I had a boss who talked about the evolution from work-life balance to work-life integration. I still don’t completely understand what was meant by this Orwellian turn of phrase but it suggests a blurring of boundaries between desk and couch, with a call to be ready to work at any time – with this availability offset by some latitude when life calls during working hours.
In practice and from experience, however, it was more of an attempt to implement readiness to work as opposed to providing space for the unpredictable process of living.
Overall, I think the idea arose from older notions of the meaning, control and content of work. I believe it reflected concepts more suited to industrial labour rather than current requirements of work.
For example, Henry Ford implemented the idea of the assembly line, and his cars were produced on a conveyor belt with each worker being given a specific task and, collectively, the team produced a car. This production process required heavy supervision to ensure that the pace of work was at its most efficient. From this came studies to measure productivity and make suggestions for overall increases in individual and collective worker production.
Frederick Taylor was a major proponent of time and labour studies, and those initiatives, coupled with Fordist models of production, helped frame the general approach to work and the conventional approach to supervision – command and control with the aim of efficiency and the maximization of profit.
However, there are two important challenges to those outdated notions. These initiatives – working from home and a reduced work week – also provide time and energy for people to develop their humanity outside the conventional work site. In more concrete terms, they allow for a wider distribution of socially useful labour, provision of decent incomes and environmental responsibility.
The first possibility is the increased role played by working at home. This approach marks trust in workers that they can complete designated work tasks at home as opposed to the office.
Critics fear time theft; that workers might do laundry or walk their dogs when they should be working. This, however, is based on an outdated notion of employees being paid for the hours put in as opposed to their ability to complete the mutually agreed tasks of the job. And while I have yet to see research on the effect of working at home on actual “productivity,” the ability to work at home has been a much-needed boost for many of us.
Second, based on working at home, is the possibility of a reduction of work hours. One of the key victories of organized labour was the reduction in weekly hours worked, and the provision of days off and paid holidays.
However, there hasn’t really been a substantial reduction in the working week for decades, and the 35- to 40-hour work week has become the norm. In fact, we largely created our society around this norm until COVID catapulted our world into 24/7 Amazon consumerism.
There are, however, several reasons for reducing the work week with no reduction in total pay. It could lead to full employment and the significant effect on bargaining power, inclusion, participation and poverty reduction that full employment has. It would also promote employee well-being and help respond more fulsomely to current (and future) environmental challenges in reducing both production and consumption.
Certainly, working at home is not an option for all workers but it could be widely employed without a reduction in the effectiveness of task. And we could reduce the work week.
Both measures are long overdue and are attainable with technology and communication. They support individual well-being and the common good.
But we need to get out of the old-fashioned mindset of command and control, and recognize work for what it is and workers for what they can – and should – be.
Timothy Wild is a social worker interested in economic and social change.