Let workers take a raise as shorter working hours instead of higher pay
In short
- When pay goes up, workers can take the raise as time off instead of money.
- Employers can refuse only if they can show why the work cannot get done.
- Employers may not treat people unfairly in promotions or reviews because they chose shorter hours.
- Pension and insurance are calculated so that coverage does not break when hours are cut.
If this comes true
A warehouse worker gets word of a raise, decides to keep the same pay and take Fridays off, and spends that afternoon fetching balls at their daughter's soccer practice.
Perhaps
Only the coworkers who chose time might stop being invited to important meetings, and two unseen lines might form inside the workplace.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal would set in law a right to take all or part of a pay raise as fewer working hours at the same pay. It covers every case where an employer raises wages, such as across-the-board raises agreed between labor and management, regular raises, and adjustments that follow prices. It applies regardless of the type of employment or the size of the company, and it is granted to people who have worked at the same workplace beyond a set period. For example, with a ten percent raise, a worker could keep their pay the same and cut their scheduled hours by ten percent, or take half in time and half in money. An employer may refuse only by giving, in writing, a specific reason why the work cannot go on, such as being unable to arrange a replacement. If the employer cannot give one, the request is granted as made. A person who is refused can bring a complaint to a third-party body that handles labor disputes. Dropping someone from consideration for promotion, lowering their evaluation, or taking them off important work because they chose time is prohibited, and in a dispute the employer bears the burden of showing the treatment was not unfavorable. Pension and health insurance are set up so that coverage does not lapse when hours are cut, and for the part of a raise taken as time, public funds make up the difference from what would have been recorded had the person worked the original hours, up to a set limit. After a set period, a person can also ask to return to their original hours. For jobs involving life or safety where staff are short, an exception allows the change to be delayed.
BenefitsPeople who want time can choose it without losing out
The strength of this proposal is that it turns choosing time from a courageous exception into an ordinary option that anyone can use at every raise. Because the raise is taken as time, take-home pay does not fall below what it is now, and people can gain leisure without cutting back on their lives. Putting the burden on employers to give reasons for refusing and to show they did not treat anyone unfairly lowers the biggest wall, which is how hard it is to speak up. People in the middle of raising children, caring for family, going back to study, or recovering from illness can win back time without quitting, so fewer people leave workplaces and experienced people stay. As more people choose time, pressure also grows across the whole workplace to find ways of getting results in fewer hours, and the habit of rewarding people for staying long at work starts to break down. Also, unlike a uniform cap, people who need money can still choose money as before, so the balance fits each person's own circumstances. For society as a whole, part of the fruits of progress is handed out as time rather than consumption, which opens a path to feeling rich without having to keep producing more things.
DrawbacksThose who choose time may quietly be left behind in income and experience
Each time a person chooses time, their lifetime income ends up definitely lower than if they had kept working as before, and because the public money to make up their pension has a limit, their savings for old age are thinner. Even if the law bans unfair treatment in promotion, shorter hours also mean less experience gained and fewer connections built, and it is hard to tell when that gap showing up in evaluations is unfair treatment and when it is not. As a result, there is a risk of a hard-to-see two-tier structure at work between those who chose time and those who did not. In small workplaces, the others have to fill the hole left when one person cuts their hours, and the burden on those around them can actually grow. Moreover, people whose pay is already low and whose raises are small cannot afford to choose time, so the benefit leans toward people with more room in their income. Employers might also hold down raises themselves, or move to short-term contracts or outsourcing that the right does not reach, in order to avoid the system. The public money that makes up pensions becomes a burden on everyone, including those who do not choose time.
Learn the background
Thanks to advances in machines and systems, what can be produced in an hour has grown a great deal, but most of that gain has been handed out as higher income and more consumption, and in many societies working hours have barely shrunk since a certain point. The longer people work, the more they lose time with family, time to rest, and time for their community and learning, and they struggle with problems of mind and body and with balancing work against child care and elder care. Yet hours do not shrink because a person who tries to work less alone is promoted later, is seen as unmotivated, and is also put at a disadvantage in insurance and pensions, so even people who truly want time are forced to choose money. Employers, too, have a reason: making a small number of people work long hours costs less in hiring and training. Setting a cap on working hours is ignored at many workplaces, and it also forces the same answer on everyone even though people differ on whether they want time or money. Even where the system leaves room to choose, leisure will not increase as long as choosing it still costs people something.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23b) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes