Before you draw any firm conclusions, be sure to read the details in the last couple of paragraphs: The subjects' hours were only reduced by about 10%, an average of five hours a week; many of them were still working 40-50 hours; and many of them were still expected to get the same amount of work done, forcing them to take work home with them.
The article author suggests that the Korean laws may not have gone far enough.
Exactly. The key here is that the expectations did not change. The private sector still expected the work to be done in the time allocated. With people having the ability to work remotely, it becomes even more difficult to stop yourself from working. You need a combination of both, the employee being able to stand up and demand the employer to scale down expectations and the state to step in and protect the employee from the employer retaliating and firing this individual.
"The article author suggests that the Korean laws may not have gone far enough."
That's a really scary line of logic though. "We did a thing, and there was no effect. We propose that to obtain the desired effect we should do even more of the thing that had no effect."
That's undisprovable.
It's possible that doing the thing that produced no results even harder could have some positive effect, but the world is probably even more full of things that produced no results but if pushed harder will have negative effects. Part of being a real scientist is acknowledging that this can only be interpreted as evidence against the idea that forcing shorter work hours will make people happier, no matter how cognitively or emotionally challenging it is. That's being a scientist.
(To forstall the two obvious replies: Consider the difference between the words "evidence" and "proof". And once again, let me underline the scientific dangers in "We tested for X->Y and found no evidence for it, but we're still going to assert that X->Y." This logic doesn't just apply to "work hour reduction", it applies to all null results, of all kinds.)
My question is can the government actually regulate this kind of thing? As our Greek friend above said, people worked off the books. One might argue that a rational response to the issue is the works to unite against the tyranny. My rebut is that if you're poor, living paycheck to paycheck, you can't unionize because you'll be out of work and starving.
Here in Switzerland (3rd in happiness) it is not unusual that people are employed only 3-4 days / week and still make enough money to live well. I don't know of any other country where this is commonplace.
(Full disclosure: If you're from the EU and looking for a tech-job over here, I'd be happy to help out).
It's recently also becoming common in Denmark to work only a few days a week, especially in tech. Working 2-4 days/week at a "regular" tech job is a popular way to fund your startup. Usually it's fairly linear, e.g. you can negotiate to work 75% time for 75% pay. The fact that companies don't typically provide benefits other than pay and pension contribution helps, I think. I have friends in the U.S. who are worried about going from "full-time" to "part-time" status, because they'd lose things like healthcare coverage, childcare, maternity/paternity leave, etc. But full-time vs. part-time doesn't matter as much when the social system is decoupled from employment.
I think working hours is just a symptom. Look at the funnel... Korean kids spend an ungodly amount of time in class and doing test prep. Putting a cosmetic limit to the amount of hours worked doesn't change society on it's own.
I'd think that Switzerland is one of the hardest countries to move to because of all the prices. Starting to live there should be VERY expensive. I wonder if anyone's had to go through that experience?
P.S. I'd love to live in Switzerland, being in the somewhat-neutral land where you're not that threatened by Russia or other things that might make your days miserable :|
I worked at lots of places with official 8 hour days. In reality some (senior) people worked 6, and many (junior) worked 12-16. Hard to imagine a top down law limiting working hours will have much effect. It's attacking the cosmetics of a symptom, and not the real cause.
That said... Let's list several big ifs...
If... The last few marginal hours are more productive than hiring someone new.
And If... The economy is a zero-sum game. (For my company to make money, yours has to lose it)
And If... We can coordinate everyone in the world.
And If... We can enforce it.
Then doing something like putting a formal limit on hours makes sense. This is much more in line with a communist/socialist world-view.
Reading the abstract from the actual paper itself seems to indicate that people were not more or less satisfied with their jobs after the reduction of working hours.
"While satisfaction with working hours increased, reductions had no impact on job and life satisfaction."
It seems people did actually like the reduced number of hours, they didn't say that they liked their job more, or found more satisfaction in their life. I feel like for most people a job is something you do to fund the things you really want to do.
I would love to see what worker satisfaction would be if their income was fixed, but they could choose whichever job they wanted. (aka. you'll always get paid the same amount of money regardless of what job you do).
Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman were among the first to investigate the hedonic treadmill in their 1978 study, “Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?”. Lottery winners and paraplegics were compared to a control group and as predicted, comparison (with past experiences and current communities) and habituation (to new circumstances) affected levels of happiness such that after the initial impact of the extremely positive or negative events, happiness levels typically went back to the average levels.
If things like winning the lottery or losing a limb tend to have short-term effects on happiness, then it's not surprising that a ~10% change in working hours has little effect. Especially if—as another poster mentioned—you just end up taking the work home.
I favor something more like a Results-Only Work Environment (http://gorowe.com/pages/rowe-standards), where the focus is on the results and not on how many hours are worked.
Too many companies (even startups) are conservatives and traditionalists in the sense of thinking that work needs to be done within certain hours and at a certain place, even when those are not drivers of the results.
