Government signalled during Labour Day that it is seriously considering agreeing to a 35-hour week for unionised workers.

The main reason, it argued, is that parents need to spend more time with their children.

On the surface, that seems to be inarguable, but it has already been criticised by the Opposition as a shallow approach to a complex problem, which could in turn throw up other problems.

In this case, the United Bermuda Party is right. This appears to be – and Government has not said it has agreed to the idea, only that it is willing to keep talking about it – pandering and an attempt by the Government to draw increasingly unhappy trade unions back onside.

Government has also stated that it will only agree to a reduced work week if it gets improvements in performance as a trade-off. It must be assumed that the union is not suggesting that employees be paid less for working less time.

That begs the question of whether it is likely to happen and also suggests that performance over 37.5 hours a week is already poor.

In this case, Government's own statistics back that notion up. Bermuda had impressively high overall levels of productivity according to a recent Government study, which charted productivity through 2006.

But among the lowest achievers was public administration, where workers received $1.39 for every dollar's worth of output. That suggests that Government should be demanding productivity improvements regardless of any changes in hours.

It is also likely that the 35-hour week will then become the national standard, which will inevitably add to Bermuda's already high costs. This is made even more risky as the Island faces poor trading conditions worldwide.

According to the Department of Statistics, productivity growth slowed in 2005 and 2006 because output failed to keep pace with wage increases. The suspicion here is that that remained broadly true in 2007 and this year as well as higher inflation forced wages up.

The UBP also rightly pointed out that shorter work weeks are on the retreat around the world, and that France is abandoning its 35-hour week after it wreaked havoc with its competitiveness.

So if the economic argument is poor, what of the social argument, which broadly speaking argues that we should sacrifice some economic happiness in return for stronger families.

The only argument advanced last week was that a shorter work week would enable parents to spend more time with their children.

Not all workers are parents, however, so this proposal would then reward people who have no particular reason to rush home to their families.

Nor is there any guarantee that parents would do so anyway. They might well choose to work a second job, enjoy a little more leisure outside of the office, or simply earn more in overtime. They cannot be forced to go home.

A much broader look at the whole question of child care and parenting would throw up a panoply of family-friendly ideas, ranging from flexi-time and telecommuting to on-site after school care and Government-subsidised day care for Government employees.

More broadly, extended maternity leave and paternity leave are worth examining. There is nothing much worse than forcing mothers to leave a 12-week-old baby in the hands of a virtual stranger, and plenty of research to show that the first year of a baby's life is the most critical of all.

In general, it can be argued that shorter weeks should lead to better quality of life, at least in theory, and that this could in turn lead to a reduction in stress-related illnesses and the like.

In this context, Government could also consider extending vacation rights, which would give parents more extended time with their children, as opposed to an extra half-hour a day.

Still, it must be noted that all of the above ideas come at a cost, whether it is for subsidised day care, longer parental leave or longer vacations. Somehow it has to be paid for, or someone has to be paid to cover for absent employees.

All, some or none of these ideas may be better than a 35-hour work week. But the major point is that the problems facing families will not be solved by one quick fix.