ABSTRACT
Advocates of the flexibilization of working time argue that many people are already accustomed to working evenings, nights and weekends, and that flexibilization will improve people's control over time. In this article, these two assertions are put to trial. For this, the author relies on time-budget data that were gathered in The Netherlands between 1975 and 1995. The analyses indicate that even in 1995 most work is still being performed 'from 9 to 5'. As regards time-sovereignty, it appears that control over working time is related more to levels of education than to working atypical hours.
Introduction
Time is a political issue.
We are moving away from collectively maintained temporal rhythms towards much more individually organized daily paths. The industrial symbol of working '9 to 5, Monday to Friday' appears to be losing ground to the postindustrial (post-Fordist?) symbol of the '24-hour society', with people working different days of the week and at different times of the day.
Debates over 'flexibilization' and the '24-hour society' tend to be very emotional. References are often made to the globalization process and to the changing lifestyles necessary to underwrite flexible time. Diversion from the '9 to 5' rhythm is further supported by the suggestion that, in The Netherlands, about half of the workforce is already accustomed to working evenings, nights and weekends, implying that the '24-hour' society is fast becoming a reality. Often it is maintained that an extension of work into evenings, nights and week-ends will provide workers with more freedom to choose their own working schedules. Flexibilization is thus equated with increasing control and reducing constraints.
The aim of this article is therefore to contribute to the debate on flexibilization and the 24-hour economy by testing two of the above claims empirically. First, it will be shown that the statement that half of the workforce is working evenings, nights and weekends is based on rather dubious statistics. Next, time-budget data are employed to question the equation of flexibilization with control over working time or time-sovereignty.
Scattered Work: Labour Force Data and Time-budgets
The data for this article are derived from research set up by the Dutch Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP).1 The SCP series comprises five national time-budget studies, performed since 1975 at five-year intervals, using the same format. Sample size is about 3000, except for 1975 when only 1370 people participated in the research. Respondents keep a pre-coded diary for one week, using the Szala! (1972) categorization of activities with 15-minute intervals. All diaries are collected in October. Information is gathered on the main activity, possible secondary activities, and the location of activities. Additionally, a one-hour questionnaire is completed to supplement the time-budget data.
Summarizing, it would seem that the time-period 1975-95 has not witnessed the advent of a 24-hour society. The bulk of paid work is still being performed from Monday to Friday between 6 am and 7 pm. Then again, half of the work-ing population is now tied up, at least to some extent, in scattered work, and their number is possibly on the rise. Some interesting changes (e.g., more work in the late afternoon, less in the early morning; a decrease in shiftwork against an increase in scattered work in the service sector) occurred either within, or outside, the existing categories of scattered work and work 'from 9 to 5 '.
Flexibilization and Polarization
The second aim of this article is to explore the degree to which the flexibiliza-tion process is beneficial to all members of society. Policy advisers maintain that flexibilization will increase people's control over their time. Diversification of working patterns are said to be in line with diversified lifestyles and house-hold situations, and would therefore be in concordance with people's demands.
The basic underlying assumption seems to be the very liberal notion of working times as an element of choice and free will. However, several authors have rejected the idea of equating flexibilization of working time with increased control or time-sovereignty (Nowotny, 1989; Adam, 1990; Elchardus, 1991; Garhammer, 1995).
In line with expectations, the higher educated report more control over their working times than the lower educated: 58% of the lower educated as opposed to 35% of the higher educated report hardly any control over their working hours. Of the highest educated, 29% do not have to report coming in late or leaving early (against 12% for the lower educated), while 20% of the highest educated are virtually autonomous in determining their working hours (against 10% for the lower educated; differences significant at p = 0.01 level). These results are in concordance with the existing empirical research on time-sovereignty (see Garhammer, 1995; Elchardus, 1996; and, more recently, Emmerink and Van Beek, 1997).
As regards gender, men report more freedom in determining their working hours than women: 49% of the men report at least some control over their working hours against 43% of women (p < 0.01). The differences are most acute at the highest levels of time-sovereignty. In general though, control over working time appears to be related more to levels of education than to gender.
Somewhat contrary to expectations, it was found that the negative relation-ship between flexibility and control holds true for the lower educated as well as for the higher educated. However; for the lower educated this relationship was somewhat stronger than for the higher educated. Apparently scattered work is, for the highest educated, less related to loss of control than it is for the lower educated. To put things differently: for the higher educated, scattering work holds more of an element of choice than for the lower educated. This, too, seems to point to the fact that scattered work has an altogether different meaning for the higher educated than for the lower educated.
Conclusions
Clearly, we do not live in a 24-hour society yet. Though one can spot hints of change (e.g., the growth of scattered workers, a: changing organization of scattered work, people starting and ending work later), life still seems structured around some well established rhythms. Neither did we find support for the 'flexibility equals control' thesis. Even though greater numbers of highly educated people are involved in scattered work than are lower educated people, the highly educated appear more capable of limiting the amount of scattered work. Moreover, they are more successful in avoiding nightwork; and are less likely to have to leave their house when work-ing scattered hours. In other words, they possess more control over their work-ing time.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário