Back in 2000, Joan Williams and I wrote, "The Half-Time Tenure Track," a
paper asking colleges and universities to allow faculty to work reduced
hours when caregiving responsibilities arose. The idea took off, but it
always bothered me that the proposal was designed for some very privileged
people. Academics often work very long hours, but we are also paid fairly
well, have health insurance, and those of us who succeed are granted
virtually complete job security through the tenure system. As one person
responded, 'why are you worrying about a bunch of elite whiners?'
It turns out that there is a very sound reason to promote reduced hours:
they're good for the planet. David Rosnick and Mark Weisbrot of the Center
for Economic and Policy Research did the intellectual heavy lifting here.
They compared Europe and the U.S., and found Europeans working fewer hours
and using less energy. More directly, they estimated that a 1% reduction in
work hours would yield a reduction of energy usage -- and of carbon emissions
-- of between .34% and 1%. The logic is that when people work more, they
produce and consume more goods and services, and producing and consuming
both use energy.
They did not check whether reduced hours options alone would have a
significant impact. To find out, I looked at the 2002 National Study of the
Changing Workforce to predict what would happen if workers above 40 hours
per week got the work hours they prefer, given how the reductions would
affect their income. The group currently averages 52.2 hours per week, but
would prefer 37.3 hours, and that's with pay cuts.
Averaging across all workers (including the self-employed), I estimate that
average work hours for the entire economy would decline from 44.7 to 35.8
hours per week if long hours individuals had realistic reduced hours
opportunities. That's a 20% reduction in working time, so would translate
into somewhere between a 6.4% and a 20% reduction in energy utilization and
greenhouse gases. Those are hefty reductions indeed!
Sure, this is a privileged group. Those currently working more than 40 hours
per week have a median income almost twice that of shorter hours workers
($40,000 compared to $24,000), and they are around twice as likely to be
managers and professionals (40% compared to 22%).
But, by the same token, this group also includes many of the folks who drive
large SUVs, own multiple homes, fly to exotic locations for vacation, and
have multiple large-screen televisions and home computers. These are the
folks doing the greatest damage to our planet, yet they tell us they are
often willing to scale back their work hours -- and consumption.
Fortunately, it is not just colleges and universities that are introducing
reduced hours options. Major corporations, law and accounting firms, and
hospitals and HMOs are increasingly allowing employees to work reduced
hours. Take-up rates tend to be low because promotions and raises are still
funneled to employees willing to work extreme hours. But employers are
increasingly recognizing that they will not succeed in the war for talent in
the top half of the economy unless they recognize that some of their most
valuable employees believe life involves more than just a career, as the
folks at Take Back Your Time have been telling us for years.
There are aspects of climate change responses that will require some very
tough choices and serious sacrifice. But reduced hours options as a green
strategy merely involve letting people do exactly what they want to do --
work less.
Robert Drago is a Professor of Labor Studies and Women's Studies at Penn
State University, and the moderator of the workfam newsgroup. His latest
book is Striking a Balance: Work, Family, Life.
"A Peaceful Revolution is a weekly blog about work/life satisfaction done in
collaboration with MomsRising.org. Read a blog by a leading thinker in the
field every Tuesday."