time jobs. Modifications of the part-time schedules with 2 or 3 days’ work that correspond to about 25 hours’ work in a 10-day week are conceivable.

But since the great increase in leisure time has dangerous consequences for many people (because they unfortunately do not know how to occupy themselves during their time off), it is really necessary to develop a complementary leisure time program. Such a program includes also the support of working students. The stimulus of rapid career advancement are not sufficient to motivate an employee for study. Here generous support for continuing education is necessary. Furthering of study at colleges could be planned too. In industries which are economically important (computer engineering, technology, chemistry, etc.) a bonus should be paid for achieving important work (bachelor’s or doctoral degrees or for very good publications).

Concerning the problem of job obsolescence, it is very important to improve and upgrade the training of workers. This greatly enhances adaptability in the labor market. Here again the provision of ample time off, e.g. during the nonworking halfweek. facilitates retraining and ultimately counteracts impending job crises and help to avoid lengthy periods of unemployment.

A lot of newly created employment comes from temporally flourishing industries. These could however stagnate again (e.g. the building trade). Thus employees which are young and flexible will often have to work in various job categories until the age of 30 if they want to get a job at all.

The new reformed calendar decreases unemployment and brings employees more opportunities in the future. It will provide for a fairer distribution of the gross national product, because employees with 2 jobs earn more money, while employees satisfied with their income and who have only one job can maintain their status. In families both married people can work without harming the structure of the family or the education of the children. Educational development will become easier and more people obtain the opportunity to engage in creative work (or in work where more personal relations are involved, respectively).

In connection with the world-wide problem of the unemployment, and short-time work, some words of principal to advertise the need for a new philosophical and sociological point of view should be stated: Unemployment should not be a cause of shame or scandal in the family! If unemployed workers receive a certain/modest amount unemployment compensation, there is no rational need for them to work. For the general welfare it is also better to let the people stay unemployed and compensate them instead of creating new work where the workers sometimes produce unwanted products (which may again have to be supported, as happens in Europe). The same holds for farmers in the mountains or in other poorly arable areas who cannot efficiently produce agricultural products. They should stop farming and engage themselves in environmental work earning only some compensation.

Whoever wants to work should have the opportunity to do so. But there should be no social pressure forcing young people to work! It is better for them to learn more and longer until about the age of 18. (And if they don’t want to do even this, pay them a small annuity and let them lie in the sun.) In some near future such a changed situation will be the cheaper one (instead of to many workers world-wide and an overheated development of industry which leads sometimes to deadends and forces everybody to work hard because of a wrong philosophical attitude).

Yesterday the slogan "Everybody has the right to work" was in. Today’s claim should be "Everybody (who cannot find a job) has the right to leisure". This would be true justice on the labor market.

 

(12) Conclusions and Outlook

The economic model based on 10-day week appears to be an interesting innovation which would enhance economic growth. New employment contracts and schedules lead to a liberation of the labor market [12] which brings profit to both workers/employees and entrepreneurs. It is a radical solution to impending problems but the only one which has sufficient resources to overcome those difficulties. Therefore we deeply hope that the great and mighty leaders of the world will have the insight needed to support this important reformation of schedules which helps maintain the economic progress we are used to and do not want to do without in the future.

 

(13) Bibliography

1. Heinz Zemaned: Kalender und Chronologie. Oldenbourg, München 1984.
2. Johannes Barolin: Der Hundertstundentag, (S. 78). Braumüller Verlag, Wien und Leipzig 1914.
3. Peter Weibel: Jenseits der Erde: Kunst, Kommerz, Gesellschaft im orbitalen Zeitalter. Hora Verlag, Wien 1987.
4. Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays. London 1935.
5. Beirat für Wirtschafts- und Sozialfragen: Arbeitszeitentwicklung und Arbeitspolitik (Development of worktime and policy of work). Carl Überreuther Verlag, Wien 1984.
6. Robert C. Miljus: Zukunftssichere Arbeitsplätze (Secure Job Oppertunities). Z-Perspektiven, Wien 1981.
7. Alfred Dallinger: Arbeitszeitverkürzung. WISO, Nr. 2/1981, Institut für Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaft, Linz/Austria.
8. Kepplinger u. Presslmaier: Arbeitsplatzentwicklung durch Arbeitsplatzverkürzung. WISO, Nr. 3/1982, Institut für Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaft, Linz/Austria.
9. Erwin Weissel: Kurzfristige Effekte der Arbeitszeitverkürzung. Europa Verlag, Wien 1976.
10. Werner Schimanovich: 10-Tage Woche, Wissenschaft aktuell 1/1979, Wien.
11. Wirtschafts-Kommentar: Teurer Sonntag. Spiegel, 22. Feb. 1988.
12. Deregulierung und Flexicilisierung der Arbeit. WSI Mitteilungen 8/1988, Monatszeitschrift des W.&S.Inst. des Deutschen Gewerkschaftsbundes.