Fazla Mesai - Neden Daha Kısa Bir Çalışma Haftasına İhtiyacımız Var

by Will Stronge, Önder Kulak (Translator)

Overtime is about the politics of time, and specifically the amount of time that we spend labouring within capitalist society. It argues that reactivating the longstanding demand for shorter working hours should be central to any progressive trajectory in the years ahead.

This book explains what a shorter working week means, as well as its history and its political implications. Will Stronge and Kyle Lewis examine the idea of reducing the time we all spend labouring for other on both a theoretical and political level, and offer an analysis rooted in the radical traditions from which the idea first emerged. Throughout, the reader is introduced to key theorists of work and working time alongside the relevant research regarding our contemporary 'crisis of work', to which the authors' proposal of a shorter working week responds.

Genres: Nonfiction, Economics, Business, Labor, Politics, Sociology

104 pages, Paperback

First published September 14, 2021

Reviews

[Chontiwat Udomsiripat · Rating 4 out of 5]

ทำไมเราถึงมีเวลาไม่พอ: ทวงคืนเวลาจากงาน - หนังสือเล่มนี้เป็นบทอภิปรายว่าทำไมเราควรจะช่วงเวลาการทำงานลง มีฉากหลังในระบบเศรษฐกิจทุนนิยมสหราชอาณาจักร โดยพิจารณาว่าจะลดเวลางานให้เหลือกี่ชั่วโมงต่อวันไปจนถึงควรทำงานกี่วันต่อสัปดาห์ โดยเนื้อหาจะไล่อธิบายไปทีละประเด็นและชี้ให้เห็นว่าการลดเวลาทำงานนั้นมีข้อดีอย่างไร เช่น เป็นการส่งเสริมสิทธิสตรีในการลาคลอด และให้สามีมีส่วนร่วมในการเลี้ยงดูลูกอย่างเต็มเปี่ยม หรือการประหยัดพลังงานเพื่อสิ่งแวดล้อม การลดการเผาไหม้ ใช้ไฟฟ้า ใช้เชื้อเพลิง ใช้ทรัพยากรอื่น ๆ

นอกจากนี้ การลดเวลาการทำงานลงยังส่งผลให้เราเครียดน้อยลงด้วย คำว่างานโหลดนั้นอันตรายกว่าที่คิด มันค่อย ๆ กัดกร่อนร่างกายและจิตใจของเราโดยไม่รู้ตัว ดังนั้น การลดเวลาการทำงานจึงเป็นภารกิจที่ทั้งรัฐบาล พรรคการเมือง และนายจ้าง ควรแก้ไขปัญหาเพื่อให้เกิดสมดุลทางชีวิตจิตใจ เราไม่อาจพูดได้เลยว่า “เห็นใจนายทุน” อันเนื่องมาจากการเพิ่มค่าแรงขั้นต่ำหรือลดเวลาการทำงานให้น้อยลง

สุดท้ายแล้ว การลดเวลาการทำงานนั้นมีประโยชน์กว่าที่คิด สำหรับผมทำงาน 4 วันต่อสัปดาห์คือกำลังดี ไม่มากไม่น้อย แล้วคุณล่ะ คิดว่าควรทำงานกี่วันต่อสัปดาห์ดี ? มาอ่านแล้วร่วมหาคำตอบไปด้วยกันครับ

ปล. ผมอ่านฉบับแปลไทยของสำนักพิมพ์นิสิตสามย่าน อ่านสนุกเลยครับ

[Bagus · Rating 4 out of 5]

I devoured this slim book in a single sitting. In this short book that reads like a manifesto, Will Stronge and Kyle Lewis argue several important points on why we need shorter working hours and why now is the right momentum to undertake this change. Our Monday to Friday workdays and 40 hours per week of work hours are the legacies from the twentieth century. There have been many changes that make the current workdays becoming less relevant. The most important factor would be the technological improvement that increases the efficiency and efficacy of our works, but there are other factors that Stronge and Lewis introduce throughout this book. Much of the points being discussed here and the data used to support the arguments are derived from the experience in the Global North, but they would also make interesting case studies for the situation in the Global South.

In the past, Marx has argued about how the notion of time for labour-intensive processes devoured freedom from workers. In a capitalist society, Time has become the centre of our everyday’s life, with contracts that dictate certain hours of our lives to be dedicated to works. But the reality is, there were times when we are forced to work overtime to fulfil obligations to our employers. In some parts of the world, it is even common for employees to work with zero-hour contracts with no guarantee for them to continue holding the job position. The case of a high level of unemployment and job insecurity in our society is in some cases the by-product of our long working hours that might actually be unnecessary due to technological advancement.

Stronge and Lewis make interesting points on how the working time reduction does not come naturally with progress in technological advancement. In the past, the decrease in working hours happened due to strikes by workers and trade union members to put pressure on the government and their employers. The authors’ view challenges the Keynesian belief that growth will precipitate fewer hours for production and a reduction of working hours until less than fifteen hours by 2030. While challenging the unsustainable nature of growth, the authors’ also hold in check that socialism cannot guarantee better ‘work-life balance’ for workers as the experience of work would barely be different from the capitalist world that they attempted to abolish, workers will still work long hours even though the control over the means of production has changed from the capitalists into the socialist government. How should then we mitigate this situation?

The authors then provide arguments that would please feminists and environmentalists alike, that is by reducing working hours to four days a week there will be so many benefits to gain. With the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been increasing pressure for women who work from home to do domestic chores, caring for the children at home, while also performing their professional duties at work. There are many supportive data from the UK and OECD countries that the authors included here, which offer some points on why women are the most vulnerable with this Covid-19 pandemic, especially with the majority of jobs such as medical staff and teachers are held by women, that will put pressure on them to work harder. There is also a lengthy discussion on the need to change our approach from capitalism into sustainable degrowth, which includes changing our metrics into alternative modes of living, based on principles of sharing, conviviality, care and the common good. It’s time to question Adam Smith’s concept of continuous growth and the position of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a measure of success for the economy.

In my opinion, there are some positive outcomes to advocate fewer working hours in some industries, especially to mitigate employee’s well-being during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. If we could be honest, most of our workers today are paid not based on the amount of time they spent working, but rather by the amount of time they spent being present in their workplaces. 9 to 5 work hours, five days a week have become an established norm, despite the fact that we might spend less than that time to complete our works, or there might be time between those hours spent for scrolling on social media, reading news, or extended lunch hours. The modern workforce is by no means a slacker generation, but there might be something to evaluate from our current working environment and Stronge and Lewis have made some good points explaining why and how we could achieve this goal of greater work-life balance.

[David Rankin · Rating 3 out of 5]

More like a 3.5. While I largely agree with everything in this manifesto, the authors barely scratch the surface of every important question. We do absolutely need a shorter working week; however, we really needed this book to be longer (99 pages, excluding the end notes). The book is also too light on theory. So many questions I wish they'd gone deeper into; for example, how do we make the argument that workers should be paid the same for fewer hours? Would have also liked more discussion of the work-obsessed society (how it came to be, what alternatives there might be, etc.) or more time spent making the case that more free time unlocks human potential. Too short!

[Live Forever or Die Trying · Rating 3 out of 5]

A solid read, somewhat narrow in scope. Does not dress the full range of implications caused by having a shorter working week.

[Venky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Time well spent is liberating. Time as a phenomenon, when expended according to one’s own volition is delightful. Time allowed to lapse at a pace that is not dictated by the whims and fancies of a third person is fulfilling. Thus, even a great degree of time spent idling away is time fruitfully utilised, provided the act of doing ‘nothing’ is purely voluntary and bereft of, and uninduced by all conditionalities. Unfortunately not many of us can lay claims to enjoying a spell of time, the likes of which has been alluded to above. Unless we are sitting on a pile of inherited wealth, and our names happen to be Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates.

In their slim book, “Overtime” Will Stronge, Director of Research at Autonomy, an independent, progressive think tank focusing on the future of work, and Kyle Lewis, co-founder of Autonomy, make a stirring and candid argument for a shortening of the stereotypical five day working week. Adroitly and assiduously banking on three or key critical ‘planks’, the duo posit a case for a four day working week. However for this seemingly radical concept to materialize, there needs to be fostered the realisation that treating such a potential change as radical is indeed the biggest folly. A paradigm shift needs to overcome the attitude and intent of the employers. The employees need to be invested with the necessary pecuniary security and there ought to be no compromise whatsoever in their payouts in a transition to such a scheme.

Writing for The Conversation, Anthony Veal, Adjunct Professor, Business School, University of Technology Sydney, evaluated the four-day working week experiment instituted by the epitome of progressive nations, Iceland. As Veal illustrates, in reality the studies involving Reykjavík City Council and the Icelandic government. The trials covered 66 workplaces and about 2,500 workers revealed that “workers moved from a 40-hour to a 35- or 36-hour week, without reduced pay.” In actuality a shift to a four-day working week should have ideally compressed the total number of weekly work hours by seven or eight hours instead of just four hours. Even so there is no denying the fact that the single greatest upshot stemming from the experiment has been the demonstration that, where there is a conviction, there can be implemented a reformist working mechanism.
Spurred on by the COVID-19 pandemic, initiatives similar to that of the Icelandic experiment are being proposed by other nations too. For example as Stronge and Lewis illustrate, Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon has exhorted businesses to allow employees to put in a four day week but without any accompanying loss of pay. New Zealand’s extraordinarily popular Prime Minister Jacinda Arden as well as her Finnish counterpart Sanna Marin have also expressed a keen desire to institute the four-day week arguing that such a move would result in the enjoyment of a greater degree of work-life balance.

One invariable outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the phenomenon of working from home. Touted as being a democratic and ‘flexible’ arrangement of ‘discharging one’s responsibilities, working from home is neither democratic nor flexible. Under this arrangement there is an unfortunate but inevitable erasure or obliteration of the critical line separating the personal from the professional. Allowing the office to intrude into your living room or turning a blind eye to its roving presence within the confines of your bedroom can cause incalculable damage to the human psyche. Increased cases of work related depression, physical conditions such as Recurring Stress Injury are all too common. “A study carried out by the Mental Health Foundation suggested that among those working from home during the pandemic, an extra 28 hours per month were being worked on average, with clear negative impacts on health and well-being.”

The authors of ‘Overtime’ bring to the attention of the reader an age old paradox that has assailed the unit of time. This paradox materializes when time is evaluated in parallel by the employee and the employer. From an employee’s perspective, every incremental unit of time not spent at work is an opportunity for embellishing and achieving one’s self actualization needs. By this logic time is freedom. However from a capitalist’s perspective, every unit of time lost in not producing a good or rendering a service is time unfairly and unproductively spent against which a great deal of money has also been expended in the form of wages. “All time is potential production time within a capitalistic economy.” To quote Marx, “the worker is nothing other than labour-power for the duration of his own life, and that, therefore, all his disposable time is by nature and by right labour-time…”

John Maynard Keynes once envisaged a time (by 2030) where spurred by the extraordinary and exponential efficiencies of technology, the number of labour hours would be dramatically shortened. This rapid reduction, according to one of the greatest economists of our time would pose a unique problem more epistemic in its nature than economical. Man would face a conundrum in trying to understand and contemplate in the additional hours available to him, ‘what should he be as a human being’. Keynes even had an imaginatively threatening name for such a problem – permanent problem of the human race.

However, not even a decade away from 2030, we as a collective humanity are nowhere close to attaining a state where we can luxuriate mulling about philosophical dilemmas and moral constructs. A yawning chasm in the form of income and wealth inequality has created a pernicious situation of distributional disparity. While the rich keep getting obscenely richer, the poor and even the middle class are sailing a boat of stagnation. The time for sanguine thinking is not yet visible on the horizon. However a four day working week might just be the panacea for bestowing the much needed ‘nudge’ in progressing towards a horizon of hope.

But the greatest benefit of a four-day week might shore up the process of a segment of the population that has been unfortunately, unerringly and undeservingly been neglected and stereotyped from time immemorial – women. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was found that, “77 percent of the workforce who have ‘high-risk’ jobs are women, and that women make up a staggering 98 percent of workers on high-risk jobs that are being paid poverty wages’. A report prepared by the authors’ own think-tank in tandem with another think tank named Compass, and the 4 Day Week Campaign, revealed the distinctly uncomfortable fact that “women are 43 percent more likely than men to have increased their hours beyond a standard working week during COVID.” The banishment of women to the kitchen not only seems to be a continuing tendency, but it seems to be a demeaning attribute foisted onto them despite the strides of progress made by them that sees them at the helm of many a Corporate Board. The ‘unpaid labour’ that women put in at home on an average is estimated to be worth a staggering GBP 449 billion according to 2015 data.
Italian and American scholar, teacher, and activist Sylvia Federici in a famous tract, Wages Against Housework, vociferously argued that there ought to be demanded by women who were subject to the ‘gendered cage of housework’, an appropriate payment. This payment was a talismanic gesture at denaturalizing and divorcing the taxing and repetitious chores of housework from the feminine. According to Federici, “it is the demand by which our nature ends, and our struggle begins.”

