WORK TO LIVE: The
Guide to Getting a Life
by Joe Robinson
Perigee, 288 pp, $14.95
Political parties gain ascendancy when they offer voters something of
value that the other party won't provide. From the 1930s to the 1960s,
voters valued the security and collective action that an expansive federal
government enabled. Because Democrats embraced this new kind of governance
while Republicans clung to the pre-New Deal era, Democrats were rewarded
at the ballot box, especially in congressional elections.
In today's new economy, voters seem to want more nimble government, more
choice, and reasonable taxes, at least more than they want big government,
bureaucracy, and high taxes. Because this is what Republicans claim to
offer, voters have rewarded them. If Democrats are to regain the strength
they enjoyed in the old economy, they will need to offer something that
voters value but that the other party won't provide.
Joe Robinson's book Work to Live provides a glimpse of what that might
be. Robinson, the founder of the Work to Live campaign, makes a compelling
case that Americans are working longer hours and that the workplace is
increasingly at odds with what Americans, especially middle-class families,
want -- more balance between work and family. While this conflict may
not erupt by Election Day, the desire for better part-time jobs for working
moms, a shorter workweek, and more vacation time, once the economy finally
turns around, could soon emerge as a key political issue.
With Republicans' distaste for government intervention, especially when
it challenges corporate interests, the GOP will be hard-pressed to do
more than offer platitudes. Besides, Republicans can always claim, some
workers, like George W. Bush, already get four weeks vacation a year.
Robinson is onto something. Unlike most European workers, who enjoy four
to six weeks of paid vacation every year, the average American worker
gets just 13 days, and many get zilch. In the past two decades, we've
seen our work hours increase by almost two 40-hour weeks, from 1,883
hours to 1,966 hours. Robinson illustrates this by listing the "10
commandments" that have perversely come to dominate working life.
Commandment No. 1: "Thou shalt not be among the first to leave the
office at closing time."
In contrast, French workers put in just 1,656 hours in 1997 (prior to
legislation limiting the workweek to 35 hours) and Germans work even
less time, at 1,560 hours. This isn't just a reflection of some idiosyncratic
European zest for life. Our Canadian neighbors have also cut back by
more than a full workweek, to 1,732 hours. Even the Japanese, who have
often been characterized as workaholic "salarymen," saw their
working hours fall from 2,121 in 1980 to 1,889 hours in 1995.
It's not as if Americans are chomping at the bit for more overtime and
fewer vacation days. Robinson reports that 95 percent of workers say
they worry that work is taking too much time away from their families,
and 87 percent say increased work demands are keeping them from getting
enough sleep. In a 2000 Blueprint poll, Mark Penn found that 70 percent
of voters who are married with children say that they don't get to spend
enough time with their family and kids. Perhaps this is because today
the average child sees 22 hours a week less of working parents than in
1970 -- two years less during their childhood.
If workers are dissatisfied at the current state of working, why don't
they change it? There are two key factors. First, as Elizabeth Warren
and Amelia Tyagi document in The Two-Income Trap, many
middle-class families are struggling to make ends meet.
Toward the end of the Clinton-era economic expansion, many people were
increasingly willing to readjust the balance between time and money.
Penn found that while a decade ago only about 10 percent of workers would
prefer more time off instead of more work, by 2000 nearly one-third preferred
more time off -- a remarkable shift in public preference, particularly
among groups that were more likely to favor time off, such as women with
kids (41 percent) and those making more than $60,000 per year (45 percent).
But in these tougher economic times, more money is the top desire for
many.
Even for the many workers who would like a bit more time off, another
factor keeps them from it. The rise of the 24-hour global economy has
exacerbated the conflict between corporate values and family values.
In a hypercompetitive economy, where speed is king, the ideal employee
is the one who's always available, not the one who's constantly juggling
family responsibilities. Robinson documents how hard it is for many workers
not to work late nights, go on that out-of-town trip, or take work home.
For if you don't, you risk being skipped over for a promotion or a raise,
or even worse, losing your job. One-half those surveyed in a U.S.
