The French experience
Résumé
The French experience of a 35-hour week is a case in point. This was
introduced by the two ‘Aubry’ laws (named after the then Minister for
Employment, Martine Aubry) in 1998 and 2000. Dominique Méda traces
the political manoeuvring behind the legislation, the different goals and
effects of the two laws, and public responses to them. The first, says Méda,
aimed to reduce unemployment and share out jobs, while the second
‘did less to reduce the working hours of individuals, than to make their
hours more flexible, largely to the advantage of employers’. Workers
responded differently according to their experience: when and how
their employers introduced and managed shorter hours; their personal
circumstances (parents with young children and in managerial roles
reported much more favourable effects); how far their work had been
intensified; whether they felt they had been consulted; and how much
control they retained over their time. There is no evidence, says Meda,
to support the claim that the innovation undermined the ‘work ethic’ in
France or reduced productivity. A substantial proportion of employees
reported better working conditions as a result of the 35-hour week,
which survived efforts by Nicolas Sarkozy to abolish it during his term as president. Méda’s findings confirm that the devil is in the detail – and
the politics – of a shorter working week.