If this article is correct, then the Australian worker is working longer hours for less money. But Australia’s trade deficit never seems to decrease, which also means that we are working at the wrong jobs.

So we are working longer hours at the wrong jobs for less money. I wonder if the government realises this, and I wonder who does benefit.

Calls for tex deductable holidays and paid maternity leave are a waste of the authors time - sadly.
We are now in an environment committed to the freedom of the individual - those freedoms are dressed up to appear as appealing as possible to aspiring Australians - and that is what most Australians will be left as - mere aspirants.
And as with all communities hell bent on acquisition for its own sake most will miss out. That's how people get who have a lot get a lot - by keeping it to themselves. There's only so much "stuff" to go around. And those that have it are simply going to work out ways to keep what they've got and then get some more. That's the true genensis of the IR reforms. Not enhanced flexibility or benefits gleaned from an illusory "freedom to choose".
It is not the socialists or social democrats or communist that promote a utopia - it is the free marketeers who well know the dream of a better life will keep most people in their place - exploitable, flexible and compliant - in the hope of getting a few more scraps from the masters table.

It is up to individuals to find the balance between work and family. If people think a big flat screen TV is worth more to their kids then quality time they will work longer hours.
It is not a new tension. Look at Lachlan Murdoch who says the only thing he remembers about his dad was him reading the newspaper at breakfast. Some things have to be sacrificed and people are very reluctant to sacrifice things these days. They want their cake (money) and time to eat it too with their family.
I have worked at a place before which let me sacrifice money for soem extra time off so I could spend time with the family during the birth of a new child. I made the choice and realised i would lose money but gain time.
Hopefully when the new IR changes come through other people will be able to have this choice as well.
Unfortunately people think they are entitled to everything these days without having to give up anything - time or money.

t.u.s

Timkins says that “If this article is correct, then the Australian worker is working longer hours for less money.”

Timkins, the article is not correct, as an objective search of the ABS data would show. For your information (and Christian’s):
Average weekly hours worked by Australian employees are at an all-time low.

Even discounting the growing proportion of employees who work part time, average weekly hours worked by full-time employees have been fairly flat for more than a decade.

Christian says people “have been forced to enter the workforce as part-time and casual workers”. Most part-timers have not been forced to work these hours, they choose to. About three quarters of part-time workers say they do not want longer hours; only 7 per cent are actively seeking full-time work (ABS Cat. 6105.0, June 2005, p.66).

In general, weekly hours have become more dispersed, with fewer people working the “standard” 38-hour week. So while it is true that a greater proportion of employees are working longer than standard hours, and even greater proportion is working shorter than standard hours.

The great majority of people working all types of working patterns – short, standard or comparatively long hours - report being happy with their hours of work. Of those that are not, a much greater proportion want longer than shorter hours.

The occupational groups most likely to report working long hours are managers and professionals - not usually seen as fronline victims of labour market reforms.

Christian says that “It is very likely that in the future Australian workers will be working even longer hours and for less pay”. Rubbish. As he conceded earlier in his piece, labour market reforms underpinned the improvements in productivity that allowed real wages to rise in the 1990s.

People may on average choose to work longer hours in a deregulated future (though personally I doubt it), but I’d cheerfully lay a substantial bet that real (after inflation) average earnings will increase if the labour market is further deregulated.

Somewhere, I have a very nice comment from J.K. Galbraith about this idea of individual worker negotiations with their employer [ wish I had the exact words but I don't have the time to re-read all his books to find it ] Written in the 50's or 60's, he talks about the then current idea that an individual worker can negotiate on equal terms with a large company employer, his final comment is to the effect that it takes years of training in economics before one can believe that this is possible.

Rhian,
There does seem to be some conflicting data on Australian work hours. Some figures suggest that our work hours are the longest in the world, other figures suggest our work hours are medium type hours.

The HILDA survey looked at work hours for different types of families. In the most common family where there were 2 working parents with dependant children, the father worked on average 48Hrs per week, and the mother worked 28 hrs per week (Table 5
http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/conf/conf2003/pdffiles/RDrago.pdf

There are 2 very important issues from this so far as families go:-
1 The fathers were expected to be the primary breadwinners (because when the mothers were asked what were their “preferred” work hours they reported 26 hrs, not 48 also)
2 An average type family with dependant children requires 2 incomes, as one income would require about 11 hrs of work per day, 7 days a week. This becomes crucial if our society keeps increasing the number of single parent families,(which it is).

The other factor is the trade deficit, as we are producing goods and services that are not being economically sold on the international market place. Australia is running at a perpetual loss. No shop can run at a loss forever, and Australia cannot run at a loss forever either.

So ultimately:- to increase wages for the same or less work hours, Australian companies must begin to value-add, and begin to produce goods and services that sell more economically in the international market place.

One day I would like to hear from a politician or political party what are the goods and services we should be producing and exporting asa country, rather than hear how necessary it is to cut worker’s wages.

Rhian, if you read the ABS publication that I refer to in my article (Work: Paid Work - Working Longer Hours, in Australian Social Trends 2003) you will see that your assertion that average weekly working hours for full-time workers is at an all time low is incorrect. Although this figure has stabilised in the 1990s, is currently at 44 hours while in 1982 it was around 42 hours. This figure, considered together with the figures showing changes in the proportion of workers working more than 50 hours per week, shows that Australians are working harder now than they were in 1982.

Christian:

I didn't say full time workers, I said Australian employees. Fewer people are working full time and more part time, and as a result, average hours per employee are falling (from 35.9 in August 1982 to 34.7 in August 2004). Average full-time hours rose during the 1980s and early 1990s, but peaked in 1994 and have drifted down erratically since then. It is misleading to say that "Australians are working harder now than they were in 1982." Part-timers are Australians too.

Timkins,

The surveys are not as far apart as you might expect.

The HILDA survey shows that most people are working roughly the hours they’d prefer, but that there is more likely to be a gap between actual and preferred hours for couples than singles (http://melbourneinstitute.com//wp/wp2005n07.pdf).

OECD data do show that Australians work longer hours than employees in many developed countries (Japan and the USA often rank higher, Europe generally lower). Although there are some methodological inconsistencies across countries, my guess is that this is broadly accurate. Australians’ average working hours have fallen less quickly than in other countries, but they have still fallen.

However, I think you are wrong to say that the data show that raising dependant children “requires” two incomes. All the survey shows is the preferred hours of couple families, which presumably reflects their optimal balance of income, work, and time for family and other activities.

How do we judge these trends? I think the key question is whether working patterns suit what employees (and employers) want, not what commentators say they should do. Both the HILDA and the ABS surveys show that, while far from perfect, there is a pretty good match between the hours employees want what they actually work. The ABS data also show average hours falling and average real earnings rising. We can by all means debate whether deregulation will make the match between what employees want and what the labour market delivers better or worse; but alarmist claims about ever-longer working hours and an overwork crisis don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Rhian, if full-time workers work longer now than in 1982 and there are workers who were previously not in the workforce that are now working as part-time workers, the average hours worked per worker would decrease as shown by the figure you point out. However average hours worked per capita would increase as it would take into consideration that fact that previously some workers were not in the workforce (and therefore were not included when calculating average hours worked per worker) and now they are. This figure, and the fact that a higher proportion of workers work more than 50 hours now, is evidence of the fact that Australians are working longer.

Rhian,
I don’t think too many families of say 4 people (ie 2 adults and 2 children ) could operate on one income, unless that person was working at least 60hr weeks.

But the HILDA survey figures are quite concerning because the hrs being worked by parents are basically at a maximum. Both mothers and fathers in families with dependant children want to work less hours, but combined this was only about 6 hrs less per week. I think family income could have something to do with this, as 6 hrs less a week would equate to about $6,000 per year at $20 per hour, and I don’t think too many families could afford to lose much more than that, particularly with young children.

But at 48hrs per week for the father and 28 hrs for the mother, this is about the maximum hours that can be worked while still calling it a family. The father is at 6 * 8 hr days, or 5 * 10 hr days, and any more and he is hardly at home, and the mother is basically working school hrs, and any more and the children will be raised in day care centres or by someone else.

So if there is an increase in the hrs being worked by the mother and the father, there is basically no family, because the parents will hardly see each other, or they will hardly see their children.

So if the parents want to have more family time, there are two options available
1. Reduce hrs worked and lose family income
2. Increase workplace productivity so as to increase wages, so that fewer hrs need be worked with no decline in family income.

No 2 will require increased emphasis on developing industries that have the potential for higher export income and higher profits. Growing primary produce or digging dirt out of the ground (eg coal, iron ore etc) and then selling it without value adding will not be enough in future years, as most commodity prices are generally declining in time

Christian,

The change in weekly hours worked per adult since 1982 is very small – from 20.0 in August 1982 to 20.6 in August 2004. Almost all of this is explainable by the business cycle – hours worked per adult correlate closely and negatively with the unemployment rate, as you’d expect. Other things being equal, the drop in unemployment rate from 7 per cent in August 1982 would produce a rise in average hours worked per adult. If the increase in hours per adult is caused by falling unemployment, I’m all for it.

Likewise, if the rising participation rate since 1982 is due to jobs and hours better matching what people want, I’m for that too - even if this will also, other things being equal, raise average hours worked per adult. ABS data show that, for all working hours patterns, most employees are working their preferred hours. Of those that aren’t, more would prefer longer than shorter hours. Measured by the yardstick of employees’ preferences, these data suggest that Australia has more of an underwork than an overwork problem; and the greatest unmet demand is for more part-time and casual hours:

ABS Cat. 6361.0, table 10 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7884593a92027766ca2568b5007b8617/dcaeb99f3d00b0acca256a1e0002c0d6!OpenDocument

Overall, the rise in hours worked per adult since 1982 is smaller than the rise in participation and fall in unemployment would be expected to generate, again reflecting the drop in average hours worked per employee.

The phrase “more Australians are working, averaging fewer hours” describes these trends better than “Australians are working longer”.

Timkins, you wrote "No shop can run at a loss forever, and Australia cannot run at a loss forever either." That's not correct. Australia can run a current account deficit so long as overseas financiers are prepared to plough capital into Australia (the capital inflow balances the current account deficit). The financiers' willingness to do so depends on how they rate lending to/investing in Australia compared to alternative potential investments. The reforms of the last 20-odd years have made Australia increasingly attractive to overseas financiers. This is one reason for the unprecedented sustained growth in the Australian economy.

Christian, you wrote "perhaps there is scope for diverting some of this expenditure towards funding a policy of tax deductible family holidays. Such a policy would enable Australian families to maximise their enjoyment of the limited time they have together. Importantly, it would actually encourage families to spend time together, rather than simply giving them money to spend on whatever they like as is the case with the baby bonus." This is a common bureaucratic/government fallacy - we know better than individuals how they can maximise their well-being from given resources. I think that that's nonsense, and part of the Howard Government's success comes from policies intended to give people more freedom of choice, less dependence on government. Howard could have done more, by cutting taxes rather than increasing government spending - his reasons for not doing so are to maintain the vote-buying influence of sectional, targeted policies.

Faustimo,
My understanding of many of these international financiers, is that they do not necessarily belong to another country, but can float between different countries, and they can make their own rules to suit themselves.

A loan shark will feed the other person money until they become much in debt. They will then call on the loan, and when their victim cannot repay, the victim is now “owned” by the loan shark. The same can occur on a national basis. Keep supplying a country with money until that country is up to it’s eyeballs in debt, then call on that debt. The country cannot immediately repay, so the whole country is now “owned” by the financier, and the people in that country are now the slaves of that financier.

If you look at the history of organisations such as the IMF, you will see similar occurring to many so called “third world countries” throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America etc, and it can happen to Australia as well.

But the total level of debt we have in the country seems to be continuously increasing, which should be of concern. As shown earlier postings, the hours being worked by mothers and fathers in families is now close to maximum, and any increased debts will be very hard to repay.

Christian:

Another problem with your methodology is that the rise in average hours worked by full-timers is not only a reflection of an increase in the number of full-timers working longer hours.

Consider this thought experiment.

A business employs one part-time office person working 20 hours a week, one production worker on 36 hours, and one driver on 48 hours.
Average total hours worked are (20 +36 + 48)/3 = 34.7
Average full-time hours are (36 + 48)/2 = 42
Average part-time hours are 20

Then, the employer and production worker agree her hours will be cut from 36 to 34 a week. By the ABS definition, she is no longer a full-timer (working 35 hours or more), so:
Average total hours worked are (20 +34 + 48)/3 = 34.0
Average full-time hours are 48
Average part-time hours are (20+34)/2 = 27

Average full-time hours have risen by 6, and average part-time hours by 7, but no-one is working longer hours, a third of the workforce is working shorter hours, and average total hours have fallen.

My back of the envelope calculations suggest that this distributional effect - a shift in employment from “low” full-time hours to part-time hours – accounts for just over half of the increase in Australia’s average full-time hours in the past 22 years, with the balance due to a rise in the proportion of employees actually working relatively long hours.

This is the distribution of hours worked in August 1982 and August 2004:

______________% Employees
_____________ Aug 82 ___ Aug 04
< 35 hours _____ 31% _____ 39%
35-40 hours ____ 43% _____ 30%
41+ hours ______ 26% _____ 31%

The biggest change has been a drop in the proportion of employees working 35-40 hours (-13%) with the bulk of this shifting towards shorter hours (+8%) and the balance towards longer hours (+5%)

It has been quite apparent that hours of work increased in ICT during the 1990s. In fact one professional said "that you should work in ICT if you are not prepared to work 50 hours a week". There was considerable pressure applied to work on weekends and some workplaces regularly had employees working 70 hours per week for 52 weeks of the year. Sadly many of these workers were retrenched when the company was sold to new owners who wanted to run a leaner operation.

It was also observed that many accountant's hours of work were approaching 70 hours per week. Effectively employers were getting 2 people's work for one salary.