FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Overworked and Out of Time: a Democracy Issue

The long-shot United States Democratic Party presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been telling the large crowds attending his rallies that American workers put in the longest hours in the industrialized world. He’s on solid ground. According to the International Labor Organization, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.”

Eighty-six percent of employed U.S. males and 66 percent of employed U.S. females work more than 40 hours per week. In many U.S. professional sectors, work weeks of 60 to 70 hours and more are not uncommon. Add in brutal commutes and extensive car travel related to the nation’s sprawled-out residential and shopping patterns and it’s no surprise that hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens face a critical shortage of free time.

It’s nothing new. Workers in the U.S. overtook their Japanese counterparts in total annual employment hours back in the early 1990s.

Why is this a problem? Overwork appears only briefly in Sanders’ stump speech. He cites it as an indication of the nation’s savage economic unfairness: more and more wealth and income has been flowing out of ordinary working people’s households and into the hands of the wealthy few in a time when U.S. labor productivity continues to rise and workers spend more time on the job than their counterparts in Europe and Japan. It’s outrageous, of course.

Beyond the fairness issue, workers, journalists and academics have long reported that the unexpected decline of American leisure in the neoliberal era has taken a terrible toll on working people’s physical, emotional, and mental health. Overwork and the related vicious circle work, spend, and debt are critical factors in the endemic high stress of American life and the low life span of Americans compared to people in other wealthy nations.

At the same time, leftists might also want to reflect on the underestimated fact that overwork and the loss of free time has a significant negative impact on the citizenry’s capacity for self-rule.  Free time is among other things a key democracy issue.  In my experience, social and political movements in the U.S. founder again and again on (among other things) the shoals of time-shortage and exhaustion: people simply lack the leisure and vigor required for
paulstreetmeaningful activism and resistance. Without a reasonable abundance of time off the capitalist treadmill and “for what we will,” grassroots movements for social justice, environmental sustainability, and popular sovereignty cannot thrive and succeed. For what it’s worth, the 19th century pioneers of the U.S. labor movement talked and wrote about the demand for shorter hours – early American unions’ top issue by far – largely in terms of how overwork stole from citizen workers the time and energy essential for meaningful participation in the great experiment in popular governance that had supposedly been launched by the American Revolution.

Overwork is a democracy issue in another sense: it is not the working class majority’s choice. As the economist Juliet Schor noted nearly fifteen years ago, the long hours experienced by “the overworked American” (the title of her widely read first book) reflect U.S. employers’ preference for compensating workers (however imperfectly and it if at all) for productivity gains with money instead of with free time.  Public opinion polls have long showed that most Americans would choose more leisure time over more money. They would, that is, if the choice was given to any significant degree.  It isn’t. It isn’t because of the employer class’s preference for slack in the labor market – the bosses’ longstanding reluctance to face the enhanced marketplace bargaining power that the working class enjoys when employment is more widely shared out (as it would be if hours for individual workers were reduced to a reasonable level).

The business class’s ongoing war on unions – so fierce that the percentage of U.S. workers enrolled in unions has fallen from 35 percent in the mid-1950s to 20 percent to less than 12 percent today – is a strong and obviously related contributing factor.  Organized labor has always been the leading and most effective historical force pushing for reduced working hours.

Their preferences for leisure over cash aside, U.S. workers who receive any extra rewards from their employers generally receive more money, not more free time.  This encourages them to buy more stuff to more “efficiently” enjoy the comparably slight leisure time they get, something that feeds a “vicious circle of work and spend” (and borrowing) whereby people constantly work (and borrow) to “keep up with the Jones” – that is, to maintain social status as defined by the purchase of ever bigger and higher quality, suburban homes, SUVs, refrigerators, televisions, VCRs, vacuum cleaners, and the like.

