Reconsidering work

Work in the UK is broken. We work too hard, too long, are not getting paid enough and are not productive enough.1 What is more, our labour market is largely exclusionary. The work devotion we are asked to show is not compatible with other life commitments, resulting in the exclusion of large pockets of society. It also requires untenable levels of work commitment and overwork, especially from those whose work capacities are already questioned – namely, marginalised workers such as minority ethnic workers. The current way of thinking about work is not helping us as workers, us as a society and also our climate. It doesn't even make economic sense as it doesn't make the most of human contributions, especially considering the challenges we face in the future of work.

One of the main problems with work culture is that of the ‘ideal worker’,2 namely, that you need to prioritise work above all else in your life, work very long hours to show dedication and commitment to work and be productive. “Nobody ever changed the world on 40 hours a week”, to quote Elon Musk.3 The chief executive of Goldman Sachs expects his junior analysts to work 100 hours a week to provide value for their clients.4 Alongside the rise of digital technology, and ironically with the rise of flexible working, workers are expected to work all the time and everywhere. You have to be “always on”,5 to the point where it feels like your work now has the prerogative to demand all your waking hours and possibly your unconscious hours when we consider how much we think about work.

Not only is working such long hours detrimental to workers’ and their families’ wellbeing – for example, by not allowing parents to spend time with their family – it also largely excludes workers with any responsibilities outside of work. This includes caring for children, family or friends and self-care – namely, anyone with a disability or long-term illness, and those with responsibilities to their community, friends, pets or any other aspect of life that can collide with the long-hours work culture. Any indication that you may have responsibilities outside of work is likely to result in doubt of your work commitment and productivity, regardless of what you actually produce.6 This long-hours working can be especially detrimental for marginalised workers whose work capacity is already questioned – such as mothers, disabled people, minority ethnic workers and LGBT+ workers – as many already overwork and go above and beyond to prove their worth. In the UK, 88 per cent of workers experienced burnout recently, costing the UK £28 billion yearly,7 with burnout and other mental health problems being especially high for marginalised workers. What is worse, we are not burning out to enhance the world or bring forth a new future for humanity. Two out of five Britons feel that their work is not making any meaningful contribution to the world8 and 69 per cent report that they are burning out precisely because their work lacks any real purpose. At the same time, many of our meaningless jobs are actually helping to accelerate the global climate crisis, and other social costs that we as a society have to bear indirectly.9

Despite these problems, what homeworking has shifted is the notion of productivity. Namely, that if you trust workers and allow them more autonomy over their work, they are likely to be more productive. Homeworking has also changed the notion of the worker somewhat to someone who has an identity and responsibilities outside of work – especially as during online conference calls we can see the worker outside of the office and in their home space.

Another interesting new development is the rise in the popularity of the four-day week. This movement suggests that the full-time norm be changed to a 32-hour four-day week. It argues that long hours worked by workers can be largely performative,14 meaning that it is done to show others such as their colleagues and managers that they are committed and productive, rather than long-hours actually providing value to the company. By providing more rest time, a shorter working week allows workers to concentrate better during work hours, making them more productive, and enabling companies to save on costs. A four-day week also removes any redundant work – such as unnecessary meetings and paperwork – drawing from the expertise and knowledge teams have built rather than the reduction of work tasks being decided by the managers alone.

However, even in low-wage sectors, the investment will eventually pay off at the company level due to improved work retention and recruitment and a reduction in absenteeism and sickness, and at the societal level by getting more people in employment paying taxes, reducing the costs of health problems and burnout, and bringing benefits to families.18 Taking this into account, sectors like health and social care could benefit from more state intervention to incentivise workers who have left the sector due to bad working conditions and burnout to come back with the introduction of the new system. Finally, although the four-day week is a move towards protecting workers’ right to time and recalibrating the value of labour at the societal level by appreciating the need for workers to spend time doing work outside of paid work, perhaps it is not enough. The next section thus outlines additional issues we need to consider when we think about the new social contract of work.

First, we need to reconsider the type of jobs we value. The monetary value that work generates does not represent the true value of the labour put in nor the benefit it reaps. For example, social care and childcare are incredibly valuable work for the wellbeing of the person receiving the care and for the peace of mind it can provide for the loved ones of that person; yet it is generally paid very little. This is despite the global care crisis – namely, the shortages of care workers across the world. The value of care work is so undervalued in monetary terms because it is shaped by socially normative views – the main one being the unpaid care work of women. Care work has been largely carried out by women for free across history. In this patriarchal society, care work is regarded as feminine labour that does not need to be remunerated as women are not regarded as (the main) breadwinners for the family.19

The same kind of logic could be used for other types of work with regards to monetary values and social costs – for example, environmentally friendly work that may not result in large profit margins and may cost more in terms of monetary value but can be hugely beneficial in reducing environmental costs and with it social costs.

Given where we are and in light of the global challenges we have in relation to work, we need to radically reconsider our social contract and notion of work. Work should be a right for members of society, to develop our world. Also, we need to reassess work, not only focusing on its monetary value, but also examining the social value it creates with regards to wellbeing, as well as how it can reduce potential social costs, especially in relation to equality, cohesion and sustainability. In this sense, we need to eradicate the ideal-worker norm based on long hours. This isn't something that would go against value creation, but rather enable us to better use human labour, leading to real progress and value for society. This would also make monetary sense when we consider the longer-term consequences for wider society. Work is broken at the moment, but we can make things better.