Latest news with #workweek
Free Malaysia Today
7 days ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
JPA gives final deadline for 45-hour work week for nurses
The Malayan Nurses Union had voiced strong protest against the additional hours, saying ward nurses were already under undue pressure working for 42 hours a week. PETALING JAYA : The public services department (JPA) has given the health ministry a two-month extension for the implementation of the 45-hour work week for ward nurses. In a letter to the ministry's secretary-general yesterday, JPA said the new date would be Aug 1. Adding that this would be the final extension, it urged hospitals to strictly follow its circular on the new working hours. 'The interim extension due to end on June 1 will now be extended to Aug 1. This is the final extension. All directives issued on the matter must be complied with,' it said. However, it said the extension did not mean that health facilities which had already drawn up plans for the new shift hours could not proceed. 'With this extension, we hope that the health ministry will take the necessary measures to ensure that the implementation of the new work hours is carried out accordingly.' JPA initially approved a period of three months from Dec 1 last year for hospitals to prepare for the implementation of a 45-hour work week. The health ministry subsequently requested and received approval for an extension of the moratorium from March 1 to May 31. This was later extended again to June 1. The Malayan Nurses Union had voiced strong protest against the additional hours, saying ward nurses were already under undue pressure working for 42 hours a week.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The corporate work week grows even longer
This story was originally published on To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily newsletter. Henry Ford's idea, implemented in 1926, was that shortening the work week to 40 hours would improve workers' well-being, boost their ability to spend and reduce turnover. A century later those goals still hold value, but the 40-hour week is long gone, for the most part. The average work week now weighs in at 46.6 hours, according to a new survey of more than 10,000 Microsoft Office users by Reclaim AI, a Dropbox-owned provider of workforce productivity tools. The trend is hardly new, but it's deepening: In an earlier version of the survey published in October 2022, the average work week was 45.8 hours. In the recent survey, only 30.9% of employees reported working 40 hours or fewer per week, and more than one in 10 said they worked more than 60 weekly hours. This embedded content is not available in your region. Unsurprisingly, executives logged the most weekly hours, averaging 50.2, although all other worker categories were in the mid-40s. On a department-by-department basis, accounting and finance averaged 46.9 hours, the most other department than the C-suite, sales and administrative. Human resources put in the fewest hours. This embedded content is not available in your region. Reclaim AI had found in the earlier survey that the leading cause of burnout was a lack of time for focused work, much of it caused by incoming emails, chat messages, scheduled meetings and brief, informal team meetings. 'Regardless of your job title, everyone needs time to focus on heads-down work,' the company wrote in its new survey report. The average employee said they wanted 19.6 hours per week for such focus, but are getting only 10.6 hours of it. Employees said that while they ideally want to attend 8.2 meetings per week, they actually attend 10.6 meetings. Executives and managers both attend about 30% more meetings than they consider to be optimally productive. Accounting and finance workers attend about 23% more meetings than they'd prefer. 'The biggest time loss most organizations face is unnecessary meetings that may be over-scheduled or lack a clear objective,' the report said. Meetings that need to be rescheduled are particularly problematic, as 'last-minute cancellations create major time loss for attendees who invest time to ready their action items for discussion.' Surveyed executives said they reschedule or cancel 5.1 meetings per week, compared to the 11.5 meetings they actually attend. Yet, the volume of meetings has been steeply declining in recent years, according to Reclaim AI's research. As recently as 2021, employees were attending an average of 25.6 meetings per week. Recommended Reading 54% of employees say they're 'quiet cracking'
The Guardian
14-05-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
The 52-hour work week: why it could boost your brain – in a bad way
Name: The 52-hour work week. Age: Relatively new – our hunter-gatherer ancestors probably only worked for 15 hours a week. Appearance: Frazzled. How much is a 52-hour week, exactly? It works out to 10.4 hours a day, five days a week. Mad. And stupid. You'd have to be, right? A new study suggests those working more than 52 hours could suffer effects including 'emotional instability or reduced cognitive efficiency in the longer term'. So working too hard is bad for you. I'm shocked. Previous studies have shown that overwork leads to stress, anxiety and reduced cognitive function. But the new study, published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, also shows that working too hard produces physical changes in the brain. What kind of changes? Increased brain volume in specific areas associated with executive function – cognitive skills – and emotional regulation in those working more than 52 hours a week, when compared with a non-overworked group. So the more I work, the smarter and more emotionally regulated I get. That could be happening in the short term, but other studies have shown such increases in grey matter can have a negative impact on executive function. Why have they settled on 52 hours? The study examined the brains of healthcare workers in South Korea, where the Korean Labour Standards Act identifies 52 hours a week as the critical threshold for increased health risk. Other studies have used 55 hours. What about Britain? How much is too much? In the UK it's illegal to make someone work more than 48 hours per week. Not just illegal, but almost impossible – you'd probably have to come in on Fridays! But 48 hours is an average, normally calculated over 17 weeks. And there are exceptions. What kind of exceptions? Those working in the armed forces, emergency services and police, for example. Just the sort of people you'd want to have tip-top cognitive function, ironically. You can also opt out of the 48-hour week and work more hours, as long as you confirm that in writing. I would consider doing that, if I was able to secure my dream job. What is your dream job? Testing mattresses. I think you'll find it's more difficult than it sounds. Do say: 'I worked hard to get where I am today – emotionally unstable and cognitively impaired.' Don't say: 'Do you ever do studies on people who work fewer than 20 hours a week? Because I'd like to sign up.'
