In the UK and the rest of Europe, at the beginning of the 1800s, there were no steam engines. Production was by hand or by machines that were driven by windmills or water mills which drove shafting, to which pulley belts could be attached.

In general, there was no real ‘working class’ – at one level, people were subsistence farmers or had some occupation such as working as a farrier, a baker, a tailor or a cobbler. At another level were the landed gentry, who lived on the labour of others or the taxes levied on the lower classes. Above them were the nobility.

The steam engine made it possible to move manufacturing nearer to cities and cheap labour. Manufacturing production was limited only by the size of the steam engine used to drive the shafting. Factory owners employed children and women and made them work up to 12 hours a day or for as long as daylight lasted.

By 1840, riots had forced governments to fix a policy on the reduction of child labour and to enforce a working day of eight hours. That working day is with us still, but has been modi- fied – the employers say that we should work from 08:00 to 17:00 (which is nine hours) but, during that time, we can have 30 minutes’ lunch and 30 minutes’ tea break. So, although we are at work for nine hours, we only have a ‘working day’ of eight hours. Many of us have to spend an hour to travel to and from work, so the time devoted to matters relating to work is actually 12 hours a day. In this sense, we are no better off than 200 years ago.

Two hundred years ago, people were not really very productive. In those days, if you wanted copies of letters, accounts, bills of lading . . . you had somebody copy them out by hand. All goods were manually loaded onto transport. Communications took place at the speed of a galloping horse.

Now there are no manufacturing systems which are not partially or fully automated. We have copiers, electronic filing systems, and instant worldwide personal communication. So, employees are much more productive. But they are hardly better rewarded or work shorter hours. They do have access to better health, but their working hours is what make them sick, to begin with, I think.

By accident, I have conducted an experiment in my office. We have seven staff members (including me). We start work at 09:30 and finish at 15:30. We can stop for 15 minutes to eat a sandwich but may not leave the office to go to the bank, see the doctor for a check-up or get the car serviced – you can only leave on work-related matters. When at the office, we work. We are very strict on timing – late arrivals and early departures are not allowed. We do not tolerate private emails, surfing the Net, downloading music or software or cyber loafing. We have three types of leave: the end-of-year break (from December 16 to January 16 or the nearest Monday to that date), vacation leave of one full week during the year, and discretionary leave of up to three days in a week, which can be taken if an employee feels worn out and the supervisor agrees that a break is needed. We also grant sick leave, as required.

The result is that we have very high productivity levels. (productivity = [after-tax profit]/[operating costs].) One would think that shorter working hours make people work less but no, they make people work more.

So I have a challenge to all readers of this column – try to see what happens if you change your working hours for your staff? Try shortening them and see what happens. (Oh, I forgot, shorter working hours do not, uh, necessarily apply to management, who can do managing stuff when the staff are not there.)

You will be very much surprised at how no morning traffic jam, no evening traffic jam, giving time for mothers to drop off and collect kids . . . all of this . . . will give you a staff who work like a well-oiled machine and, if it is your thing, for lower wages than the market rate. Give it a try.