{"title":"选择少工作:好处和困难是什么?","authors":"Ola Persson, J. Larsson, Jonas Nässén","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2021.2023292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Working time reduction (WTR) is a policy that could improve quality of life while reducing environmental impacts. However, WTR coupled with a salary reduction may benefit only higher-income earners and increase social inequalities. Against this background, we analyze how the motivations for and the socioecological outcomes from working less vary across different socioeconomic groups. The analysis is based on a survey conducted among municipal employees under full-time contracts who utilized the City of Gothenburg’s “right to part-time” policy. We find that working less improved quality of life not only for higher-income groups but also for lower-income groups through gains in time affluence, energy, health, and time spent on strengthening social ties. However, three negative effects emerged. First, WTR lead to increased work intensification, particularly among higher-income earners. Second, concerns regarding making ends meet and future retirement income were particularly salient issues among lower-income earners. Finally, WTR to cope with unfavorable working conditions was a much more common motivation among manual workers with lower salaries. We conclude that WTR can be a viable option across a broader range of socioeconomic groups than previously assumed but that it is nevertheless important to consider the effects on social inequality when designing WTR policies.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Working less by choice: what are the benefits and hardships?\",\"authors\":\"Ola Persson, J. Larsson, Jonas Nässén\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15487733.2021.2023292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Working time reduction (WTR) is a policy that could improve quality of life while reducing environmental impacts. However, WTR coupled with a salary reduction may benefit only higher-income earners and increase social inequalities. Against this background, we analyze how the motivations for and the socioecological outcomes from working less vary across different socioeconomic groups. The analysis is based on a survey conducted among municipal employees under full-time contracts who utilized the City of Gothenburg’s “right to part-time” policy. We find that working less improved quality of life not only for higher-income groups but also for lower-income groups through gains in time affluence, energy, health, and time spent on strengthening social ties. However, three negative effects emerged. First, WTR lead to increased work intensification, particularly among higher-income earners. Second, concerns regarding making ends meet and future retirement income were particularly salient issues among lower-income earners. Finally, WTR to cope with unfavorable working conditions was a much more common motivation among manual workers with lower salaries. We conclude that WTR can be a viable option across a broader range of socioeconomic groups than previously assumed but that it is nevertheless important to consider the effects on social inequality when designing WTR policies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.2023292\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.2023292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Working less by choice: what are the benefits and hardships?
Abstract Working time reduction (WTR) is a policy that could improve quality of life while reducing environmental impacts. However, WTR coupled with a salary reduction may benefit only higher-income earners and increase social inequalities. Against this background, we analyze how the motivations for and the socioecological outcomes from working less vary across different socioeconomic groups. The analysis is based on a survey conducted among municipal employees under full-time contracts who utilized the City of Gothenburg’s “right to part-time” policy. We find that working less improved quality of life not only for higher-income groups but also for lower-income groups through gains in time affluence, energy, health, and time spent on strengthening social ties. However, three negative effects emerged. First, WTR lead to increased work intensification, particularly among higher-income earners. Second, concerns regarding making ends meet and future retirement income were particularly salient issues among lower-income earners. Finally, WTR to cope with unfavorable working conditions was a much more common motivation among manual workers with lower salaries. We conclude that WTR can be a viable option across a broader range of socioeconomic groups than previously assumed but that it is nevertheless important to consider the effects on social inequality when designing WTR policies.
期刊介绍:
Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy is a refereed, open-access journal which recognizes that climate change and other socio-environmental challenges require significant transformation of existing systems of consumption and production. Complex and diverse arrays of societal factors and institutions will in coming decades need to reconfigure agro-food systems, implement renewable energy sources, and reinvent housing, modes of mobility, and lifestyles for the current century and beyond. These innovations will need to be formulated in ways that enhance global equity, reduce unequal access to resources, and enable all people on the planet to lead flourishing lives within biophysical constraints. The journal seeks to advance scientific and political perspectives and to cultivate transdisciplinary discussions involving researchers, policy makers, civic entrepreneurs, and others. The ultimate objective is to encourage the design and deployment of both local experiments and system innovations that contribute to a more sustainable future by empowering individuals and organizations and facilitating processes of social learning.