Brittney East | Is the new work order the death of nine to five?

The Coronavirus pandemic has forced the world into one of the largest unintended social experiments in modern history. This ongoing experiment has tested the adaptability of businesses and their personnel to work remotely and adjust to more flexible work arrangements, while maintaining productivity. Social-distancing orders under the Disaster Risk Management Act (‘the Act’) compelled a shift in how business and work were conducted across the country.

Most, if not all, businesses had to adopt a survive-or-die mentality to ensure long-term sustainability, while remaining compliant with the said orders. The question that now plagues the minds of many is, whether these new remote and/or flexible work arrangements will, in fact, be the ‘new normal’.

To understand the present state of the eight-hour workday and its future, we need to have an appreciation of where the custom emerged from.

The adoption of the eight-hour workday was no small feat; it stemmed from the mid-19th-century post-industrial revolution, where adults and children were working up to 100 hours per week in the most abject working conditions.

Although trade unions emerged and lobbied for better working conditions, wages and benefits, they were not legalised until 1919, when the Trade Union Act was enacted; and even thereafter, those voices were not heard until the 1938 labour rebellion. After several riots and protests which resulted in bloodshed and death, the 10-hour workday was adopted and shortly thereafter, the eight-hour workday emerged.

The argument which was put forward for an eight-hour workday by one of the most influential early-19th-century proponents for improved working conditions, Robert Owen, was that “eight hours’ labour, eight hours’ recreation, eight hours’ rest” would result in increased productivity. By applying this principle, he attained unprecedented business success. However, this principle which was adopted out of necessity to quell erupting socio-economic unrest 200 years ago may no longer hold true today.

As technology advances and we evolve as a people, our needs, wants and values change. Technology aims to make our lives easier, more efficient and more productive; and bearing this in mind, the current and upcoming generation of workers now value work-life balance above all else. This is where one equally prioritises their professional and personal life, while oftentimes separating the two. A prevailing school of thought is the principle of working smarter, not harder.

WORK-LIFE BALANCE

A recent poll conducted by Amazon on its LinkedIn page involving 55,484 participants worldwide, age 16 years and older, revealed that 36 per cent of people viewed work-life balance as most important to them when evaluating an employer, 30 per cent of people mostly value interesting work, 24 per cent mostly value compensation and benefits, and 10 per cent mostly value flexibility.

The nine-to-five custom does not allow employees to spend time with their families and enjoy activities outside of work. However, this may primarily be because of the belief that work-life balance should be earned and not given as of right.

Countries such as Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, Netherlands, and Switzerland, on the other hand, have embedded flexible working into their working culture They are also among the top 10 happiest, most productive, and richest countries in the world. They have presented a compelling case to support the argument that working longer hours confined in a traditional office does not necessarily result in increased productivity. There is an emergent school of thought that happiness breeds productivity, and work-life balance and flexibility are two key indicators of happiness. Conversely, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, long work hours may impair personal health, jeopardise safety, and increase stress.

The nine-to-five custom also fails to take into consideration each individual’s productive peak. It presupposes that every employee is most productive from nine to five and are able to remain focused for eight hours on end with, at most, an hour’s break. A 2016 study conducted by Latvian software company the Draugiem Group found that individuals are most productive when they work for periods of 52 minutes, followed by 17 minutes of rest. For roughly an hour at a time, people who maintained this schedule were 100 per cent dedicated to the task at hand.

Finland’s recently amended Working Hours Act may serve as a model for countries that desire to implement changes to their working culture. Finland’s act gives the majority of full-time employees the right to decide when and where they work for at least half of their working hours. The argument for these changes stems from the advancement in technology which makes it possible to work remotely in the same way as in a traditional office.

Although Jamaica enacted the Employment (Flexible Work Arrangements) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act in 2014, neither public nor private organisations took advantage of it until the pandemic.

Benefits in support of the flexi-work arrangement include:

• Access to a larger pool top talent nationwide and globally;

• Reduced transportation cost;

• Reduction in traffic;

• Increased productivity;

• Decreased absenteeism and lateness;

• Reduction in carbon emission;

• Increased work-life balance;

• Happier labour force;

• Increased employee loyalty;

• Reduced overhead costs.

MOVING FORWARD

The results of this ongoing experiment are still being collated as we integrate back into society and its ‘normal’ routine. It is yet to be determined whether now that we are at the end of the work-from-home order, local businesses will report a decreased, increased or unchanged level of productivity.

What is strikingly apparent from the data is that the countries that have successfully implemented flexible work arrangements are resource-rich developed countries, whereas Jamaica, a resource-strapped developing country, has very few businesses with the means to do so.

The concerns of many employers when considering implementing permanent flexible work arrangements include the reliability and trustworthiness of employees; the ability of employees to be productive in the absence of continuous physical supervision; and the different costs associated with implementing the new arrangements.

Evidently, not all businesses and job functions will be able to adopt these flexible work arrangements, and as such, each business will need to do its own assessment on how tenable such arrangements are to them. However, in conducting its assessment, employers need to abandon the antiquated ‘bakra master’ culture which engenders the view that employees are unable to work effectively without the micromanagement of their superiors. There is a flawed perception that if employees are not under the microscope of his or her superiors in an office, the work will not get done.

The arguments in support of the effectiveness of these arrangements are undeniable. However, its success requires strategic and adept leaders within companies, and dedicated and organised employees. This starts from the hiring stage of employment. Performing a proper assessment of potential employees and ensuring they would be the right fit for such an arrangement is essential.

Companies will need to be more intentional about hiring capable, self-motivated employees with the relevant soft skills and employing consistent training to improve on these skills. Managers and supervisors within the organisation will be required to communicate effectively: clearly articulate to each employee their assigned tasks, set clear deadlines, and determine the level of priority for each task, all while macro managing. Conversely, employees must hold themselves accountable for the completion of tasks within the stipulated timeframe and be more intentional about communicating effectively as well.

Even if companies are not prepared to adopt a pure flexible work arrangement such as absolute remote work, there are other hybrid options that may be considered; these include:

1 Remote work: Working off-site for a select number of days per week and on-site for the remaining days.

2 Flexitime: Employees will work the same number of hours per day or week, but has the flexibility to choose their start and end times.

3 Compressed workweek: Employees work full-time hours in less than a five-day workweek.

4 Job share: A form of regular part-time work where two people share the responsibilities of one position by splitting the hours and responsibilities, either evenly (each do two and a half days per week) or unevenly (one might work two days per week, the other three days per week).

5 Reduced hours: Reduced work hours decrease the current hours worked to a less-than-full-time position. This may affect pay and benefits.

Each of these come with its own advantages and disadvantages, and as such, it is for the employer to determine which arrangement best suits them.

However, Jamaica is often seen as crippled by delay and stagnation in adapting to the modern way of doing things; some may attribute this as being a direct symptom of ‘island time’ or to the country being a resource-strapped, developing country. Regardless of the reason, the pandemic has proved that we are more than capable of adapting to a crisis and that when truly motivated, we can implement the necessary systems, technological or otherwise, to ensure social and economic continuity. Some obvious examples are the wide-scale use of online videoconference platforms, the shift towards online banking, virtual classrooms, and work-from-home arrangements.

This pandemic provided an opportunity for businesses to re-evaluate their current work culture and consider the implementation of flexible work policies for those employees whose jobs may be performed remotely and that are not essential to the day-to-day operations of the business.

Brittney East is an associate at RamsaySmith, attorneys-at-Law and a director of the corporate compliance company, Corvid Limited. Send feedback to east@ramsaysmithjm.com.