The authors also argue in closing that a four-day work week also abets the ongoing clamour for ‘de-growth’ and a frantic call for moving away from the metric of the Gross Domestic Product. A four-day work week would also stamp out a great deal of carbon footprint.

“Overtime” is an insightful and thought provoking book whose relevance is amplified by the peculiarly dangerous and unique time we are living through and in, right now.

(‘Overtime: Why We Need A Shorter Working Week, is published by Verso Books and will be released on the 14th of September 2021)

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

A short and succinct introduction to the numerous reasons that a shorter workweek would be better for humanity and the Earth alike. Nicely outlines on some of the important groups/issues to consider in the fight for a shorter workweek, and how this fight might play out.

[William Schram · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Overtime: Why We Need A Shorter Working Week" is a short book. Will Stronge and Kyle Lewis are from the United Kingdom. They argue the virtues of shortening the workweek to somewhere around 31 hours instead of 40 hours per week.

My main issues with shortening the workweek are that work defines who I am as a person and gives me something to do. The argument for a shorter workweek has come to the forefront of some agendas with the advent of the Covid 19 pandemic. Changing technologies and standards of living brought about standard work times and hours.

My initial kneejerk reaction to the book was sarcasm. Why would people need a shorter working week? I admit that I hyperbolized the situation and thought they wanted to bring it down to the "Jetsons Level." George Jetson works for three hours a day, four days a week, and he is tired out at the end of his day. Then I read the book, and while I agree with some of the statements, I don't like the idea of working for the benefit of everyone else.

At the moment, I live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It is not a good city. Crime is rampant, and the city is running out of money. I would not want to support people that don't contribute anything; it makes me feel like a sucker.

Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.

[Rob M · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good, short, and accessible book. It makes the case for a shorter working week in explicitly progressive terms, highlighting the benefits for workers in general, for women especially, and for the environment. Most of what it says is well argued and makes good sense, and I only have a couple of criticisms.

Like a lot of these polemic/manifesto type publications, its theory of change seems to be to harangue the trade union movement to get up off its arse. We all feel like that sometimes, but it doesn't really engage with actual union realities, other than to note that decades of neoliberalism have severely degraded their ability to fight on the front foot.

Another niggling gripe I had with this book was its failure to engage with issues like the dignity of labour, collective social missions, development economics, etc. Other than a nod to the idea of a green new deal, it writes off what it calls "socialist modernisation" in favour of a more individualistic humanism. Like many contemporary books about work, Overtime is written by phd students from the starting point that work basically sucks. To be fair, a lot of the time it does, but this book occasionally feels shallow and detached from reality as a result.

Despite these small gripes, I am in no doubt that the time for a significant reduction in the working week has come, that huge advances in technology have made this possible, and that it would be an important step in the fight against many social ills, especially economic inequality and social alienation.

[Nora]

这是一本短小的学术书，写得很清楚简单。从多个不同社会方向论证为什么需要shorter working week，包括环境、性别、社会平等等等。有解释一些历史，提到历史主要是为了论证题目。讲alternative economies那部分挺有意思的。

[Jack Mcloone · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The fight for a shorter working week will therefore be just that: a fight. While the case for a radical policy agenda must be kept alive in political parties of the Left through members, activists, progressive think tanks and journalists, the fight for free time will be won by building power in the workplace and across society at large.”

With “Overtime,” Stronge and Lewis have crafted not just a tight, compelling argument for the necessity of (at minimum) a four-day work week, but also sketch out a roadmap for achieving it.

This work shouldn’t be considered comprehensive in either respect; it’s only 99 pages (before you get to the notes). (As an aside: why are there multiple reviews mad that this only “scratches the surface.” Of course if only does? What did you expect?) But there isn’t a page wasted, as it manages to not just touch on the need for a shorter work week for the conventional work-life balance reasons, but also look at it from a gender and race equality frame and also in the push for environmental protection.

