The rat race and working time regulation

Abstract

To what extent, if at all, should a just society adopt public policies that regulate and limit the amount of time people work? Attempts to answer this question face a dilemma: Either, we can adopt a laissez-faire view, according to which governments must refrain from imposing working time policies on the labour market. But this view generates a situation in which many citizens experience deep regret about the balance between work and leisure in their lives. Or, we can endorse an interventionist view that advocates government imposition of working time policies. However, such a view appears to be objectionably perfectionist insofar as it imposes on citizens a particular conception of the ideal balance between work and leisure. This article proposes a way out of this dilemma. It shows that the interventionist view can be defended on the anti-perfectionist grounds that this helps address a collective action problem in the labour market – the working time rat race. Employers often use working time as a proxy for their employees’ productivity and commitment. Those who work particularly long hours are often awarded benefits such as raises or promotions or are spared from dismissals. This makes it individually rational for each worker to work extra hours in an attempt to outcompete colleagues. However, if many workers pursue this strategy, it loses its effectiveness. Workers with preferences for more leisure have a claim to state intervention to remove the rat race when this doesn’t impose disproportionate harm on third parties.

The Impact of Reduced Working Hours and Furlough Policies on Workers’ Mental Health at the Onset of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Study

“…Many other claims are being made for the benefits of a reduction in working time: a more equal balance of domestic and paid work between men and women, an increase in leisure time and quality of life, increased productivity per hour, reduced burnout and a lowering of harmful environmental impacts (Brauner and Tisch, 2020), and addressing the tendency to use working time as a proxy for employees’ productivity (Jauch, 2020).…”

Work Emails at the Breakfast Table: Proximity of Labour and Capital as an Unexamined Difficulty for the (Just) Distribution of Discretionary Time

“…Ultimately, of moral concern are those jobs that exhibit proximity of labour and capital where workers voluntarily take work into their non-work time, which, by extension, undermines their discretionary time, but where the source of this compulsion is not clear. Whether the source of compulsion is industry or workplace norms, or more informal pressures, or whether it simply appears rational to work longer hours than one's colleagues, 37 these workers are at risk of forgoing discretionary time entitlements during non-work time, such as on weekends or their weekday off granted by the 4DW. And while there might be mitigating factors to consider, such as using work time for personal activity, ease of mobility between jobs, and individual responsibility for one's choice of profession, these are not sufficient justifications for workers to have to forgo non-work time.…”

Free Time Across the Life Course

“…Third, as I have argued elsewhere, there are many workers who decide not to reduce their average monthly working time because they are trapped in collective action problems that make it very costly for them to reduce their working time (Jauch, 2020). To illustrate, employers often use working time as a proxy for their employees’ productivity and commitment and those who work particularly long hours are often awarded benefits such as raises or promotions or are spared from dismissals.…”