The article author suggests that the Korean laws may not have gone far enough.
That's a really scary line of logic though. "We did a thing, and there was no effect. We propose that to obtain the desired effect we should do even more of the thing that had no effect."
That's undisprovable.
It's possible that doing the thing that produced no results even harder could have some positive effect, but the world is probably even more full of things that produced no results but if pushed harder will have negative effects. Part of being a real scientist is acknowledging that this can only be interpreted as evidence against the idea that forcing shorter work hours will make people happier, no matter how cognitively or emotionally challenging it is. That's being a scientist.
(To forstall the two obvious replies: Consider the difference between the words "evidence" and "proof". And once again, let me underline the scientific dangers in "We tested for X->Y and found no evidence for it, but we're still going to assert that X->Y." This logic doesn't just apply to "work hour reduction", it applies to all null results, of all kinds.)
Is it scary? I mean, if I go from getting no exercise to spending 30 seconds a day exercising, but see no change in my weight, should I therefore conclude that exercising is pointless? Or should I try exercising more and also maybe be more careful with my eating habits?
I think the scary thing is when people try to take complicated subjects and distill them down to shallow talking points.
Problem solving isn't such a simple operation. One must be careful with logic.
Real science, huh? A mild change in X did nothing, so you should assume a major change in X will do nothing?
Ever looked at a reaction graph?
Here in Switzerland (3rd in happiness) it is not unusual that people are employed only 3-4 days / week and still make enough money to live well. I don't know of any other country where this is commonplace.
(Full disclosure: If you're from the EU and looking for a tech-job over here, I'd be happy to help out).
My day off is awesome, and accounts for a lot of my happiness. And the happiness of my kids, I'm sure!
US may be the leading in economy, but we (Northern and Western Europe) are way ahead of you guys when it comes to a healthy work-life balance...
If one sorts "World Happiness Report" according to "change in happiness 2005-2007", the top countries are mostly from the second- or third-world with the exception of South Korea.
P.S. I'd love to live in Switzerland, being in the somewhat-neutral land where you're not that threatened by Russia or other things that might make your days miserable :|
Things are way cheaper than I thought, considering the salaries. As a Python entry-level developer who has to be pampered I make around 5000 Euro net-salary at a no-name SMB. I could make 10%-15% more at a bank doing Java.
The bottom-line is that I can save 4000,- Euro each month, because I spend only 1000 Euro on accommodation and food. In only one year, I will be able to buy a two-room apartment in a German town (where I like to hangout on weekends), without taking a mortgage...
How important is it to speak German?
Btw. Google-Maps was largely developed by Zooglers (Google's Zurich office). They call it also "the real mountain-view".
You might never use it, but the beauty is it's there if you want it.
(I recently did ~18 months of paperwork to get my Polish citizenship and passport. I've never been to Europe, and really don't know if I ever will. But 10 years from now if I want to move there, I can)
If you wont to make people happy, just introduce double pay for overtimes and really enforce it!
That said... Let's list several big ifs...
If... The last few marginal hours are more productive than hiring someone new.
And If... The economy is a zero-sum game. (For my company to make money, yours has to lose it)
And If... We can coordinate everyone in the world.
And If... We can enforce it.
Then doing something like putting a formal limit on hours makes sense. This is much more in line with a communist/socialist world-view.
When enforcement doesn't work rules are guidelines.
"While satisfaction with working hours increased, reductions had no impact on job and life satisfaction."
It seems people did actually like the reduced number of hours, they didn't say that they liked their job more, or found more satisfaction in their life. I feel like for most people a job is something you do to fund the things you really want to do.
I would love to see what worker satisfaction would be if their income was fixed, but they could choose whichever job they wanted. (aka. you'll always get paid the same amount of money regardless of what job you do).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman were among the first to investigate the hedonic treadmill in their 1978 study, “Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?”. Lottery winners and paraplegics were compared to a control group and as predicted, comparison (with past experiences and current communities) and habituation (to new circumstances) affected levels of happiness such that after the initial impact of the extremely positive or negative events, happiness levels typically went back to the average levels.
If things like winning the lottery or losing a limb tend to have short-term effects on happiness, then it's not surprising that a ~10% change in working hours has little effect. Especially if—as another poster mentioned—you just end up taking the work home.
