A thought-provoking opinion by Vivek Moorthy, featured on Moneycontrol, explores how work-sharing—where government workers take six-month contracts at reduced hours and pay—could serve as a politically viable strategy for trimming U.S. federal debt without triggering mass layoffs.
Context & Debt Challenge
While former President Trump’s aggressive defence spending and tax cuts raised the national debt sharply, a natural disaster in Texas underscored the limitations of across-the-board government cuts. Even as agencies like NOAA saw staffing reductions, critical services proved too essential to dismantle.
Looking back, fiscal consolidation under Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980s failed to achieve long-term deficit suppression. Similarly, bipartisan measures in the 1990s delivered temporary surpluses—but deeper structural reforms stuttered.
The Work-Sharing Proposition
Moorthy suggests a balanced alternative:
Shift from layoffs to reduced hours: All government employees work half-time, on six-month contracts.
Reduce wage expenses by 50%, preserving institutional capability.
Create a reservoir of skilled labor that can be fully deployed during crises—weather emergencies, pandemics, or natural disasters.
This approach avoids lump-sum layoffs, which have historically sparked backlash—political, social, and economic.
Why It Matters Politically and Economically
Preserves government function: Instead of shuttering services, this model sustains core capabilities and readiness.
Fair for workers: No sudden job loss, just prorated hours, safeguarding employee morale and livelihoods.
Strategically scalable: Departments can flex capacity up or down based on situational demands.
Avoids past pitfalls: Historical attempts at cutting staff have often been reversed due to political and public resistance. Shared sacrifice may be more acceptable.
Historical Perspective
Moorthy recalls the failures of past fiscal consolidation efforts:
1980s Reagan/Thatcher era: Growth was achieved, but budget deficits persisted due to tax cuts and weathered recessions.
1990s U.S.: While Clinton-era governance briefly balanced the budget, attempts like furloughs faced political blowback, preventing long-term reform.
These histories underline why broad layoffs—or blanket cuts—rarely gain political traction.
Why Work-Sharing Gains Wider Acceptance
| Benefit | Description |
|---|---|
| Humane | No one is permanently let go; hours and income are reduced fairly |
| Resilient | Skills and operations remain intact, crucial during crises |
| Political Viability | Shared sacrifice is more palatable than unilateral layoffs |
| Structured Flexibility | Departments can forecast and modulate workforce based on needs |
Sector Implications
Public Administration: Proven in emergency contexts—now poised for long-term fiscal discipline.
Policy Making: Requires structured rules, wage guidelines, and rotation mechanisms.
Economy: Potential to reduce expenditures without undermining institutional readiness.
Conclusion
Moorthy labels work-sharing as an “inexcusable omission” in macroeconomic policy—a pragmatic, scalable, and politically viable tool for the U.S. government to bridge budgetary shortfalls without crippling its workforce. It offers a middle path: trimming wages, not functions.