This is a great starting point for those looking to begin to think about how radically our conception of work, and it’s controlling role in our lives, needs to change.

[MT · Rating 5 out of 5]

- อ่านแล้วแอบนึกถึงสี่พันสัปดาห์ ในหลายๆอย่าง ถ้าในเชิงความclickbaitของการตั้งชื่อนสแต่พอได้อ่านจริงๆมันเหนือคาดกว่านั้น การพูดถึงชีวิตมนุษย์เงินเดือนยุคโควิด19 สี่พันเปิดมาด้วยการสร้างนาฬิกาและการให้นิยายใหม่กับเวลา(หรือเป็นกระ) ในขณะเล่มนี้เปิดมาที่การทำงานปฎิรูปเวลาทำงานให้อยู่ภายในแปดชม.แทนที่จะเป็นสิบชม.หรือมากกว่านั้น แต่เราอาจจะชอบเล่มนี้มากกว่าตรงที่มันไม่ใส่ความคิดเห็นหรือเสนอแนะอะไรแบบที่Burkemanผู้ที่มีอภิสิทธิ์ในการใช้ชีวิตเหลือเกินทำ ทุกอย่างนำเสนอราวกับบทความตึงๆเครียดๆแบบพวกThe Guardian ซึ่งชอบและคิดว่าตรงประเด็นมาก

- ชอบบทที่พูดถึงการคาบเกี่ยวกันระหว่างทุนนิยม มนุษย์เงินเดือนและวิกฤติธรรมชาติที่มาจากคาร์บอน ปกติการคาบเกี่ยวกันในโลกของทุน(ตามสำนึกฐานันดรที่สามอย่างเราๆ)มันวนเวียนไปมาในองค์กรหรือเครือข่ายอะไรสักอย่างที่ทั้งเห็นและไม่เห็น จริงๆก็เคยอ่านอะไรแบบนี้แล้ว (อย่างเล่มพังทลายแต่ไม่พ่ายแพ้) แต่ได้มาอ่านอีกก็ชวนคิดและให้ความหวัง(ลมๆ)เหมือนกันว่าการทำงานสี่วันมันคงเป็นวาระแห่งชาติสักวันนึง

[Ash · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent (basically) essay about why the working week needs to be shortened. I’ve seen criticism saying that it doesn’t outline how this would be achieved, but that’s not what the book sets out to do, it says in the subtitle that this is *why*. The book does, however, say that nigh-revolutionary action (carried out by trade unions and activist groups) does need to be implemented in order to achieve this. But that’s the best general advice you can write, as the exact schedule would be determined on a workplace-by-workplace basis. The books does a good job at concisely outlining why we should have a shorter week, pointing to the gender-equality and environmental benefits that a shorter week would bring. Although the quoting from other material does get to be a bit much, it is still useful for conveying ideas efficiently. Overall a great primer on the philosophy of shortening work.

[Neethi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I appreciated this book for really diving in to why we absolutely need to work less and pointing out historical and current day examples of unions and labor movements achieving gains in the form of shorter work weeks. The conversation about a potential 4 day work week has been mainstreamed the past few years and this book does a great job of speaking to the ways in which it would allow us all to live better and more fulfilled lives.

My only issue with this book is that it felt a bit disorganized. I enjoyed all of it, but it didn’t necessarily flow and felt disjointed at times. I have seen reviews here complaining about how the authors didn’t show a path forward but I’d argue that the last chapter speaks to that as much as it can by emphasizing the power of unions, labor movements, progressive politicians, etc.

[Chris · Rating 1 out of 5]

A very bland, stats driven argument for why the human race should move towards shorter working times and more free time. The big miss for this book is understanding the kind of economy that would be necessary for shorter working time. It’s easy to imagine in a capitalist economy, the workers of a landmine factory organize a union, win a contract that includes a four day work week so the workers can have more free time to jack off and write poetry. Does this stir the imagination for a better world? Not really. The book also blames Lenin for industrializing the Soviet Union and thus ruining Socialism blah blah blah. Next.

[William F · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short book of essays arguing for the reduction of the working week. If you’re not already of this belief - you should be. However this book is for the believers and will not answer your questions about how it will work practically. Some interesting discussions and policy ideas but follows the annoying trope in contemporary leftist writing which confuses erratic name dropping with doing social theory. The authors work for the think-tank Autonomy who do lots of great empirical research and I recommend checking their website and reports out.

