Thank God It's Thursday
BC Business, April 2005

Sure, everybody thinks we're slackers in B.C., but what if we're actually working too hard?

A group of men and women dressed in business attire rush along the sidewalk of Georgia Street in downtown Vancouver, whiskers painted on their cheeks, pink rodent noses strapped to their faces and long, black tails trailing from the back of their nicely pressed suits. They speed down the sidewalk, periodically slowing to jump through giant plastic hoops, before gathering on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery to listen to a woman in a business suit with a laptop give the presentation Power Corrupts, PowerPoint Corrupts Absolutely. After a very brief coffee break, the men and women all rush towards the finish line - a red banner with the word RETIREMENT on it.

Performed in October, the 'The Rat Race' was a piece of satirical theatre put on by British Columbia's newest political campaigners, the Work Less Party. The group of environmentalists and political activists is definitely not a serious threat to the Liberals in the upcoming provincial election. However, the organization does have a message for voters: their website encourages people to spend less time in the office and have more time for "music, family, art, education, community, friends, adventure, sharing and sanity".

Tom Walker is one of three candidates (so far) who is running for MLA under the banner of the Work Less Party. "The Rat Race is meant to highlight the ridiculous behavior that people act out every day," says Walker, a 56-year-old man with a grey beard and glasses. "The money that people work for isn't buying them a better quality of life. You end up having to buy things to compensate for the life you've given up in the time you've spent working."

Here's the party basic platform: In North America people have been working longer and longer hours, driven by the pressure to buy more things. If we choose to live simpler lives, less dependent on consumer goods, we can afford to live on less money and put in fewer hours at the office. The result is more time for family, hobbies and communities and fewer consumer goods created, preserving our natural resources and reducing pollution.

The Work Less Party says the best way to make this happen is to pass a law changing the workweek from 40 to 32 hours. It's a suggestion that makes most business owners shake their heads. Many believe reducing work hours is a recipe for economic disaster, both for their own businesses and for the economy as a whole. But increasingly, economists, academics, and even some employers are starting to listen to critics of the current work system and imagine new possibilities. Could business learn a lesson from these political mavericks? Maybe.

Canadians are running themselves ragged. A study by business professors Linda Duxbury and Chris Higgins compared data from 1991 and 2001 and found that people are struggling with bigger workloads and longer hours, and as a result, they are more stressed; their physical and mental health have declined and they are less satisfied with life in general.

Researchers also point to downsizing and layoffs, which have increased workloads and job insecurity amongst employees. Also, more women have entered the workforce and the average family now contributes much more paid labour than in the past. Without someone at home to look after the household, children and elders, people are often torn between work and family responsibilities.

A 2000 study from Human Resources Development Canada called Balancing Work, Family and Learning in Canada's Federally Regulated Workplaces also concluded that long hours of work are a major problem for a substantial portion of Canadian workers, with many reporting problems balancing work and family life.

"There is something rather bizarre about our culture of work which I think is quite dysfunctional," says Dr. Arthur Donner, a Toronto economist and one of the researchers of the HRDC report. "Between 1900 and 1950, productivity went up and the average working time fell from 60 to 40 hours. People predicted that by now, we'd work 20 hours a week, but that hasn't happened. In fact, today, very few people actually work a 40-hour week. Many work extremely short hours, part time, while many are working extremely long hours, 50 to 60 hours a week. There's a growing polarization and the standard 40-hour work week is passing away."

The regular workweek in Canada varies from province to province, from 40 hours in Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland to as high as 48 hours in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. In B.C. the standard workweek is 40 hours, although legislative changes in 2002 allow some employees to work an average of 40 hours over a period of several weeks without receiving overtime. However, all these regulations are aimed at people who are paid by the hour, not for professional workers who earn a salary. They are expected to work until they get the job done, and many work much longer hours than the official standards.

Business owners also work long hours: a study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business shows two thirds spend between 41 and 59 hours working per week, while one quarter work more than 60.

People are working longer and enjoying life less. They need help.

Enter, Conrad Schmidt and the Work Less Party.

Originally from South Africa, Schmidt is a Vancouver resident who formed the Work Less Party in 2003 while struggling with his own unhappiness at his job as a computer programmer. He says he doesn't keep records on how many people have joined the party, but he estimates there are around 300 members. Schmidt, 35, isn't a Canadian citizen so he can't run in the election but he's looking for people who will.

Tom Walker, 56, is up for the challenge. He came to Canada from California when he was 19 years old to avoid fighting in the Vietnam War. He first started thinking about work time issues when he was employed as a technician for the City of Vancouver in the 1970s. The City put in a compressed work week in 1976 in order to reduce vehicle traffic to and from City Hall: staff moved to a four-day-a-week schedule, but worked longer hours on those days.

The four-day workweek was very popular with staff but eventually businesses put pressure on the City to eliminate the policy, complaining it was too difficult to hold meetings and impossible to talk to the appropriate staff who weren't in the office.

