Disposable time needs to be more equally distributed between rich and poor

22nd November, 2012 8:00 pm

By Anna Coote

There’s a gathering consensus in favour of developing the ‘human element’ in government and public services.  There’s equal enthusiasm for more ‘shared responsibility’ between the people who are paid to provide services and those who are supposed to benefit from them.  More in the way of relationships; less in the way of top-down interventions.

It’s an enlightened notion: people matter.  But it’s in danger of being ground down by three major problems. One: the public purse is squeezed so tight that efforts to improve things are impossibly constricted.  Two: there’s a widening gap between rich and poor, producing a cruel inflation of distress, discontent and disorder.  And three: there’s growing demand for benefits and services, driven by the effects of inequality and an ageing population afflicted by chronic disease and frailty.

This is where time comes in. Paid and unpaid time: who has how much of each.  The way time is distributed is both cause and effect of unequal distributions of money and power.

Of course we all have the same number of hours in the day, but some have much more control over time than others.  Some have too much ‘free’ time because they can’t get jobs.  Some work long hours to earn a living and then go home to more hours of childcare and housework: they are often poor in time as well as money.

There’s a case for shortening the paid working week – both to create more jobs for the unemployed and to give people who already have jobs more time to spend outside the workplace.  Time to be parents, carers, friends and neighbours, time to organise and agitate to change things, time to prepare healthy meals, to learn, invent, create, take exercise, have fun…

However, this must be for everyone, not just the better off.  A move towards shorter working hours will have to be matched with a move towards higher hourly pay: a living wage that can be earned not in forty hours a week but in, say, thirty.

That would make it easier for citizens to share responsibility for helping themselves and each other. It could help to increase the volume of high-quality care without spiralling costs. If disposable time were more equally distributed between rich and poor, it would be easier to grow the ‘human element’ in government and services without widening inequalities.  It could also enrich the quality of democracy, which depends on everyone – not just the ‘political classes’ – having enough time to engage and participate.

Shorter hours could reduce the numbers of unemployed claiming benefits and help keep people in work when orders are low, retaining and building skills.  It could enable more women to stay in work when they have children, more men to spend time with their families. It could help to cut absenteeism and sick leave, and to create a more rounded, stable workforce. There’s no correlation between working long hours and economic success.  Across Europe, the countries with shorter average working hours, such as Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, tend to have the stronger economies.  The claim, often heard on the political right, that moving to a shorter working week would damage the UK’s global ‘competitiveness’ is simply not true.

What’s more, there’s a growing body of evidence that shorter paid working hours are kinder to the environment. People have more time to walk and cycle instead of driving , to go by train instead of flying, to cook instead of buying energy-intensive ready-meals, to buy fewer ‘labour saving’ devices and to repair things instead of chucking them out and buying new ones.

This is something that needs to be developed over a decade, gradually changing expectations and patterns of behaviour.  We could start by taking a leaf out of the Netherlands’ experience: in the 1980s, new entrants to the labour market were taken on for a four-day week, beginning to build a habit of more balanced living.  The Netherlands still has the lowest average working hours in Europe.

There would need to be better incentives for employers, so that they are rewarded rather than penalised for hiring more workers. But above all, the case for a shorter working week highlights the urgency of tackling low pay.

Anna Coote is Head of Social Policy at the new economics foundation

This piece was commissioned as part of Jon Cruddas’s Guest Edit of LabourList

  • Hugh

    France has pretty extensively tried a 35-hour working week hasn’t it? To my knowledge it’s not had great success in keeping unemployment down.

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    It’s a very rosy article that doesn’t really address the economic impacts.

    If you cut working hours then in many occupations you inevitably cut output, particularly service occupations. If you then propose the keep worker incomes constant given a fall in output then the cost of that output will rise which itself has an impact as some goods and services become more expensive.

    In respect of Germany/Denmark/Netherlands I wonder whether shorter working hours are an effect or benefit of a strong, productive economy rather than the cause.

Latest

  • Featured News Burnham: Labour is “too frightened by its own shadow”, I’ll recapture the spirit of 1945

    Burnham: Labour is “too frightened by its own shadow”, I’ll recapture the spirit of 1945

    Andy Burnham will tomorrow pledge to recapture the spirit of Clement Attlee’s Government, and slam the modern Labour Party for being “too frightened by its own shadow” to support policies as bold as the ones that saw the creation of the NHS. Speaking in Leeds on Tuesday evening, he will mark the 70th anniversary of Attlee becoming Prime Minister with a speech entitled ‘Recapturing the spirit of ’45’. The leadership candidate and Shadow Health Secretary will use the opportunity to […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Weekly survey: entryism, Labour split and general election performance

    Weekly survey: entryism, Labour split and general election performance

    Harriet Harman has been urged to halt the leadership contest over claims that there is evidence of widespread entryism from the far left. However, Jeremy Corbyn rejected these claims, saying “The entryism that I see is lots of young people who were hitherto not very excited by politics coming in for the first time.”  What do you think? Are you concerned that people who do not share Labour’s values might vote in the leadership election? Have your say here. Some have also […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Corbyn-supporting MP calls for a halt to “personalised infighting” and proposes consultation strategy for the next leader

    Corbyn-supporting MP calls for a halt to “personalised infighting” and proposes consultation strategy for the next leader

    John McDonnell MP has written to his fellow MPs asking them to “draw a halt to the personalised infighting” and talk of “splits and breakaways if Jeremy Corbyn gets elected”. He has proposed a wide-ranging consultation process, involving all the leadership candidates, once the next leader is elected. McDonnell who is Corbyn’s campaign agent has urged his fellow MPs to ensure that they do not given the impression that the party is internally divided. This comes after senior Labour figures, including […]

    Read more →
  • News Labour First call on Progress to recommend transfer votes to stop Corbyn

    Labour First call on Progress to recommend transfer votes to stop Corbyn

    Labour First, the group that represents the non-New Labour moderate flank of the party, has written an open letter to Progress chiefs Richard Angell and John Woodcock MP, calling on them to support tactical voting to stop Jeremy Corbyn. Earlier this month, Progress endorsed Liz Kendall in the leadership race. The letter is signed by Labour First’s chair, Keith Dibble, secretary, Luke Akehurst, and MP John Spellar. It is addressed to Woodcock, as chair of Progress, and Angell, as director, […]

    Read more →
  • Comment This leadership contest needs more vision, direction and policy

    This leadership contest needs more vision, direction and policy

    If there was a box marked “none of the above” it would probably be on course to win the first round of the Labour leadership contest. There is little in terms of content (so far) to get excited about. The process seems to be too long. And the tone is becoming increasingly acrimonious. Where’s the vision? Where’s the passion? Where are the ideas? With a month or so to go before ballot papers go out, we need our leadership candidates to give a better […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit