Working Hours and Political Scandal

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Addison Ming on September 25, 2009 at 12:21pm

Workloads are really about personal choice. If you genuinely want to 'make it to the top', you will need to work significantly more than standard hours, and make personal sacrifices. This is simply because there are otjers out there who are willing to do so, and these are the people you will be competing with.

Realistically, senior professionals manage their own workloads (in both private and public sector organisations). If someone doesn't want to do 60+ hour weeks, then being a very senior executive isn't for them.

This isn't a commentary on whether such working hours and conditions are fair or healthy, simply a reflection on the realities of the working lives of senior professionals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Jones on September 25, 2009 at 3:24pm

Addison

The reality you identify is that career progression is achieved through a work/life imbalance. There is considerable discussion on the issues of mental health in workplaces, stress levels in the public service, etc. The Comcare Conference this week has been full of discussion and action on the issues.

Can the relationship be broken? Can one achieve a high corporate or executive level while maintaining a healthy balance of work, life and family?

Kevin Jones

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leslie Henley on January 18, 2010 at 10:19am

Kevin,

I'm of the opinion that this imbalance relationship can NOT be broken due to the primary motivation factor being 'maximum gain for minimum expenditure' for both public and private sector businesses.

We live in a capitalist, market driven economy and the labour market is no different to product & service markets. There will always be someone willing to 'undercut' in order to maximise their own gain.
Eg: A person with no or few responsibilities is freer to work more hours to advance themselves and maximise their gain, whilst a 'family man' needs to work to maintain or increase his income in order to support his family hence he needs to compete with the other.

It is this need that employers exploit to maximinse their gains whilst minimising their expenditure on salaries.

Les Henley

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Jones on January 18, 2010 at 11:58am

Leslie

Curiously your post occurred around the same time that Victorian politician Lynne Kosky resigns to look after an ill-relative.

I think there can be an economic model of benevolent or humanist capitalism and I was eagerly watching for its emergence after the global financial crisis but.........

Somewhere, out there is a company that genuinely treasures the safety of its employees and the related community and relationship links. At the moment these values exist in a minority of genuinely enlightened executives. It is a long way from seeing a whole corporation operate to these ideals.

However, if anyone can nominate a company they think genuinely values the safety of their staff perhaps to the detriment of profit. Please let me know and I will investigate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leslie Henley on January 18, 2010 at 12:36pm

Kevin,

I call myself a realist, though some may consider me a cynic. Speaking generally, I believe human concern for others is overwhelmed by one or other of the two extremes: greed or apathy. This can be observed in the business worlds of the two extremes of Western Capitalism vs Russian Communism (now defunct).

It takes a really special individual to find the middle ground of compassion for fellow man.

I agree there are a few individuals who exhibit real concern for others (I believe myself to be one up to a point) - these people, again in general, are more likely to work for care/aid agencies (healthcare, charitable organisations, etc) than in business. If they do work in business, they are eventually beaten down by the greed or apathy of others. I believe this is where we find many of our OHS colleagues - caring (or trying to) for people in the business world.

In the care/aid environment work/life balance is again affected to the extent that the individual obtains (according to their personal perception) maximum gain for minimum expense - increased effort doesn't always result in increased improvement in the human condition.

And care/aid work can be even more thankless than business. This, along with already low pay, takes a special human to withstand greed and apathy for any length of time. Although a few special individuals may obtain higher gain, in the form of fame (eg Fred Hollows) or from a higher calling (eg Mother Theresa), and this enables them to go on longer against the odds.

And we even see the effects of capitalism on our health care system (hospital workers) that demands consistently higher workloads and less rewards for medical and nursing staff. In this context, affecting work/life balance when stress, arising from concern for patients, outweighs concern for self and they bend until they break or become demoralised, give up and leave the system.

Sorry, I'm not holding my breath while we find a business that "genuinely values the safety of their staff perhaps to the detriment of profit".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Jones on January 18, 2010 at 12:45pm

Leslie

It sounds like you are describing an "evolutionary careerism" (trademark pending on that jargon) where those who are willing to risk their health and welfare will "succeed in business", ie. live long enough to enjoy their wealth. :)

I think you are right in describing the OHS values that exist in the health care sector as being more supportive, at least at the lower management levels.

It would be interesting to undertake an assessment of the upcoming Australia Day award winners to see what are their dominant values.

Kevin

• ▶ Reply