Capability Scotland Branch

We want it all: both quality and quantity in our work-life balance

This article on work life balance by UNISON policy officer Ross Hendry originally appeared in Red Pepper magazine.

Tony Blair was not the first politician to use the same word three times for effect. Back in 1860 Abraham Lincoln wrote work, work, work, is the main thing. Nearly a century and a half later it serves as an apt epitaph of Labour’s first term in Government. But the gleaming hope that record levels of employment once held for policy makers now seems naive as workers from all backgrounds begin to question what kind of work and society are we creating?

New Labour sees ‘work’ as the panacea to many of the problems it was elected to solve. And in a way it was right to do so. However, so important has the concept of work become to the Government that, as one Guardian commentator noted, New Labour has elevated work into a kind of ideological glue to weld its policies together. At the heart of this ideology is the notion that work is the means by which equality of opportunity is achieved.

So personal, familial, and societal salvation is delivered through work. Education has become a means of producing a well-trained workforce. Work is a means of providing for retirement, so that you do not become a burden on the state. Work, is a means of keeping the youth off our streets and lowering crime, a means that enables social mobility. It is of little surprise, therefore, that so much effort has been expended in maximising the numbers returning to work.

But at what cost? Despite the admirable intentions behind many of the Government’s policies a new class structure is fast becoming established. This class structure is free from age, geography, gender, ethnicity or even social background constraints. Rather, it is defined by the summation of household income divided by time not spent at work. The problem now facing this Government is that for far too many of us such a calculation would highlight the unbalanced nature of our lives. The balance between work and the rest of our lives is becoming one sided- it is developing to be a matter of either or. But in a consumer society where we are told that choice is everything and that we can have it all, it seems that in our personal lives we simply can’t.

Tapping into this unease is the new mantra of the moment work-life balance. Currently the sexy topic for management consultants and policy formers what is often forgotten is that the debate surrounding work-life balance applies to everyone. Yet far too often discussion surrounding this issue bares the hallmarks of the Government’s weakness in properly defining the issue- after all many think it is just family- friendly under another guise.

Work-life balance must be both meaningless and profound all at the same time. Meaningless in the sense that it is simply an umbrella term for expectations, events, practices, structures, or rules that stop us from getting the most out of work and the rest of our lives. Issues such as working hours, and leave entitlements (the Working Time Directive), workplace stress, workplace discrimination, employees terms and conditions, health and safety concerns, the two-tier workforce, pay levels and the Living Wage all have an impact on our ‘work-life balance’. But it must also be profound in the simplicity of how it encompasses not just our work, but our lives- our interaction as part of and within our families and communities.

Earlier this year Richard Reeves published Happy Mondays, a book in which he purported that work gets a bad press. According to Reeves we work long hours because we enjoy it- there is no such thing as job insecurity and both our friends and our relationships are likely to be office based. However, what Reeves fails to note is that only one third of employees feel secure in their job, and nearly half of all men believe that they will have a period of unemployment. He ignores the fact that two thirds of all employees feel their working hours undermine family life. That work has become life for many is not something we should necessarily be proud of.

But what is the answer. In slaying their dragon New Labour chose the numbers weapon. It is all about creating enough jobs for everyone so that pensioners and teenagers can work alongside one another in DIY superstores. But is this what we want? Certainly the blurring of gender, generation, and ethnic lines is welcome, but are pensioners and teenagers working out of choice or necessity. If universities did not charge tuition fees, or the basic pension was higher would DIY superstores lose their workforce?

Last month the Industrial Society published a work claiming that our real goal within the work-life balance debate was to enable each person to achieve time sovereignty- the ability to choose how and when they needed to work. This is certainly a central issue on the work-life debate and has much to offer in the analysis of our contemporary lives. It certainly raises issue of pay.

Economic constraints are certainly some of the most rigid in our decision making when it comes to choosing how we spend our time. Whether Reeves would acknowledge so or not, most people work for the money - to pay the bills. Therefore, if we are to enable individuals to be sovereign over their time we must pay them a living wage. It is a sad fact that far too many of our fellow citizens do not have a choice over working hours because they need the money. Low hourly pay simply means you have to work longer. There is no choice involved- it is necessity. Paying a living wage would go a great deal of the way to enabling time sovereignty.

But achieving a work-life balance is not simply a matter of being paid enough to take time off. It requires a new covenant between worker, employer and government. A balance between the social partners that enables a personal balance. It is a sad indictment on contemporary corporate Britain that employers refuse to trust, value, and empower their staff. But in return how many workers are ready to offer accountability, transparency, and innovation?

In the 1980s unions lost their legitimacy due to the excesses of the ‘70s. If the workplace culture does not change employers will face similar barren years if they simply denounce all workers’ rights as excessive red tape. And so the Government must act. Not always through legislation, but by setting a lead and sending clear messages. Government not always be about compromise. Our working lives should be marked by fairness between employers and employees as well as a living wage, as far too many workers are currently being exploited.

Flexibility cannot be legislated for, and yet it is a key theme of the work-life balance debate. Flexible working patterns are not a Trojan horse for working fewer hours, but a way of maximising the effectiveness and efficiency of our workforce. The Government is trying to educate and encourage employers, but perhaps a few more nudges need to be given. Perhaps we could even learn from the French.

Finally, work-life balance is not just about work- it is about our whole lives. Time not at work is about pursuing other interests, and with decentralisation of power away from Westminster there is increasing opportunity for us to participate in the development of our communities. For good or bad, frequently it is the older generations who have time on their hands - that engage in these issues. Of course work-life balance is not a manifesto about community participation, the renewal of democracy, or even of some notion of family-life. But it could- and should- be a consequence.

For this to work we turn to another New Labour key phrase; joined-up government. Work-life balance is about altering the nature of our work so that we can feel more fulfilled in our lives. It means ensuring a fair deal for those in work, and providing choices for those who are not. It means blurring the generational divide so that we don’t have to postpone some ambitions until retirement, whilst others do not end with our sixty-fifth birthday. This is not easy- not for Government, employers, unions, or us- but it means a renewed concern about the quality of our lives, not just the quantity of our working hours.

Madeline Bunting, Work is turning us into emotional pygmies, Leader article from The Guardian, May 30th, 2001

Richard Reeves, Happy Mondays: Putting the Pleasure Back into Work (2001)

Judith Doyle and Richard Reeves Time Out: the case for time sovereignty (2001)

unison.capscotbranch@virgin.net