Free Malaysia Today
14-05-2025
- Health
- Free Malaysia Today
Moratorium on 45-hour work week for nurses extended, says minister
Health minister Dzulkefly Ahmad said the issue of nurses' allowances raised by the Malayan Nurses Union was still under discussion at the ministry level. PETALING JAYA : The moratorium on the implementation of a 45-hour work week for nurses has been extended by another month, health minister Dzulkefly Ahmad said today. He said this was to enable his ministry to examine and better understand issues affecting healthcare workers' and their welfare, before recommendations are presented to the Cabinet on July 1, Bernama reported. 'Several meetings have been held. As I said before, I will not decide without a thorough understanding of the nursing programme and related matters. 'What is important is to consider all factors so that whatever decision is made will be truly fair,' he was quoted as saying. Previously, he was reported as saying the public service department (JPA) had approved a period of three months from Dec 1, 2024, to Feb 28, 2025 to prepare for the implementation of a 45-hour work week at the health ministry. Subsequently, on Feb 25, the health ministry asked for and received approval from the JPA to extend the moratorium from March 1 to May 31. Today's extension announcement takes the date to June 1. On Nov 21 last year, Dzulkefly announced the change in shift work hours for nurses and said it was appropriate, subject to the Public Service Remuneration System that was implemented on Dec 1, 2024. He said the 45-hour work week set through the system was an hour less than the 46 hours a week provided for under the General Orders. Asked about the issue of nurses' allowances that had been brought up by the Malayan Nurses Union (MNU), he said the matter was still under discussion at the ministry level. 'It will take some time because it is still at the discussion stage,' he said. On March 9, MNU sought a government review of all nurses' allowances, including the RM1,000 per month regional allowance for those serving outside their home state.
ABC News
13-05-2025
- Business
- ABC News
The illusion of progress in US-China tariff talks — why the pause is not a reset
Many Chinese workers may not realise the origin of their standard five-day, 40-hour work week. Before 1995, workers in China only had one day off per week. Weekends, as they are understood today, simply didn't exist for the 1.2 billion Chinese population. That changed when then-premier Li Peng issued a directive to align China's labour standards with international norms, facilitating its bid to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). The policy shift marked a significant change in everyday life — an early and powerful example of how the Chinese government can reshape the rhythm of society overnight to serve strategic goals. It symbolised Beijing's willingness to use its power to change the lifestyle of everyone in the country, as one of the outcomes of its 15-year negotiation with the United States. The breakthrough of the working-hour system in China not just enhanced Beijing's will to open its door to the global market. It was a symbol of adaptation — a gesture to a rules-based global economy. But it also laid the foundations for today's differences with the US — tensions rooted in structural mismatches over trade, regulation and state power. While the 90-day tariff truce between China and the US is seen as a relief and an optimistic message for the world, at the heart of the stand-off is a clash between fundamentally different systems. The US increasingly views trade policy through a national security lens, aiming to reduce dependency on foreign supply chains, particularly those involving China. Conversely, China remains committed to a model of state-led capitalism that prioritises global manufacturing dominance. What's unfolding now is not a negotiation between equals, but a contest over who sets the rules — and whose system can withstand the pressure. It's a clash of Xi Jinping's Chinese Dream and Donald Trump's America First. Trade is no longer just about economics for the US — it has become a central part of its national security strategy. The supply chain crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of relying on a single country — particularly China — for critical goods like pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. In response, Washington has moved aggressively to "de-risk" and re-shore industries deemed strategic, including semiconductors, rare earths, and clean energy components. The Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act and Inflation Reduction Act are designed with this in mind: to reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains and invest in domestic capacity. The logic is straightforward — if a geopolitical rival controls your access to essential goods, your security is compromised. That logic now underpins bipartisan consensus in Washington. The Pentagon, the Commerce Department, and even Treasury are aligned in this approach. Meanwhile, China continues to