The 8 hours working day was achieved in 1918. But until 1958 we had a 48 hours week. In 1976 we gained a 40 hours week, regulated both by collective agreements and by law. In 1986 the working week was regulated through collective agreements to 37 1/2 hours (excluding lunch breaks), but leaving the law unchanged on 40 hours week and 8 hours day. Most employees in Norway work 7 1/2 hours day.
The international economic stagnation and the general political situation have brought about chronic unemployment. This situation has lead to an offensive from the bourgeoisie against the normal working day. The tactics being used vary: Attacking the national collective agreements that define the normal working hours, introducing more part-time work and more short term contracts, introducing legislation leading to more flexibility a.s.o. On the EU level the collaboration between the Euro-TUC, UNICE and CEEP is producing supra-national collective agreements which the EU Commission develops into directives. This undermines the collective bargaining position of the national trade unions.
A dominating ideology now is that in order to strengthen competitiveness the working day/week must be lengthened. This is done by attacking regulation on overtime pay, increasing the amount of overtime and undermining the normal working day.
Laws are also being changed that weaken the unions' legal rights in relationship to the employers and in this way helping the general aim of union busting.
Another policy that has emerged recently is "job sharing": shortening of the working week/day without full wage and job compensation.This policy has also found root in Norway. As we see it, action taken by the bourgeoisie to achieve what on the surface looks like a socially positive development in "bad times", has in content the opposite effect. Because this policy is combined with other reforms that weaken the position of the working class, such as greater flexibility and destruction of the normal working day, wage moderation, lower social benefits a.s.o. Also because the goal is to pacify the working class by developing ideology based on class collaboration: "We are all in the same boat and in order for this society to get through this crisis we must all share the burdens. But at the same time we must strengthen our ability to compete, so workers, capitalists and the state must cooperate in strengthening the profits of the capitalists."
But job sharing can in some circumstances be a progressive step. In 1992 one of the progressive unions in Norway staged an illegal strike for the right to share the jobs left in a firm that had little turn-over at the time. They won this struggle against the will of the employers who wanted to sack the superfluous workers instead. In this way the workers held their ranks and strengthened their organisation.
The economic stagnation has been milder in Norway than in the rest of Europe, mainly due to the development of the petroleum industry.
But the general aims of the bourgeoisie in this phase are the same: lower social benefits, deconstruction of the welfare state, lower real wages, undermine union power, increase government spending on infrastructure, relieve the big firms of their "tax burdens" and to increase labour productivity.
The main political instrument being used is the Norwegian participation in the EU inner market through membership in the European Economic Area.
The last major nation-wide struggle over working hours was in 1986. The first nation-wide lockout since the 1930s lead to a victory for the unions over the employers and a shortening of the working week by 2 1/2 hours (generally leading to the normal working day being shortened by 1/2 an hour). But since 1987 the situation has deteriorated for the working class: Overtime has increased (both paid and unpaid), more part-time work has been introduced, there have been continual attacks on the sections of the collective agreements dealing with overtime pay and normal working hours, laws concerning the opening hours of shops and offices have been changed to the worse. The content of these changes are to lower labour expenses and to adjust the working hours for optimal use of labourers according to the needs of the individual firms, contrary to the social needs of the working class.
Women have always constituted more than half the working class, but have been wage labourers in a varying degree. With the development of the modern industrial state after the war, women's participation in the labour market has grown steadily, and with the development of the public sector and the service sector in the 1970s and 1980s women's participation has grown to an all time high in Norway. Today women constitute half of the wage labourers.
But as women still have the main responsibility for reproductive work outside the labour market, approximately half of the female wage-labourers work part-time. The average working week for women in Norway is 30 hours. (As we can see many women have a 6 hours day, but without wage compensation.) As women's wages are considered as a surplus wage for the family as an addition to the man's wage they are considered as less worth. Concretely, in Norway today women in industry earn appr. 12 % less per hour than men. But if total life income is considered (including pensions a.s.o) women earn only 57 % compared to men in Norway.
As many women work part time, they do not attain the rights that follow full employment, both in relationship to the employer and in relationship to public rights (public pensions a.s.o.).
But also women that work full time with shift work in hospitals and so on have lesser compensation and longer hours than men.
Another factor which has to do with women's participation in the labour market, is that they are mainly employed in labour intensive trades (hospitals, nurseries, homes for aged, shops, office workers a.s.o.). With the shortening of the working day it is most important for these groups that the shortening is done with full compensation of the amount jobs, so that the shortening of the working day doesn't mean that the intensity of the working day increases.
The fact that women now are both wage labourers and have the main responsibility for the household has lead to a higher level of consciousness. It is the women's lib organisations and unions dominated by women that have pushed the question of the 6 hours day hardest. They are also clearest among the unions on the question of full wage compensation (because women dominate low-wage branches, and can therefore accept a general wage decrease much less than the average worker). And they are clearer on the question of full job compensation.
