Ah, the four-day work week. It's a bit like the paperless office, or world peace. Many agree it's a great idea, and we should do it, but somehow we never get there.
The Herald does not make light of the aspiration for world peace. But nor do we make light of the idea of a four-day work week, which met with a predictable howl of dismissal from the business lobby when raised by Greens leader Richard Di Natale at the National Press Club. "Fanciful and unaffordable," snapped Innes Willox, chief executive of the Australian Industry Group. The end of the world as we know it, cried Liberal senator and former employment minister Eric Abetz. It would have "a devastating impact on the Australian economy and its productive capacity", is what he actually said.
Greens leader Senator Richard Di Natale addresses the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
Really? Is that the best we can do? Mr Willox said we should instead be talking about how Australia's workplace relations system could be more productive and flexible. Did it not occur to him that our workplace relations system could be more productive and flexible precisely if more people were able to choose the working patterns that best fit their lives, including four-day weeks and six-hour days?
Some of the most extensive work on these issues in Australia has been done at the University of South Australia's Centre for Work+Life through regularly surveying large sample groups of randomly selected Australian workers. Its latest (2014) survey found that workers who flourished – with mental health characteristics such as optimism, resilience and engagement – were more commonly those who had a good fit between their actual and desired working hours.
The surveys look at "work-life interference", a more useful and realistic concept than the popular but elusive "work-life balance". They found not surprisingly that long working hours – more than 48 hours a week – are associated with high work-life interference. Long hours get in the way of all the other important things workers not only want but need to do with their lives, such as caring for loved ones, whether children, elders or partners, nurturing relationships, participating in community life, playing sport, expressing creativity or simply enjoying some good old-fashioned leisure time.
Just over a third of employees, men and women, would prefer to work at least four hours fewer each week, and that goes for three-quarters of those working the longest hours. We know, as Senator Di Natale said, that 16 per cent of people would like to work more hours. Most of them are men in part-time work, the Centre for Work+Life survey shows. We know that about a third, or 33 per cent, of employees would rather work fewer hours. Putting those two numbers together suggests that roughly half the Australian workforce has trouble flourishing because people can't work the hours they'd like.
Workers who can flourish mentally will be more productive. Encouraging more women into the workforce has been identified as one of the best ways to lift Australian workforce productivity, but given that the burden of care and housework is overwhelmingly still theirs – more so in Australia than in most comparable countries – it's not going to happen without more flexible working patterns.
To be effective, work-life policies need to work not just for working mothers but for everyone, without stigma and the fear of being sidelined in a career for wanting to work less. We need to rethink the aspects of work culture that encourage or require long hours: workloads, performance expectations, staffing levels, job design and organisational culture. We need to re-examine the conservative culture that demands work be prioritised over all other life considerations, including for women, who are also expected to keep home and hearth running so they don't interfere with men's work. Policies will need to be carefully calibrated so that it's not just the rich who can afford to prioritise time over money, as is now the case. Addressing the problem of housing affordability is part of it.
As the workforce ages, and the burden of elderly care becomes more concentrated on those who are working, business will be left with no choice. The question is not whether we can afford to move closer to a norm of four-day work weeks or six-hour work days. The question is, how much longer can we afford to stay in denial about it?