A shorter working week would benefit society

Ending compulsory retirement is a good idea – but we can do more to create a sensible and sustainable work-life
balance

Anna Coote
guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 July 2010 12.35 BST

Phasing out compulsory retirement must be a sensible idea. Providing for a right to retire at an age pegged to
rising life expectancy may be a sensible next step. No one should feel trapped in paid employment as the years
advance beyond 70, but – who knows – it may not be long before 70 is the new 60.

The real problem lies with the whole idea of retirement as something that falls across our path like a tree in a
storm. And that is because we have such fixed ideas about a "normal" working life. Why should everyone be
expected work at least eight hours a day, five days a week – and often much more? Why do we look upon the rise
in "part-time" employment as some kind of aberration, instead of a step in the right direction?

The New Economics Foundation is calling for a move towards a much shorter working week, over a decade or
more, with a goal of 21 hours as the new standard. We start from the premise that a return to unfettered growth is
not only unlikely, given the state of global capitalism, but also undesirable for developed economies because it is
incompatible with reducing carbon on the scale required to keep global warming within manageable limits.
That means finding ways to manage the economy so that it can flourish but not grow – remaining in a state of
"dynamic equilibrium". In these circumstances, we can't expect an ever-expanding volume of paid employment.
But as leading economists Tim Jackson and Peter Victor point out, instead of settling for high rates of
unemployment, why not share the work out, with shorter hours for all allowing more people to join the labour
force? No one imagines this will be easy, but an incremental shift would leave time to put compensating measures
in place – a higher minimum wage, more training, flexible working conditions and a gradual trade-off between
pay increments and working time. These are explored in our recent report, 21 Hours, but there is still a lot of work
to be done on the details of the transition.

The benefits of a shorter working week could be very substantial. Think of it as a redistribution of paid and unpaid
time. People who are currently out of work get a chance to earn a living. Everyone gets more discretionary time –
so they have more freedom to play their part as parents, carers, friends, neighbours and active citizens. It begins to
make sense of the notion of "work-life balance", which has proved so elusive – especially for parents and carers –
in a long-hours culture. It could even help to realise some of the more honourable intentions of the "big society" –
how else, after all, are citizens and voluntary organisations to find the time to take more control over what
happens to them at a local level?

There is evidence that people who work shorter hours are more productive hour-for-hour, so that's got to be good
for business. And at the same time it helps to shift prevailing values away from high-rolling consumerism, where
we work to earn, earn to consume and consume at the peril of our planet. We might give more careful thought to
how much stuff we really need to buy and, therefore, why we need to work such long hours to earn the money to
buy it.

It would help to promote equality, both by lowering unemployment rates and by sharing paid and unpaid labour
more equally between women and men. There would be less mental and physical ill-health, since both are
associated with long hours as well as with joblessness. And it would transform the way we deal with later life.
People who work shorter hours throughout their lives are less likely to burn out by 65. Down-shifting for older
workers could be a very gentle affair, with no great contrast between "normal" and pre-retirement patterns of
work. Most people could go on working until well into their 70s, if they chose to do so, gradually reducing their
time. The point is not to force people to work shorter – or longer – hours, but to change what we think of as the
most sensible and sustainable way to lead out lives.
Questions:

1. What does Anna Coote think ending compulsory retirement might lead to?
a) shorter working hours
b) ‘work-sharing’
c) work-life balance
d) all of the above

2. What other business benefits of a shorter working week does the writer quote?
a) People who work shorter hours are more productive hour-to-hour.
b) People who work shorter hours are less likely to be depressed.
c) Shorter working hours means more free time for bosses.
d) Less work means more people will go shopping.

3. How is working shorter hours related to consumerism, according to the writer?

a) Shorter working hours means there is less need to spend money
b) Shorter working hours means greater demand for shopping
c) Shorter working hours does not affect consumerism
d) None of the above

4. How does the writer think retirement should happen?

a) Stop employment immediately at 70.
b) Gradually reduce working hours until they retire
c) Give people the choice to retire at 60, 65 and 75 years, but not in between.
d) Abolish ‘retirement’ altogether.