Proponents of shorter work time have received two pieces of good news recently. One is the announcement of a new law in France to prevent employees being required to read work emails out of office hours. The other is the decision in Sweden to experiment with a six-hour work day for some public sector workers.
These two proposals go against the grain in several respects. The French legislation challenges the prerogative of employers to require workers to be on call when not at work – it recognises that modern technology such as iPhones has extended work time, without additional pay, and seeks to protect and promote the “free time” of workers. The Swedish experiment challenges the norm of a 9-5 work day – it recognises the potential economic and social value of a shorter work day and is consistent with a broader movement to promote leisure time as a means to a higher standard of life.
But the two proposals are also relatively limited in scope. The French law only says that workers should not have to check their work emails after 6pm. There is a concern that workers could still feel pressurised to read emails out-of-hours and there is a question mark over whether the law will be enforceable in practice. The legislation also only covers a section of white collar workers, leaving the rest of the workforce unprotected. The Swedish experiment is limited only to public sector workers. There is no requirement on the private sector to experiment with shorter work time – the quest to deliver positive returns to shareholders is likely to mean that most private firms will continue with normal patterns of work time.
Experiments in shorter work time, however, have proved successful, suggesting that the private sector might benefit from its implementation. WK Kellog – of cereals fame – famously improved productivity at his plant by operating a six-hour work day. The economic benefits from shorter work time stem from workers being more refreshed and focused at work. Six productive hours can yield the same output as a full eight-hour work day.
Evidence shows that longer work hours make us less productive. The example of the Netherlands shows how shorter work time can be achieved without a reduction in productivity and in living standards. Longer work hours are also associated with poor health and higher mortality rates – we may be risking our lives by working longer.
As I have written before, the case for working less is ultimately about promoting a higher quality of life, including a higher quality of work. It is about giving us more time to realise our creative potential in all kinds of activities; it is about achieving a life that uplifts us, rather than leaves us exhausted and frustrated.
But, given the benefits on offer, why are we not working less? Here are five reasons:
Employer power: The decline of unions coupled with a more flexible labour market (meaning less job security) have granted employers more power to maintain work hours that suit their own economic interests.
Consumerism: Workers are swayed by mass advertising and sophisticated marketing to demand more goods and services, which in turn requires that they work more.
Inequality: Workers are more likely to enter into competitive forms of consumption and to feel more pressure to work longer where levels of inequality are high. Evidence shows that countries with higher inequality tend to have longer work hours.
Household debt: The build-up of household debt, especially in the US and the UK, has put added pressure on workers to work longer.
Technology: Gadgets such as iPhones and laptops have meant that workers can be at work even when commuting to work or at home.
Taken together, these points indicate that legislation to reduce work time is essential. Employers won’t voluntarily reduce work time, and workers remain unable or unwilling to opt for shorter work time themselves. We must gain the collective will to curb the time we spend at work.
Other countries can learn from the example of France and Sweden. But given the barriers to shorter work time, wider reforms will be needed if we are to ever achieve a four or three day working week.
The goal of working less may appear utopian. But the quality of our lives inside and outside work depends on its achievement.
David Spencer receives funding from from the EU FP7, ESRC and EPSRC
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
So, would you like to see a four-day weekend every week?
Top Comments
I come from a small business background and am from a long line of small business owners. My husband and I have owned businesses in the past.
Shorter work hours WOULD work in some instances if higher productivity was a predictable outcome. I would have LOVED to have had my staff working fewer hours for a higher hourly rate if they put their heads down and bums up and got the jobs done in a quicker and more efficient manner. Believe me, clients would love their projects to be completed faster! Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Staff in Australia have a notoriously entitled attitude and slack work ethic (the culture of the "sickie" etc). I honestly spent so much time in my business managing people and their wants and needs and preferences and I never quite felt that i got the same effort back in return. I don't know how many small business owners would give staff the benefit of the doubt to implement shorter hours. Dealing with staff is the main reason I am no longer a business owner.
Obviously it wouldn't work in client-facing jobs either....if anything, we need LONGER working hours to compete in the 24-hour economy.
I completely understand what you are saying about the entitled attitude, but this sort of goes both ways. It drives me nuts to be paid for time spent rather than a result. There's no point putting my head down and bum up because I have to be seen to be working for 7.5 hours a day. It looks really bad to ask to go home early because you've finished everything assigned to you. Working smarter just results in more work being assigned to you. Plus I'm employed as a casual, so if I asked to go home early because I was finished, I'd be paid less and possibly given less hours because I mustn't need that many to complete the work, resulting in a significant income hit...so I take my time, more than I would like sometimes, so that I keep my job and don't look bad! Go figure. (This would obviously vary by industry and nature of work).
What an absolute load of bollocks. Australians are some of the hardest workers in the developed world. Having lived and worked overseas, I can tell you that Australians are sought after because of their work practices and ethics. Having managed people since I was 18, I have rarely had a problem with slackers and when I did, it was dealt with swiftly. Perhaps you need to look at your hiring and management methods, it may be your lack of these skills that gave you the problems you speak of.
I had the same experience working overseas in 2 countries, Australian's were highly sort after because of our reputation of good work ethic. Maybe if employee's personal time was more valued and they had more personal time 3-4 day week, less hours day to day or more holiday's there would be less usage of sickies. Working long hours 5 days a week, then spending half your weekend catching up around the house and only 4 precious weeks holiday a year does not make for overly happy workers - hence they will nab time from elsewhere and wrongly or rightly feel 'entitled' to it. I also agree with 'whatever' above if slackers is a real problem you need to look at your hiring and managing methods.
Hit the nail on the head, too many employers value perceived work ethic based upon a bum on a seat. I had the great pleasure of working for a flexible employer who didn't care how you got the job done just as long as it was done. I had the flexibility to work from home whenever I wanted, finish my work for day early I could go home, some employees would do bulk of their work at night cause that's when they worked best - not how they were dictated to work. Best job I ever had and I appreciated the flexibility and gave back more effort happily when needed, I worked for them twice and would still if I didn't move interstate. Sad shame there are not more employers like this.
I read today that the federal government is allowing government departments to require longer work hours for higher pay. As per usual our federal government is leading the way on progressive governing & going where research tells us is most productive!