Prev
Next

Hands up who wants a 30-hour working week

Eva Cox

by Eva Cox

22 Feb 06:00am

Must Reads

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses - this is a caption

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

14

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this - this is a caption

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

50

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

121

Filed under: Big Ideas, Employment, Feminism, Leisure, Work

150 comments

Is there one clear possible area of policy reform that would provide a good basis for making society more civil? A core issue that affects a range of social well being indicators and our life choices? Could too much to do and longer working hours be at the heart of the discontents and social inadequacies of contemporary life?

In the future, technological advances will shorten working hours. Pic: AFP

Reducing standard working hours would challenge some basic political and social assumptions such as the ways our time is allocated between paid work and the rest of our lives. In most developed nations, we have moved in the opposite direction, from long-term commitments to reduce standard working hours (48 hours to 35) in the last century to implicit support for ever longer working hours. 

I remember debates in the 60s and 70s about how we might use the increased leisure that we expected to come from technological change and automation. 

This shift seems to have come from the move to market models of society with other policy changes that underpin our current obsessions with economic outputs, not social well being. This move that started in the 80s put macho versions of self-interested individualism at the core of policy.

It undermined the original ideas of the women’s liberation movement which was to change dominant macho cultures - not just add women into them. Therefore it is my feminism that questions the relative importance of public paid work and private unpaid tasks. 

How about we start the push for a norm of a 30-hour paid working week?

If this is sounding radical or unattainable, the UK think tank, the New Economics Foundation has just produced a report, Towards 21 Hours, suggesting we should aim for a future paid workload of 21 hours per week. 
 
The author, Anna Coote, starts her case with the following points:

1. John Maynard Keynes envisaged that by the beginning of the 21st century, most people would work only 15 hours a week.

2. If time spent on housework and childcare was given a monetary value equal to the minimum wage, it would be worth £253.7 billion: 21 per cent of GDP.

3. Shorter working hours does not mean less productivity. In fact, studies suggest that those who work shorter hours are more productive.’

Later, Coote states:

A ‘normal’ working week of 21 hours could help to address a range of urgent, interlinked problems: overwork, unemployment, over-consumption, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, and the lack of time to live sustainably, to care for each other, and simply to enjoy life.

I am not proposing we go as far as that at present. However, I am proposing that the Federal government address time issues by:

  • Initiating a Time Budgeting Policy framework as the basis for assessing which Government policies affect peoples’ allocation of their time to paid work, unpaid work, leisure, production and consumption.
  • Referring to the Productivity Commission a brief to look at hours of work vis a vis outputs and outcomes and productivity.

Terms of reference could include:

1. Are terms such as full time and part time of any serious value?

2. Changes to current definitions of hours of work as the basis for policy making.

3. Are current terms used by ABS or other policy and reporting authorities for policy making still useful or just for international comparisons with the ILO (International Labour Organisation)?

4. Would it be possible to look at a paid work unit of 3 or 3.5 hours being established as the basic unit of paid work and multiples of this be used to record and assess time allocations?

5. How do we value the productivity of unpaid work and its relationship to paid work in areas such as care and home production?

In the pre-feminist days there was no discussion of unpaid work, just paid work and the problem of too much time off! The feminism of the 70s was devised under the widespread assumption that the future would inevitably contain shorter paid working hours for all. We need to ask what happened as like the paperless office, the ‘leisure’ that never happened.

The 80s saw working hours become longer at more senior levels, while less skilled workers lost their jobs. Productivity became associated with long hours worked, technology was used to get rid of routine support workers and hours lengthened as people became fearful they might lose their jobs. 

Women who moved into paid work, often part time, over the previous decades were seen as not serious workers, if not full-time overtime oriented. The feminist options for all workers to be able to combine paid work, career, family and community responsibilities became less possible.

Few, if any, men are prepared to challenge the false proposition that longer hours means more productivity.

Less time on paid work means having more time for other activities that can reduce consumption of services and other goods: care of others, home productions, creative involvements, volunteering, leisure and pleasure.

If both men and women took similar time allocations, it could break down the implicit gender barriers in paid and unpaid work and reduce consumption. It means more paid work to share around, so those in paid work should be more able to manage the multiple demands and pleasures.

And it may increase individual productivity as there is evidence that shorter working hours are more productive. Maybe we can learn more from Aboriginal priority setting values?

Start by doing away with the useless distinction between part time and full time as more or less than 35 hours per week. This could be a first step in defining what reasonable socially responsible workloads could and should be.

Any takers?

This is one in a series of essays adapted from the Centre for Policy Development book, More Than Luck: Ideas Australia needs now.

Most commented

429Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
333Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

150 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Sarah says:

      06:02am | 22/02/11

      Hi Eva,
      Your article seems based on a fallacy known as “lump of labour.” It assumes that the amount of labour is fixed, therefore it can be easily divided between greater numbers of people - in fact this is not true. It’s very easy to say “you can achieve more in a shorter time” if you’re talking about knowledge workers in officers, but how exactly does this apply to production line assemblers, teachers, firemen, gardeners, couriers, doctors, or postmen?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labor

      As for housework, what is your point? I can’t see why washing ourselves, our clothes, and our homes clean should be considered under the same heading as employment for the purpose of this issue. It’s a very long bow for me to consider that cleaning my dirty clothes is the same as doing an hour at my workplace; what’s next - considering brushing your teeth or bathing your child as equivalent to paid employment?

      Reply

    • Economist says:

      06:51am | 22/02/11

      @Sara I agree with your assessment. I think the issue for office workers is flexibility. Rather than a 30 hour week what you need is flexibility in that at times there’s demand for you to work a 60 hour week and at other times only a 30 hour week. Better management and planning is required. I believe this is why many businesses have gone to contract workers to deal with peak demands for products and services, but depending on the work responsiveness can be slow while you get them up to speed..

      Ideally in quieter periods full time office staff should be taking leave. However this is not the case, most people plan their holiday’s around school leave and expectation of the weather.

      For non-office workers the 30 hour week won’t work either as they’re probably being paid piece meal rates, on shift work, where it’s financially advantageous for them to work longer hours.

    • AdamC says:

      08:26am | 22/02/11

      Sara and Economist, all excellent points. The author’s whole premise seems based on unrealistic assumptions.

    • Duff says:

      10:04am | 22/02/11

      What about that old favourite of any economics student: the “law of diminishing returns”?  I believe the author’s point is simply that we are working more than we should based on the fallacy that more work necessarily means more productivity.  She is simply suggesting that there are more “productive” things we can do with our time.  Putting a value on housework and childcare is one way to illustrate the problem.  I would think that, given the childcare industry is a multi-billion dollar industry for example, she makes a good point.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

    • Lisa H. says:

      06:04pm | 22/02/11

      As a mother, i do find resonate with the idea of placing a genuine value on what I do - if only for government policy direction purposes.
      Since having children, I find I am easily working a 40 hour week - to be honest, it’s more likely to be a 56 hour week once I add in the weekend work.
      And all this labour, by an educated woman, is completely unrecognised!
      It’s not work that cannot be done, and I personally don’t wish to send my children to a care institution.
      At the very least, the government should recognise my input (and my husband’s generosity) and allow us to split our household income for tax purposes.

    • Warren says:

      11:46pm | 22/02/11

      “And all this labour, by an educated woman, is completely unrecognised!” You have the joy & responsibilities of being a mother. What more do you want as far as recognition? That should be enough in itself but I see you expect us to give you congratulations as well for YOUR chosen path.

    • acotrel says:

      07:32am | 23/02/11

      The first thing to do would be to change the law so that the overhead costs of employing individual workers are based pro-rata on the number of hours worked.  Things like insurance, empoloyer super contributions and training costs, add substantially to the wages bill for each individual, and are a major disincentive to the reduction of working hours, as they remain effectively constant, while the returns are reduced.

    • Tom Walker says:

      11:06am | 23/02/11

      Hi Sarah,

      Your “lump of labour” fallacy is bogus. Yeah, I know, it’s been in textbooks and wikipedia but that’s only because the authors repeated what they were taught without checking the sources. When I first heard the fallacy claim I thought something was fishy so I checked the sources. Guess what?

      The fallacy claim has a long and strange history. It began its career as blatant propaganda – reputedly bought and paid for by the Whigs – but evolved through sheer repetition to become accepted by the mid-twentieth century as an introductory textbook staple. To make sense of the allegation, one has to go back to its inception in Edward Carleton Tufnell’s anonymously-published 1834 pamphlet, Character, Object and Effects of Trades’ Unions, “the most celebrated and probably the most violent of the alarmist publications aimed at waking the middle-classes to a clear view of the peril (trade unionism) in which they stood…”

      In the pamphlet, Tufnell appropriated arguments that had earlier been presented in testimony by cotton manufacturer Peter Ewart to the 1833 Royal Commission on Employment of Children in Factories.

      Ewart’s testimony was about his own supposition regarding the motives of the cotton spinners’ union in supporting the Ten Hours Bill. Tufnell spun that raw speculation as fact. That is to say the only “evidence” for Tufnell’s flat assertion about the unions’ motive was an employer’s speculation and, of course, Tufnell didn’t disclose his source.

      In the evolution of the fallacy fable, this lack of substantive evidence for what was being alleged was magically transformed into an asset. Tufnell already referred to the alleged motive as a “trick” and the “secret source” of support for the Ten Hours Bill. It became a common place for journalists to distinguish between workers’ and unions’ stated reasons for seeking shorter hours and their covert motives, “ulterior designs” and the “real question at issue.”

      A funny thing happened inside that evidentiary black box. The hidden motive for higher wages became, in latter versions, a naïve assumption of a fixed amount of work. The switch came after 1869 when John Stuart Mill recanted the venerable wages fund doctrine of classical political economy.

      Before 1869, the alleged fallacy allegedly sprung from workers’ supposed ignorance of the wages fund doctrine, which maintained (according to popularizers) that the pursuit of higher wages through strike action was futile because the funds available for paying wages were, in the short term, fixed and in the long term was dependent on the ratio between the increase of capital and population.

      After 1869, however, the alleged fallacy was that workers believed in their own version of the now discredited doctrine – a fixed “work fund”! It makes one’s head spin to contemplate the convolutions the fallacy claim has gone through in order to continue to allege a fallacy in the face of reversals in economic doctrine. But a lie is a lie is a lie, even when it is a plagiarized, bowdlerized, inverted and textbook-sanctioned lie.

      The lump-of-labor fallacy claim is poppycock.

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      06:07am | 22/02/11

      Wow, great idea… I’d love to work 30 hours per week!
      I wouldn’t like giving up that extra money.

      Great way to lower (even more) the average wage, talk about “living sustainably”... just what we need, another social engineer telling people how to run their lives. How does, “mind your own business” sound, Eva?

      Reply

    • Anna says:

      08:01am | 22/02/11

      How valuable of you Brad to offer your polite comments to a columnist who is discussing alternative ways of thinking.

      While I don’t necessarily agree with the column’s views - I struggle to understand how the idea could be applied to my own business - I don’t think telling writers to ‘mind their own business’ is a constructive way to engage in ideas on how people can frame their work/life balance differently.

    • Paul C says:

      08:01am | 22/02/11

      @brad - trouble is with this obviously union orientated idea, the 30 hour worker will get the same as a 38 hour worker. So like most union ideas it pays little regard to the poor business that has to pay for more people to fill the gap left.  The result is that more businesses will collapse under the load.  Unions (and therefore Labor) think that businesses have bottomless bank accounts - sadly out of touch with the real world.

    • jf says:

      11:17am | 22/02/11

      The key trouble is with this idea is it is impossible to implement without rigorous and significant government enforcement.

    • nossy says:

      06:09am | 22/02/11

      Not me eva - I am a happy self funded retiree ! More boating for me Eva !

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      10:00am | 22/02/11

      On government super then?

    • nossy says:

      11:08am | 22/02/11

      @Ryan - spent all my life in the private sector fella - Advertising/Promotional. Made a packet.

    • Ryan says:

      03:13pm | 22/02/11

      @nossy: really, advertising for the Labor party? They sure have a packet of money (usually our tax monies laundered through unions) for advertising.

    • Jade says:

      06:41am | 22/02/11

      I would love a 30 hour working week, I doubt most employers though would like to pay people the same rate of pay.  I agree with you saying we are more productive with shorter days though, personally I know I get more work done when I know I have to leave early for the day… lest time spent on the internet etc.

      Reply

    • Keen Observer says:

      09:34am | 22/02/11

      I thought you must have been unemployed with the amount I see your name bobbing up in the comments.

    • Stephy says:

      11:14am | 22/02/11

      Jade, you need to get a nice employer. My hubby’s a statistician, works 34 hour weeks, gets Mondays off, and earnes $112k. There are some very nice bosses out there. Try looking for a job in a small company. Flexibility in working hours is a blessing.

    • Jade says:

      08:35pm | 22/02/11

      @ Stephy, my employer is pretty flexible, I just do to many jobs so I can’t really afford to be there any less than I am (even though I do waste time) and work for a relatively small company, most of our workforce is in subsidiary companies in China.

      @ Keen Observer…  you must not be too good at observing ; ) Most of my comments are at like 6am in the morning!

    • Danny says:

      06:43am | 22/02/11

      There is no way I could earn the same money working less hours per week and still be a first home buyer in this economy. I’d have to take on a second job, just like everyone else would and we would all end up working more.

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      07:02am | 22/02/11

      Much of the western world is struggling under a debt mountain thanks to its governments buying votes by constantly expanding the definition of welfare for constituents happy to consume this borrowed wealth at a rate in excess of what they generated through their own productivity. Yet Ms cox appears incapable of understanding the difference between labour that has a market and labour that has no market. Her article also tends to dwell in the past, which is perhaps where she is happiest, yet misses the very obvious shortcomings of decades of welfare pork-barreling. She describes herself as an activist. She’s certainly no economist.

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      07:04am | 22/02/11

      “Women who moved into paid work.. not seen as serios…,overtime orientated”
      What a load.
      So , the women werent seen as serios? By who?
      The employers didnt take them seriosly?, then why did they pay them? and what for?
      Fighting yesterdays battles, still.

      Reply

    • Aitch B says:

      09:18am | 22/02/11

      @TChong

      Don’t want to be picky, mate but it’s “serious” with a “u”.

    • Pete says:

      07:13am | 22/02/11

      Yep,

      That shorter working week is doing wonders for France isn’t it.

      Stick with the touchy feely stuff where you actually do some good and for everyone’s sake, stay away from the economics where actually will do some harm.

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      07:19am | 22/02/11

      All nice ideas. Unlikely to be effectively implemented.

      A capping on the working week in France is the most obvious example of why this would be useless

      Reply

    • Joan says:

      07:31am | 22/02/11

      When your sixty-five plus you can wax lyrical about 30 hour week…. home paid off , sitting nice and comfy perhaps self-funded or receiving Commonwealth Pension of some type or medical health care card, figuring out your next cruise. Laugh. Some people actually like enjoy their work, many have huge mortages to pay off, and children to put through the best schools…. 30 hours a week wouldn’t cover it… it didn’t last century it won’t this century. We all can tell the difference between a part-timer and full-timer. The part-timer is always looking at the clock and looking for things to do and the full-timer knows what needs doing, gets it done and more and is surprised to find it is time to go home. Most working Mums ...have cleaners coming in, many employ nannies , childcare for many more, pay someone to do the lawn…. that`s the way its done 21st century. Even old timers like you have cleaners, and gardeners….

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      08:12am | 22/02/11

      “Most working mums have cleaners coming in”
      “most “? you sure about that?

    • Ez says:

      10:12am | 22/02/11

      You are right in saying that people work the hours they do to support a home and family, and 30 hours & a pay reduction won’t cut it.  However, I think the term ‘comfy’ refering to pensioners is a gross misconception - the allowance received may just last the fornight, but if a hefty power, automotive, or medical bill comes along (that medicare won’t cover) then i think the pensioner is far from ‘comfy’. And as for the “part-timer, looking at the clock”, as though you suggest they loathingly count the minutes till home time, well again, you are making a gross generalisation.  Most part-timers you’ll find, are parents or students woring what hours they can when they can to earn a little extra cash - and anything exceeding the fortnighly income bracket of the parenting/youth allowance payment is taken off them anyway, thus never getting ‘one up’ so to speak.  It is more socially ‘endearing’ to hear the story of a single parent or student working perhaps an additional 15 - 30 hours on top of either a 24/7 job (parent) or 40 hour week at university (not including out-of-hours study), however they are judged by full-timers as slackers.  The remainder who are are not parents or students either self employed, in cirucmstances where the business doesn’t sustain week-to-week living or are like my father, who is not physically capable of doing the laborious work day to day anymore, so fills the rest of working life in a part-time job.  Don’t be so quick to judge the the part-timers you begrudge a false conception of assumed ‘free-time’.....
      And just for the record i know many FULL-timers who “stare at the clock”.

    • eddie says:

      10:16am | 22/02/11

      “most working mums have cleaners…” Actually - down here,  on award wages- we cant really afford domestic staff - gardeners, cooks, housekeepers etc, we have to work our 40+ hours and whats more - do our own washing and tend our own vegie gardens (if we want to be able to afford fresh vegies) - It may be like that on the North Shore of Sydney or at Hamilton or Toorak but it aint the case in the rental belt at Annerley or Moorooka - I can assure you. Some of you people are so far removed from the real world by your privelege and money it beggars belief.

