Monday, November 01, 2004
Work / Life Balance - a long term perspective
There has been a lot of blog on the ILO Study on Work - Life balance - but there was one post that struck a cord. Jordan at Just Left is generally reasonable - but My Right does wonder whether his relationship with reality is a touch casual at times. When commenting on the fact that 20% of New Zealander's are working 50 plus hours a week he states:
This goes to the heart of what kind of society we want to build. Do we want to copy the Americans, the Aussies and the Brits with a long-hours culture? Or do we want to follow a more European model where people work fewer hours and fewer days, but are more productive when they do work?Of course it sounds attractive, if you are looking to emulate the catastrophic attempt by France to 'implement' work/life balance (although, in fairness, Jordan does not advocate dropping the working week to 35 hours).
My view is the latter. Not many people are lucky enough to have jobs they love. Those who do are always going to lavish as much time as they can on them. For the rest of the workforce, the saying is very apt: we work to live, we don't live to work. Decent wages and a REAL forty-hour week can help contribute to a whole range of positive outcomes for workers and their families.
I would favour making overtime payments mandatory once 40hrs are passed for people on wages, and some education work for employers about the benefits of having people keep to their 40hr (or shorter) week.
Maybe this is something Labour can look at next term. Higher productivity, shorter hours and more holidays - sounds pretty attractive to me :)
The point is that work creates GDP for the country - this is good (My Right disputes the argument that 40 solid hours can somehow be equal to, or greater than, 50 solid hours). It creates wealth and opportunity for those that choose to work hard - this is fair. Sometimes you have to work harder and longer to get ahead of the pack - this is life.
My Right has made the choice over the past 6 years to throw himself into his work - typically topping 50 hours, frequently nudging 60. The extra hours were often spent learning new skills, ensuring project deadlines are met, in short - showing out as a dedicated employee eager to get ahead. This has been successful with regular promotions and pay rises.
Where is the balance in that you say??
The balance comes in two years when My Right has Mrs Right and a party of Little Rights to take care of. The ground work is done, the position in the organistion has been obtained and the higher salary level established. In short, it's payback time. My Right will still get the same salary - but will kick back to 40 hours and enjoy the flexibilty his employer now affords him due to his reputation as a honest worker (the ability to work from home etc). This is a choice, please don't take away my ability to better myself when it suits me, by legislating reasons that make it unattractive for my employer to let me do so.