It was noted that the Arab Spring was largely not the result of political discontent but the fact food prices were becoming very high [0]. It might be the case that unless the basic livelihood of people is consistently threatened - such as not being able to eat - that they will always put up with the political status quo.
As we're seeing now with the non-existent political reaction to mass surveillance.
Of course its also quite possible for participants to forget prior survey responses resulting in participants assigning same cardinal score to their happiness when surveyed in two different time periods, yet being able to unequivocally agree that their happiness (or indeed satisfaction with work) is a fair bit higher in period B than period A.
Too many companies (even startups) are conservatives and traditionalists in the sense of thinking that work needs to be done within certain hours and at a certain place, even when those are not drivers of the results.
I'm hired to deliver certain results, not to work a number of hours. If it takes me 10 hours or 40 hours to deliver those results, that's up to me, as long as the deadlines are hit and the deliverables are high-quality. And there's no reason to be in an office, unless the office is instrumental to achieving those results.
The focus on how many hours people should work is a fetish that reinforces a still-dominant 20th century office culture.
>If it takes me 10 hours or 40 hours to deliver those results, that's up to me, as long as the deadlines are hit and the deliverables are high-quality.
If you are able to consistently deliver the required results in only 10 hours of "work", it's clear that any organization will slowly ramp up the required results more and more until you are working 40 hours a week.
How would you agree on results that are "enough for the company" that won't grow endlessly when they see you're only working 10 hours a week?
They're paying me for the results. Not for the hours.
Thinking that they'll "ramp up the required results more and more until you are working 40 hours a week" means that you're still thinking that you're paying for hours.
Still, it's the responsibility of all employees to improve the process that they work in, just as part of the company's continuous improvement. Which means that more/better results will be delivered over time anyways.
How do you agree on results that are "enough for the company" when you hire a consultant (assuming they're an intelligent consultant and don't charge by the hour).
So even in a quite results-oriented workplace, with almost total freedom over my hours, I still often choose to go into the office for about six hours a day.
Take 2 people: one a talented auto mechanic, one is me (not mechanically talented). Give us both the task of changing all 4 tires on a car.
I take 8 hours. The mechanic takes 1. (Made up numbers, but you get the idea).
8 hours reflect my effort, sure. But you want the tires changed. If the mechanic finishes in 1 hour, great. That's what you're paying for — changed tires. Not hours.
Two generations ago, it was really at the rock bottom nation on the globe in terms of any ranking you can think of (poverty/violence/dictatorship/low-education/etc). Pick any poor nation in Asia/Africa and it was probably doing better than S Korea.
Remember these: History of Korean War, there's no much natural resource to sell off, with 3 powerful nations (who all have either invaded Korea in the past and view it as a potential target) nearby, with N Korea 30 miles from Seoul, AND (get this) no escape route over land in case of a military conflict (S Korea is pretty much an island now and you canNOT walk/drive to flee S Korea),
they better really really get their house in order to survive.
Younger S Korean sociologists/commentators lament about how the intense competition is driving people to commit suicides (yes tragic) but they forget many, many more people died/suffered from poverty/basic-medical-care not that long ago.
With all these in context, no wonder they work.
Btw, it's really really said for older S Korean that are passing these days. They really suffered hard lives and just when their older kids/grandkids are enjoying abundant lives, but they can't really enjoy as much due to age.
"Why might this be? Rudolf points out previous evidence that in the short term, capping hours often just means employees have to get the same work done in a shorter time, which is likely to be stress-inducing."
Many Korean businesses, big and small, routinely make employees work overtime without payment. Maybe we should ask the question after we do have an enforced limit.
There's not just uncompensated overtime, but you're also expected to join up when it comes to company retreats. So, not only do you give away 10+ hours every day to the company, but then you'll also be incorporated over the weekend, due to some company outing.
I also doubt that any imposed limit would actually be enforced or tolerated by the employer. The unpaid hours go directly into the prices, so some businesses wouldn't be able to compete anymore if they suddenly had to pay for that overtime.
The passion my friends put into their work is admirable and nothing short of impressive, but I can't help but notice that there's not much time left for family, or anything else besides work for that matter.
