March 27, 2011

This just in: Work gets in the way of the rest of your life

• 3 Comments |
• E-mail |
• Print
• • Share:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

I'm not a parent, but I have many friends, family, and colleagues who are. I hope that qualifies me as enough of a parenting ally to comment on what has begun to strike me as an irksome trend: the numerous polls and studies reminding us just how much work interferes with family life.

Last month, a study by researchers at American University, Cornell University, and the University of Chicago found that the more mothers worked over time, the heavier their kids became.

Earlier this month, another study found that working moms tend to feel "guilty" and "distressed" when called, pinged, or texted by the office while they're home with their family, even when they're doing a bang-up job of juggling the two. (According to the study, men don't suffer from the same affliction.)

Now a new survey commissioned by Care.com, a site that connects families with babysitters and other caregivers, tells us that a majority of working parents polled (62 percent of 600, to be exact) said that balancing work and family life has left them "too stressed" to hit the gym, give a friend a call, or have sex with their significant other. (Too bad, because it's repeatedly been proven that at least two of the three can help reduce stress.)

Paging researchers and pollsters: The fact that some aspects of a person's home life get short shrift when they have a job is not news. Likewise for the notion that at some point, most workers pine for a tad more time away from the office (even us non-parents, but I guess researchers have yet to find that demographic as interesting).

Thing is, if you don't work, you don't eat. And as we all know, not having a paycheck leads to its own set of stressors, ones I'm willing to bet that people living on food stamps or losing their home would gladly trade for such comparatively quaint complaints as not having enough energy to lift weights or show your sweetie a little extra affection.

Maybe I'm just cranky and in need of a day off myself. But unless researchers and pollsters want to offer weary workers a better way to pay their bills, I'm not sure how much use many of these work-life balance studies and surveys are.

Michelle Goodman is the author of "My So-Called Freelance Life" and "The Anti 9-to-5 Guide." E-mail Michelle at mgoodman@nwjobs.com

• 3 Comments |
• E-mail |
• Print
• • Share:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Read more
work/life balance, working parents

3 Comments

najwa on March 30, 2011 8:10 AM | Reply

brilliant post. huge issue, thank you for talking about it. no one can do it all and be happy.

shari storm on March 30, 2011 11:46 AM | Reply

I totally agree with you that infringement on family time is no new topic.

However, it feels like the advent of mobile devices has made that encroachment even more aggressive. I've had people get annoyed with me when they send me a work email at 5 pm and I don't respond before 8 am the next morning.

There are also studies that have shown that the workers left after a layoff are doing far more work than ever before. How long can two people do the job of three? And maybe, just maybe, if we complain loud enough, our employers will hire that third person.

Those of us with jobs should be grateful, no doubt. But is there any harm in a collective effort to continue to try to make life better for ourselves and our families?

Michelle - I've been a fan of yours for a long time. I read your Seattle Times Sunday column every, well, Sunday. I like your writing. You are one sharp cookie. Thank you and keep up the good work.

P.S. If you ever become a parent, I hope you revisit this post and maybe write a follow up. I'm curious to see if your perspective would change.

jason on March 30, 2011 7:47 PM | Reply

The seemingly obvious solution is to alter the definition of a 'full-time' job to mean, say, 32 hours per week - we have a high unemployment rate, yet those who do have jobs are largely overworked (well, perhaps 'overclocked' is a better term). People are so up-in-arms over spreading the wealth, so why not "spread the work?" Unfortunately, that would also result in the lower class sinking a little lower as they lose 20% of their pay.

So, a less direct variation of this solution is to offer full-time benefits to part-time employees. Of course, there would have to be some government incentive for employers to do this - the bottom line has to be the same if they hire all part-time employees, all full-time, or any combination, yet offer full-time benefits to all. If it isn't, they won't go for it - they don't mean to overwork anyone while leaving others unemployed, but the money!

It isn't giving taxpayer money directly to unemployed people in exchange for nothing (because there is nothing for them to do for money). Instead, it's giving taxpayer money directly to businessmen in exchange for nothing (because there is nothing they want to do, except have more money). So, it's capitalism instead of socialism, thus this idea stands a chance of surviving the corporate media gauntlet.

Leave a comment

* required field

Your name: *

E-mail address: (Will not be displayed)

Your comment: *

Captcha:

Type the characters you see in the picture above.