I once stumbled on a website for the "Work Less Party" in Vancouver, BC ... I think we should get a US version going

... but only after I went to their site, JMG.  It was an example of the "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" phenomenon, where punctuation makes all the difference: I had read those three words as, "Work less!  Party!"

But you are absolutely right, there should be an American sister-club.  (I would hold off, though, on creating a third party.)  Whatever we are to think of David's source regarding energy consumption, it is a serious ethical issue that the economy of the developed world seems to require full-time commitment from most workers.  It is potentially inhumane -- and actually so in countless cases -- that people are forced to dedicate so many hours a week to a particular narrow set of tasks, to the exclusion of other activities and interests.

The Vancouver people's complaint, that full-time employment is a necessary component of our consumerist culture, involving the production, marketing, purchase and consumption of useless and environmentally destructive goods (goods that are not truly good!), is fair enough.

In addition to that, there is the unattractive matter of social prestige, which may or may not be derived from the so-called Protestant Ethic: our worth in society, and our own self-esteem, depend on what we "do for a living," and on how hard we work at it, and on what material rewards we derive from it.

And if that were not bad enough, in this country at least (things are perhaps different in Canada), decent health care for our families, and our financial security after retirement, have traditionally depended on our full-time employment with one employer over many years.  Perhaps it would be too strong to say that employment in those circumstances amounts to a kind of slavery.  But at least it looks like having to pay a ransom.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

This should not surprise anyone. If I recall correctly (from In Praise of Slowness), when some Canadian companies tracked the household income of employees who opted to work just a few hours less each week, they ended up with more takehome pay. The savings in car costs, childcare, and convenience products outweighed the pay "cut."

Besides, we'd all have more time for things we should have more time for: exercise, being outside, creating things.

I have no comment on this other than "Yeah, we should all take more vacation," but I have to tell you, David, the word is "whoa," not "woah".  This is, in the relatively short time I've been hanging out here, something like the third time I've seen you write this, so I'm guessing it's not a typo, and yes, I'm obnoxious, but it bugs me so I thought I'd tell you.  Well, I feel better now....

... with working "a little bit less," at least in the U.S., is our healthcare system. Employers provide healthcare as a "benefit," and they provide it only to full-time workers. So anyone who falls below the magic 40-hour-week mark becomes ineligible. Their personal healthcare costs immediately skyrocket.

If we had universal healthcare in this country, decoupled from employment, I bet we'd quickly start seeing a lot more flexible hours and workshare arrangements.

www.grist.org

David: There are lots of jobs that provide health care to people who work at least 50% or 60% time (or less). I held a few (sequentially) for about a decade. There is no "magic" 40-hour mark. Maybe you folks at Grist need a union...

Willa: Sadly, "woah" is becoming, if not respectable, at least accepted. I also wish people would stop spelling "yay!" Y-E-A-H-!. Two valid words, two entirely different feelings.

I think maybe the confusion comes from "yea vs nay" where it is pronounced like "yay"?  I'm guessing, though I'm too lazy to research it right now, that both modern words come from "yea", but that's no excuse, given that they're clearly distinct now.

Spelling these days, to use a true internet-ism, is teh suck. :)