I'm hired to deliver certain results, not to work a number of hours. If it takes me 10 hours or 40 hours to deliver those results, that's up to me, as long as the deadlines are hit and the deliverables are high-quality. And there's no reason to be in an office, unless the office is instrumental to achieving those results.
The focus on how many hours people should work is a fetish that reinforces a still-dominant 20th century office culture.
I agree with you personally, but to play the devil's advocate a little:
>If it takes me 10 hours or 40 hours to deliver those results, that's up to me, as long as the deadlines are hit and the deliverables are high-quality.
If you are able to consistently deliver the required results in only 10 hours of "work", it's clear that any organization will slowly ramp up the required results more and more until you are working 40 hours a week.
How would you agree on results that are "enough for the company" that won't grow endlessly when they see you're only working 10 hours a week?
Forcing someone to punch a clock is definitely misguided. But work hours are a useful proxy for effort spent, provided you have good estimation of your pace. And being in the office not only puts you in a “work” frame of mind, but also promotes serendipitous sharing with your coworkers—swapping productivity tips, planning features, explaining systems.
So even in a quite results-oriented workplace, with almost total freedom over my hours, I still often choose to go into the office for about six hours a day.
I think a helpful lens is to generally worry about what you are funging against. Time, as a fungible resource, can be allocated to work (generally done in fixed portions), and the remainder to other activities. In America (I have no knowledge specific to Korea), a large percentage of those other activities is "watch television". People self-assess as less happy watching television than they do while working. So giving out more time may increase access to things that make people happy (spending time with loved ones) but also increase time spent on things that make them unhappy. Obviously this is only part of the story, but looking at replacement activities would be a great next step.
S Korea just a generation ago was a developing world, with a harsh dictator.
Two generations ago, it was really at the rock bottom nation on the globe in terms of any ranking you can think of (poverty/violence/dictatorship/low-education/etc). Pick any poor nation in Asia/Africa and it was probably doing better than S Korea.
Remember these:
History of Korean War,
there's no much natural resource to sell off,
with 3 powerful nations (who all have either invaded Korea in the past and view it as a potential target) nearby,
with N Korea 30 miles from Seoul, AND
(get this) no escape route over land in case of a military conflict (S Korea is pretty much an island now and you canNOT walk/drive to flee S Korea),
they better really really get their house in order to survive.
Younger S Korean sociologists/commentators lament about how the intense competition is driving people to commit suicides (yes tragic) but they forget many, many more people died/suffered from poverty/basic-medical-care not that long ago.
With all these in context, no wonder they work.
Btw, it's really really said for older S Korean that are passing these days. They really suffered hard lives and just when their older kids/grandkids are enjoying abundant lives, but they can't really enjoy as much due to age.
"Why might this be? Rudolf points out previous evidence that in the short term, capping hours often just means employees have to get the same work done in a shorter time, which is likely to be stress-inducing."
Many Korean businesses, big and small, routinely make employees work overtime without payment. Maybe we should ask the question after we do have an enforced limit.
The stories I've heard from friends & family working and living in Korea reflect exactly that.
There's not just uncompensated overtime, but you're also expected to join up when it comes to company retreats. So, not only do you give away 10+ hours every day to the company, but then you'll also be incorporated over the weekend, due to some company outing.
I also doubt that any imposed limit would actually be enforced or tolerated by the employer. The unpaid hours go directly into the prices, so some businesses wouldn't be able to compete anymore if they suddenly had to pay for that overtime.
The passion my friends put into their work is admirable and nothing short of impressive, but I can't help but notice that there's not much time left for family, or anything else besides work for that matter.
PhasmaFelis|11 years ago
The article author suggests that the Korean laws may not have gone far enough.
ameza|11 years ago
jerf|11 years ago
That's a really scary line of logic though. "We did a thing, and there was no effect. We propose that to obtain the desired effect we should do even more of the thing that had no effect."
That's undisprovable.
It's possible that doing the thing that produced no results even harder could have some positive effect, but the world is probably even more full of things that produced no results but if pushed harder will have negative effects. Part of being a real scientist is acknowledging that this can only be interpreted as evidence against the idea that forcing shorter work hours will make people happier, no matter how cognitively or emotionally challenging it is. That's being a scientist.
(To forstall the two obvious replies: Consider the difference between the words "evidence" and "proof". And once again, let me underline the scientific dangers in "We tested for X->Y and found no evidence for it, but we're still going to assert that X->Y." This logic doesn't just apply to "work hour reduction", it applies to all null results, of all kinds.)
virmundi|11 years ago
s3nnyy|11 years ago
Here in Switzerland (3rd in happiness) it is not unusual that people are employed only 3-4 days / week and still make enough money to live well. I don't know of any other country where this is commonplace.
(Full disclosure: If you're from the EU and looking for a tech-job over here, I'd be happy to help out).
_delirium|11 years ago
dirktheman|11 years ago
My day off is awesome, and accounts for a lot of my happiness. And the happiness of my kids, I'm sure!
US may be the leading in economy, but we (Northern and Western Europe) are way ahead of you guys when it comes to a healthy work-life balance...
mathattack|11 years ago
hobo_mark|11 years ago
foxpc|11 years ago
P.S. I'd love to live in Switzerland, being in the somewhat-neutral land where you're not that threatened by Russia or other things that might make your days miserable :|
ttty|11 years ago
spindritf|11 years ago
How important is it to speak German?
fapjacks|11 years ago
qwerta|11 years ago
If you wont to make people happy, just introduce double pay for overtimes and really enforce it!
mathattack|11 years ago
That said... Let's list several big ifs...
If... The last few marginal hours are more productive than hiring someone new.
And If... The economy is a zero-sum game. (For my company to make money, yours has to lose it)
And If... We can coordinate everyone in the world.
And If... We can enforce it.
Then doing something like putting a formal limit on hours makes sense. This is much more in line with a communist/socialist world-view.
muyuu|11 years ago
When enforcement doesn't work rules are guidelines.
Sumaso|11 years ago
"While satisfaction with working hours increased, reductions had no impact on job and life satisfaction."
It seems people did actually like the reduced number of hours, they didn't say that they liked their job more, or found more satisfaction in their life. I feel like for most people a job is something you do to fund the things you really want to do.
I would love to see what worker satisfaction would be if their income was fixed, but they could choose whichever job they wanted. (aka. you'll always get paid the same amount of money regardless of what job you do).
ekidd|11 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman were among the first to investigate the hedonic treadmill in their 1978 study, “Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?”. Lottery winners and paraplegics were compared to a control group and as predicted, comparison (with past experiences and current communities) and habituation (to new circumstances) affected levels of happiness such that after the initial impact of the extremely positive or negative events, happiness levels typically went back to the average levels.
If things like winning the lottery or losing a limb tend to have short-term effects on happiness, then it's not surprising that a ~10% change in working hours has little effect. Especially if—as another poster mentioned—you just end up taking the work home.
unknown|11 years ago
[deleted]
leaveyou|11 years ago
seanstickle|11 years ago
Too many companies (even startups) are conservatives and traditionalists in the sense of thinking that work needs to be done within certain hours and at a certain place, even when those are not drivers of the results.
I'm hired to deliver certain results, not to work a number of hours. If it takes me 10 hours or 40 hours to deliver those results, that's up to me, as long as the deadlines are hit and the deliverables are high-quality. And there's no reason to be in an office, unless the office is instrumental to achieving those results.
The focus on how many hours people should work is a fetish that reinforces a still-dominant 20th century office culture.
grecy|11 years ago
>If it takes me 10 hours or 40 hours to deliver those results, that's up to me, as long as the deadlines are hit and the deliverables are high-quality.
If you are able to consistently deliver the required results in only 10 hours of "work", it's clear that any organization will slowly ramp up the required results more and more until you are working 40 hours a week.
How would you agree on results that are "enough for the company" that won't grow endlessly when they see you're only working 10 hours a week?
evincarofautumn|11 years ago
So even in a quite results-oriented workplace, with almost total freedom over my hours, I still often choose to go into the office for about six hours a day.
saraid216|11 years ago
hawkice|11 years ago
dba7dba|11 years ago
Two generations ago, it was really at the rock bottom nation on the globe in terms of any ranking you can think of (poverty/violence/dictatorship/low-education/etc). Pick any poor nation in Asia/Africa and it was probably doing better than S Korea.
Remember these: History of Korean War, there's no much natural resource to sell off, with 3 powerful nations (who all have either invaded Korea in the past and view it as a potential target) nearby, with N Korea 30 miles from Seoul, AND (get this) no escape route over land in case of a military conflict (S Korea is pretty much an island now and you canNOT walk/drive to flee S Korea),
they better really really get their house in order to survive.
Younger S Korean sociologists/commentators lament about how the intense competition is driving people to commit suicides (yes tragic) but they forget many, many more people died/suffered from poverty/basic-medical-care not that long ago.
With all these in context, no wonder they work.
Btw, it's really really said for older S Korean that are passing these days. They really suffered hard lives and just when their older kids/grandkids are enjoying abundant lives, but they can't really enjoy as much due to age.
joshdance|11 years ago
crpatino|11 years ago
"Why might this be? Rudolf points out previous evidence that in the short term, capping hours often just means employees have to get the same work done in a shorter time, which is likely to be stress-inducing."
yongjik|11 years ago
Many Korean businesses, big and small, routinely make employees work overtime without payment. Maybe we should ask the question after we do have an enforced limit.
OSButler|11 years ago
There's not just uncompensated overtime, but you're also expected to join up when it comes to company retreats. So, not only do you give away 10+ hours every day to the company, but then you'll also be incorporated over the weekend, due to some company outing.
I also doubt that any imposed limit would actually be enforced or tolerated by the employer. The unpaid hours go directly into the prices, so some businesses wouldn't be able to compete anymore if they suddenly had to pay for that overtime.
The passion my friends put into their work is admirable and nothing short of impressive, but I can't help but notice that there's not much time left for family, or anything else besides work for that matter.