On the subject of "standard working hours", my respected friend Francis Lui of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology wrote recently in the Hong Kong Economic Journal opposing the idea, saying that it will not help improve the welfare of workers at all, and under some circumstances, such as when there is a statutory minimum wage, it could lead to unemployment. I have no problem with his analysis, but its validity really depends upon the level at which the standard working hours are set. I certainly agree that setting standard hours at 35 per week, as France does, will be counterproductive. More importantly, instead of setting standard working hours, beyond which extra pay becomes mandatory - say 1.5 times the regular pay - I would prefer to set a physical ceiling to the number of hours that a worker can be asked to work, such as 55 to 60 hours in any week, regardless of the pay or the worker's consent. (I shall refer to 60 hours from here on, for convenience)

The underlying logic to putting a ceiling on the number of hours worked is the need for balance. This should be quite comprehensible to the Chinese, with our traditional teaching of "moderation." Working excessively does not really contribute to productivity, hurts family life, and reduces happiness over the longer run. Society bears the increased social cost of health care, particularly as stress and frustration take their tolls. Overworked people tend to get angry more easily, and there may be more family violence. Who is to pay for these costs? More often than not, it is the children in the family who take the brunt. Hong Kong has been lagging behind in its support for the mentally ill. What appears to be a savings for the taxpayers because the government does not pay for all the necessary support may well prove to be an even greater cost to everyone, when violence and juvenile delinquency worsen due to the lack of parental care.

I agree to the need for some flexibility. That is why specifying "standard working hours" that appear to be very generous for labor may not be the best strategy. Just as Francis says, requiring 1.5 times normal pay for overtime beyond, say an eight-hour working day may be easily accommodated by employers over the longer run by cutting hourly wages. And when the statutory minimum wage gets in the way of adjustment there could be higher unemployment. For this reason, I do not support setting a very generous standard for working hours per week, at least for the time being.

I prefer setting a binding ceiling on working hours per week over setting standard daily working hours, because this will allow more flexibility. On a particular day, when there is need to meet a deadline, it may be necessary to work longer hours. But as long as the weekly hours do not exceed 60, there is nothing wrong with this.

Some people may think that setting an absolutely binding ceiling to working hours should not apply to doctors and others who may need to work longer hours to meet the needs of exigencies. But doctors are also human beings. They also need sufficient rest and breathing space in order to perform well. Still, I would submit that perhaps for the medical profession even greater flexibility than for other professions should be allowed, such as maximum of 120 hours per every two weeks or 250 hours per month. This will at least allow the opportunity to take a longer break after working over a stretched period.

Still some people may worry that setting a binding ceiling of, say 60 hours per week, may actually prompt employers to exploit workers so that their working hours are increased to 60 hours per week, with the result that 60-hour week becomes the new standard. I do not worry too much about this, as I still have some faith in the market place. Employers in Hong Kong who offer such harsh working conditions simply cannot attract the necessary workers - because Hong Kong does not have a lot of surplus labor. I would worry more for the mainland, because the mainland does have a lot of surplus labor and poor working conditions may not deter workers seeking a livelihood.

A binding ceiling on working hours does not exclude the possibility of a company's offering "standard working hours" below that ceiling plus "extra pay for excess hours" to its employees. Such provisions should, however, be entirely voluntary, subject to agreement between employers and employees.

Hong Kong certainly needs to protect its workers. No one will disagree with ensuring occupational health and safety. But avoiding excessive working hours is necessary to protect occupational health! Hong Kong has gone a long way in ensuring that workers get paid according to the contract and ensuring that their employers contribute toward MPF, etc. This is the time to think about setting a binding ceiling to weekly working hours that cannot be transmuted by offering more pay. This will send an important message: after all, all our hard work is in order to achieve a better life, and not to make money per se.

The author is director of the Centre for Public Policy Studies, Lingnan University.

(HK Edition 07/06/2010 page2)