    • Joan says:

      11:06am | 22/02/11

      TChong…. Ms Cox can only be speaking for the professional woman/family.  And believe me cleaner/nanny/child care are standard fare for these women unless their husband stays at home or their mum/dad babysit do gardening etc.  Sales people/ cafe employees earning $16 per hour can’t possibly survive on just a 30 hour week… pay rent/mortage, utilitly bills, car insurance, car upkeep, household insurance ..and if they have kids….you need double hours not reduce them. The working single mother can supplement income from centre link and rental assistance courtesy tax payer. The lower income group can’t enjoy any extra time they may have as they are busy worrying about how to pay the next bill.  Ms Cox just busy fantasising nothing else to do, nothing about real workers average life and cost of living today.  What pay would you need to earn per hour to work just 30 hours per week pay rent/mortage and all living/car expenses and raise two children, and have enough money left over to have good time and not worry about nex bill?

    • Erick says:

      12:36pm | 22/02/11

      Ms Cox is a member of the ultra-privileged elite. She gets many tens of thousands of dollars a year, just for hating men. She even has her own postage stamp!

      No wonder she has no clue about how ordinary people live.

    • Loving it says:

      06:09pm | 22/02/11

      Joan, I am a full time working single mother. I get no rental assistance, centrelink payments or child support of any kind. I have a well paying job but even still just make ends meet to support myself and my kids. I work the long hours I need to. Thank fully my Mum helps me out with childcare before and after school but other than that no one is supplementing my income. I get so sick of everyone stereotyping single mothers.

    • Shelly says:

      10:15pm | 22/02/11

      I’m like you Loving It. I’m a single mum who worked part-time while studying at uni and then full-time work. For part of that time I received Centrelink payments but as starvation was the only option I took the money and made plans to better my chances of well-paid employment. I now have that employment and don’t receive benefits. Paid back my HECS and with the amount of tax I pay, I’m surely paying back my debt to my fellow taxpayers. I’m tired of the constant slurs against single mums. I don’t know personally any single mother who got pregnant deliberately to go on a life of benefts. They’re all women who were in relationships that ended.

    • grumpy old man says:

      07:32am | 22/02/11

      This assumes that the output of a days paid work is measurable in a direct sense, say, a factory producing so many widgets per day. In this case, by manipulating the number of widgets to be produced, the number of hours worked can be raised or lowered, for a given measure of production.
      If I reduce my hours of work, and therefore the productive output, things would simply take longer to get done, there would be no productivity gain, in fact quite the opposite. My normal work day is from about 7am ( subject to the vagaries of Sydney traffic) until about 6-6:30 pm. Outside of these hours I am still on call, and frequently spend my 1 hour commute on the phone.
      “”  Few, if any, men are prepared to challenge the false proposition that longer hours means more productivity.”” this is an outdated and sexist comment with no merit. For the majority of working males with families, their measure of productivity relates to the well being and prosperity of their family, not the production output of their employer, so longer hours means more money for the family, and so is very productive. The challenge here is to accept that the popularly held idea of productivity is incorrect,

      Reply

    • marley says:

      07:36am | 22/02/11

      Well, the way I see it, sure, let’s all work a 30 hour work week.  That means a 25% reduction in everyone’s paycheque, and it probably means having to work 25% more years than we do now.  So, would I prefer to work a regular work week until I’m 60, or a reduced work week until I’m 70 or 75?  Thanks very much, I’ll put in the time now so that I can have blocks of free time while I’m not too decrepit to enjoy it.

      And I sure as hell don’t see what household chores has to do with any of this.

      Reply

    • David says:

      07:38am | 22/02/11

      The 30 hours week is not a good idea. It will be mostly used by public servants to the detriment of the rest of the community. We’ll end up paying higher taxes only to achieve lower productivity. The failed experiment of the 35 hour a week in France should act as a warning.

      Reply

    • ibast says:

      07:42am | 22/02/11

      4x9 hours would be my preference.

      Reply

    • Aitch B says:

      08:41am | 22/02/11

      @ibast

      You’ve won me….. where do I sign?

    • jf says:

      11:20am | 22/02/11

      Get qualified, experienced and I’ll give you a job.

      Seriously though, I don’t know why more employers don’t offer their employees more flexible work arrangements.

      Obviously it won’t work for a lot of roles. But it will for many others.

    • Emma says:

      02:54pm | 22/02/11

      I just want a day off a fortnight! When I was working in local government I did a longer standard day (8 - 5.15 with 1/2 hour lunch) but I had a day off a fortnight which I could either take or build up. It was glorious. Need a day off to go to dentist? No worries. Need to take time off to see the kids in a play? No worries. Need a doona day? No worries. A friend have a wedding on an inconvenient day? No worries.

      God I miss that

    • dex says:

      07:43am | 22/02/11

      Having recently watched Zeitgeist : Moving Forward, they propose that many current jobs will become more and more automated as the need for technology increases. Why employ a human that gets sick, fatigued, needs lunch breaks, cigarette breaks etc etc when you can have an automated machine that can work non-stop 24hours a day at peak efficiency? Their figure of 75% of current jobs being automated I found a bit over the top, but it is food for thought.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      08:42am | 22/02/11

      And why employ a human being that can bring frivilous lawsuits, or invite union involvement into the business, or claim systemic discrimination on missing the promotion, or change their minds about work-life balance, or return to uni. 

      Or throw a hissy -fit about what the person in Accounts said about them.

      Or take your intellectual property, clients and expensive training with them when they decide to follow their wife/husband to another state. 

      Why hire a human being indeed!

    • Bilby says:

      09:24am | 22/02/11

      Why employ a human being? As an engineer, there’s one thing I know. That’s that human beings are AWESOME!! We are so flexible, so capable of doing tasks that while simple for us, are incredibly complex for a machine. Try telling the welding robot to sweep up cos the cleaners aren’t coming in tonight. In fact, try telling the welding robot to just move 1m to the left for this morning cos we need the space.

    • Steve says:

      12:04pm | 22/02/11

      @Bilby

      Absolutely right - humans are wonderfully flexible, and robots take a lot of programming and setting up to be just right and fully efficient. 

      But a cleaning robot would be doing their job that night unlike the human cleaners, so the welding robot would not need to do the cleaning job.  And if the factory needed the 1m of extra space it is not a workplace that machines would be the best choice.

      The more rigidities and regulations built into Australian workplaces, the more attractive the machines (or offshoring) becomes.

    • Bilby says:

      12:20pm | 22/02/11

      Steve - My job is automation, so I may be being a little disingenuous. I’m also confident that most jobs can not be automated cost effectively due to the incredible diversity of skills required. Sure a machine *can* do it, but for 12 bucks an hour? Probably not.

    • Swingdog says:

      07:43am | 22/02/11

      My wife and I both work 4 day weeks and it’s great.

      Time to pick up the kids, have fun with them after school, get them washed, work in the garden, get dinner ready in a relaxed manner and generally enjoy life.

      We work enough to pay off the house and have modest holidays. We’re not big on needing to keep up with the Joneses with latest gadgets etc. No worries.

      Reply

    • Budz says:

      08:09am | 22/02/11

      Good to hear Swingdog. I guess it depends on what you value more.

    • Happy family says:

      09:07am | 22/02/11

      Way to go Swingdog. That’s exactly what our family is doing, and it is fantastic. “Keeping up with the Joneses” seems to me to be the big issue here. Working more to buy stuff to give to your kids to make up for never being home.
      To all the naysayers: even if you don’t agree with Eva Cox, try thinking outside the square!

    • Mahhrat says:

      11:15am | 22/02/11

      Swingdog wins.  There’s a few people smart enough to do this, and I’m considering similar things, depending on what my partner wants to do.  I’d love to not work Wednesdays - 2 days of work, day off - and just roll with the less money, knowing I could go drive a taxi or something for a day a week if I ever needed the pocket money.

    • Eye4anEye says:

      05:29pm | 22/02/11

      This is very much what I would like to do ,however my employer is not so keen on it - sadly it’s all or nothing for me.

    • Eva Cox says:

      08:04am | 22/02/11

      Most comments seem to assume economic models actually reflect social needs. Yes, we may earn less but also need less…. that’s another chapter in the changes.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      09:15am | 22/02/11

      But whose ‘social needs’, Eva? Many of us simply don’t agree that we work too much. And your comment about needing less shows how out-of-touch you are.

    • Dave says:

      09:53am | 22/02/11

      Social needs should be determined by individuals not the state.

