I read an interesting article concerning Denmark's reputation as having achieved a much better work and family balance than most countries. Interestingly, the article starts by emphasizing that trust between employer and employee is the foundation of this balance.
As one interviewee stated, there is not a lot of micro managing at my place of work. My employer trusts me to perform the task assigned or the overall requirements of the job, without looking over my shoulder, or controlling the specific hours I work, or tracking every minute I might be on my computer or in the office.
Trust.
Seems to fly in the face of the current trend in America where certain employers are forcing their employees back to the office, or certain elected officials are pushing for back to office laws for our federal workers. Now, clearly, if someone is not performing their job, whether from home or in the office, eventual dismissal should be on the table after warnings and job improvement plans.
But merely demanding that employees work in an office reflects more a desire to control than an effort for efficiency.
Work at home flexibility allows for a parent to stay home with a sick child and still get some work done rather than taking sick time to attend to their child. It allows for employees to avoid the stress and expense of traveling to work. It provides an opportunity for an employee to prove their worth without constant supervision, which provides the employer with a dynamic list of employees who are capable of more duties, or advancement. Isn't being able to work efficiently while unsupervised a trait that all employers seek in their work force?
Being trusted to perform one's job requirements without constant oversight also equates to an increase in job satisfaction. A study detailed in the article revealed that 60% of Danes would continue to work if they won a significant amount of money, because they enjoyed their job.
My experience after 40 some years of work indicates that such a percentage in America would certainly be below 50%, probably less. In my particular job now, the lottery machine is a popular hangout for many of my co-workers. They dream of hitting it big so they can retire. Now, of course, my current co-workers do not have the luxury of working remotely, being in a retail environment, so perhaps that percentage is as much a function of one's particular mode of work. Still, even my time in various offices convince me that job satisfaction is lacking in America.
One reason for this phenomenon, unrelated to working in Denmark or America, is discussed in a post I wrote in November of 2011. See link below if interested.
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/11/labor-of-love.html
Of course, the elephant in the room of forcing employees back to the office is the expense, to employers and the US government of half empty office buildings. A hit to the revenue of the very people who are demanding return to office policies can reveal another (or perhaps the only) reason for such arbitrary policies.
So, let's assume that the Danes were not born with either a more advanced love of labor, or a more innate perception that a reasonable work-life balance is a priority. That perhaps they have learned the advantage of a balanced work-life attitude from the family friendly policies that exist in their nation.
For instance, in Denmark only 1.1% of people work over 50 hours a week, while in America a bit over 10% do. While I am not sure what percentage of those working over 50 hours includes people who work two jobs, as opposed to over 50 hours in just one job, as someone who worked over 50 hours a week for 25 years, it really doesn't matter. When we are away from our family to earn enough money to feed, clothe and shelter them, the factors that lead to such work hours, whether because two sources of income are necessary or because one's employer demands it if one wants to "get ahead", are less than family friendly.
Another family friendly national policy in Denmark is the five week paid leave benefit that all workers enjoy, not just white collar workers who work for large corporations, or in my case, being a state employee who benefited from a union negotiated contract. Just to remind you, there is no such federal law in America mandating paid time off (PTO) although to our credit most workers get two weeks vacation and some sick time. Still, that is less than half of all workers in Denmark.
Also, speaking of family friendly, in Denmark there is mandated six months maternity and paternity leave. Can you imagine, after having a baby, something that is certainly being pushed in America by those declaring we are facing a low population crisis, being able to spend the first six months of the newborns life at home, with pay? Of course, that doesn't mean that more people will have children if there was a more generous maternal/paternal leave policy, but it certainly does mean that the newborn will have much more intimate, quality time with his/her parents.
I would say that this is even more critical for first time parents who are learning as they go, but then again, leaving a new mom at home with another child or two in addition to an infant, might go more smoothly if another adult was present.
In America, by contrast, there are guidelines that require new parents to have time off from work to stay at home without losing their job, but any income must be derived from PTO which quickly means unpaid leave if a new parent would like to spend three or four months with their baby, although, to be fair, our federal government does offer 12 weeks of paid leave for new parents. I wonder if that will be one of the targets for DOGE in the upcoming months?
