What do you think about work-sharing whereby employees work shorter hours for less pay so that jobs can be saved?

Not something to cheer about, obviously, when it means less income, but in this economic climate, it's a hell of a lot better alternative than seeing your company fold, leaving you out of a job all together.

Flexability in employment is key for innovation for employees that are able to utilize their new-found free-time. But what happens when you have employees that are used to doing the same regimen every day and cannot find gainful change in their lives? =You have static employees and a static company that cannot innovate and will eventually fail.

=Working more is not always working smarter. Innovate and move on.

I have mixed feelings on this one.

Pro: It is better for everyone to equally share the load of the current down turn rather than having some out of work and taking on all the down side. But it must not end with job sharing. Managers and owners must pay their share as well by reducing managment salaries and routing money back into the company instead of out to stock holders as dividends.

As jobs contract, this may be the only way to keep large parts of the population working. It is a far better solution than creating a large community of people with no income.

Con: I agree this is a potential get out free card for business. They must implement this along side manditory reductions in manager payments and caps on bonus payments etc...

It has the potential to create long term underemployment. So it must also have some criteria built in to assure that labor can return to full time levels when economics allow.

In any case, better to have everyone dropping a little pay and having more free time than having many out of work all together.

Depends on the job. If it is a real job-share, would you trust the other person doing the other half of your job? Like desk-sharing in offices, it sounds good in theory, but in practice, doesn't work...

It's unthinkable for a democratic free society, but this actually can be viable solution!

If it's a toss-up between less of a job and no job, it's a no-brainer, particularly if you could somehow leverage it into a new job. But if they expect the same level of productivity, maybe not.

telecasterplayer at 03:52 PM JST - 15th February No sir. I don't like it.

A penny for your thoughts.

I'd like to stay home more and learn more about woodworking. If I had, I could have built my own home instead paying someone else to do it. With my new found handyman skills, I'd save a fortune on all kinds of repairs, maybe even car repairs, too. "Hey, Mrs. Watanabe, how about a front-end lube job?"

I'd be making less, but keeping more.

I'd much rather work a little less and have my salary reduced than lose my job. I think work-share is more humane than lay-offs. At least you'll still have some income. If it's not sufficient, you'll have time to look for another job without first becoming destitute with no income.

How about executives and stockholders taking cuts so that those workers can keep their pay.

Never. We will not give up one shilling. People with jobs owe their lives to us and we deserve every penny.

there are already tons of people job sharing, particularly in retail, depts have a fulltime mgr & they hire partimer/temps to do the jobs, lots of companies then expanded on that when Jpn allowed companies to hire people full time but deny them any benefits etc & call them temps, these are the people who are being laid off left right & centre, this is what Jpn-inc wanted & what the J-people got!

So in case some of you havent figured it out let me lay it out for you, IT DIDNT(Dont) WORK, except for employers, in their cases its working fine.

What? work shorter hours, with the Japanese work system...Already my colleagues are taking half a day for a job I could do in half an hour...hmmm..to shorten work time would only mean they have only ONE job task per day, and I get to do 4-5 and get the same pay?....JT, you must be joking! cut the craps out please...

i'm against it!! it happened to me, where the company i used to work for declared that work share system, me and some of my friends quit.We quit and each of us applied to separate companies and is hired ( good decision!). I found a better job with better pay and lighter work ( ha-ha!).

For established jobs-stupid. Make cuts, compromises, and if you arent moving get innovative. For new companies, the ability to tap into workers, without having to supply full-time job extras, but a decent price for the time and work done, in this sense it could be implemented....

These is J, working less hours sounds like a healthy idea to me. Is not a definitive solution, but if anyone have a better idea, please tell us. Get less pay, with the current trend to deflation is not that terrible like it look.

Not a bad idea in principle; a recipe for international outsourcing in practice.

No sir. I don't like it.

Maybe J-men can spend less time away from home & more time with the kids. Japanese society can reinvest in basic fundamental human & family values, not merely economics.

saving a job has heart however saving an economy is where you must focus. Why save obsolete positions? Many things to ponder in this one.

How about executives and stockholders taking cuts so that those workers can keep their pay.

Just had a thought. Reduced work hours does have the benefit of giving people a greater opportunity to spend their disposable income (even if that income is lower than normal). This reminds me of the policy that Prime Minister Miyazawa tried to introduce in Japan during the early 1990s, another period of economic decline (post bubble Japan) and international trade friction. Anyway, Miyazawa's plan called on Japanese folks to work less and spend more, turning Japan into a "Consumer Superpower." For obvious reasons, the plan did not go anywhere.

"What is good for Wall Street is good for main street." Because companies are viable with wealth creation and the economy turns, good for everyone. Keeping everyone engaged in down turns is beneficial to society and the person. Sharing work as long as we all do not become beggers is OK. Debt seems to be the biggest problems and must be dealt with. Wave a wane and make it go away and start again. Not just banks but consumers as well.

In the future it will be inevitable. Technology is making old fashioned human work obsolete. Sooner or later we'll have to face up to fact that there just isn't enough toil to go round. Old fashioned capitalism isn't equipped to deal with the future.

Definitely a band-aid fix to a very serious and complex issue. It might keep the wolves from the door in the short-term, but work-sharing is not a placea for the economic ills that we face. At best, such strategies should be considered as giving companies and economies a bit of breathing room.

I will work half what I do now for a 10% cut how`s that?

Answer, since you work for yrself good luck with that!

Damn!

Unfortunately, I see no viable option than to reduce the size of a work force for the company to cut overheads. It's very simple economics. Dropping salaries and cutting working hours is a band-aid fix and will only delay the inevitable.

It won't save jobs. If nobody is buying cars, TVs or whatever, then production will go down anyway and employees will have to be laid off.

One more "selfish tool" in the hands of greedy employers.