The movement among women for the 6 hours day has also had an important symbolic meaning; because women see the possibility of a society where they can partake equally with men as "fullworthy members of society".
It isn't possible to defend the 7 1/2 hours normal working day without mobilising women. But at the same time the 7 1/2 hours working day is too long for women, they need a shorter day as wage labourers - a 6 hours working day. In this sense the struggle for the 6 hours day is at the same time a struggle to defend the normal working day as such.
As the actual situation for women is that they work more than men with unpaid reproduction, a shortening of the working day must give different results for men and women outside the hours of wage-labour. For women the lesser time used in paid work must lead to more leisure time. For the men the lower hours used as wage labourers should lead to more time spent with reproductive activity.
As we can see that the 6 hours normal working day with full wage compensation and job compensation means more for women than men, the logical step is therefore to put priority on political work among female dominated unions in order to build a strong base in the union movement for this central issue.
By taking as a starting point the question of the interests of the female working class it has helped the AKP to find correct policies for the working class as a whole.
In the Swedish town Kiruna the local government introduced the 6 hours day in certain, female dominated, public service branches, with full wage compensation. This lead to lower cost on absence from work and higher productivity. The general cost of labour (including pay for sick-leave a.s.o. In Norway workers enjoy full pay during sick leave) sank because of this.
In Norway's capital, Oslo the same experiment was attempted for a two-year period. Action is now being taken by the employers' organisation to make these experiments illegal! It turns out that the workers get a better life and are healthier with a six hours working day with full compensation (surprise!) and that general public opinion is developing in favour of more of the same. In many Norwegian towns the unions are pushing for the local government to try this out in the same fields of work.
Marx pointed out in The Capital that capitalism's ability to increase production has no imminent barriers whereas society's ability to consume has many barriers, and that this contradiction must lead to unemployment and crises. Because of the second world war, and other factors the general economic development didn't lead to massive unemployment for the first 30 years, on the contrary, higher productivity and increased production lead to a higher standard of living, fewer working hours, increased real wages, a lower age for retirement and longer holidays. But during the 1970s capitalism caught up with itself, and the 1980s and 1990s have lead to a deepening of the international economic stagnation.
With the new situation one of the main arguments used by unions against lengthening the numbers of hours that each employee works is that this will increase unemployment. And that shorter working days means less unemployment.
Along with the claim for larger unemployment benefits the call for a 6 hours working day with full wage compensation and job compensation is central for the unemployed. A shortening of working hours without wage and job compensation will not help solve unemployment and under-employment, as society's general ability to consume will not increase, and stagnation will continue.
Nevertheless it is paramount that the communist parties use the existence of chronic unemployment to show that capitalism is an outmoded form of production and that only socialism can do away with unemployment all together.
Just as the struggle for the 8 hours day was international, the same goes for the 6 hours day, and even more so. In some regions of the world the working class is struggling for the eight hours day and forty hours week. The conditions for developing the struggle for a shorter working day vary, but this does not mean that we cannot go together in developing an international struggle for a six hours working day. Since the 1920s and 1930s the economy has become more globalised and a reduction of working hours of this dimension cannot survive in one capitalist country alone for long.
We consider this to be the situation in Europe today, where parts of the working class in Germany now are on the defensive concerning the 35 hours week, because the rest of the working class in Europe isn't following up.
With the development of the productive forces the amount of constant capital has increased in relation to variable capital. This has given rise to more shift work, in order to make use of the constant capital more effectively. To lower costs bound up with shift work and overtime, the employers are attacking the normal working hours. This is done in many different ways. The result being that the social life of the working class is undermined. In Norway the female working class has the jobs where abnormal working hours are most common. The question of defence of the normal working day is very central for the female working class, as they have the main responsibility for reproduction which must be done every day, a shortening of the working day is decisive for the quality of their everyday life.
The question of whether the capitalist economy or the social life of the working class should have first priority is, as we can see, a central question in this issue.
By putting more emphasis on weekly working hours and the general average of working hours the bourgeoisie is managing to expand the general working day, even though the formal working day has been shortened. Overtime has increased markedly the last years.
This must be the parole for the international working class. It is wrong both tactically and strategically to put forward the parole: 30 hours week! This parole doesn't take into consideration the consequences of undermining the normal working day. Without normal working hours the social fabric of the working class will be undermined and sacrificed on the alter of highest possible productivity and flexibility. Without normal working hours, there will be no abnormal working hours. And therefore no basis for compensation for atypical work. To defend the normal working day is just as paramount as fighting for a reduction of the working week. Of course there will always be exceptions. But if there is no general rule, there are no exceptions. We consider the development among revolutionary and progressive parties on this question - where almost all of them put forward the parole of a 30 hours week as detrimental to the cause of the working class. We hope that this article will lead to debate and discussion on this question.
Our hope is that our friends around the world will put forward the six hours day parole and that this struggle can play a central role in developing the international workers' movement of today, just like the international struggle for the 8 hours day did almost a century ago.