Publications
Partners
In our office we have someone I think of as the Minister of Happiness. On her list of tasks is to ensure everyone else is feeling fulfilled at work and iron out any wrinkles that inevitably crop between people who work in a team.
She feeds insights gained from a life time of reading deeply on human nature and experience as an executive coach into the workplace. Recently she suggested that we should “allow ourselves to have Friday afternoons off”. Easier said than done, though.
Within the first two hours of the first Friday, my colleagues were back at their stations, quietly beavering away – and effectively turning their backs on a “free” afternoon unencumbered with work worries.
As economist David Spencer explains here, the conventional work ethic so prevalent in modern capitalist economies is not easy to shake. More important, though, is that it is not the route to greater productivity or creativity – something that our Minister of Happiness has tried to tell us here. Spencer argues for three-day weekends, provided Friday’s hours aren’t crammed into four working days. – Jackie Cameron
What if all weekends could last for three or even four days? What if the majority of the week could be given over to activities other than work? What if most of our time could be devoted to non-work activities of our own choosing?
To even pose these questions is to invite the criticism of Utopian thinking. While a fine idea in principle, working fewer hours is not feasible in practice. Indeed, its achievement would come at the expense of lower consumption and increased economic hardship.
For some advocates of the work ethic, the route to health and happiness lies with the perpetuation of work, not with its reduction. Work makes us healthier and happier. Such pro-work ideology is used to legitimate welfare reforms that seek to coerce the non-employed into work, whatever its rates of pay and qualitative features.
It also offers an ideological barrier to the case for spending less time at work. Working less is presented as a threat to our health and happiness, not a means to improve it.
Yet, the idea of working less is not only feasible, it is also the basis for a better standard of life. It is a mark of how we have come to accept work and its dominant influence in our lives that we do not grasp this idea more readily.
The costs of working more
A growing number of studies show the human costs of longer working hours. These include lower physical and mental health. Working long hours can add to the risk of having a stroke, coronary heart disease and developing type 2 diabetes.
By working most of the time, we also lose time with family and friends. And more than this we lose the ability to be and do things that make life valuable and worth living.
Our lives are often too much tied up in the work we do that we have little time and energy to find alternative ways of living – in short, our capacity to realise our talents and potential is curtailed by the work we do. Work does not set us free, rather it hems us in and makes it more difficult to realise ourselves.
All this speaks to the need to work less. We should challenge the work ethic and promote alternative ways of living that are less work centred. And, if this reduction of time spent at work is focused on eliminating drudge work then we can also better realise the internal benefits of work itself. Working less may be a means not only to work better but also to enjoy life more.
Barriers to less work
Technological progress has advanced continuously over the past century, pushing up productivity. But not all the gains in productivity have fed through to shorter work hours. At least in modern times, these gains have been used to increase the returns of the owners of capital, often at the cost of flatlining pay for workers.
The lack of progress in reducing time spent at work in modern capitalist economies reflects instead the influence of ideology as well as of power. On the one hand, the effects of consumerism have created powerful forces in favour of longer working hours. Workers are constantly persuaded to buy more and in turn are drawn into working more, to keep up with the latest fad or fashion and to stay ahead of their peers.
On the other hand, the weakened power of labour relative to capital has created an environment that has suited the extension of work time. The recent expose of work practices at Amazon speaks to the power of capital in imposing poor working conditions, including excessive work hours, on workers.
The effects of rising inequality has also fed a long work hours culture by increasing the economic necessity to work more.
David Graeber makes the provocative claim that technology has advanced at the same time as what he calls “bullshit” or pointless jobs have multiplied. This is why we have not realised Keynes’ prediction that we’d all be working 15-hour weeks in the 21st century, as a result of technological progress.
Instead, we are living in a society where work gets created that is of no social value. The reason for this, according to Graeber, is the need of the ruling class to keep workers in work.
While technology with the potential to reduce work time exists, the political challenge of a working population with time on its hands makes the ruling class unwilling to realise this potential. Working less, while feasible and desirable, is blocked by political factors.
Working for change
The costs of long work hours, as mentioned above, are poorer health and lower well-being for workers. But for employers too there are costs in terms of lower productivity and lower profitability. Yet these costs seem to go unnoticed despite evidence pointing to their existence. Here again politics may explain why shorter work time has not been embraced by many employers.
Experiments in shorter working exist, to be sure. Uniqlo, a Japanese clothing retailer, is to allow its employees to work a four day week. This has been widely reported in a positive way. Workers will benefit from a better work-life balance, while the firm will reap the benefits of lower labour costs due to lower turnover costs.
Yet, on closer inspection, the new scheme to be introduced by Uniqlo has its downsides. In return for a four-day working week, workers will be expected to work ten-hour shifts during the days they work (a 40-hour working week will be squeezed into four days).
This is not only an extension to the normal length of the working day; it also puts at risk the potential rewards of working four days in the week. Workers may be so exhausted after working a four-day work week they need a full day to recover from their previous exertions. In this case, their quality of work and life may not be enhanced at all; indeed it may be diminished, if they suffer the ill-effects of overwork.
We should have 3 day weekends ALL the time: Working less could help save the planet, says scientist https://t.co/uC5gwdndZG
— Daily Mail U.K. (@DailyMailUK) August 29, 2016
Ironically, schemes such as the one to be introduced by Uniqlo illustrate the obstacles that remain in achieving less work. Only a reduction in the working week to 30 hours or less can be seen as genuine progress in the achievement of shorter work time.
For us to reach – and enjoy – a three or ideally a four-day weekend, we need to reimagine society in ways that subvert the prevailing work ethic. We need to embrace the idea of working less as a means to a life well lived. We need to reject the way of living that sees work as the be all and end all of life.
See it as a reminder of a life that could be – a life that we should seek to achieve, by resolving to overcome the barriers, economic as well as ideological and political, to working less.
* David Spencer is Professor of Economics and Political Economy, University of Leeds. This article first appeared at The Conversation.
* For more in-depth business news, visit biznews.com or simply sign up for the daily newsletter.