"There is no question that the four-day week is a major benefit to employees," wrote City Manager Ken Dobell in an administrative report to the Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets in1998. "However, it has significant implications for the service level that the City can provide the public. The business community that deals with the City for the most part works five days a week."

Back then, Tom Walker also spoke in front of city officials in favour of saving the four-day workweek, even though he hadn't worked in City Hall in more than a decade. But despite the opposition of the union, the City switched back to a standard schedule on January 1, 1999.

Meanwhile, Walker was coming to his own conclusions about the world of work. During his days at City Hall he noticed the four-day workweek was initially satisfying but after awhile, he found that working the longer hours Monday to Thursday made him exhausted and he spent his Friday simply recovering. Walker realized workers need more than just a new schedule: they need to spend less time working.

He started on a quest to find out as much as he could about work time, spending countless hours digging through First World War-era studies and turn-of-the-century documents. He concluded that when employees work less, productivity actually goes up.

"When workers put in more hours, initially there's an increase in output, but as people go on, they get more tired and more irked," Walker explains. "Things slow down and they don't produce as much. In fact, I would put money down saying the most companies will produce less when their workers put in 40 hours than if they worked 35 hours. I know that companies don't understand this. They don't understand economics of their own workforce."

In 1997, Walker ran across a newspaper article in which Jock Finlayson from the Business Council of British Columbia was quoted about talking the economic harm of a reduced workweek. Walker picked up the phone and called Finlayson; the argument between the two men continues to this day. Or as Finlayson puts it: "Tom Walker is a passionate advocate of the idea you can have eat your cake and eat it too."

The daily lives of these two men couldn't be more different. Finlayson spends around 60 hours a week working as the Business Council of British Columbia's executive vice president: "I knew going into my career that job demands would grow as I took on more responsibility. It's a choice I'm prepared to make."

Meanwhile, Tom Walker, now a freelance researcher for unions, aims to work 40 hours (five days) per month. When he works, Walker brings in around $500 a day. His living expenses are low: he has no car and has time to make gourmet meals at home instead of eating out. Walker spends his extra hours taking care of his 10-year-old son, swimming and researching work time issues. And no, he's not on welfare or any form of government assistance. But according to Finlayson, very few people would want to follow Walker's example.

"The vast majority of people, more than 80 percent, are not interested in having their compensation reduced," argues Finlayson. "And for most employers, it's not feasible to have your employees work less and get paid the same. Now that's where Tom goes off the rails - he argues that we will suddenly become more productive if we work less. There may be cases where this is true, for example in certain factory jobs, but to apply that principle broadly on B.C. economy, it just doesn't add up."

France is one of the major battlegrounds in the debate about work hours. In 2000, Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin introduced a law making companies with a workforce of more than 20 employees reduce the workweek from 38 to 35 hours while keeping salaries the same. The goal was to bring down France's high unemployment rate by dividing the work amongst more people and to create more leisure time for people who were already employed.

Four years later, some French companies say their workforce is more relaxed and productive, while other owners claim their businesses - and the French economy - are losing billions of Euros each year and are having trouble competing in world markets. The reduced work week clearly hasn't solved France's unemployment problem: 9.6 percent of the workforce is currently out of work, exactly the same number as when the law came into effect.

French companies who say the short workweek is costing them dearly are starting to play hardball. Earlier this year auto-parts manufacturer Robert Bosch threatened to move a French factory to eastern Europe unless the workers gave up their 35-hour workweek. Fearful of losing their jobs, the workers voted in favour of the deal.

Siemens employees in Germany, where the 35-hour workweek has been standard since the 1980s, agreed to work 40 hours with no increase in pay to avoid having their jobs shipped to Hungary. Other companies have been following suit, demanding employees swallow work longer or have their jobs exported. And so the great European debate on whether the reduced workweek creates jobs -- or kills them -- rages on.

Meanwhile, a British Columbia paper mill has been conducting its own experiment. It's using a reduced workweek to achieve one goal: to prevent layoffs.

On the Sunshine Coast, the community of Powell River has been dominated by its paper mill since 1912. The Powell River Paper Company's pulp and paper mill was the first newsprint producer in Western Canada and, according to its Human Resources Director Ed Doherty "it was the grand dame of paper making in the early 1900s."

By 1981, the mill had around 2100 employees but improved technology led to a reduction in workers and layoffs characterized the next two decades. In 2001, Norske Canada bought the mill, now called the Norske Canada's Powell River Division, and decided to close the kraft mill, a move that would eliminate around 300 more jobs.

After offering early retirement, voluntary severance and transferring workers to other mills, there were still several dozen people slated for layoff. Managers and union officials started looking at the possibility of putting all the members of Local 76 on a reduced workweek and using the surplus work to create jobs for the people being laid off. The union voted in favour of moving from a 40-hour week to 37.3 hours.

"Every one of the people on the layoff list was looked after," says Doherty. "In fact, for first time in years, this mill didn't have layoff list. We are very proud of this."

