Argument: There should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours, because it creates employment.

According to the CIA World Factbook, non-industrialised countries have an average of 30% unemployment and industrialised nations have somewhere between 4-12% unemployment1. Underemployment is considered to be even higher, though precise figures are by their very nature impossible to acquire. By capping the working hours of those in employment, the unemployed stand an increased chance of entering the workforce.

With no option but to hire more staff, businesses will have no choice but to hire the currently out of work to fulfil their labour requirements. This is economically beneficial, as the costs of long term unemployment to an economy are enormous. In industrialised countries the unemployed are already being paid via taxes, with this change there can be at least some productivity from them.

1 "World unemployment figures by country" The Cia World Factbook, July 12th, 2011

Candidate 1: "Business will replace workers not with other workers, but with machines, especially in the age of robotics and other automated mass production methodologies. Businesses will replace the lost manpower not with more manpower, but with machines wherever possible. "Automation has eliminated some 10 million jobs, mostly in manufacturing" (between 1994 and 2004)1

The actual effect will be to boost productivity AND increase unemployment for the economy that implements it.

The other alternative business can choose is to outsource labour to a country which doesn't have the same stringent standards, which also increases unemployment in the economy with a cap on worker hours. In such a case, the employment, production and business all leave the capped area.

1 Gregory M. Lamb "Automation streamlines services and high-tech, but at what cost?" USA Today 30th August 2004"
Candidate 2: "Given the market is already moving in such a direction, there is no need to wait for the slow whittling away of the less optimal when it can be done right away by legislation. This will give a huge head start compared to any economy which uses the market mechanism and make any economy who takes this road advance in terms of productivity."
Candidate 3: "Only some SME will be affected, and those on such a knife edge financially would probably not have lasted long in the face of competition in any event. Such enterprises are really being subsidised by taking advantage of their workers at the expense of those workers health."
Candidate 4: "Workers already have protection from over work. They have the ability to say "no" and they also have the ability to find themselves other, less lengthy employment.

The fact that jobs with long hours exist is proof that people are happy with the situation. A survey of people opting out of the European working time directive shows that 1 in 4 workers opt out of a limit to their working hours.

"The survey also demonstrates that working hours have not substantially changed since the introduction of the new rules because of the large-scale use of the opt-out clause."

Not only that but workers can already claim for work related injuries, stress and maltreatment via the tribunals and courts, so a deterrent already exists for businesses to overwork their employees.

1 Liza Morgan "Little option But To Opt Out under Working hour Rules""
Candidate 5: "If those who are unemployed were the right people to be doing those jobs, they already would be. Employers want to maximise their bottom line and will hire the best workers they can find. Forcing them to take on lower skilled and less able employees reduces competitiveness and causes inefficiencies.

"The bell curve for worker productivity can be divided into roughly four groups. People in the top 16% who produce the most (superior), people between 84% and 51% who produce more than average, people between 50% and 17% who produce less than average, and people in the bottom 16%."1 Having to hire people from the lower 16% will cost businesses a fortune in lost productivity.

1 Dr. Wendell Williams, "The Incredible Cost of Bad Hire" October 11th, 2001"
Candidate 6: "It isn't actually being suggested that we reduce the total amount of work done. What is being suggested is that we have some of the unemployed be allowed to get access to the labour that is required via limiting the hours existing workers can put in. GDP growth can still be achieved as the amount of work remains unchanged.

In fact, as more of the population become involved in the workforce a lot of other problems and costs will disappear from the economy and society that imposes a maximum working week." two economists argue that a drop of two percentage points in unemployment would mean a 9% decline in burglary, 14% in rape and robbery and 30% in assault."1

1 Prof. Rudolph Winter-Ebmer ""Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime" CEPR Discussion paper, 2001"
Candidate 7: "That's right, even more jobs would be created by hiring people to check on procedures, workplaces and hours worked. When there are literally millions of displaced potential workers and all the social and economic problems unemployment can cause this is no bad thing.

Not only that but there are already policing of business operations present in all advanced economies, this function could be simply added to the list of things to check for by those agencies. New employment within existing organisations is therefore created, so there is a doubling effect from this policy."
Candidate 8: "While people do indeed need proper rest and downtime in order to perform to their maximum potential, exactly how much rest they need changes from individual to individual. A "one size fits all" approach through legislation will necessarily mean that some people who could work quite comfortably with no ill effects will be prevented from doing so.

The choice to work or not rightly belongs to them, as does even their decision to risk their health. It might be worth it to someone to take a chance on sleep deprivation in order to earn more pay."

If those who are unemployed were the right people to be doing those jobs, they already would be. Employers want to maximise their bottom line and will hire the best workers they can find. Forcing them to take on lower skilled and less able employees reduces competitiveness and causes inefficiencies.

"The bell curve for worker productivity can be divided into roughly four groups. People in the top 16% who produce the most (superior), people between 84% and 51% who produce more than average, people between 50% and 17% who produce less than average, and people in the bottom 16%."1 Having to hire people from the lower 16% will cost businesses a fortune in lost productivity.

1 Dr. Wendell Williams, "The Incredible Cost of Bad Hire" October 11th, 2001
