What makes a better life?

Author John Taya Published 14 September 2009

A number of companies have dealt with the global economic downturn by reducing hours of work, forcing employees to take leave, and converting full-time jobs to part-time jobs.

Unions and employees have reacted strongly to the lack of consultation, claiming that the change in work hours and conditions has reduced standards of living and placed individuals and families under financial strain. A recent University of Sydney study found that one in five working Australians worked more than 50 hours a week, almost two-thirds are overweight or obese, and that depression and stress-related diseases are increasing rapidly in the workplace.

In summary, the economic boom that took place in Australia did not necessarily result in overall benefits for the community. The drive by human resources experts to promote work–life balance as a key strategy for organisations to gain a competitive advantage has clearly not been successful. The economic downturn forced employees to work less and take more holidays – whether they wanted to or not.

While employers and government have justified this approach as transitory, the underlying assumption is that work and life are mutually exclusive. Yet the work–life balance model used in Scandinavia during the 1980s – from which Australian HR experts derived their model – promoted work and life as complements. The Scandinavian model produced happier, healthier and more productive employees; better functioning families; lower crime rates; stronger relationships between employees and employers; and more supportive social security systems. Can the same be said of Australia?

Affirmative actions programs have seen women assume leadership roles across the spectrum of professions, while a corresponding number of men are undertaking home and carer roles as they are increasingly required to share these responsibilities with their partners. Technological developments also mean that many jobs can be performed from home, but organisations' human resources departments have not exploited the work–life balance potential of this: flexibility for carers of children and the elderly, which may reduce the impact on health and education systems; and eliminating the daily commute reduces carbon emissions. These are the associated benefits of work–life balance initiatives.

With the tentative signs of economic recovery, there is growing optimism among Australian businesses and employers. It will be interesting to see if employees, having experienced reduced working hours and the potential of work–life balance, will be willing to hop back on the long working hours treadmill.