rely on the US to maintain its global trade dominance. The US remains one of China's largest export markets. Access to the US not only brings revenue but also legitimises China's role in global commerce. Since joining the WTO in 2001, China has used its manufacturing strength to climb the value chain, becoming the world's factory. But with that rise has come growing scrutiny. At the core of the issue is how China uses its state apparatus to direct entire industries. The Party can create a sector seemingly overnight — from solar panels to electric vehicles — through massive subsidies, cheap land, tax incentives, and government procurement. The solar industry is one of the starkest examples. In the early 2000s, Beijing picked it as a strategic priority. Within years, Chinese firms, backed by billions in subsidies, flooded the global market with low-cost panels, undercutting foreign competitors and forcing several Western manufacturers into bankruptcy. The same playbook is now being applied to electric vehicles and battery technology. But the Chinese system doesn't just build industries — it can also destroy them. Once state subsidies are withdrawn or redirected, whole sectors can collapse. For domestic and international players alike, the uncertainty generated by this top-down industrial policy is a risk. This dynamic — of building with the state and eroding competition through state support — has angered not only the US, but also the EU, Canada, and others. The US has long accused China of failing to fulfil its WTO commitments. These include promises to reduce subsidies, increase market access, and protect intellectual property. However, over the years, Beijing has doubled down on support for state-owned and strategically chosen enterprises. Despite entering the WTO as a developing country, China now dominates sectors it once pledged to liberalise. In areas like digital trade and cloud services, the barriers to foreign firms remain high, while Chinese companies enjoy global access and home-market protection. For Washington, this is no longer just about economics — it's about rules, reciprocity, and the contract of trust. Trade deficits can be tolerated; systemic manipulation cannot. That's why, even with a temporary tariff easing, the tone in Washington remains sceptical. The current round of tariffs is broader than the last. "Firstly, to prevent China from rerouting exports through third countries into the US. "Secondly, this is no longer just economic competition — it's a mix of economic and national security concerns. Ultimately, it's about who controls the supply chains." On the Chinese side, there is deep resistance to changing course. Under Xi Jinping, the role of the Party in economic life has only strengthened. Private firms are now expected to align with state goals. National champions like Huawei and BYD are not just businesses — they are arms of Beijing's broader global ambition. The Belt and Road Initiative, too, is part of this strategy: to shape global economic flows in ways that favour Beijing's economic influence and geopolitical leadership. So while China wants access to the US market to maintain growth, legitimacy, and influence, it's unwilling to concede control. The ideological difference is stark. In the West, competition is seen as a process governed by rules and independent oversight. In China, the outcome — national strength — justifies the means. "China should stop giving companies excessive subsidies. Its economic policy is not built on a fair system — but on doing whatever it takes to crush competitors. "The US should focus on the fiscal deficit and public debt. Even after the 90-day truce ends, major structural issues will remain." Even within the Asia-Pacific, this tension is playing out. Countries like Japan, Indonesia and Malaysia, which once emulated aspects of China's state-driven model, are increasingly distancing themselves. As their economies mature, they recognise the need to reduce market distortions and avoid over-reliance on a single dominant player. This growing scepticism toward China's approach reflects a broader unease in the region. In this context, the 90-day pause looks less like a breakthrough and more like a holding pattern. It buys time — politically useful for both Trump and Xi, given the domestic pressures. But it postpones rather than resolves the conflict. For Australia, this presents both risks and opportunities. The trade relationship with China is strong, largely due to complementary rather than competitive industries. But Canberra faces a strategic dilemma. Economically, it can benefit from global supply chain shifts and Chinese demand. Politically and militarily, it is tied closely to the US and must respond to the changing security environment. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will ultimately have to choose a side between national security and economic gains. Australia stands to benefit economically from the rising geopolitical rivalry between China and the US. "Compared with other countries, trade difficulties between China and Australia will be less."