      If it is okay for you to support the right of a woman to wear a burqa if she chooses to so, then you should also respect the right of people to work 80 hours a week if they also choose to do so.

      People are more educated, they have autonomy and they are best placed to know what is best for themselves.

    • Warren says:

      10:02am | 22/02/11

      @AdamC out-of-touch with what? Why the need for a bigger plasma tv, or bigger car, or three garaged home? Our predecessors didn’t need this stuff to lead fulfilling lives, why do we?

    • Davida says:

      10:42am | 22/02/11

      @AdamC, why “out of touch”?  Humans needs have remained fairly consistant, it’s the wants that have increased beyond all proportion and sustainability..

    • Bilby says:

      11:22am | 22/02/11

      Davida - I know!! Currently it’s those bastards clawing their way up from less than $2 a day to $2 -> $5 a day whose increased appetite for meat is threatening world food supplies. How dare they! Don’t they know meat is a want, not a need?

    • AdamC says:

      11:26am | 22/02/11

      Warren, yes, and their predecessors no doubt didn’t ‘need’ the innovations and convenience of that time either. (“The railway, what a unnecessary luxury!”) Of course, those predecessors had lower life expectancies and lower living standards than ours, who in turn have lower life expectancies and lower living standards than we do. So I’ll take our economic progress and development, thanks.

      The same goes for you, Davida, except you seem to be endorsing some kind of primitive agrarian (or hunter gatherer) utopia. Good luck with that. I hope the harvest doesn’t fail and cause everyone to starve.

    • jf says:

      11:45am | 22/02/11

      “Most comments seem to assume economic models actually reflect social needs. Yes, we may earn less but also need less…. that’s another chapter in the changes.”

      No, most of the comments on here are focusing on the lack practicality that this idea has. Not to mention an underlying sense that people are generally just getting sick of being told by the Government of what to do and how to live their lives.

      I am very supportive of people working less hours if they choose. As an employer, where possible, I allow my employees to work the hours that suit them (this may be more or less depending on the person and the role). I find that, for my business, it gives me a greater pool of talent to choose from and provides me with more happier and more productive employees. However, that is my decision as an employer and theirs as an employee. To enforce this idea in our, any, society would only be possible with draconian government intervention and unacceptable restrictions on civil liberty and personal freedom.

    • jf says:

      11:51am | 22/02/11

      Warren says:10:02am | 22/02/11

      “Our predecessors didn’t need this stuff to lead fulfilling lives, why do we?”

      Our predecessors didn’t need penicillin, cars, orthotic limbs, hills hoists, aeroplane black boxes, phones and many other things to lead fulfilling lives. Except, of course, those of them that did.

      Or the internet for matter. Presumably, you and Eva are going to be giving up the internet. Unless you are claiming the right to decide the point at which everyone has the “stuff” they need to lead “fulfilling lives” beyond which, nothing more is necessary. In fact, someone will also need to decide what is meant by a “fulfilling” life. Presumably it will be you and Eva that decides this as well. And anyone that disagrees, well they can be re-educated.

    • Davida says:

      12:18pm | 22/02/11

      Why is establishing needs versus wants seen as such an extreme point of view?  @Bilby, I was thinking in a local Australian, rather than global context.  Besides, meat is certainly a need, hence you never see a living vegetarian.  As one myself, I am posting from the afterlife, having been unable to exist without meat.

      @AdamC,
      It falls to each individual to establish needs from wants.  If you see this as my “endorsing some kind of primitive agrarian (or hunter gatherer) utopia”, well…......  My point was merely humans do require shelter.  They do require food.  They do require clothing.  As for whether the shelter requires granite benchtops, or a media room, or 1 bedroom per person, or ducted airconditioning etc, etc is an individual call.  As for whether the food be highly processed, or pre-packaged, organic or convenient is also an individual call.  Same goes for clothes;on trend, designer, fashionable, functional, whatever.  We all have choice and individual preferences.  Choice does not, however, make a want a need.

    • Bilby says:

      01:14pm | 22/02/11

      Davida - I think it’s extreme, as per my example, because what we think we need here, is far beyond the reach of people elsewhere, so it couldn’t possibly be a need. Aiming to meet needs alone is a fairly primitive lifestyle which humanity has worked for millenia to overcome.

    • David C says:

      08:05am | 22/02/11

      John Maynard Keynes envisaged that by the beginning of the 21st century, most people would work only 15 hours a week.
      so he was wrong, end of story

      Reply

    • Freeman says:

      08:24am | 22/02/11

      ME! ME! I want to work 30 hours a week! and I want a pony and a race car. Oh, and a rocketship!

      I’m sure that in trying to justify a 30 hour week such as in a trial situation workers would try hard to make it work for the employer as the benefit is to the employee. But as soon as it became the norm a high percentage of
      employees would begin to abuse it by turning up late, wasting time while they are at work. watching how some of my colleagues operate I think employers are justified in being cynical about shorter working weeks. perhaps a 4 day week working 10 hours a day or a 3 day x 13 hour days could work? I think it has to be very beneficial to the employer also to make it work. Not that I don’t respect the authors background but I doubt she has a real grasp of office dynamics.

      Reply

    • will says:

      08:25am | 22/02/11

      ‘Socially responsible workloads’??  We can already work however many hours we want. Want to work 20hrs work 20 hrs, want to work 60hrs work 60hrs. Capping working hours will also cap productivity, and you would quickly see rising nations who already have the competitive advantage of cheap labor surpass nation as it stagnates though via this proposed anti-competitive notion.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      08:31am | 22/02/11

      I dispute that working less than a standard work week would make workers more productive. And it certainly could never make up for the lost ten hours.

      Eva, the fact is that society, by convention, generally dictates norms of work life. That includes the amount of hours work regarded as being ‘full time’. I work full-time and, usually, can keep regular hours of work. I don’t regard my work life as being unbalanced. If I did, I would seek to work less and would assume my salary would be cut accordingly.

      While this would not be open to all workers, I certainly can’t see any great clamour for people to cut their hours (and pay) in favour of working less.

      Reply

    • StefanR says:

      10:47am | 22/02/11

      I think the point is that a 40 hour week is mere convention rather than some economic optimal value. So the question becomes, why 40 and why not 30? I’d take a pay cut if it meant that I got an extra day off a week, it’s just unfortunate that the vast majority of jobs lack the flexibility for this to occur which results in the inefficiency that I work more than I would like and have less leisure than I would like.

      By making the yardstick by which a full time job is measured smaller, it allows people who would like to work fewer hours to do so while not impeding those who would like to work more hours.

    • Eye4anEye says:

      05:36pm | 22/02/11

      +1 to what StefanR said - sums it up perfectly

    • simmo says:

      08:32am | 22/02/11

      good article.. and i agree. Currently working a minimum 45 hour week (not including O/T and taking work home on weekends when necessary) and wondering where all my time goes!! Just trying to stay fit and get some time with friends in every now and then is exhausting with little to no break in between.
      Bring on the 30 hours of power i say…. let me breathe!!

      Reply

    • jf says:

      11:30am | 22/02/11

      There are plenty of jobs that require only 30 hours a week Simmo.

      Our country still allows you the choice to decide what job you want and what hours you work.

      Go get ‘em.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      08:34am | 22/02/11

      I’m not that fussed about working 40 hours; what I would REALLY like is to cut down the seriously unproductive time I spend commuting. Either by telecommuting two or three days a week, or by having a decent public transport system.  Who wouldn’t want to save 2 hours a day? That is effectively 12.5% of your waking hours.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      08:36am | 22/02/11

      It appears Eva Cox believes that we work 40 hours and more a week because of our assumptions, rather than economics and hourly productivity rates.  Her argument is therefore that what humankind have assumed, human kind can un-assume if we just have the courage to do so.

      Not sure how much use JMK’s beliefs circa 1930 is, considering how much society and the economy have changed. 

      The French legislated a 35 hour working week in the late 90’s effective from 2000, and it has not been regarded as a success.  It was repealed in 2008 (I think).

      Right now, people are free to work less if they want - they will just get a lower salary.

      Reply

    • Br says:

      08:41am | 22/02/11

      I already work 30 hours a week, Monday-Thursday and I get paid more than most full-timers I know.  The great thing is I am single and dont have the burden of kids, so I can spend my money on all the fun stuff and have a 3 day weekend. Full-time work is for suckers.

      I’m sick of couples with whining about working and lack of time being spent with kids. You chose to have kids, you chose to breed, don’t whine about your choices in life.

      Reply

    • Kevin says:

      09:59am | 22/02/11

      You think you have it good, I sit on boards, so have only to work a couple hours a day for 3 days a week and I am raking it in.

      Working is for suckers.

    • Duff says:

      10:22am | 22/02/11

      But Br, if your parents hadn’t made the choice to “breed” and burden themselves with you, you wouldn’t be here to boast about how clever and selfish you are!

    • Bri says:

      12:56pm | 22/02/11

      @
      Duff
      Why is it selfish NOT to have kids? Surely bringing a child into this world then expecting single tax payers to PAY YOU to bring up that child (baby bonus anyone), not to mention bringing them into such a twisted, f***ed up world. THAT is selfish.

      And given the fact I am a homosexual, surely people like you would be happy that I have interest in having children.

      Enjoy working those long hours honey.

    • Duff says:

      02:55pm | 22/02/11

      Bri, ha!  But this twisted f*cked up world gave you the ability to enjoy 3 day weekends and money for fun stuff!  Can’t be so bad.  You know, you can always take the attitude that you owe the world something for being here, as opposed to the other way around.

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      08:48am | 22/02/11

      The reality is more people are working more than 35 hours a week due to improvment in technology and consumers driving a 24/7 service desire.

      While people may be getting paid for 35 hours I would argue that they are working more than that whether it be in the office or going home and then resuming work from home remotely.

      Working 30 hours (or even 35 hours) a week is a fallacy in my opinion.

      Reply

    • Bertie Wooster says:

      08:49am | 22/02/11

      Great idea, Eva. It’s tough to argue that people would be less happy on average with more leisure and less money.

      Reply

    • hermes says:

      08:49am | 22/02/11

      There is no direct relationship between hours worked and productivity. Some days, I might work an actual 2 hours - of real work, not stuff like reading emails, talking to colleagues, going to meetings (THE biggest time waster in white collar jobs), talking on the phone (no. 2) etc, but get heaps done. Other days, I might work 10 hours and get bugger all done (like trying to figure out some code or something, or fixing IT issues). I like to work flexibly, maybe in a block of 12 or more hours (including home work) and some at work. I would turn down any job that required me to be at work for fixed hours; I’d take a pay cut any day to have flexibility. If I am supposed to look busy all day, I find other things to do; last job I had like that, I wrote a novel and finished a degree with HD scores (well, it *looked* like I was working)...AND I completed all my work. I prefer the attitude of one boss, who said, if you have finished your work, go home, I’m not paying you to sit around.

      Reply

    • Grumpy says:

      11:29am | 22/02/11

      Im in a similar position. Sometimes I sit here and think what a waste of time that i could be doing other things. But if iam constantly asking for more work my hours would probably be cut and end up with less money in the bank. Catch 22. Dont know how ppl did it before the internet.

    • EKR says:

      09:01am | 22/02/11

      I’d love a 30 hour week. Three day weekend? Five day week but from 9.30-4?
      I won’t be holding my breath though (then again, if I do perhaps I can knock off early today… that’d give me a 30hr week).

      Reply

    • biff says:

      09:05am | 22/02/11

      Eva was at one time a very vocal member of the sisterhood but her concerns didn’t extend to the redhead falsely imprisoned in Queensland. Eva doesn’t have much to say about FGM either so her consultancy ‘Distaff Associates’ is in dire need of consulting. Anything Eva has authored is risible.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      09:33am | 22/02/11

      Don’t worry, Biff, I’m sure you’re out there tirelessly working for social justice yourself, you’ll make everything OK.

    • Paul Horn says:

      10:26am | 22/02/11

      Is that what you call it Helen! Promotion of social hatred is far closer to the truth in Eva’s case and she had done a damned good job of it!

      I do hope Eva that you have recovered from that vile sick feeling you suffered from when Krudd appointed the majority of his thinkers in residence at his “Think Fest’ to be white males! You offered no rational critique of his decisions just hateful twisted feminist dogma.

      If white masculinity is so repugnant to your perverted belief system I suggest you take up the cudgels elsewhere eg the Sudan or Libya. I hear the women over there are are in far greater need of “liberation’ than your white pampered super indulged counterparts living here.

    • SimonR says:

      09:14am | 22/02/11

      be careful what you wish for.

      be honest, how much of your day is unproductive? At least some if you areading this. then coffee breaks, chats with co workers, etc. thee is at least some time during your work day whre you are not working, and this time is vastly underestimated.

      Last year I dropped my work hours from 55 or so to about 40-45. I did this in order to help my wife after the birth of our second child. owever I found my work day got harder, as I dropped that hour a day where I could read sections of the paper, chat to co workers, even take small breaks. Lunch was a sandwich at my desk and I stopped drinking water so I didnt have to go to the bathroom as often, because I needed the time to finish my work.

      in the end, working a 40 hour week was vastly more draining than working a 55 hour week. (and it wasnt because of sleep deprivation - child 2 was a great sleeper)

      Now that I am back to 50 or so hours a week my days re more manageable, and I feel better for it. Frankly, if I could I’d would work 60 hours a week and skip the evening peak hour too.

      Reply

    • Tiger says:

      09:23am | 22/02/11

      In reality, we are here: families are generally dual income because they just cannot manage on one full time salary. This would just put more pressure on both parents to bring in a decent income. More time away from the children. Not quite the result we were aiming for.

      There are so many issues to consider, and for some it may be a viable option but surely it would have to be an individual choice?

      In professional ranks, it is more a case of technical and anecdotal business knowledge, particularly when specialisation comes into play for small business, often there is no one to do your work when you take leave. Productivity v. Results makes the 30 hour argument rather messy. A lot of people already work unpaid overtime…how will that work with less paid hours? Many employers have promised flexibility, however when it comes to reality, promises are out the window, particularly affecting family units with children. Job sharing seems to be out of fashion lately, I can see both sides of the argument there too, sometimes one person ends up carrying the can while the other slacks off, but surely good managers would be able to deal with such issues.

      For some professions, definitive time spans are quite often irrelevant. You work until the work is complete, you can’t leave a job unfinished because you’ve done your 30 hours for the week.

      I feel that until people in society change their way of thinking, this idea is just that. It is often not until you get to 40 or 50 that you feel comfortable with what you have, and indeed, can feel comfortable financially, and your priorities change. You accumulate less physical assets and make do with what you have, you simplify your life because what you have IS ENOUGH. But you have to get to that stage first. Let the young ones work their hours and overtime if that’s what they want. I’ve done my 60 hour weeks when I was younger. Balance is more of a priority now.

      PS I work a 38 hour week and am happy with my lot smile

      Reply

    • Terry Horsfall says:

      09:28am | 22/02/11

      This subject triggers so many reactions in me that it’s difficult to know where to start, but my initial knee-jerk reaction is to ask a few basic questions, like:
      • If you think your job takes too many hours, why don’t you get a job that you enjoy doing?
      • If everyone works just 30 hours a week, how will we enjoy the 24/7 service that we have come to expect in the 21st century?
      • Why should employers pay for someone to work just 30 hours a week, with a whole load of entitlements on top, when they can outsource work overseas instead?
      • Who is going to pay the price? the employer? the taxpayer? the consumer? society as a whole?

      Clearly there are people that would love to work a 30-hour week, and in an ideal world, they will have the opportunity to do so and have an adequate income to support the lifestyle they choose.

      But the reality is that the 30-hour week will be adopted (and all too often, abused) by privileged sections of the work force, leaving employees, the self-employed and real working employees to work ever harder to pay for their lifestyles.
      Meanwhile we suffer ever worsening service standards because these part-timers are never at their desks to answer phone calls or deal with e-mails.  If you doubt me, you try calling a major institution or public sector worker sometime, and see how long it takes to talk to a real person who actually gives a shit.  David’s comment about public sector workers is right on the button!

      This is the type of suggestion that forces employers like myself to think longer and harder about how to off-shore as many jobs as possible.  That’s fabulous for the eager workers overseas who dig themselves and their families out of poverty as a result of the income they get from the developed world, but it is questionable whether this is to the benefit of our own domestic economy.

      Reply

    • hermes says:

      09:32am | 22/02/11

      I’ve never had a job where people actually WORK 8 hour days; mostly they expand their tasks to fill the time they have to be at work. Ok, I’ve only worked white collar jobs, but if you deduct time spent talking to colleagues, having meetings, talking on the phone, reading and writing emails, lunch and coffee breaks, blogging (lol), checking FB on mobiles, etc etc etc, I don’t think very much ACTUAL work is done.

      Reply

    • Danny says:

      10:13am | 22/02/11

      You should be thankful.
      Some people in our society have manual labour jobs, or get paid shit money to have people scrutinising their every move to maximise production while working in a call centre.

