Abstract

Demands for free time protections are often justified with appeal to a concern for individuals' welfare. The idea is that people would enjoy greater levels of welfare if they had more access to free time. This article shows that the currently most sophisticated version of the welfare argument is inconclusive. It then shows how this argument can be modified and extended to become conclusive. The main claim is that policymakers have a decisive welfare-based reason to implement free time protections that go even further than those already in place in countries that are known for their good work–life balance.