A Comment on David Leheny's question on Working Hour Policy,

I share the scepticism presented in the first question: Was there strong gaiatsu
about the working hour policy? I do not think foreign governments were
particularly interested in shorter working hours for Japanese workers. They
wanted the huge trade deficit to be reduced. It is the Japanese Government (
Particularly MOL) and opinion leaders in various fields (media, academics,
government, labor, and even business) who redefined the issue. The Maekawa
report was a typical example. Accepting official expression of their intent as
the real one is not a good way to understand policy debates.

As for the second question, it has long been agreed that working hours need to
be reduced among opinion leaders and government offcials. After the first oil
crisis, the movement toward shorter working hours was halted primarily because
of unfavorable market environment. Workers relied more on overtime to compensate
slowed-down income increases. Companies were cautious about increasing regular
work forces, using overtime as a measure for the labor-input adjustments. Partly
encouraged by the changed social climate and partly helped and forced (too much
overtime and difficulties in recruitment) by the Bubble economic boom, union
leaders became more vocal about working hour reductions, business leaders were
put in a defensive position, and government found the time was good for the
stricter policy on working hours.

I do not think Japanese labor unions were just interested in wage hikes. You can
follow the negotiation processes on working reduction in , for example, steel,
auto, electronics/electric machinery industries. It is clear that in the late
80s and early 90s, unions put more emphasis on hours than in previous years.

I do not know a good research report or paper on this matter. You can use
Rodohakuso(MOL) or Roshikankei Hakusho(JPC) for a start.

Professor Michio Nitta
Institute of Social Science
University of Tokyo