[Zachary Barr · Rating 2 out of 5]

Big fan of the message, but I do think this either needed to be shortened or extended. It’s more of a manifesto, and I suppose it does that. But I felt the need for more detail was more evident, even if I agreed with the points listed. However, I don’t think it’s strong enough in its current form to work if a manifesto is the goal. A shorter work could work better for progressing that message further.

But I do think it’s got merit. I think it’s stuck between a rock and a hard place, and needed to embrace either becoming a detailed case study, or a shortened plea.

[John Mihelic · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book Overtime is a short little book that basically extends the argument for Keynes and The Economic Consequences of Our Grandchildren and says that we do work too much, and it definitely eliminates human flourishing because we work too much. It is a quick read and a rather good argument, but I think the main worry of it is that it is more focused on like a western white-collar world and view then a broader take but overall, from someone in the professional classes I feel the argument.

[yipeng · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who has been experimenting with 4 day work weeks, I was interested to learn more about how this could be applicable for everyone. It gives me hope that Saturdays off were won recently, giving the majority a two day break, however there needs to be more. Would love to read more on how this could be implemented in the Global South. A great introduction to why we need and should implement a 4 day work week.

[Jake Gardner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quick read! Even a slow reader like myself could finish this in an afternoon or a weekend making it great for accessibility. As a pamphlet/manifesto, it’s a great introduction to ideas like the degrowth economy and the GND. So great gateway book, I will probably read some of the works that it mentions! Hopefully, the workweek will shorten soon and we’ll probably see it in our lifetimes but it will take a strong fight.

[Issy Stephens · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this book - it was a quick and easy read. I felt that the authors didn’t go as in depth on the subject matter as they could have, however in an only 100 page book it would be difficult to. I would recommend as an introductory read to why we need a shorter working week and the simplified theory and politics behind it, however if you’re looking for something a bit more rigorous I’d look elsewhere.

[Jéssica · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uma excelente introdução ao tema apesar de estar ainda numa fase de pensamento utópico, faltando medidas mais concretas e práticas de como se poderá fazer a transição. Denota muito bem a importância do tempo livre para desenvolvimento pessoal e a libertação criativa necessária para conseguirmos atingir outras áreas da nossa vida. O trabalho domestica muito mais do que dignifica sendo que vivemos numa sociedade obcecada com o trabalho e só este nos parece definir enquanto pessoas.
Uma leitura rápida que vale muito a pena.

[Kara · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent introduction to the arguments for the 4-day work week. Lots and lots of history and sources packed into this short book. I’ve seen some criticisms that this book is too idealistic and that the idea of a shorter work week is too radical, but I couldn’t disagree more. Would definitely recommend to anyone interested in progressive ideas about the future of work.

[J · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fast (and not dense, thank goodness for footnotes) read about the impact that work (especially under capitalism) is more of a lever of abuse against women, children and frankly anyone who's not rich enough to influence policy to put people into a feudalism state and solutions people have been implementing around the globe. My only compliant is that the book is too short!

[Catherine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this a lot but then it was preaching to the converted. Some really interesting points tho about how we are not going to get there without pressure from unions and how we can link it up with the environmental arguments.

[Necdet Yücel · Rating 5 out of 5]

hem neden daha kısa bir çalışma haftasına ihtiyacımız olduğunu hem de kadın emeğini çok yönlü işlemiş. Çok yakın tarihli bir kitap içinde covid dönemiyle ilgili değerlendirmeler de var. benim için faydalı oldu

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice quick read on why we should fight for a shorter work week. Whether for medical, political, social, feminist, or climate reasons this books is a nice short primer on propagandizing the need for a shorter work week

[Héctor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un manifiesto cortito (apenas 100 paginas sin la notas) para defender por qué hay que reducir la jornada laboral. Interesante, se lee fácil y tiene algunos destellos brillantes pero es flojete

[Angela · Rating 2 out of 5]

Concise to its detriment. Not enough substance to bring the argument forward.

[Dinithi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brief but thorough introduction explaining the logic and ethics behind shortening labour hours. Does what it should, nothing more, nothing less.

[Cori Ready · Rating 4 out of 5]

We need a shorter working week if want to save the planet.