News/Bozell
poll said they would be penalized for spending less time at the office
than colleagues who didn't get their work done as quickly -- and might
lose out on raises or promotions.
This means that if we are to attain a healthier balance as a society
between work and family, there will be two key pieces of the solution:
first, boosting productivity and wages so more workers can afford to
take more time off; and second, putting in place policies to encourage
business to provide more time off and more flexible schedules.
If we could boost the economy's productivity by 15 percent (something
that is likely to happen in three to four years), Americans could work
less (by 40 hours) and still produce more (13 percent more). While productivity
growth is robust now, the Bush policies -- massive budget deficits; underinvestment
in the building blocks of growth, such as skills, research, and infrastructure;
and overall lack of economic leadership -- put this performance at grave
risk.
Ensuring that we have the right policies in place to keep the productivity
boom going is not just something to do to increase the growth of the
GDP, it's a key part of creating an economy that's prosperous enough
to let more workers spend more time with their families. These policies
include fiscal discipline, investments in skills and R&D, and support
for competition.
But economic growth alone is not likely to get us to where many Americans
want to go. Without the right public policies, more growth is not likely
to lead to more free time. It's here that Robinson proposes a number
of creative ideas. While much of the book is focused on advice to help
workers manage their situations -- "set clear boundaries between
work and home," "negotiate fewer hours and more time off," and "quit
a job that's killing you" -- Robinson ventures into public policy
with a number of proposals.
The boldest is his call to reform the Fair Labor Standards Act to require
companies to provide workers with three weeks paid vacation for anyone
working one year, increasing to four weeks after three years. Some might
dismiss this as an unrealistic European holdover from the welfare state
era or as inappropriate government intervention into the labor market.
A more realistic view is that it reflects the desire of many people to
allocate a growing share of the productivity gains to more free time,
just as they did in the first half of the 20th century, as the workweek
fell from approximately 60 hours to 40 hours, while wages skyrocketed.
As the economy rebounds, it is likely that more and more Americans, especially
those in the middle class, will want a bit more time off instead of getting
a bigger raise. Four weeks required vacation is probably a step too far
for now, but one step that can and should be taken is to codify what's
existing practice at many, but by no means all, companies: requiring
two weeks paid vacation after one year on the job.
In a perfect New Democrat universe, mandates are as welcome as a skunk
at a garden party. But let's face it, in an economy driven by ruthless
competitive forces, workers and companies are unlikely to be able to
shake this workaholic habit unless the rules are changed. Most corporations
are not greedy task masters that want to drive their workers ever harder,
but they, too, are caught in a hypercompetitive marketplace where, if
they unilaterally cut back on work hours, their competitors will take
advantage of them. As a result, they and their workers need a little
help.
It's not as if we don't already impose mandates to encourage all players
to act in a win-win manner. We require young people to go to school for
10 years and companies to pay overtime for work beyond 40 hours a week.
What a mandate does is level the playing field so that good companies
that want to do the right thing are not at a competitive disadvantage
to their competitors that want to take the low road.
A work-family agenda does not have to be just about imposing requirements
on business. It needs also to involve incentives for employers to create
more family-friendly policies. Robinson advocates tax incentives for
employers who initiate flextime; telecommuting; good part-time jobs,
particularly for working parents; and other family-friendly practices.
Today, too many mothers, especially college-educated women, are forced
into either working full-time and not being able to spend adequate time
with their kids, or not working at all and not having the extra income
they need. They should have the choice of working from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m. so they can be with their kids in the morning and pick them up from
school in the afternoon, while holding jobs that utilize their skills.
Incentives that reward companies that implement these kinds of good part-time
jobs will go a long way toward reconciling a key conflict between work
and family for many households.
Robinson also supports workers being able to trade in their overtime
for more time off, not more money, as is currently required by law. As
long as reasonable worker protections are included, such flextime legislation
-- which would protect the 40-hour workweek but let workers choose an
hour and a half of paid time off for every hour of overtime -- makes
sense, especially in a world where both parents work.
If Democrats can champion a coherent plan for improving productivity,
while at the same time ensuring that some of the gains go to reduced
work hours, it might just be the winning formula for the party and the
country.
