The main disadvantage of shortening the working day on Friday by one hour has been named

Employees will lose part of their salary

A bill has been introduced to the State Duma to shorten the working day by one hour before the weekend. Its author is senator from the Ulyanovsk region, member of the Federation Council Committee on Science, Education and Culture Ayrat Gibatdinov. At first glance, his initiative looks like an unconditional blessing for workers, who are faced with the prospect of getting additional time for rest and personal life. But the devil is in the details: in particular, employers will have to increase payroll costs, which they certainly will not want to do.

The initiative provides for the introduction of appropriate amendments to the Labor Code, according to which the working week is at least 40 hours. Now it should be 39. As a recent opinion poll conducted by one of the major recruiting agencies found out, 61% of Russians support the idea, only 16% completely reject it, and another 23% have not decided on the assessment. The main argument in favor is: “People will get a lot done and spend more time with their family.” The main fear: “Wages will be reduced, but overtime will remain.”

The survey included 1,600 people over 18 years of age working full-time on a five-day, 40-hour work week with Saturday and Sunday off. 70% of respondents work “from call to call” on Friday; for 28%, employers have reduced their working hours on Friday by one hour; another 2% of respondents work two or three hours less on Friday. According to presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin is not discussing the topic of a short day on Friday: “It is not known that any position on this matter has been formulated.”

“In principle, any initiatives aimed at reducing the working day carry a positive grain,” says Alexander Safonov, a professor at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation. – The less we work, the less likely it is that occupational risks and illnesses will occur, more time is left for rest, and the balance between work and personal life improves. But this is ideal. And if you descend from the legislative heights to the sinful earth, the question arises: at whose expense is the banquet? Employers will not pay for missed work hours out of their own pockets. If the idea is successful, they will reduce wages proportionately. In conditions where the majority of citizens have low salaries, employees are unlikely to like this.”

Or then employers will have to find additional personnel: one fortieth is 2.5% of employees. In the conditions of the current severe shortage of labor in Russia, carrying out such a replacement is an unrealistic task. As Safonov reminds, in agriculture, according to the most conservative estimates, there are a shortage of 200 thousand people, in the health and education sectors – about 150 thousand, and in total there are 1.3 million fewer people in employment today than there were in 2017. It is currently unrealistic to make up for the loss of so many man-hours. Yes, due to the growth in labor productivity, it is still possible to somehow “press up” in the manufacturing sector, using equipment more quickly and creating reserves. But such an experiment in education, healthcare, and science will only lead to overtime work, the provision of which will be fixed by the employer in the new employment contract.

According to Professor Alexei Zubets from the Financial University, the measure is openly populist and obviously unworkable. Since it will lead to an increase in labor costs by 2.5%, the wage fund should be increased by exactly the same amount. Employers will have to pay extra overtime, but output will remain the same. “I can’t imagine,” says Zubets, “how all this is possible given the current shortage of personnel and rising costs of production processes.”

Purely from a legislative standpoint, there should be no problems with the implementation of the idea: it is enough to make changes to the Labor Code and other legal acts. And then, notes leading researcher at INION RAS Sergei Smirnov, the substantive part of the question begins: these are economic interests and the structure of employment. In areas of material production (for example, agriculture), the employer does not care how long you work. The main thing is the result. But, say, in the public transport sector it is impossible to increase labor productivity, where this “reduced” hour is critical and must be filled by someone else – a bus driver or a metro train driver.

“In addition,” recalls Smirnov, “there are many people who are not tied to working hours, but only to products and someone’s order. Those same IT specialists themselves choose how much they will work. Accordingly, from a practical point of view, the bill is not feasible, taking into account all the current circumstances.”