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

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • 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

  • Comment Featured Stagnant wages and the scourge of child poverty show Britain’s economic model is bust – Lilian Greenwood’s report from Labour for the Common Good

    Stagnant wages and the scourge of child poverty show Britain’s economic model is bust – Lilian Greenwood’s report from Labour for the Common Good

    British wages have been stagnant for over a decade. The share of wealth owned by labour, as opposed to capital, is in long-term decline. Median household income peaked somewhere around 2003. The five richest families in this country now own more wealth than the poorest twelve million. The typical earnings of millenials are around £2,800 a year lower than the generation before them at a similar stage of their lives. Nearly 4 million children are growing up in poverty. Last […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Tories open up 16 point poll lead over divided Labour

    Tories open up 16 point poll lead over divided Labour

    Labour is trailing the Conservatives by 16 percentage points according to a new ICM poll. The party is polling at 27 per cent of the vote, compared with the Conservatives at 43 per cent. The poll, coming less than two weeks into Theresa May’s premiership, has increased speculation of the Government calling an early general election in order to give May a mandate from the public. The figures are the lowest since 2009 – in the peak of the financial […]

    Read more →
  • Comment 500 Labour councillors: Why we are backing Owen Smith to continue the fight against austerity

    500 Labour councillors: Why we are backing Owen Smith to continue the fight against austerity

    In a month’s time, we will be casting our votes for Owen Smith as Leader because we believe this is the only path forward to a Labour Government and putting a stop to the immense damage the Tories are doing to our communities and our nation. We have closely watched the debate in our Party in recent weeks and are deeply impressed with how Owen has done. He has driven home the message that the fight Labour must lead is […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Corbyn and Smith will kick-off debates with first hustings in Wales

    Corbyn and Smith will kick-off debates with first hustings in Wales

    Members will see Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith go up against each other in the first leadership hustings on Thursday 4 August. Iain McNicol, Labour general-secretary, confirmed Corbyn and Smith will be grilled on their policy positions at the evening event. Members can submit questions to be discussed in front of an audience in Cardiff. The event is the first of a series debates between the contenders, each of which will be streamed online for members to watch. There will also be events […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Labour donor due in court in bid to kick Corbyn off the ballot paper

    Labour donor due in court in bid to kick Corbyn off the ballot paper

    Jeremy Corbyn could call for the Labour leadership contest to be put on hold if he loses a crucial court case today and is kicked off the ballot paper. The party’s decision to allow Corbyn a place in the vote without requiring a fresh round of MP nominations is due to be challenged in the High Court this morning. Labour donor Michael Foster believes the party has “misapplied” the rules over whether a sitting leader is automatically included on the ballot […]

    Read more →
x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit