You have to take your hat off to whoever came up with the phrase ‘work-life balance’, because it does seem a pretty obvious way of stating, well, the bleeding obvious. “Excuse me sir/madam, given the choice would you rather work more, or work less?” Would anyone really be surprised at the response that 99% of workers wanted to work less and have a better work-life balance? Of course not.
But we are a nation which seems to be addicted to long hours. Mind you, it might not help that so many are still hourly paid and therefore working more hours is a pretty obvious mechanism to increase earnings.
Indeed, there are still working practices out there designed to ensure there is always enough overtime to be worked. I remember that while working on the post as a student at Christmas, the pace of work early in the day was deliberately kept at an easy tempo until overtime had been offered and allocated.
Still, that’s not the big answer to why we work so long, but then neither is the working time directive. This week the Chartered Institute for Personnel Development published a survey showing that workers oppose the imposition of the working time directive.
It found that a clear majority of those who work more than 48 hours a week do so largely as a result of their own choice rather than employer compulsion. What’s more, senior managers and professionals who are those most likely to be able to make informed choices about their hours are most likely to work beyond the 48-hour limit. The survey of over 750 long hours workers, Calling Time on Working Time, also found scant evidence of any employer abuse of the opt-out clause. Over three-quarters of staff sign the clause as a result of their own choice rather than any employer pressure. And only a minority actually sign the clause at the same time as signing their employment contracts - something the EU Commission’s consultation document had highlighted as bad practice.
However, the survey also illustrates the potentially damaging effects on employee welfare and corporate productivity of long hours working. 10% of employees report damaging physical effects and 17% effects on their mental health.
More significantly, over a third reported that working long hours negatively affected their performance, with a significant proportion believing they could be just as effective and productive if they cut their working hours.
Unfortunately, there are some industries which seem addicted to long hours cultures and aren’t particularly keen to reform their ways. As The Grocer’s survey two weeks ago on road haulage (p36) found, there were a number of voices quite happy to pipe up and suggest that change was needed and that altering working practices wasn’t a threat but an opportunity to improve productivity.
The point is backed up by Gerwyn Davies, the CIPD report’s author: “The issue of long hours working is complex, deep-seated and ingrained in the culture of organisations and cannot be addressed by a uniform ban.
“The negative effects of long hours working are evident from the report, but these are best solved by employer measures such as flexible working arrangements rather than a blanket ban on long hours.”
And therein lies the rub. Long hours are more often than not a mask for inefficiency, poor planning and bad management because if we were efficient, well-planned and better managed, we would be more productive and therefore be able to pay higher wage rates, which in turn would mean workers would not have to work ridiculous hours. But the way to change that is through market forces and good management, not arbitrary limits to working hours.
Oh, and just to return to that work-life balance thing, you see, I’ve been told the secret to work-life balance, only problem is that I’ve been sworn to secrecy, but just between you and me it’s ........ which when you think it about is pretty obvious. Anyway, it’s done me the power of good - just look at that smile on my face.
n Simon Howard is a founder of Work Communications and writes the Jobfile column for the Sunday Times.
But we are a nation which seems to be addicted to long hours. Mind you, it might not help that so many are still hourly paid and therefore working more hours is a pretty obvious mechanism to increase earnings.
Indeed, there are still working practices out there designed to ensure there is always enough overtime to be worked. I remember that while working on the post as a student at Christmas, the pace of work early in the day was deliberately kept at an easy tempo until overtime had been offered and allocated.
Still, that’s not the big answer to why we work so long, but then neither is the working time directive. This week the Chartered Institute for Personnel Development published a survey showing that workers oppose the imposition of the working time directive.
It found that a clear majority of those who work more than 48 hours a week do so largely as a result of their own choice rather than employer compulsion. What’s more, senior managers and professionals who are those most likely to be able to make informed choices about their hours are most likely to work beyond the 48-hour limit. The survey of over 750 long hours workers, Calling Time on Working Time, also found scant evidence of any employer abuse of the opt-out clause. Over three-quarters of staff sign the clause as a result of their own choice rather than any employer pressure. And only a minority actually sign the clause at the same time as signing their employment contracts - something the EU Commission’s consultation document had highlighted as bad practice.
However, the survey also illustrates the potentially damaging effects on employee welfare and corporate productivity of long hours working. 10% of employees report damaging physical effects and 17% effects on their mental health.
More significantly, over a third reported that working long hours negatively affected their performance, with a significant proportion believing they could be just as effective and productive if they cut their working hours.
Unfortunately, there are some industries which seem addicted to long hours cultures and aren’t particularly keen to reform their ways. As The Grocer’s survey two weeks ago on road haulage (p36) found, there were a number of voices quite happy to pipe up and suggest that change was needed and that altering working practices wasn’t a threat but an opportunity to improve productivity.
The point is backed up by Gerwyn Davies, the CIPD report’s author: “The issue of long hours working is complex, deep-seated and ingrained in the culture of organisations and cannot be addressed by a uniform ban.
“The negative effects of long hours working are evident from the report, but these are best solved by employer measures such as flexible working arrangements rather than a blanket ban on long hours.”
And therein lies the rub. Long hours are more often than not a mask for inefficiency, poor planning and bad management because if we were efficient, well-planned and better managed, we would be more productive and therefore be able to pay higher wage rates, which in turn would mean workers would not have to work ridiculous hours. But the way to change that is through market forces and good management, not arbitrary limits to working hours.
Oh, and just to return to that work-life balance thing, you see, I’ve been told the secret to work-life balance, only problem is that I’ve been sworn to secrecy, but just between you and me it’s ........ which when you think it about is pretty obvious. Anyway, it’s done me the power of good - just look at that smile on my face.
No comments yet