Abstract (EN)

The French experience of a 35-hour week is a case in point. This was introduced by the two ‘Aubry’ laws (named after the then Minister for Employment, Martine Aubry) in 1998 and 2000. Dominique Méda traces the political manoeuvring behind the legislation, the different goals and effects of the two laws, and public responses to them. The first, says Méda, aimed to reduce unemployment and share out jobs, while the second ‘did less to reduce the working hours of individuals, than to make their hours more flexible, largely to the advantage of employers’. Workers responded differently according to their experience: when and how their employers introduced and managed shorter hours; their personal circumstances (parents with young children and in managerial roles reported much more favourable effects); how far their work had been intensified; whether they felt they had been consulted; and how much control they retained over their time. There is no evidence, says Meda, to support the claim that the innovation undermined the ‘work ethic’ in France or reduced productivity. A substantial proportion of employees reported better working conditions as a result of the 35-hour week, which survived efforts by Nicolas Sarkozy to abolish it during his term as president. Méda’s findings confirm that the devil is in the detail – and the politics – of a shorter working week.