Working 9 to 5, not a way to make a living

Not enough hours in the day? That could be a thing of the past. Photo: Nick J Webb

Self improvement: It's about time

 January is traditionally a time of New Year resolutions. It’s the time when we tell ourselves (and anyone around who will listen) that this is the year that we’ll mend some of our less noble personal traits and finally  commit ourselves to ‘the good life’ through a programme that combines equal measures of self denial and dogged self improvement.

It was this happy-go-lucky outlook that I got myself along to the LSE public discussion, ‘About Time: examining the case for a shorter working week’. What I discovered both reactivated my love of policy and induced a severe bout of self-loathing. Allow me to explain...

21 is the magic number

For those of you lucky enough to have avoided my pun-heavy Tweeting on the subject, About Time was an in-depth look at the case for a shorter working week, as set out by the New Economics Foundation (or nef) last year in their report, 21 hours. The report sets out a case for how 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.

An impressive selection of speakers had been assembled for Wednesday’s event. In addition to 21 hour’s co-author and nef’s head of social policy, Anna Coote, who chaired proceedings, we heard from three notable academics with expertise in this field. First up was Juliet Schor, Professor of Sociology at Boston College, and author of Plenitude: The New Economics of True Wealth, and The Overworked American. Next up was Lord Robert Skidelsky, Emeritus Professor of Political Economy at the University of Warwick. Lastly, Tim Jackson, Professor of Sustainable Development at Surrey University, and author of Prosperity without Growth, reflected on the discussion.

If you will it, dude, it is no dream

Without wishing to go overboard on Economic theory, I think it’s worth pulling out a key (and exciting!) theme running throughout all of the speakers’ argument. Namely, there is nothing natural or inevitable about what is considered ‘normal’ today. The 40 or hours of today’s ‘normal’ working week results from a complex interplay of structural, technological and psychological factors. Speakers highlighted a diverse range of issues that shape our current working norms, from career penalties for people who request flexible working to the rise of instant communication and the role of advertising in ramping up our consumerist desires. Essentially, the message on moving towards a 21 hour week was akin to Walter in The Big Lebowski’s, “if you will it, dude, it is no dream”.

It takes two [or more points of view] to make a thing go right

Whilst I broadly agree with nef’s goal of achieving a better work-life balance and share their belief that many of the things that are presented as natural or unchangeable are in fact anything but, I found myself getting increasingly frustrated with About Time as the evening wore on. I think the main reason for this was the lack of critical challenge the shorter working hour faced. Perhaps somewhat naively, I had expected an examination of the case for a shorter working week to include contributions from people who felt a shorter working week was neither wise and/or achievable. I appreciate that accommodating people with a range of viewpoints can sometimes result in speakers engaging in Debating Society-style tactics. However, with strong chairing and a smattering of good will, I think Wednesday’s event would have been enlivened by differing points of view.

My other grumbles with the event largely stem from this lack of critical challenge. Perhaps because speakers felt everyone (both speakers and audience) were on the same page, there was little self-examination of the ‘good life’ presented in nef’s report. At times it felt as though we were being told that pure enjoyment was only to be found by reading a book (and preferably something high brow) whilst conspicuously avoiding doing anything as vulgar as consuming anything. I’m exaggerating for effect but not by much.  At times my frustration seeped over into self-loathing as I realised watched audience members who, let’s face up, probably aren’t a million miles away from me in terms of their politics and their patterns of consumption, seemingly responded uncritically to the speakers’ articulation of one possible good life as the good life.

Can we agree on what makes for a 'good life'?

Lord Robert Skidelsky got it right when he said that making the case for a shorter working week is as much about developing a shared understanding of what the ‘good life’ is as it is the technical feasibility of reconfiguring our economic and social structures. It’s still only January so I am doing my utmost to remain positive and optimistic. Nonetheless, judging from the limited progress made even on emotive agendas such as child poverty in recent years, I feel proponents of the 21 hour week may be significantly under-estimating the scale of the challenge they face in seeking to build the consensus needed to move towards a 21 hour week.

Positivity is the key in the lock

As I draw my first blog post of 2012 to a close I feel it is important to keep my grumbles regarding About Time evening in perspective. I am extremely grateful for the LSE for hosting the event for providing members of the public with an opportunity to engage with exciting new ideas. I also want to say thank you to nef and all the speakers for having the courage and determination to imagine that a different world is possible. I will certainly try to keep this thought in mind as I make my way in 2012. I will also try to get along to some more of LSE’s public events this year and I would encourage you to give them a go, too.

Pop goes the 21 hour week

Lastly, all this talk of a shorter working week is perfectly fine but what would be the consequences for popular music? I’ll leave you with a few of my thoughts: 

A Hard Day’s Night – The Beatles. This would be first to go. 

Working 9 to 5 – Dolly Parton. Sorry Dolly, you’ll have to retire this one.

Get Rich or Die Tryin’ – 50 Cent. Okay, this is an album title rather than a song but it’s too good to leave off. Curtis Jackson definitely isn’t a suitable role model for the 21 hour week.

The Velvet Underground – Sunday Morning. A classic piece of hazy pop. But would Sunday morning hold such a prized place in a 21 hour working week? Anyone for Thursday morning?

 


Can’t buy me love – The Beatles. This one would be acceptable in the new world of the 21 hour week.