Do the answers to questions such as the issues around worklessness, working from home, productivity and growing the economy lay significantly in the cultures and attitudes of people?
Currently one has the impression that most people think work gets in the way of a satisfying life: given that roughly we spend, or perhaps should spend, about a third of our days asleep, a third working (assuming we work) and a third not working or asleep, call that leisure. This view perhaps is seriously damaging. It is evidenced by the common approach of middle-aged people that retirement cannot come soon enough; the effort spent by lawmakers and so-called progressives on approaches to reduce work; the time spent by so many people working out how to avoid work or minimise it; and maybe there is a view that seeks more pay for less work.
Mark Twain said, “ Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life”. More recently Stuart Rose, a retail businessman who has held senior positions, was quoted in the Daily Telegraph, in an article about the tragedy of worklessness, as saying that people need to be taught that the workplace is “fun” and a place where they can learn new skills, rather than it being demonised. Would not most people say that if work was fun and they loved their job then they would be a lot happier, and indeed look forward to more work not less? Unfortunately, a lot of people hardly get to choose their job but take what they can get, and it is perhaps fair to say that a lot of workplaces are not fun. So, Mark Twain may be aspirational, and Stuart Rose may be deluded, but are the ideas they foster not ambitions the nation could foster. To be able to choose a job, a person needs skills and a positive mindset about contributing and wanting to achieve and perform their best, that is ambition. For work to be enjoyable, those who lead and create a work culture and environment need to care about their staff and positively seek to establish a motivational and teamed and committed culture, among other things. Is UK management up to the task?
THE EU AND THE UK – TIME TO FACE THE REAL WORLD
Have the EU and the UK become complacent, stuck in ways which, unless they change underlying assumptions and direction, doom these regions to an uphill Sisyphean battle against costs they cannot afford, leading to failed societies, where the bullies from the likes of Russia prevail? Too big and alarmist a question? The EU has just been shocked by the publication of the Draghi Report into European competitiveness. According to Matthew Syed in The Sunday Times, the report “shows how Europe has become weak and deluded in a dangerous world”. Draghi himself talks of a future of “slow agony”, without fundamental changes. A simple fact such as that in 2008 the collective economies of the Europe Zone were roughly equal to the USA: and by 2023 the USA is almost double the EU. European productivity has reduced, and Draghi says there is an investment gap of 800 billion Euro. He emphasises defence, innovation and energy priorities, where Europe is so dependent on others. It has a shrinking workforce; innovation is stifled by regulatory burdens; all the biggest tech companies in the free world are in the USA, none in Europe. His medicine for Europe is a lot of possibly unpalatable changes, which will antagonise established interests, institutions and national independencies.
The European malaise may be well exemplified by Germany and its attitude on defence. The third biggest economy in the world has relied on the USA for defence, as a freeloader. Its weakness has been unveiled by the war in Ukraine. It pays lip service to a target of spending say 2% of its GDP on defence (and it needs much more). Their hypocrisy and unreality are perhaps demonstrated by a German press report that the Berlin Government is considering including motorway and bridge repairs as defence spending because they are used to transport military vehicles! The point of defence spending is surely not to hit a number, but to ensure the country has the ability to defend itself! Satisfying an accountant will not keep Putin at bay. The defence ramp up is necessary across most EU countries. The attitude to date is one of disdain towards the USA, the world’s big benefactor, and superiority of enlightenment, which sadly has simply eaten away at prosperity, with people so commonly feeling they are entitled to the life they want in a dreamland that it can be provided by others.
In many respects, the Draghi report highlights or, on analysis, lays bare problems that beset the EU similar to those besetting the UK. Productivity, affected by numerous issues, is the big one, with underlying causes people don’t like to mention. When competing with big nations which do not play by the same rules, like Russia and more especially China, where labour is directed and controlled by the State, where human rights and freedoms are secondary to the wishes of the elite in power, free nations need to be constantly upping their game, adapting, with people at the heart of change all pulling in the same direction voluntarily. The USA, for all its faults, has adapted and hardly wavered in meeting change and challenges of a global nature. The Matthew Syed article observes “our forebears made sacrifices to bequeath their descendants a brighter future”. He cites how ever-expanding welfare isn’t progressive or enlightened but perhaps is the most pernicious form of social injustice: and he quotes Thomas Sowell on Western Europe “Not since the days of slavery have there been so many people who feel entitled to what others have produced”. People need to make big changes.
WORKING
In a civilised and humane society, it is surely right for the State or put another way those who are working hard and pay tax, should support those who are incapable of working and so of earning any money for themselves.The right level of financial support can be debated ad nauseam, but it clearly must be affordable and not demotivate those who pay for it. Also, is it not surely right that anybody who can do some work should do so, to contribute to their responsibility for themselves? In fact, is it not part of the social contract that we do work and so we contribute to the collective whole which in turn to some extent provides for certain needs. Even if a formal job of any sort is unavailable, what about voluntary work.
In the UK today there are some 9.3 million people of working age, 18-64, who are inactive, that is not working and not seeking work. The figure keeps climbing. The physically disabled can only do such work as their disability allows, and as much as possible should be done to create such work. The category of those who are deemed mentally unable to work is a more complex problem.
Although increased awareness and openness about mental conditions is a positive development, mental health has become a problematic modern obsession. Anxiety, worry, stress and strain are normal life experiences. When acknowledged and harnessed, they are positive drivers to make us achieve things. Sometimes they reach a level where they are disturbing, need to be endured and overcome, and kept in perspective. That may lead to needing support from family and friends. At the most extreme, they can be totally debilitating. The question is what degree of seriousness justifies a person foregoing their responsibility for self, becoming dependent on others and not doing any work for the long-term. It is obvious that the justification cannot be something for self-diagnosis, in effect what often happens today. It will also be surprising, other than for very extreme cases, if a course of drugs is a long-term solution or if the path to recovery involves festering at home and doing nothing.
