Less work, more profit?

Max Sawicki makes note of some interesting Canadian facts:

The Progress Board, a quasi-independent advisory group set up in 2001 by British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell, lamented the fact that Canada's productivity ranking among 24 OECD countries had fallen from 5th place in 1970 to 17th in 2004. What they failed to mention, though, is the reason for that low ranking. Fifteen of the countries ranked ahead of Canada work substantially fewer hours per year. And in the 14 European countries with a significant productivity edge, workers averaged 245 hours -- or roughly six weeks -- less per year than Canadians.

I'd have to look beyond these data alone to be convinced about cause and effect, but the observation is interesting. The implications for management would vary significantly depending on whether wages were paid by the hour or by the month/week/year. In the former case, it would make sense to give employees longer vacations and hire more workers. In the latter case, it would depend on the size of the marginal productivity gains per extra hour of time off, but it seems unlikely that you would actually get more production from fewer hours of work, so the current American solution for salaried employees -- i.e., to make them work 24-7 -- is probably the most profitable.