As one of the authors of the article put it, in America there has been some progress towards such family friendly work place rules. To quote her
"Progressive organizations are introducing benefits like unlimited paid time off, mental health days, and wellness programs, to encourage employees to prioritize self-care," she says. "These measures not only alleviate pressure, but also demonstrate that employers value their workforce's overall well-being.
"More companies are recognizing that well-rested and balanced employees bring fresh ideas, better problem-solving skills, and greater engagement. Employees are beginning to feel empowered to take the time they need without sacrificing career growth."
Sadly though, many people read those two paragraphs and consider such thinking "woke". Treating employees like people rather than indentured slaves is woke to them, not because they truly believe that everyday working people shouldn't be treated with respect, but because they have been convinced by the rich people who control the narrative that such policies are bad for business, hence bad for America.
This is the crux of the issue. Not just how so many working folks in America side with the perceptions of billionaires in how they should be treated, but that they believe such nonsense despite the evidence that since the glory days of the American middle class, there has been a massive shift of income to the top 1%, to the detriment of everyone else.
To be fair, there are drawbacks to such family friendly work policies. When comfortable with our situation, we take less risks. Having a satisfying job with good pay and strong benefits might discourage entrepreneurial activities, might suppress risk taking in the form of new businesses or innovation. I certainly wouldn't argue that could be true, although I would posit that the opposite could occur as well, in that someone might be more willing to start a new business if they knew that their health care would be secure, and that should the new venture fail, there is a fall back position if their new venture should fail.
-----
Sometimes my posts are created and published the same day, other times there may be a few days between beginning and publishing. This post is an example of the latter, as I started it over the weekend, and today is now Tuesday.
Interestingly, since its inception, I encountered two pieces of information indicating that America is moving away from being more family friendly in terms of work requirements.
The first example is the story about a pregnant Congresswoman who has proposed a rule which would allow for votes by proxy for women who may be restricted from traveling as their pregnancy concludes, or who wish to stay at home with their newborn for a few months after the birth.
Such a situation played out during COVID when voting by proxy was instituted to reduce the chance of spreading the virus, especially in the first year before vaccines were developed. At first there was some resistance against this temporary change, especially among GOP representatives, but soon it was realized that it was a prudent idea.
Unfortunately, current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has indicated that he is against allowing such exceptions to pregnant elected officials, claiming it may run afoul of the Constitution. Now, there are a number of areas of hypocrisy I could call out towards his response, but to just stick to the topic
- Johnson voted by proxy dozens of times during the COVID exception period
- when the alteration was challenged, various courts ruled that Congress could create whatever rules it deemed necessary in terms of voting
Johnson's position seems pretty ironic when we consider his alleged pro-family, pro-birth positions as he appears to want to both encourage women to have more babies while punishing them in the work place when they do so.
The other telling instance of how America, in general, and the GOP in particular are anti-family when it comes to work rules, is the executive decision signed yesterday which mandates (that hated word, funny how it is so popular when Trump does it) federal workers return to the office.
So what if that might force many of them to spend a significant amount of extra money on child care, or that it will force more workers into their cars to buy gas (doesn't demand for a product raise the price) or even that there is debatable evidence that work from home is less efficient than work in the office (common sense dictates that people who are lazy at home are lazy in the office, and that those who work responsibly and efficiently in the office do the same at home, but when did common sense have anything to do with being a bully).
Finally, the link below is to a post from September 2014 in which I discuss raising the minimum raise, among other things.
Sadly, ten plus years later and the federal minimum wage is still $7.25 per hour, not having been raised since 2009.
Now, I am sure that the percentage of actual working people earning $7.25 an hour is a small percentage of the overall work force, due to most states having raised the minimum raise above that amount. However, shockingly, 20 states still follow the federal minimum wage guideline. In case you were wondering, Trump won all but one of those 20 states in last year's election.
Voting for anti-family work policies seems to be a common theme, not just in red states but all across America. And it certainly won't get any better as long as we allow the super rich open access to the White House and the halls of Congress, as long as we elect people who believe in money above all else, the family, women, those with the least resource be damned.
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/09/happy-labor-day.html
No comments:
Post a Comment