      I know, people are the masters of their own destiny and end up in these positions, but through fate and circumstances someone has to do it

    • hermes says:

      10:47am | 22/02/11

      I grew up in a 3rd world country, and have spent over 20 years improving my qualifications, studying at night by distance education, much of it while as a single parent, working in low paid admin jobs. I am the result of my life choices, as a lucky citizen of a Western democracy. However, I agree with you, Danny, that many in 3rd world countries or dictatorships do not have that choice…unless they are absolutely driven and exceptional. But, there’s no such thing as fate, only choices and taking advantage of circumstances. I don’t accept your premise that anyone in a country such as Australia is forced into working in call centres for long term…maybe as a stepping stone…I’ve briefly done call centre work, door to door sales, you name it… However, my actual point was not my own work, but how most of the staff in every single office I have ever worked (many, I get bored very quickly smile) “work”; funny enough, many seem to *think* they are working hard, LOL…

    • Ray YOU KNOW WHOM says:

      09:57am | 22/02/11

      Well ther you go another cutting edge input from the doyen of feminist clap trap, our Eva.

      Eva probably experiences <than 30 hours per week as it is and thinks it’s great.

      The sequel by Eva will no doubt be that women should have primary access to the 30 hours per week and men should go to 42 hours pw to make up the shitfall, I mean shortfall. Hey but men already work more than 40 hrs pw, but we’ll overlook that.

      The second sequel would also play hand in hand with two other SPATE’s (Social Problems According to Eva) ; a well credentialled (ha, ha) 17% shortfall in women’s income, and men/women’s work at home.

      This can be overcome by paying women at a higher hourly rate. Hey, but they already are because of a better education through intent, but we can overlook that.

      This will lead to the third Eva sequel where castrated men contribute all the working conveniences of day to day life, all the funding, and sperm donation, Hey , but this is also the present case. Please overlook

      The final sequel being that the world implodes into a female Utopia with super market shelf conception, funding provided by previous men’s super (hey this is also the present case via early male deaths and the Family Law Act/Court), and the Nirvana of men being nothing but working drones to the superior species). Stuff me that’s already the case as well.

      The encore will be the Eva version of Eva manning (I mean womaning) the female version of Noah’s Ark with room for all species other than the white male who will ride to extinction, complemented by a fabrication of history to the tune that white men never existed. (hey that’s well down the path too. Please overlook}.

      Reply

    • Pandabater says:

      10:02am | 22/02/11

      Sure, if I was employed by a “Think Tank” on 100 bucks a hour I could easily work only 21 hours a week, but I am a Storeman 30 hours a week for 20 bucks an hour. Don’t even get started on this technology replacing workers crap. It works in the fantasy land industries (IT, Real Estate, Finance etc.) but I am sure I would find it a little difficult to unload a truck from my loungeroom.

      Reply

    • loxy says:

      10:09am | 22/02/11

      Changing the working week to a 30 hour paid week will just exacerbate the current problem we have in this country which is the amount of unpaid overtime everyone does. If employers are already pushing their employees to do working weeks of 50-60 hours with no overtime pay, why on earth would cutting their pay to 30 hours help the problem? It will just mean employees are then having to work even more hours unpaid. What needs to happen is the development of new and tough government policy that ensures employers are no longer able to take advantage of employees and force them to do unpaid overtime.

      Reply

    • Zaf says:

      10:18am | 22/02/11

      Does the author define productivity in terms of output/hour or output/dollar paid in salary?  Because the difference is quite significant, especially when you look at jobs where people are paid a lump sum monthly, not a certain rate per hour worked.

      “Few, if any, men are prepared to challenge the false proposition that longer hours means more productivity.”

      Probably hanging around the office talking about cricket while their wives rush home to cook dinner.  Devious buggers.

      Reply

    • Reds says:

      10:31am | 22/02/11

      I’d LOVE a 30 hour working week and so would my husband - especially since he’s doing more than 50 a week now just to keep our small business afloat. Problem is that with the reduction in work time there will also be a reduction in income and we’re barely managing as it is now.

      Yeah, it’d be nice to have more time to spend with the kids and do fun stuff or even to keep on top of the gardening and other maintenance but as long as prices for basics keep rising the way they are, that won’t be happening any time soon.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      10:38am | 22/02/11

      When I reached 69 I wanted a part-time job to stretch out my personal pension a bit. I eventually scored one. I only wanted up to 20-hours a week. I eventually scored one, non-managerial, little responsibility, though at interview I was told that there was no reason why I could not become a manager etc.
      Prblem was that though I had applied for & been appointed to a 20 hours per week job, my contract clearly stated this, All of us were Casuals or permanent Part-Timers.
      I ended up being rostered to work for 47 hours per week! When I asked why I was told”:
      “Well, you see we have a problem with the younger ones. though they agreed to work the shifts assigned to them when it comes to Evenings, Week-ends & Public Holidays they simply ring in sick. With you, given your work ethic, we know you will always turn up & if you do ring in sick we know you are sick”
      I lasted about 4 months & explained to the boss thus: I know I am no longer young but as most social life still takes place over week-ends, evenings etc I still do have one”
      I would love to still be working but I don’t want a full-time job. I am perfectly happy to no longer be in a managerial or senior position & the hassles & stress those positions involve.
      I once, for a very short time, worked in the State Public Service in Administration. I got tenure, where one person got caught stealing money & later having sex with another person in an office .They did not get sacked. Once you get Tenure it is almost impossible to get sacked! Those in Admin in the Government Department I worked in were the laziest bunch of good-for-nothings I have ever met. When I left I was asked by one non-Admin staff member: “What will we do now? Who will do the work?”
      The Public Service in my State, & probably this is the same in all, is the most inefficient, lazy, incapable organisation I have ever had dealings with. If you wonder why it seems to take so long to get responses, let alone any action whatsoever, you can stop wondering now. It is that they do nothing!

      Reply

    • thatmosis says:

      10:44am | 22/02/11

      Great idea, work 30 hours and get paid for 30 hours and watch your house, car and whatever being repossesed because you cant make the payments. But hey, look at the bright side at least you have more time off to see your world crumble. It makes me wonder some times what some of these writers are on and whatever it is I want half a kilo.

      Reply

    • Delraiser says:

      11:16am | 22/02/11

      So in other words, you are a wage slave that works endless hours to accumulate “stuff”, bought with money you’ve borrowed from a bank ?(debt…..........the slavery of the free man)

      Bravo, my friend. You have just outed the primary reason why we work so many hours….................................Perhaps a rethink of priorities may be in order

    • Paul Horn says:

      02:01pm | 22/02/11

      What accumulating a house and a car is too much accumulation Delraiser?  What do you live in a drainpipe? Crazy stuff!

      What our Eva here is really promoting is a socialist agrarian economic nightmare. That is one where the power plants break down, the transportation system crumbles, the water infrastructure fails etc etc etc. If you want that go live in Haiti or any number of failed African States or large parts of South East Asia such as the Phillipines, Indonesia or even post Soviet era Russia. I can guarantee you people work 30 hours or less in these places but the standard of living is pretty frightening!

      Western Society has enjoyed unfettered success because of our commitmemt to hard work, enterprise and free market principles. Unfortunatley many who profit from it such as Eva are its greatest detractors!

      Go figure as they say in the States!

    • Delraiser says:

      03:13pm | 22/02/11

      On the contrary my friend, I have a car and live in a house, but am not leveraged to my eyeballs. What I am getting at, is that we work ourselves to a crazy level, to support an even crazier level of consumption. It is a treadmill to hell that I have chosen to hop off (living within your means sans debt; you should give it a go!). I would wager that a less consumerist society may just be able to support reduced working hours

    • Peter Christiansen says:

      10:46am | 22/02/11

      My theory on this -

      If everybody works a bit less, we slow down the economy, which means everyone has a bit less stuff, so it all equals out!

      This inevitably will occur regardless, as the rate at which we are using resources is simply unsustainable at the moment, and all world economies must slow down or stop.

      I highly recommend people watch Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, as another commenter here mentioned previously, as awareness of the problems the world faces today is alarmingly low.

      Also in regards to all the people saying “oh well my job simply COULDN’T be done in less time”, please try to understand that there would be less demand for all services, as less people are working, and have less “money” to play with, so the workload drops. This is all completely achievable, and the only reason we work as much as we do now is because of the rigged system which we all currently endure.

      Reply

    • jf says:

      11:08am | 22/02/11

      There was a period in my life where I was a single father to two young children and reduced my work hours considerably. It was great at the time but, as they got older and my circumstances changed, I wanted to earn more money so I worked harder. I must be an exception to your role as I am self-employed and earn considerable more when I work more hours. In fact, it’s a non-linear increase. That is, I earn more than double working forty hours than if I work twenty. It does reduce again after 50 hours. I am quite surprised that this would be different for my place.

      We can all work 30 hours per week. There are plenty of jobs on offer for 30 hours or less per week. Alternatively, anyone self employed could work thirty hours per week.

      I am assume that the author is not suggesting that we legislate to force people to work a 30 hour week. On the other hand, how could this idea be possibly realistic or pragmatic as a policy without significant and comprehensive government intervention in and control over the lives of the citizens.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      11:10am | 22/02/11

      My partner and I are in late 20’s and recently finished paying off our mortgage. The following week we went to our respective bosses and cut our hours from 40 hours a week to 25 hours a week. We each work a 3 day week and have a 4 day weekend to enjoy the fruits of our labours

      Reply

    • Eye4anEye says:

      06:09pm | 22/02/11

      What field did you work in? I’m in a position financially to do the same but my employer wouldn’t allow me to - as a result I will keep working my 40/week and retire @ 45 instead but to be honest I’d prefer to be doing 3days/week now until I’m 65.

    • joc says:

      11:52am | 22/02/11

      I’m with you Eva!
      Great idea!!

      Reply

    • Damian says:

      12:29pm | 22/02/11

      Won’t work for the industry I’m in…......

      As a baker I’m lucky if I get to work less than 45 h per week (even though I have a condition that limits how long I’m meant to work), I can’t see any employer in my industry respecting 40, more or less a 30 hour week.

      Nice to dream but

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      12:45pm | 22/02/11

      Yes please… but sadly I doubt whether anything like that will happen.

      Computers were supposed to solve everything yet we’ve only increased our working hours and not decreased them in line with the saving in productivity thanks to our handy computer friends doing all the filing, sorting, mailing and admin tasks that someone would have had to have done in the old days.

      Reply

    • Al says:

      01:16pm | 22/02/11

      I just want to know this.
      How, as a single mid 30’s male in a Public Service job meant to purchase a home (house OR appartment).
      I am unable to afford to purchase anything at the moment working 37.5 hr week, reduce that to 30hrs and there is even less chance.
      By the way, on over 60K per annum, however costs mean even over 25 years I am unable to borrow enough to purchase even a small unit in a run down suburb.

      Reply

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      01:45pm | 22/02/11

      Move to the country and change jobs

    • Markus says:

      03:11pm | 22/02/11

      Manage your money better. As a single mid 20’s male in a public service job on similar (probably slightly less) money, I already have more than enough money for a deposit on a house.

      Are you renting a place on your own? Renting by yourself is probably wasting you over $300 a week alone.

    • BT says:

      10:12pm | 22/02/11

      I’d venture a guess that Al is meaning a house in Sydney which is indeed almost impossible now.

    • stephen says:

      01:44pm | 22/02/11

      Yes please Eva.
      But get me a job first, heh ?
      (I’ll start counting to 30 now, real slow, like .)

      Reply

    • greg says:

      01:46pm | 22/02/11

      a lot of talk, a lot of wishful thinking, best we learn Chinese, the greedy and minorities will ensure we destroy our businesses and drive socialism to a new level, Communism.  you will all have time for social calisthenics every morning and plenty of rice for dinner. it has begun

      Reply

    • Lostie says:

      02:50pm | 22/02/11

      If you want to change the work life balance bring back the fortnightly RDO!

      I’d be happy to put another hour in every day if it meant a 9 day week.

      Reply

    • mary monica roche says:

      03:16pm | 22/02/11

      If everyone works just thirty hour weekly, then there would be decent jobs for everyone including the outsiders,  the mothers, the part time workers, the casual workers , the unemployed , the Liberal loafers, and the pensioners.

      Reply

    • Ray says:

      04:59pm | 22/02/11

      Mary, you forgot ‘women’, while men do the lot as they do now. Read my earlier blog

    • mary monica roche says:

      03:22pm | 22/02/11

      Increase the health of everyone and decrease the wealth of everyone.
      The rich must live more simply so the poor may simply live.
      People only need thirty hours of work per week .
      If you have any more than 30 hours per week , the work performance drops alarmingly, diseases like heart attacks and cancer greatly increase alarmingly , trouble between workers greatly increases alarmingly , and families become aliens to each other.

      Reply

    • mary monica roche says:

      03:24pm | 22/02/11

      Elect Liberal and get the 100 hours working week!!

      Reply

    • Dorothy says:

      03:58pm | 22/02/11

      For the equivalent of 30 hours pay.

    • nanks says:

      04:05pm | 22/02/11

      I couldn’t care less if they raise the hours to 80 or drop them to 5 - means nothing to me, I ‘m unemployable with no useful skills at all - PhD, university medal, advanced statistics, programming, ie unemployable - oh, I’m also over 50 lol

      Reply

    • JVB says:

      04:12pm | 22/02/11

      Whether it is instantly workable or not, isn’t the issue for me.  It is about a vision for a different society.  And it never hurts to get a decent mental shake up and be challenged about why we work the way we do.  Might it be possible that life is somewhat healthier if we didn’t work long hours?  Aren’t we the second longest working nation in the OECD?

      I have lots that I could do if working hours were fewer - especially as my partner already works beyond the hours he is actually paid for - I’d like to see more of him.  And I would like to see less miserable people driving to work in peak hour too or sitting blank faced on trains and buses too - either from tiredness or just feeling over the grinding routine of long hours.

      I reckon that there would have to be lots of changes to take place in transition - especially when it comes to how to find a better means of making housing affordable in the major cities - it seems to few young people can hold a firm hope of buying their own home now.

      What’s wrong with the idea other than there seems to be no presciption on how to do it?  Lots of ideas get rejected because many lack imagination - the proposal seems to be based on how to create a civil society - that seems like an honourable pursuit - maybe we would all be a little more polite and considerate towards each others ?  Oh that would be novel !

      Yes I would like to be part of leaving a legacy for a more civil society and I agree that the current working arrangements are an obstacle for people to participate and engage in more than their work and their immediate families.

      Keep shaking them up Eva!

      Reply

    • Peter John says:

      04:22pm | 22/02/11

      I’m going to second the motion to watch Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. It explains all you need to know about the monetary/economic system and why we think we need to work as much as we do - most of us in mind-numbingly pointless jobs that do nothing to progress our society. We have the technology available to increase our productivity and if we simply remove the monetary boundaries, then we’d stretch to even find enough work for 21 hours per week.

      Reply

    • eva cox says:

      04:25pm | 22/02/11

      Tch! some of you make dumb assumptions about what I wrote. I did not say it would be legislated but why do people assume that 35 hrs is Full time and promote only those who work those hours plus? why not have the flexibility people are using for more people? Some jobs won’t easily increase productivity because they take up time. If both partners worked 39 hours, the total will be as much as one FT one PT but many men complain they can’t cut hours without being seen as not a serious worker. Let’s explore flexibility not flawed judgement on hours.  If you want to do more, do so, but let those who want to do less haven it accepted as legitimate and it may improve many people’s lives.

      Reply

    • kerry says:

      07:14pm | 22/02/11

      Happy birthday for yesterday, Eva.
      I, for one, admire and thank you for your grand contribution to the advancement of both men and women over many, many years.

      Eva, your one mistake in this most thought-provoking article today, though, was to mention the term “feminist” - red rag to a bull to many of the ‘men’ who hover over this site waiting to pounce on anything that appears to promote women - which they take to mean a put-down to men.

      Actually, make that two mistakes. Here’s another - you mentioned “macho” - similar reaction.

      Check this site out: http://www.the-spearhead.com/ to see why they feel this way. Would love to know your reaction. Please contact me at my email adress if you would.

    • Bilby says:

      09:14am | 23/02/11

      People are promoted based on their value to the company. Someone that is prepared to work longer hours for their salary (not hourly rate) presents a better buy and is promoted above those that *only* work a basic 40 hours. Please, if you will, tell me why a company would do otherwise?

      As you move up the pyramid, the idea that the job can be spread amongst more people get sillier and sillier. For your 30 hour week to work, a job has to be done by at least 3 people, such that the 25% cut from each can be aggregated into a fourth person. As such the concept is limited to the ground floor which would hurt the people that can least afford to take a pay cut. When you’re on the line, there is no option of swapping pay for lifestyle. This doesn’t sound at all equitable to me.

    • It's Simmo says:

      04:30pm | 22/02/11

      The reason why we all work so long is because:
      1. There are some households where both adults now work (moreso since ‘the feminism days’).
      2. These households are able to afford bigger houses.
      3. This increases the market for property, making it more expensive.
      4. More women are forced to work to afford a house.
      5. The economy becomes geared towards a 2 income household.
      6. Single income households have to work longer to afford a house.
      7. Everyone else sees the Single income earner working harder, and notices that (due to a larger mortgage) they must also work harder.
      8. Rinse and repeat.

      The solution would be to either a) increase the supply of housing, or b) start paying people per work, not per hour.

