The ‘Drive for 35’ – Unfinished Business

The ‘Drive for 35’, the fight for a shorter working week by the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (CSEU) in 1989-91, was a pivotal struggle. Not only did it succeed in reducing weekly working hours from 39 to 37 in the shipbuilding, engineering, automotive and aerospace industries, it established a ‘new normal’ of 37 hours across other sectors. However, it remains unfinished business.

The research I conducted for the Alex Ferry Foundation, published by the Institute of Employment Rights, reveals how limited has been the progress on working time for many in these sectors since this historic campaign. In-depth case studies of 13 plants demonstrates that only three sites have achieved the totemic 35-hour yardstick. While some improvement on 37 hours has been won by unions in certain plants, the general conclusion is how relatively minor have been the reductions overall.

Situating these hours in a comparative context is instructive. Workers at all sites have weekly working time that exceed European best practice averages – Netherlands (32.2), Austria (33.6), Norway (33.9), Germany (34), and Denmark (34.3).

The Case for Shorter Working Time

A wind of change is now blowing in the direction of shorter working time. Research, policy and practice across Europe have demonstrated the benefits of a 4-day week for workers’ mental and physical health, well-being, and work-life balance, while having no detrimental effects on productivity. In the UK, the ‘world’s largest four-day working week’ trial, was a resounding success; 39 per cent of employees reported being less stressed and 71 per cent reduced levels of burnout and, overall, companies reported revenue increases.

The thrust of my research was not the 4-day week per se, since it is not generally applicable to these sectors. Many already work a 4-day or shift and a good number may even work a three-shift week of ‘compressed’ hours. These studies were informed by the more appropriate objective of reduced working time and its reconfiguration.

A slew of evidence attests to work intensification, over work, occupational-related mental ill-health (stress, depression, and anxiety) and musculoskeletal disorders, harsher performance management and tough targets. Accordingly, the case for shorter working time is emphatically made on the grounds of health and well-being, economic outcomes, equity, and social justice. The gains from the considerable increases in productivity over decades have not been fairly shared with workers. From this perspective, shorter working time has already been paid for, and a reignited campaign both justified and timely.

Workers’ Experiences and Perceptions of, and Aspirations, Regarding Working Time

Phase 1 of the study surveyed 2,390 union members in 6 plants, drilling deep into their experiences, perceptions, and aspirations regarding diverse aspects of working time. Its findings were emphatic: 93 per cent desired reduced working time with no loss of pay, 88 per cent extended weekends and 82 per cent fewer shifts. That better work-life balance would result from reduced hours was regarded as important by 97 per cent, improved mental and physical health by 94 per cent and 89 per cent, respectively. Four-in-five believed shorter working time would improve their efficiency at work.

Workers confirmed that the experience of the Covid-19 pandemic prompted a widespread re-appraisal of attitudes to their work lives, concluding that less time should be spent at work. Over 80 per cent believed the Covid-19 experience increased their appreciation of time spent with their families. Ninety-four per cent said they would support a national campaign for shorter working time, with three-quarters declaring their strong support.

Union Convenors’ and Shop Stewards’ Perspectives

Phase 2 of the study (2024-5) gathered evidence from convenors/shop stewards on existing working time/shifts, on changes over time, on what they believed were ideal or achievable reductions, the arguments for shorter working time, employers’ resistance points, what leverage could be exercised and what a campaign should consist of.

Only some of the 28 convenors and stewards interviewed indicated their broader aspirations, whether a 32-hour week consisting of 4 x 8-hour shifts or even a 30-hour week. Some thought that significantly reduced working time could be a negotiated outcome of automation. All, however, reported what they considered achievable. All at sites currently working 35+ hours believed shorter working time was a realistic objective. For some on 37 hours, negotiating 36 would be step towards 35. Even at Bentley, currently on 35 hours, 34 was considered not in ‘the realm of impossibility’. Testimonies revealed the enduring legacy of the ‘Drive for 35’ campaign.

All agreed the importance of presenting to employers the strongest possible, evidence-based case. The most persuasive argument, by common consent, was that shorter working time would not adversely affect productivity but could improve it. A BAE Systems Convenor emphasised the ‘millions of ways of getting production up’ through dialogue and union agreement. Equally, management deficiencies in resource allocation, problematic supply chains, continual interruptions and ‘soul destroying’ downtime were identified. ‘The 15-minute argument’ was particularly persuasive. Management might baulk at the perceived enormity of an hour’s reduction a week but be less resistant when this translated into 15 minutes a shift. The outcomes for improved mental and physical health, including fewer sick days, as reported by members in Phase 1, were confirmed.

Union officers reported the most common points of resistance from employers. Notable arguments against related to the volumes of workload, customer demands and the need to fulfil orders. Of significance also was their short-termist preoccupation, if not obsession, with cost minimisation and, relatedly, opposition to employing additional labour and perceived reductions of productive time. The obstruction of middle managers and ingrained habits and practices were also cited.

In the face of these obstacles, and to the unions’ advantage, are two significant factors. First, although not universal across all sub-sectors, labour shortages, often acute, were reported, largely the consequence of the failure to have recruited sufficient numbers of apprentices over decades. A second factor increasing labour’s bargaining position in shipbuilding, defence and aerospace are full order books, in part the consequence of increases in defence spending.

Renewed Campaign for Shorter Working Time

Union officers discussed the different levels at which the campaign and action could take place – national, sectoral, company, plant. There was widespread agreement with CSEU General Secretary, Ian Waddell, that there should be a ‘full throated campaign for a step change in working time with no reduction in pay.’ Convenors and stewards agreed the need for a ‘barrage’ of social media, publicity, and materials to win the hearts and minds of members. Clear messages and evidence-based arguments should enable the CSEU to ‘drive it right through the unions’ structures. A plan of action should be developed, based on successes and experiences, that can organise to translate an effective national campaign into site-specific demands that can win.

You can access Professor Phil Taylor’s report, ‘Winning on working time: Pressing the case for a better work-life balance’ here.