As Ed Weick points out, the job creation potential of redistributing
overtime hours is limited. Advocates of redistributing work have long
acknowledged this fact. Estimates of creation potential routinely take into
account skill differentials, regional dispersion, non-divisibility of
operations etc., etc., etc. The "myth" that overtime hours can be converted
into new jobs at a ratio of one new job for every forty hours of overtime is
NOT a stock feature of the shorter work time advocate's bag of tricks.
The equivalence myth is a straw man, as is the "lump of labour" argument
that there is only a given amount of work to be done. What I find
objectionable about the Statistics Canada study is that it purports to
"dispell a myth" that doesn't really exist and to "correct" that myth by
presenting a preposterous exaggeration.
Technically the argument is not about whether the job creation potential
(given the 1995 numbers) is 169,000 jobs or 10,000 jobs. It's about whether
there's a potential for 30-50,000 jobs or for 10,000 jobs. The 30,000 figure
is a conservative estimate. Ten thousand is a game of statistical limbo --
"how low can you go?" While such a calculation may be useful for
establishing an absolute minimum potential for job creation, it is presented
in the statscan study as an estimate of the absolute maximum.
But ethically, the statscan study is worse. It upholds a doctrine that says
that full-time employed people should have "first choice" about their hours
of work WITHOUT REGARD to that choice's effect on job opportunities for
other people. In other words, the "potential for job creation" is limited
only to the leftovers that no one who is already at the table wants. And
it's not even to be suggested to the diners that there may be others who
would be grateful for the scraps.
It is not good social science or policy to replace one myth with another. It
is even worse to set up and knock down a straw man in order to pave the way
for creating a new myth.
I hate to digress, but there's another feature of the "non-transferable
hours" argument that pisses me off. As in the statscan study, comparisons
are inevitably given between the skill levels of the overwork and those of
the unemployed. It is said that it would be hard to "match" new jobs to old
overtime hours. This is total BULL.
A skills match needn't be directly between overworked employees and the
unemployed. There is an army of people in between. These include people with
professional qualifications working on-call or on short term contracts.
Hundreds of thousands of people are employed at jobs that don't require
their full skills. There are even people who would just welcome a change of
scenery if the job market were a bit more fluid. But the point is, there are
no employees with "unmatchable skills". The myth of the skills mismatch
between the overworked and the unemployed is a way of saying "we're not in
the business of solving problems, we're in the business of telling you
there's no solution to the problem and maybe even suggesting to you that
there's not even any problem, it's all in your head."
There's a problem, alright.
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 688-8296
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