      Reply

    • BT says:

      09:18pm | 22/02/11

      Some sense, finally. You forgot to mention limit immigration though.

    • Grumpy Oldman says:

      04:51pm | 22/02/11

      My wife and I left full time jobs in the city and moved to the country to work three days a week about seven years ago. We have a smaller house than we had in the city, we have less money than we had in the city, we eat out less than we did in the city. We are also deliriously happy. The capitalist pigs will never reduce your working week, technology will never reduce your working week. But you can make your own choice to reduce your working week. After all, how many lives to you expect to have?

      Reply

    • thetrureal says:

      04:55pm | 22/02/11

      The majority would want less hours and more pay and the minority would want more hours for less pay and we the majority allow the minority to rule us as the minority are the ruling classes.

      Soon many will be over worked and suffer until death due to the amount of hours put in and with nothing to show but unpayable unmanageable debt.

      Reply

    • Derek Hacche-doran says:

      05:20pm | 22/02/11

      Hi Eva, I have run a sucessful painting business for years working only monday to thursday doing and 8hr day, and having friday off for a long weekend. Going to work on monday feeling completely refreshed having only worked 32 hrs per week. My staff also enjoy this arrangement as they get more time to spend with their families and do not feel stressed when having to perform household chores as they have plenty of time to do so. On the work front wages are less and staff perform more effeciently due to being rested plus there is less clean up time per week where money can be wasted when paying staff. Since the GFC we went to 5 days per week but now things are settling again we are going to move back to a 4 day week.

      Reply

    • Daniel says:

      05:35pm | 22/02/11

      Australia should have been working a 35 hour week like France does years ago. There was no political will from John Howard. It was against his ideaology and his parties ideaology.

      Reply

    • Eye4anEye says:

      06:13pm | 22/02/11

      Um Labors in power now champ and has been for over 3 years and I havn’t seen anything on the agenda to cut the hours down from them either - your post doesn’t really add anything to the discussion aside from trying to drag it into the political football field.

    • Chris says:

      06:43pm | 22/02/11

      I’ve worked two jobs for the majority of my Adult life. I was not able to complete Uni, and am right now unemployed, and as such will have to go back to working a second job as soon as possible after finding full time work. My question is how shall I ever work a 40 hour week, let alone a 30?

      Reply

    • nanks says:

      09:30pm | 22/02/11

      Eva’s just talking about how rich boomers like her and her friends can swill out even more. Average people don’t even come into it unless they need someone to mow the lawn or take out the garbage.

    • John Mac says:

      07:27pm | 22/02/11

      Eva Cox (the author) comment: Few, if any, men are prepared to challenge the false proposition that longer hours means more productivity.

      What a load of crap!!! I’m male and have always believed that the less time you have for yourself the less of a life you will have and the less you will achieve. You only live once - there is no God or heaven etc so why would you bust your guts to make someone else wealthier while your one chance at living is squandered.

      So yea, I believe in a shorter working week to allow for the individual to have a life. You still need to work but work to live.

      Reply

    • TT says:

      07:35pm | 22/02/11

      Anyone can see that we are paid just enough working full time to pay the bills and keep the economy going and taxes coming for all our good years (and then its time to die from old age!). 40 hours has become the “gold standard” because its the most they can get out of us without killing us from exhaustion (even then this is questionable). People are slaves to the economy and the government but there is not much we can do about it to be honest. Winning the lotto or living in a commune off the land is about your only options. For me personally, I am aiming for a 4 day week and to live a little less nicely just to have my sanity and some kind of personality derived from my hobbies that actually excite me (unlike work - do anything for 40 hours a week and you’ll hate it).

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      09:26pm | 22/02/11

      5200 people had their electricity cut off last month in Queensland , do you think that was to help carbon emissions ???
      The cost of living is far outstripping the 40 hour week , how would anyone cope with a 25% reduction in income .
      I’m sorry the author is living either very well off his current wage , or in Disneyland .

      Reply

    • Warren says:

      11:56pm | 22/02/11

      What is a 40HR week? I dont think I’ve ever done one of those since I started supporting family. Maybe 60 but never as low as 40.

      Reply

    • michael j says:

      04:24am | 23/02/11

      Well with the avarvge wage now $1450 a week(ha ha) and 1/3 of
      australia living below the poverty line i carn’t see the case for a 30 hr week
      getting too far,,,,plus the big hearted fella from the bussiness council of australia ??(refer story last week) who would like to see the DSP disappear
      would proberly knock his cornflakes over at the thought of a 30 hr week i don’t know where the people on DSP disapper to,,but if its got anything to do with making
      $1450 for a 30 hr week i know there will be a few tryers,,,in the meantime
      if we could get pensioners 3 square meals a week it might be a good start
      or even get the power turned back on maybe ?

      Reply

    • thatmosis says:

      06:38am | 23/02/11

      Delraiser, sorry to disappoint you but i dont owe any money on anything, own my own house, car, boat and all the goodies i need or want and i regularly travel overseas on holidays because I had the brains not to work for wages but on contract where i could make twice or three times the money that the clowns that were on wages made for less hours. Then I started my own business and employed only contract workers to give them the same chance and to save me money and increase productivity.

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      07:31am | 23/02/11

      I negotiated a 4 day week close to 3 years ago now.
      I was pulling a steady 50+ hours a week and the discussion with management was simple you either will either pay me 10+hours over time each and every week or .. Managers eyes light up OR.. or I don’t work Fridays.
      I’m still one of the most productive guys in the field but I also get to spend the Friday with my young family.
      But it also means that my Wife (a teacher) can wrap up the end of the week not having to worry about dinner Friday night or the mountain of house work that would have been waiting before the negotiation.

      Working a shorter week does not mean you are less productive it just requires better time management.
      Remember you work to live as a rule you don’t live to work.

      I’m a firm believer that we all work far too much and that when you are on your death bead you’re not going to be say I wish I had spent more time in the office. At the end of the day the choices are in your hands it’s just a matter of empowering yourself.
      We all like to think death will be post 80+ yrs of age but remember it often doesn’t wait for you to be ready for it, make the most of the time you have.
      “THE MAN” (insert your company name here) will just replace you at the end of the day your family won’t have that ability.

      Yes I’m lucky that my fulltime job and my wife’s fulltime job are able to support our needs while maintaining the flexibility we desire and I know this would be a stretch for a lot of families (it would have been for us earlier) but remember to look at a lot of the things we do. What are truly needs and which ones are the wants. One you have the balance right you can then evaluate exactly how much time of your life you are willing to sell.

      Reply

    • Jenna says:

      08:23am | 23/02/11

      Liberation was to free women NOT create them!! Now I understand that the 70’s feminist lost that point somewhere along the long but please STOP telling us how to live!! Eva you are of my grandmothers generation WHY would I listen to someone who is of a totally different generation who continue to make assumptions about something they have never lived!! Equality is dead we want EQUITY, the right to choose how we live our lives, including the 40 hour working week! This is 2011 where *most* (& no I don’t have the figure with me) positions are part time/casual/ or on an hourly rate, reducing the hours reduces the take home pay & the amount of tax that is paid!  I would never consider the effort that I put into my home & a happy family as needing valuation by an outside source! I love a clean home & happy children & would never accept payment for doing it, makes me want to ask if we, as women, should start charging our husbands/partners/girlfriends/friends with benefits for sexual services rendered?
      Can we please have a new wave of ... well I’m not going to use the F word because I have images of hairy legs & overalls, but women of a younger age representing us. Hopefully women who want freedom rather than conformity!!

      Reply

    • Peter John says:

      09:14pm | 23/02/11

      Hate to break it to you Jenna, but the Women’s Liberation Movement was encouraged and funded by the Rockefeller family and other banking dynasties to make more money by increasing the active workforce by….. 100 percent! And the fairer sex thought it was all their idea!

    • me say says:

      08:40am | 23/02/11

      the problem with most people is that they don’t enjoy their work! you help society (and yourself!) better if you find a job that you actually like! my husband is an engineer and he LOVES his work! he can easily work 50 hrs p/w and is very happy because he feels he is contributing sometime useful to society!
      and please stay away from regulating employment! it’s already regulated far too much! and we are very backward as a result!

      Reply

    • Lazy worker says:

      09:14am | 23/02/11

      I am currently employed to work 40 hrs a week but with surfing the internet, coffees, beers etc, I could easily have the same output in 20-30 hrs, if I worked at capacity. I would much prefer to be paid on output than hrs, if I can complete the required work in less than 40 hrs, shouldn’t have to stay in office. I can hear the pub calling

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:52PM

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

by Claire Mallinson

14

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

by The Punch Team

50

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

by Tory Maguire

121

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed