When he’s annoyed, Claus Weselsky likes to quote Giovanni Trapattoni. “What does Strunz allow?!” he then asks, just like the former Bayern coach in 1998 after the 0-1 defeat against Schalke. Just recently, the controversial train driver unionist brushed off his party friends from the CDU. In view of the almost endless labor dispute at the railway, they had called for the right to strike to be restricted. And, who knows, perhaps Weselsky has now asked the question again, slightly modified: “What does Habeck allow?!”
There are “too many strikes or campaigns for less and less work,” criticizes the Economics Minister, “and we really can’t afford that.” The statement is causing quite a stir – probably also because a Green party suddenly sounds like the FDP and the Federal Association of Employers, who are fighting against reductions in working hours: “We need more desire to work, not less,” is one of their core sentences.
But is Habeck right? It is true that demands for shorter working hours have become very fashionable. It’s not just Claus Weselsky who wants to push through the 35-hour week at the railway with all his might. There are, for example, the steel workers who, with the help of IG Metall, have been trying to implement the four-day week for years. The unions are planning something similar in many other industries because they have understood that after the years of high inflation, in which better wages were the priority, many employees now want to be able to work a little less without having to forego money.
40 million people shouldn’t just work one day less
However, it is anything but certain that these wishes will actually lead to a loss of prosperity, as Habeck suggests. Yes, up to two million positions cannot be filled right now; The horrendous labor shortage is a major problem, and the federal government has recognized that it cannot solve it with working time policy alone – for example, more immigration and more training are needed. Of course, it would still be wrong if all 40 million employees in Germany suddenly baked bread rolls, looked after children, and stood on the assembly line for one less day. But that’s not the plan at all.
The unions are fighting with employers to find solutions for individual sectors, and they are not doing so without reason. In steel, for example, where orders are decreasing, shortening could be a means of keeping people in work. In rail and bus transport, it could help attract more people to these jobs. And in some professions, the productivity gains through artificial intelligence could be so high in the future that shorter working hours will not be a problem there either.
The big question is whether shorter working hours actually lead to less work – or possibly have the opposite effect. There are studies that show that employees can be healthier and more productive when they work a little less. Twelve million people in Germany also work part-time, often only half a job. Many of them might find it attractive to increase to four-day full-time (with appropriate incentives). There would still be time for family or hobbies. Such arguments certainly do not apply in every industry, but in some, see above, they do. It is therefore legitimate for the unions to argue about this with the employers in collective bargaining rounds – and, in extreme cases, to go on strike.
In the most extreme case: This is the keyword where Claus Weselsky comes into play again. He has once again overdone it with the strike – and, as Economics Minister Habeck’s statement also shows, he is increasingly turning politicians against him. Not only conservatives and liberals now sympathize with a tightening of the right to strike; Some, still rather quiet, advocates can now also be found in the parties to the left of the center. However, such a tightening would have serious consequences for the effectiveness of the unions – which is why it would only be understandable if their leading figures now asked: “What does Weselsky allow?!”