A Peaceful Revolution: Reduced Hours are Green

Back in 2000, Joan Williams and I wrote, "The Half-Time Tenure Track," a paper asking colleges and universities to allow faculty to work reduced hours when caregiving responsibilities arose. The idea took off, but it always bothered me that the proposal was designed for some very privileged people. Academics often work very long hours, but we are also paid fairly well, have health insurance, and those of us who succeed are granted virtually complete job security through the tenure system. As one person responded, 'why are you worrying about a bunch of elite whiners?'

It turns out that there is a very sound reason to promote reduced hours: they're good for the planet. David Rosnick and Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research did the intellectual heavy lifting here. They compared Europe and the U.S., and found Europeans working fewer hours and using less energy. More directly, they estimated that a 1% reduction in work hours would yield a reduction of energy usage -- and of carbon emissions -- of between .34% and 1%. The logic is that when people work more, they produce and consume more goods and services, and producing and consuming both use energy.

They did not check whether reduced hours options alone would have a significant impact. To find out, I looked at the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce to predict what would happen if workers above 40 hours per week got the work hours they prefer, given how the reductions would affect their income. The group currently averages 52.2 hours per week, but would prefer 37.3 hours, and that's with pay cuts.

Averaging across all workers (including the self-employed), I estimate that average work hours for the entire economy would decline from 44.7 to 35.8 hours per week if long hours individuals had realistic reduced hours opportunities. That's a 20% reduction in working time, so would translate into somewhere between a 6.4% and a 20% reduction in energy utilization and greenhouse gases. Those are hefty reductions indeed!

Sure, this is a privileged group. Those currently working more than 40 hours per week have a median income almost twice that of shorter hours workers ($40,000 compared to $24,000), and they are around twice as likely to be managers and professionals (40% compared to 22%).

But, by the same token, this group also includes many of the folks who drive large SUVs, own multiple homes, fly to exotic locations for vacation, and have multiple large-screen televisions and home computers. These are the folks doing the greatest damage to our planet, yet they tell us they are often willing to scale back their work hours -- and consumption.

Fortunately, it is not just colleges and universities that are introducing reduced hours options. Major corporations, law and accounting firms, and hospitals and HMOs are increasingly allowing employees to work reduced hours. Take-up rates tend to be low because promotions and raises are still funneled to employees willing to work extreme hours. But employers are increasingly recognizing that they will not succeed in the war for talent in the top half of the economy unless they recognize that some of their most valuable employees believe life involves more than just a career, as the folks at Take Back Your Time have been telling us for years.

There are aspects of climate change responses that will require some very tough choices and serious sacrifice. But reduced hours options as a green strategy merely involve letting people do exactly what they want to do -- work less.

Robert Drago is a Professor of Labor Studies and Women's Studies at Penn State University, and the moderator of the workfam newsgroup. His latest book is Striking a Balance: Work, Family, Life.

"A Peaceful Revolution is a weekly blog about work/life satisfaction done in collaboration with MomsRising.org. Read a blog by a leading thinker in the field every Tuesday."

Comments

[Bobblehead]

Interesting post.

Not sure if the report authors discuss this, but another huge benefit would come from reduced emissions by having fewer cars stuck in "rush" hour traffic.

Folks with kids could also save some money by keeping their kids home from daycare a few days a week.

[Silverstar]

I have an idea. How about raising the minimum wage to where a family can live on it again. The author forgets the other half of the equation, the people who are working two and three jobs to keep a roof over their heads. Often they have beater cars that can't pass emissions tests and older, energy hog appliances. We could justify reducing greenhouse gas emissions by cutting their hours and increasing their consumption of more energy efficient goods.
I've been told that hunter-gatherer peoples only "work" about 20 hours a week, and spend the rest of the time in community activities. Perhaps our work hours also affect our community involvement.

[RAMHaiti]

College, personal computer, SUV, iPOD, iPHONE, my own house (maybe even a second one), High Definition television, travel, restaurants.... How am I supposed to acheive the American Dream at 35 hours per week??