Cannot most at least do some work in exchange for benefits? Voluntary, unpaid, work can be a great contributor to society, and research universally shows it is beneficial to the volunteer for satisfaction, stress reduction and confidence. That is, it helps cure self-diagnosed reasons for not going to work. Why is not voluntary work at least not advocated for many long-term sick people to satisfy and so help themselves and society?
Then there are State benefits. If you qualify for a Personal Independence Payment, you get substantially enhanced benefits, for example over and above unemployment benefit. Government estimated earlier this year that PIP was expected to rise 52% over the next 3 years to £32 billion by 27/28. Mental health claimants have risen nearly 10% since 2019 to 12,100 per month. Grounds include stress, inability to face work, anxiety and so on. The gatekeeper is the GP. Is the system being gamed as many suspect? That an increasing number of students graduate to become long term sick is very worrying. Getting people back to work is a priority but no proposals have yet emerged, the previous Government’s proposals to tighten up the system having been dropped. This issue of long-term sickness has to be solved if productivity is to be solved. That people are not going to work due to the agony work causes them, that means they are not enjoying work, the workplace is faulty and unsatisfying; maybe they need new skills, unless they simply see no real value in contribution to society. Work needs to be more attractive it seems, when the mindset is to avoid it: a task for UK management of businesses, both at the top leadership level and for anyone with managerial responsibility both in the private and the public sector such as the NHS and the Civil Service.
WORKING FROM HOME AND OTHER GOVERNMENT POLICIES
First, it is relevant to note that some 60% of the working population in the UK do a job which makes WFH impossible. WFH is mainly about office workers. The Government is emphasising that working from home makes people more productive and is encouraging it but produces no evidence. Also, it will enshrine in law the employee’s right to choose WFH unless it is impractical. The Business Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, espouses WFH in that he says that where employee and employer agree to flexible working, they are more productive and more resilient. But that is unlike the law he proposes, which does not reflect the agreement of the employer! They even suggest teachers should be able to work from home, other than to conduct teaching classes, which some senior teachers may say shows no understanding of education and schools. And within the Government’s own ranks views diverge: Rachel Reeves, says she expects her staff in the Treasury to attend at the workplace.
Flexible working is a great idea. The worker must be trusted and trustworthy not to abuse it. If they do home related things during working time, then they must make it up later out of hours. For the right sort of tasks, such as simply screen working without communication outside, and for the right person, WFH may be ideal. And flexible working to meet individual special needs is a great tool to keep good workers working and to solve conflicts between home and work.
But a blanket right to WFH is surely a recipe for disaster. It is notable that Government work philosophy and the policies of the likes of Amazon are at polar opposites. Amazon requires 5 days in the office. Increasingly many professions and other businesses are going that route. Is their experience to be taken into account or does the government minister know best? WFH may well be unsuitable for any person where personal skills are relevant, where teamwork is important, where learning from others is key to development, where relationships, such as with clients, matter or where on the job training is relevant. It is rumoured that some who work from home turn off the video on zoom type calls, presumably to be able to do other things; some, say in software development, run two full time WFH jobs, which is of course fraud or theft; some during working hours do non work things but don’t make up for it. These abusers, hopefully a minority, make WFH hard to apply across the board. The civil service who are public sector workers love WFH, but, it seems, are on average less productive than they used to be.
UK Government is determined to take workers’ rights back to pre -Thatcher days. They say this will improve productivity and that businesses have nothing to fear. Time will tell. But measures such as restricting employers from contacting employees out of hours look a mite too intrusive on business freedoms: tricky too for those who WFH, as their flexible non-work during working hours has to be compensated by work outside those hours?
WORK AS FUN: MANAGEMENT MUST SURELY IMPROVE
Undoubtedly some of the UK’s great businesses are run with high worker satisfaction, care for wellbeing, and are places people like working. But there are not enough of them. It is clear that too many people resent the workplace. There is something amiss with workplace culture and management. And a recent 2023 survey by the Chartered Management Institute provides insights into this reality.
They found: one third of people left work due to negative work culture; managers have a deep impact; 87% of workers entering management have no management or leadership training; only 27% of workers describe management as effective. The headline to the relevant press release reads “Bad managers and toxic work culture causing one in three staff to walk”. A good work culture does not bully, seeks to bring out the best in a person and their skills, trains people in soft skills as well as technical; values people, and does not see them as assets to be sweated; rewards performance properly is flexible to meet an individual’s circumstances and of course is fair to all; and ensures a sense of enjoyment and camaraderie. That sort of culture should not create excessive anxiety. It may be one where people want to work and take pride in their achievements, preferring it to a life in front of screens for entertainment in pyjamas under a duvet.
RENEWED RESPECT FOR WORK
People need to work. Arguably they have a duty to do so. People need pride in work. But do some feel entitled to sit at home, to receive subsidy, and slowly to let themselves atrophy becoming disinterested in the world around them and in making any contribution to it?
A cultural shift is required for much of management who need training, and for much of the populace who waste their education and see work as almost optional. In fact, the future of the UK depends on removing obstacles to work and in making the workplace a fun place to be, where people wake up in the morning wanting to be there , at least for a third of their time. Work is part of life and is therefore part of the privilege of life.
