Jimmy Jancovich was spot on when he argued for shorter working hours (M Star January 3).
I remember well the 35-hour-week campaign of the late 1970s spearheaded by the engineering workers and the related demand for retirement at 60 for everyone.
What was then new technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, with the silicon chip now so pervasive that we can read Das Kapital on our mobile phones.
Yet despite the potential of technology, we work longer hours and face retirement at 68 years.
The conditions exist for a six-hour working day, a four-day working week and retirement at 50 years for manual workers and 55 years for non-manual workers.
Additionally, if students and teachers can enjoy 12 weeks' annual holiday, the rest of us are just as entitled to similar gains from our labour.
Some may argue that the increase in unemployment, part-time working and the advent of zero-hours contracts are evidence of a move to overall shorter hours, but these developments simply reflect an imbalance in working conditions.
Ruling-class attempts to divide the working class along so-called "skiver and striver" lines could be stymied permanently by a labour movement campaign to equalise meaningful work and enjoyable leisure time for all the working age population.