Aptis Writing C1

While it might seem paternalistic for the state to dictate when its citizens may work, the introduction of statutory limits on working hours strikes a delicate balance between economic productivity and public health that, in my view, comes down firmly on the side of regulation.

Proponents of deregulation often argue that adults are perfectly capable of managing their own schedules, and that any cap on hours inevitably reduces a country's competitiveness. However, this line of reasoning overlooks the fact that labour markets are profoundly asymmetric: a worker rarely negotiates as an equal with a multinational employer, and what may look like a "free choice" to work seventy-hour weeks is often a coerced one.

Furthermore, evidence from countries that have moved to four-day weeks or capped overtime — Sweden, Iceland, Spain in its recent pilot — suggests that productivity per hour rises, not falls, when workers are rested. The supposed economic cost of regulation is, in many cases, an illusory trade-off.

All things considered, restricting working hours is not state interference but the recognition that, without it, market forces produce outcomes neither efficient nor just. The role of legislation here is to level the playing field, not to dictate how anyone should live.