The city of Gothenburg, Sweden is testing a reduced workday with groups of municipal workers. The test group will work six hours per day, while the control group will continue working their normal eight hour shifts. They plan to use this one-year study to see if this is a better practice, hoping for a reduction in sick days and a per-hour efficiency gain.

This will be interesting to watch, specifically to see how different sides spin the data when the study is complete. Part of the reason countries would like to see shorter workdays and workweeks is the possibility of lowering unemployment when companies hire extra workers to make up the difference. We should keep in mind if efficiency is actually gained via a shorter workweek, it might not be a direct ratio between lower hours per current employee creating the same number of hours required for new employees. If a worker reduces their daily hours by 25% and increases overall productivity by 10%, there would only be 1.4 hours of productivity lost per worker and that doesn't figure in a new worker's gains in productivity.

If those numbers were true, they are only an example, then a company might require a new employee for every 6 current workers - still a 16% increase in jobs in roles where this change is applicable and would put a dent in any unemployment rate. If that's the case, shouldn't all nations consider lowering work hours? Let's look at some of the factors involved.

Possible benefits to employees

• Less mental fatigue.
• More time resting.
• More time to deal with life issues.
• More time with family.
• Better sleep.
• More time to pursue education.
• Greater job security as unemployment drops.

Possible issues for employees

• Lower pay per week (unless reduced unemployment raises per hour wage).
• Salaried employees expected to perform 40 hours (or more) of work in less hours retains same responsibilities in less time and less pay.

Possible gains for employers

• Better focus throughout shift, resulting in less injury.
• Healthier employees mean less sick days taken with less interruptions to ongoing projects.
• More flexible learners equal more flexible workers.

Possible issues for employers

• Higher employee numbers require larger facilities, including office space and parking.
• Higher pay per work hour.
• As employees seek higher paying job opportunities, companies lose their best employees to other positions, reducing the overall quality of their average worker - this change could cause an overall decrease in productivity and profits.
• More overtime pay.

Possible gains for nations

• Lower employment rates.
• Lower health costs.

Possible issues for  nations

• Later retirement ages.
• Increased energy requirements due to increased number of workers.
• Employees work multiple jobs to maintain their expected quality of life.
• Loss of lower wage jobs as individuals opt to complete repairs and projects on their own in place of hiring out.

It's a complex issue and there are bound to be unexpected consequences. Historic data show reduced hours per American workers since 1950 when the average American workers' hours were 1,920 per year to 1700 in 2012. Averaged per week, our work week has shrunk from 37 to 33 hours per week in 60 years.

Sadly, these work hour reductions aren't spread evenly. While the work week has shrunk, it has more to do with companies reducing their full time positions to reduce benefit costs. In truth, salaried employees and specialized blue collar workers have seen an increase in their hours since the 1980's. At Salon, Sara Robinson offers a history of the 40-hour work week, including how it came about and why it is becoming more rare of late.

As she explains, a human being has a limit after which fatigue sets in and productivity plummets. That limit is around 8 hours of physical work and 6 hours for knowledge workers. She connects the rise of the long work week with the rise of the tech industry, where companies like Microsoft, HP and Apple have pushed employees to the limit of their abilities. Why would they do this?

I believe it is because so many today view Silicon Valley is the modern gold rush. This parallel is reinforced by a recent study showing over half of the engineers polled believe they will be millionaires and 2/3 believe their jobs are "recession proof." As tech companies, from startup to multinational behemoth, there is a push to bring their research and products to market ahead of the competition. Months are an entire generation, weeks can give an edge to adoption, days can make the difference in who gets a patent or copyright.

In an age when America and other nations around the world face higher corporate profits, a stagnating middle-class, and longer work weeks, President Obama plans to use his powers under the Fair Labor Standards Act to change how companies both pay overtime and which job types are eligible for overtime pay.

The Future
As we face an uncertain future where automation and software will replace humans in some job types, this issue goes from individual to national and on to global. The Great Recession of 2007-2009 was directly linked to mortgages for subprime home buyers. From a simplistic viewpoint, the bubble burst on subprime mortgages and as the global economy restricted, layoffs created more defaults created more failed mortgages caused more economic restriction.

Employment flexibility and lower unemployment might have staved off many of these issues. By the end, and even after the recession was formally "ended," companies were forcing the use of vacation days to extend holidays to keep the lights off and shorter work weeks in order to retain employees. We may, as a nation, need to plan for more flexibility than just limiting companies to a 40 hour work week. As individuals, we may need to plan for months or years where our time is limited to even less hours, with adjusted pay, in order to keep our jobs at all.

The future might offer a sliding scale for companies to follow. In place of layoffs, companies might be offered tax incentives to reduce average hours and keep more employees employed. Keeping employment rates high, even with lower pay, might slow consumer purchasing, but could keep corporate purchasing stable and keep much of the country running.

No matter what changes are made, the next few decades will require adaptability on national, corporate, and individual levels.