My manifesto on working hours- the key points
We need a shift towards a mentality of "producing" rather than "doing", and a shift towards greater emphasis on contribution, rather than number of hours worked, being the most important factor. The idea is to enable us to utilise "working time" efficiently, enabling people to work relatively short hours (thus enabling more time to be spent on things like social activities, leisure, raising children and campaigning for positive change) but while retaining a productive workforce that helps to maintain a strong economy.
The relationship between working hours and productivity
A common mistake is to assume that the relationship between number of hours worked and productivity is a straight line (productivity = working hours x constant). It rarely is, because there are various factors that contribute to a law of diminishing returns as working hours are increased, such as increasingly inefficient working practices and increasing physical and mental exhaustion.
The mentality of "doing" rather than "producing" contributes to inefficiency and longer-than-necessary working hours
One common error is the assumption that if you are "working" then you are being productive. Some work is productive, while other work doesn't actually achieve much other than to keep people busy. And since there is always work that you can be "doing" at any one time, it means that work can easily expand to fill the available hours, without actually leading to an increase in productivity. Time wasted doing non-productive work is time that would have been better spent doing productive work or taking time off work. This status quo tends to be reinforced by employers thinking, "Well, they're in the office so they're probably working", and employees thinking, "Well, I'm getting paid", but it would be better for everybody if it was addressed.
A related problem is the tendency for people's dedication to their work to be measured by how much time they sacrifice for it, so people who spend 60 hours in the office may be seen as ultra-dedicated, even if they are no more productive than people who spend 35-40 hours in the same office. This is wrong. Dedication should be measured by the extent of one's positive contributions.
A related problem is the tendency for people's dedication to their work to be measured by how much time they sacrifice for it, so people who spend 60 hours in the office may be seen as ultra-dedicated, even if they are no more productive than people who spend 35-40 hours in the same office. This is wrong. Dedication should be measured by the extent of one's positive contributions.
Daily and weekly working hours should contain some flexibility either side of the mean wherever feasible
In regular salaried work, it makes sense for workers to be expected, on average, to work a certain number of hours per week, as a way of keeping the workload evenly distributed. But the regimented "nine to five, Monday to Friday" creates two problems. When availability of productive work exceeds working hours, the work doesn't get completed on time and/or to the best feasible standard. When availability of productive work falls short of working hours, workers are typically required to fill in time doing non-productive work, when it would be better if they were allowed to have that time off. It can also penalise people for working efficiently, for "working smart" just means that you have more time to fill in when your share of the productive work takes less time than expected. Another problem arises when people claim to be "working" 37 hours per week but actually only do an average of about 25 hours' worth of work, thus effectively wasting their employers' money.
Thus flexibility is important, in both directions- the flexibility to work longer hours when the workload increases, and shorter hours when it goes relatively quiet. There is also the issue that some people work better on some days than on others, so when workloads are steady it can make sense to work extra hours on the "good" days and take compensatory time off on "bad" days. The key in salaried, regular work is to ensure that the typical weekly average stays close to a specified amount (typically somewhere between 30 and 40 hours, with 37 being the most common these days) and that we don't get some people consistently working longer hours than others. Performance-related pay can be used to reward productive workers.
In work which is relatively irregular, particularly for work which is not subject to a salary, it may often be desirable to go a step further, and pay workers according to their output. The concept of hours shouldn't be abandoned altogether, of course, for to ensure that workers don't get excessively large or small workloads, it is important to assess approximately how long their work would be expected to take, as well as effort applied and quality and quantity of productive output.
Thus flexibility is important, in both directions- the flexibility to work longer hours when the workload increases, and shorter hours when it goes relatively quiet. There is also the issue that some people work better on some days than on others, so when workloads are steady it can make sense to work extra hours on the "good" days and take compensatory time off on "bad" days. The key in salaried, regular work is to ensure that the typical weekly average stays close to a specified amount (typically somewhere between 30 and 40 hours, with 37 being the most common these days) and that we don't get some people consistently working longer hours than others. Performance-related pay can be used to reward productive workers.
In work which is relatively irregular, particularly for work which is not subject to a salary, it may often be desirable to go a step further, and pay workers according to their output. The concept of hours shouldn't be abandoned altogether, of course, for to ensure that workers don't get excessively large or small workloads, it is important to assess approximately how long their work would be expected to take, as well as effort applied and quality and quantity of productive output.
Flexibility should apply both ways
Flexibility is, however, prone to abuse by employers. A common problem arises where employees are expected to work extra hours when the workload gets more intense than usual, but are then prohibited from taking that time off when the workload gets quieter. Another problem is under-staffing the workforce such that employees are given an average of over 40 hours' worth of productive work to do per week, and are thus expected to work overtime most weeks. Employers may need to be regulated by higher authorities, such as branches of government, to address this problem.
Employers should be encouraged to allow working from home up to a point, but note that too much "home-working" could be as bad as too little
Working from home has many advantages, in that it gets rid of the commute (which is stressful for many people and contributes to pollution of the environment and congestion on roads and on public transport) and encourages flexible working arrangements that reward contribution more than number of hours worked, since it is harder for bosses to closely monitor when they are "working", but relatively easy to monitor their levels of performance.
However, for some types of work it is not feasible, and the lack of social interaction with co-workers can be an issue. While technologies such as Skype can be used to conduct meetings, in some cases they aren't really a full substitute for meeting face-to-face. Thus, depending on the situation, some workers might be best off working largely or entirely from home, but for others, it may be best to just work from home on one or two days per week, and come into the office on three or four days, and in some jobs it is impractical.
However, for some types of work it is not feasible, and the lack of social interaction with co-workers can be an issue. While technologies such as Skype can be used to conduct meetings, in some cases they aren't really a full substitute for meeting face-to-face. Thus, depending on the situation, some workers might be best off working largely or entirely from home, but for others, it may be best to just work from home on one or two days per week, and come into the office on three or four days, and in some jobs it is impractical.
Parents of young children should be given more scope for shorter workweeks to help with the balance between careers and childcare
I touched upon this under "family values"- basically, we have a problem where more mothers stay in full-time work but there has been very little compensatory reduction in the extent to which fathers work, and so some young children don't get much time with their parents. The most popular "solution" that I hear is to go back to the 1950s arrangement where one parent (usually the mother) stays at home and raises the children, but there are many problems with this, most notably that it would be hard to achieve without resulting in stronger enforcement of traditional gender roles and greater marginalisation of those who don't fit in.
What I suggest is that combined with the above flexibility, jobs offering average workweeks of between 20 and 35 hours to parents of young children should become more commonplace, giving parents greater scope to balance careers and bringing up children in a "job/child share" fashion and ensure that at least one parent is at home for the children for most of the time. Think about it: if two parents work an average of 25 hours per week and are salaried accordingly, that's 50 hours per week's worth of salary coming in (more than the 35-40 that one working father and a stay-at-home mother would bring) but there would be fair scope to fit hours around availability for the children.
What I suggest is that combined with the above flexibility, jobs offering average workweeks of between 20 and 35 hours to parents of young children should become more commonplace, giving parents greater scope to balance careers and bringing up children in a "job/child share" fashion and ensure that at least one parent is at home for the children for most of the time. Think about it: if two parents work an average of 25 hours per week and are salaried accordingly, that's 50 hours per week's worth of salary coming in (more than the 35-40 that one working father and a stay-at-home mother would bring) but there would be fair scope to fit hours around availability for the children.