Norske Canada realized that having more people share the work would bring some increased costs, mostly in benefits to workers. It calculated that by removing 21 fulltime jobs and creating 18 reduced workweek positions, it would break even. The move hasn't cost the company any additional money.

Initially, some workers were concerned about the reduction of pay: about $66 would be shaved off their weekly wage and they were concerned about the effect on their families and their pensions. However, today, most of the workers appreciate the arrangement.

Larry Cole has worked the Powell River mill for 29 years. He now says that after taxes, the reduction in pay hasn't had much of an effect on his wallet: "It's only a couple hours of wages less per week. What's a couple hours in order for someone else to have steady employment? It was just the right thing to do."

Because of the reduced hours, Cole now has an extra long weekend each month. He spends his time at home with his wife on their one-acre property with fruit trees, a forest and a view of the beach. "It's been fantastic. We've just grown accustomed to it."

According to Ed Doherty, the process has helped build a stronger and more cooperative relationship between the union and management. However, there have been drawbacks: it has been difficult trying to synchronize workers on the reduced workweek with salaried employees on regular schedules, and some of those people felt the deal wasn't fair; they wanted the extra long weekends too.

Other businesses are realizing the advantages of allowing staff to work on reduced time. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) study shows 21 percent of small businesses now offer voluntary reduced work time with reduced pay.

"We're moving into an environment where we have a shortage of skilled workers, so businesses are trying to find ways to hang on to talent," says CFIB's Dan Kelly. "Employers recognize that sometimes flexibility comes at a cost, but employers might be willing increase some costs if at the end they have a happier and more productive workforce and a better chance of retaining their employees."

However, Kelly also notes that a legislated reduced workweek would have very harmful effects for businesses: "Legislation is not the way to do this. For example, if you're in the agricultural sector and there's a legal requirement for a certain number of days off, it may not correspond with your business. The cows still need to be milked and the grain still needs to be collected. Many industries can't control when demand comes. That's what worries us."

Kelly goes on to say that increased flexibility can be a challenge for small businesses, which may only have a handful of employees to begin with. According to him, the best solution is an informal approach, where employers and employees work out a compromise together. It's a model that's already commonplace in the banking industry.

Kathy Pryce began as a teller at the Royal Bank of Canada 30 years ago, when she was 19 years old. When she had her first child, she went down to part-time hours. In 1998, now the mother of three children, she was interested in moving up to a higher position but didn't want to work full time.

Her colleague at the White Rock branch, Carolyn Hansen, was also a mother working part time at the bank. When Hansen was offered a fulltime job as assistant manager, the two women talked and then approached the bank together to see if they could share the position.

The bank agreed and the two women both got a promotion. When another job came open a year later for an assistant manager at a bigger branch, the two women submitted a resume covering their joint accomplishments. Again, Hansen and Pryce got the job and soon were setting up their shared office in the Royal Bank's Strawberry Hill branch in Delta.

The two women alternate workweeks but often talk on the phone to keep each other up to date. "Carolyn and I have a unique relationship," says Pryce. "We're friends outside of work also. If something happens on week where I'm off, I know about it." Pryce and Hansen have similar management styles and try to be consistent with staff and clients. They share an office, a filing cabinet, a computer and voicemail. "We don't share husbands though," Pryce laughs.

Hansen adds that there are many advantages to job-sharing: "It's easier to make decisions because I can bounce the idea off Kathy. And when the other branches have a staff shortage, they have someone to cover."

Hansen, whose children are now 15 and 12, spends her week away from work rushing her kids to hockey practice, shopping and cleaning. Pryce's children are now older (24, 21 and 16) but she's still in no hurry to work full time. "My kids are old now. I don't really have an excuse for working part time anymore. But I really enjoy it."

In short, Hansen has enjoyed the status of a full-time worker - full benefits and career advancement opportunities - while working part-time hours. "I like my freedom. I love working and I like to be at home with my family and my dogs. I have best of both worlds."

Full status and benefits, part time hours: it's an option more businesses should consider as a way of helping their employees find that elusive life/work balance. So consider it.

Will these changes pay for themselves? Probably not: there are definitely some higher costs involved with having staff on reduced time. However, when you factor in the reduced absenteeism, lower staff turnover and a happier work environment, it may not be as expensive as you think.

Does this mean businesses should start making campaign contributions to the Work Less Party with the hopes of bringing in a legislated 32-hour workweek? Given that most people paid by the hour don't want a reduction in wage, and that most professional workers (the ones who are toiling longer and longer hours) aren't affected by the legislation, it doesn't seem like a viable solution to the problem of overwork.

Fact: the one-size-fits-all legislation may be harmful to the interests of both businesses and workers. However, the Work Less Party campaign does carry some useful messages.

Managers and owners, as well as unions and workers, need to take a closer look at the role we all play in fostering that culture of overwork. Unions are often place a low priority on flexible work practices, while managers and owners set an example for staff by spending endless hours in the office. We need to be creative and look for individual solutions that make sense from both a business and a human perspective, to help us all achieve a better balance between our jobs and the rest of our lives.

And stop running like rats in a maze.