 

There is no great mystery about what policies we need to overcome overwork and thereby help restore temporal space for democratic activism in the U.S. Some are quite direct: a significant upgrade in the U.S. minimum wage (which would make it possible for more working class households to forego second and third jobs); the re-legalization of union organizing to bring back the labor movement (“the people that brought you the weekend,” to quote a clever bumper sticker); the enforcement of rules on overtime pay; mandatory work-sharing to balance out the work week and provide jobs for the unemployed; giant federal jobs programs to build new environmentally sustainable infrastructure and create decent employment options.  A re-expansion of the American social safety net would give millions of workers income alternatives to overwork.

It would also help workers find the capacity and courage to resist overwork and other forms of employer abuse. It’s not for nothing that you can’t receive Food Stamps while engaged in a labor strike in the U.S. The business class used its influence to prohibit state assistance to striking workers long ago. They know that working peoples’ marketplace and workplace bargaining power is enhanced by the existence of a strong welfare state, which reduces the hazards involved in challenging capitalist authority by providing working class people outside sources of income and protection to those provisionally extended by capitalists. The business lobby has pushed through the dismantlement and de-legitimization of social welfare programs for decades in the U.S. because capitalists-as-employers want, in Frances Fox Piven’s words, “to make long hours of low-wage work the only available option for many.”

The single-payer universal, government-provided health insurance system (“Improved Medicare for All”) that Sanders advocates (along with every other self-respecting progressive for decades) would have an especially welcome indirect leisure-enhancing impact. Besides freeing low wage-workers of the necessity of working second and third jobs to meet the outrageous costs of health insurance on the private market, it would release millions of workers from their current cringing dependence on employers for their own and often their families’ health insurance. Workers are unlikely to fight for shorter hours (or anything else) when they put their own and their families’ health care at risk by daring to resist employer demands. At the same time, single-payer would also take away a major structural incentive pushing employers to extract as much work as possible out of each of their full-time, benefit-receiving workers: the high costs of employee health care, equivalent to 40 percent of total compensation of salaried employees and paid per worker employed, not per hour worked.

Of course, Americans who want more time for leisure and, perhaps, democracy should buy less unnecessary stuff, something that will help them exit the rat-wheel of work and spend while helping the cause of livable ecology.

Sanders might want to pay more attention to time as a democracy issue if he at all serious about wanting to forge a popular “political revolution” in the U.S. (I am on record here with the opinion that the Sanders candidacy will likely contribute little to that cause). As he suggests in his campaign speech, if he were to semi-miraculously beat the high odds against his bid for the presidency (the U.S. election numbers guru Nate Silver gives him an at best 1 in 20 chance), his victory would be hollow without a great popular movement to push a progressive agenda after the election. Such movements require workers and citizens with the time and energy to engage in such activism, as the founders of the American labor movement knew.

 

More articles by:

Paul Street’s latest book is They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (Paradigm, 2014)

July 18, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
Politics and Psychiatry: the Cost of the Trauma Cover-Up
Frank Stricker
The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom
Linda Ford
Red Fawn Fallis and the Felony of Being Attacked by Cops
David Mattson
Entrusting Grizzlies to a Basket of Deplorables?
Stephen F. Eisenman
Want Gun Control? Arm the Left (It Worked Before)
CJ Hopkins
Trump’s Treasonous Traitor Summit or: How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: Repression, Austerity and Worker Militancy
Dan Corjescu
The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin
The Hudson Report
How Argentina Got the Biggest Loan in the History of the IMF
Kenn Orphan
You Call This Treason?
Max Parry
Ukraine’s Anti-Roma Pogroms Ignored as Russia is Blamed for Global Far Right Resurgence
Ed Meek
Acts of Resistance
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
Gary Leupp
When Did Russia Become an Adversary?
Uri Avnery
“Not Enough!”
Dave Lindorff
Undermining Trump-Putin Summit Means Promoting War
Manuel E. Yepe
World Trade War Has Begun
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Stomps Britain
Wim Laven
The Best Deals are the Deals that Develop Peace
Kary Love
Can We Learn from Heinrich Himmler’s Daughter? Should We?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Franklin Lamb, Requiescat in Pace
Weekend Edition
July 13, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Brian Cloughley
Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya
Paul Street
Time to Stop Playing “Simon Says” with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Formula and Honey
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s Intellectuals Bow to the Queen of Chaos 
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail