Keith,
I have followed the "time famine" issue since about 1996. At that time,
Juliet Schor was written off as a nut case for suggesting that increasing
time spent working was causing problems. Robert Putnam talked about TV, and
(as I remember) said he wanted to investigate other causes. I confess I have
not read the book, though I did read the original _Bowling_Alone_ article.
I saw this on another list recently. Looks like Putnam is now including work
hours along with TV at least.
Kelley Smith
Oklahoma City
******************* beginning of snip from other list ***************
***************************************************************
Subject: FW: It's about time/Who has time to enjoy family and community
life?
I thought people might be interested in this article.
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/09/24
/SC38370.DTL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
September 24, 2000 (SF Chronicle)
It's About Time/Who has time to enjoy family life, connect with the
community
or be an active citizen? In this work-driven society, it's everyone for
themselves.
Robert D. Putnam, Kristin A. Goss
AMERICANS TODAY spend dramatically less time connecting with family,
friends and the broader community than we did a generation ago. Whether
we
are single or married, with kids or without, our jobs have taken over
our
lives. We have become more productive workers, but we feel like lousy
parents and even worse citizens. Every day, millions of us throw up our
hands and lament, "Why can't I do better?"
That's the wrong question. Rightly understood, the work-life problem
is a
social issue, not an individual one . . . a "we" problem, not an "I"
problem. Not since the late 19th century has there been such a
wrenching,
tectonic conflict between the changing structure of people's work lives
and the imperatives of their private lives.
To safeguard the health of American families and communities, America
needs nothing less than a revolution in the assumptions, laws and
institutions that govern employment.
Today in America, we are far less likely to vote, attend community
meetings, go to church, join local organizations or fulfill other civic
responsibilities. There has been a similarly large drop in the frequency
with which we invite people over to the house, play cards with friends
and
play team sports. Even family life has suffered. American families have
meals together about one-third less often than in the mid-1970s. Parents
are about one-third less likely to take vacations, watch television or
even chat with their children.
Our individualism and isolation stem, in part, from the
transformation of
the economy and the structure of work over the past 30 years. The old
industrial economy, marked by 9-to-5 jobs in offices and factories, has
given way to a new post-industrial economy, marked by irregular hours,
"contingent" work arrangements, increasing job turnover and virtual
offices. Many Americans spend longer hours on the job and, thanks to
suburban sprawl, in traffic jams that consume our time and patience.
The biggest change, however, has been in the demography of the labor
force. Since the 1960s, roughly one-third of the labor force has
deserted
the kitchen for the office, as millions of women left full-time
homemaking
and community volunteering for paid employment. The "traditional family"
.
. . male breadwinner, stay-at-home mother and kids . . . is becoming a
relic, accounting for fewer than 20 percent of American families today.
While some husbands help with household tasks, domestic and civic
demands
still exceed time available.
Parents in the average American family work six hours more each week
than
they did a decade ago, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Among
single adults, work is consuming an even greater share of time.
Meanwhile, America's adolescents say their top concern isn't the drug
abuse or peer pressure or their grade point average. It's that they have
too little time with their parents. More than 4 in 10 parents want more
time with their kids, a YMCA survey finds, and they blame work
obligations
for keeping them away.
In the new economy, some changes in employment patterns are
voluntary; but
many are not. Most "contingent" workers would rather have secure
positions, much job turnover is involuntary, and much of the growth in
female employment has reflected economic necessity.
Unfortunately, the social costs of less shared time have gone largely
unrecorded in our economic ledgers. We have not correctly identified the
social problems that the increased pressures of work on our lives are
causing.
-- When schools don't work well because parents have less time for
their
kids, we label that a "schools" problem, not a "work-time" problem.
-- When an epidemic of depression sweeps across the nation, as it has
in
the last quarter century, driven in part by social isolation, we label
that a "mental health" problem, not a "work-time" problem.
-- When our democracy falters because we have less time for our civic
duties, we label that a "politics" problem, not a "work-time" problem.
The reality of our lives has changed much more rapidly than have the
structures, laws and cultural understandings of paid work. Employers,
policy-makers and many ordinary workers still assume that the typical
employee is what legal scholar Joan Williams calls the "ideal worker."
The "ideal worker" toils 40-plus hours a week, is free to work
overtime,
and (supported by a stay-at-home spouse) is unencumbered by community
and
family obligations. This is not who we are.
Employers have demanded flexibility on the part of workers to change
jobs
frequently, take last-minute business trips and prepare to be
"downsized"
on a moment's notice . . . but have not offered flexibility in exchange.
Although many companies have official policies allowing part-time work
or
telecommuting, employees who take advantage of such "family-friendly"
policies are often denied promotions or otherwise marginalized. Despite
much talk about flextime, rush-hour traffic swells steadily as more and
more Americans rush to and from work at the same time.
There are hopeful rumblings at the grassroots, and a full-scale
culture
change may be in the offing. More and more, "work-life" issues are
fodder
for kitchen-table conversations among the millions of workers who are
dressed for stress.
Nearly two-thirds of U.S. employees in a recent survey said they
would
like to work fewer hours. In other studies, workers report that getting
help in reconciling work and family obligations is more important than
health care or higher raises. Increasingly, women with young children
are
asking to work part-time, and men are asking for leaves of absence to
spend time with children. But most Americans still consider these
"private" problems. That work-life conflicts are in fact a public
problem
just hasn't clicked.
America has been here before. During the Industrial Revolution of the
19th
century, U.S. workers migrated from field to factory. The emerging
industrial economy disrupted old patterns of family and community
engagement. Finding ways to reconcile Americans' enduring values with
the
new industrialism required, first, a major change in citizens' cultural
understandings of work.
Take child labor: When Americans were mostly working in fields,
"child
labor" meant Sarah's picking beans with mom and dad on the back 40.
Thirty
years later, when Americans were mostly working in factories, "child
labor" meant Sarah's working long hours sewing shirt collars in a
sweatshop. At first, that seemed like a private problem for Sarah and
her
parents, but then came a cultural "click" . . . a shift in the way we
interpreted Sarah's so-called "choice." Child labor now seemed a public
outrage. Similar "clicks" produced the 40-hour week, the minimum wage,
workmen's compensation and unemployment insurance.
Considering the civic impact of economic changes today, we are mostly
still "pre-click." We still see the dilemma of balancing work, family
and
community as a private, individual problem (who's going to pick up the
kids from day care?), rather than a shared, social problem (how will
America care for our children?).
Like any complex problem, this one defies simple solutions. The
workforce
is diverse, and so are the jobs we fill. We need to find remedies broad
enough to account for this diversity but specific enough to offer real
answers to workers.
Two broad strategies are in order. First, we must create spaces
within the
office and factory walls where employees can meet their family and
community obligations. We need on-site day-care centers. Employers
should
open their doors to community organizations and discussions of public
issues. Bosses need to be less concerned with monitoring their
employees'
calls to the baby sitter and more concerned with employees'
productivity.
Besides these "inside the workplace" strategies, we must adapt labor
laws
and practices that put "family and community" on an equal footing with
"pay and benefits."
-- Congress should expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to require
unpaid time-off for normal family obligations (such as children's
medical
check-ups and meetings with teachers) and civic obligations (beyond jury
service).
-- States should extend unemployment insurance to parents who need
time
off to care for a new child.
-- Unions should insist on contracts with flexible work hours,
shorter
workweeks, and an employee's right to cede days off to a co-worker.
Changes in information technology and the expansion of the New
Economy are
making such radical restructuring increasingly feasible. With computers,
modems, fax machines and voice-mail, many people can work from home. No
longer does the average worker have to take his place on the assembly
line
from 8 to 4. While many of us enjoy the structure and camaraderie of the
workplace, we also need the option to forgo them when necessary to
fulfill
family and civic duties.
On the work-life issue, regular Americans are ahead of their elected
officials and employers. In a survey by the National Partnership for
Women
& Families, most respondents said balancing work and family
responsibilities has gotten harder over the last five years. Huge
majorities said employers and the government should do more to help
workers. Not long ago, a conservative gubernatorial candidate told us
that, in meeting with voters, "strangely enough, the issue that comes up
the most often is day care." Click.
Let's make sure that this year's candidates hear the click, too.
IT'S ABOUT COMMUNITY Today's cover commentary, "It's About Time," by
Robert D. Putnam is another in an informal series of pieces on American
community life appearing in Chronicle Sunday. Among these are:
-- "Married to the Job," Jan. 30
-- "Vanishing Voters," Feb. 20
-- "Teach Our Children Well," Aug. 27
-- "The Load Not Taken," Sept. 10 They are archived on sfgate.com.
Robert D. Putnam is Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor at Harvard's
Kennedy
School of Government and author of "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and
Revival of American Community" (Simon & Shuster, 2000). Kristin A. Goss
is
a doctoral student in Harvard University's department of government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2000 SF Chronicle
***************************************
