Barcelona Metropolis

Working time has become a key issue on the public agenda, not just within the labour sector, influenced by the impact of digitalisation and remote working, among other factors. The control of working hours and the reduction of the working day, longstanding demands of the labour movement, are integral to a broader debate from a gender perspective. This debate addresses the distribution of the total workload and the emphasis on paid working time.

A socio-temporal organisation in transition

Few things affect people’s daily lives more than working hours. The way time is organised today is a legacy of industrial capitalism, which prioritises productive work hours. This structure dictates other social times and the value and prestige associated with them.

Women’s ongoing participation in the labour market, the ageing population and its associated care needs and changes in family structures, living arrangements, leisure activities and consumption habits (“24-hour cities”) are significant social changes. These, along with the rise of “atypical” paid employment and working hours, are putting a strain on the existing model. This model hinges on the supremacy and consistency of production time and the gendered division of labour, which relies on women’s domestic and caregiving responsibilities to secure men’s commitment and availability for work. However, remote working and telematic forms of control are blurring the clear separation between work and non-work times and spaces that this model relies on. Productive working time is becoming porous and is permeating all aspects of social and personal life.

Consequently, social schedules fall out of sync; more effort is needed to manage and fit in daily activities, particularly for women, and there’s an underlying unease that’s increasingly making working hours a matter that transcends the workplace.

Work-life balance policies

Women’s increased presence in the public sphere, especially in the workforce, has highlighted the conflict between work and time and the resulting gender inequalities. Work-life balance policies are one of the key responses to this issue. They aim to both motivate women to participate in the labour market and address the work-time conflict they face. These policies operate through two main mechanisms: the development of care services and paid working hours.

In terms of time, initial policies operated under the assumption that only women needed to balance their work and family responsibilities, primarily focusing on motherhood as the period requiring such balance. The main regulatory emphasis has been on maternity leave (and extended leave). A fundamental approach has been to promote female part-time work, enabling women to balance their dual compulsory roles without challenging the gendered division of labour or the importance of productive time. Critics of this model have underscored the concept of shared responsibility, pointing out that care work extends beyond maternity and childcare. They argue that the time dedicated to caregiving is often unpredictable or not easily adaptable to paid work schedules. In addition, they contend that part-time work exacerbates rather than alleviates inequality, as it often places women in less favourable conditions and reinforces gender disparities. Proposed solutions include redirecting policies to redistribute the overall workload, incorporating flexibility measures in paid working time to address the unpredictability of care work and bolstering the other aspect of work-life balance policies: care services.

Current formulations have garnered some attention, albeit insufficient, as demonstrated by the European Union’s latest directive in 2019.[1] This directive extends paternity leave, introduces a five-day annual care leave, and grants caregivers and/or those with children up to eight years old the right to request flexible working hours, among other provisions.

However, corporate policies on working hours, particularly the deregulation of working time and the erosion of standard working hours, create a complex scenario for work-life balance. One of the most appealing measures, employee autonomy in managing their time, has seen limited adoption, except in highly skilled roles. Other practices, like telecommuting or objective-based work, though still relatively uncommon, are emerging as potential new avenues for balancing work and personal life. The pandemic has highlighted the effects of some of these policies and their gender impact. It’s too early for a comprehensive assessment, yet it’s unclear whether the benefits (increased autonomy, reduced commuting time) outweigh the costs (reinforcing the gendered division of labour).

Present and future challenges

The enduring gender gap in working hours is clear: on average, across the EU-27, women work seven hours per week more than men (70 hours compared to 63 hours, respectively), encompassing both paid and unpaid work. Forty-four per cent of women’s total working time is devoted to domestic and caregiving responsibilities, compared to 29% for men. The presence of children widens this gap and amplifies the varying significance of each activity. The clearest example is part-time work. Women employed in part-time roles clock in as many total hours as men in full-time employment (64 and 65 hours, respectively), dedicating the equivalent of a full-time job (37 hours per week) to unpaid work. This gap impacts not only gender inequalities in employment (such as salaries, career progression and pensions) but also women’s ability to manage their working hours alongside other social commitments (personal discretionary time), as well as their health and overall quality of life.

The gender perspective has added depth to discussions about the social uses and cultural meanings of time, challenging the notion of working time as neutral and revealing the unequal gender impact of the current socio-temporal framework.

In terms of paid working time, Raquel Serrano[2] emphasises four areas of action: ensuring a guaranteed amount of working time and addressing its fragmentation, establishing predictability in work schedules, providing flexibility for workers in managing their time and integrating a gender perspective into the organisation of working hours. While some of these aspects are already being tackled, responses and approaches vary across countries. Nevertheless, there are few examples of initiatives that simultaneously address both key dimensions from a gender perspective: measures aimed at enhancing workers’ autonomy in time management and reducing the length of the working day.