How much should we work? - University of South Australia

The Australian Work and Life Index 2010
How much
should we work?
Working hours, holidays
and working life: the
participation challenge
Barbara Pocock, Natalie Skinner
and Sandra Pisaniello
University of South Australia
unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/cwl
The Australian Work and Life Index 2010
How much
should we work?
Working hours, holidays
and working life: the
participation challenge
AWALI
Barbara Pocock, Natalie Skinner
and Sandra Pisaniello
CENTRE FOR WORK + LIFE
University of South Australia
unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/cwl
INDUSTRY PARTNERS:
© July 2010
Published by the Centre for Work + Life
University of South Australia
http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/cwl/default.asp
STREET ADDRESS
St Bernards Road
Magill SA 5072
Adelaide
POSTAL ADDRESS
GPO Box 2471
Adelaide, SA 5001 Australia
Authors: Barbara Pocock, Natalie Skinner and Sandra Pisaniello
Title: How much should we work: Working hours, holidays and working life: the participation challenge. The
Australian Work and Life Index 2010.
ISBN 978-0-9803799-2-1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
AWALI 2010 was funded through an Australian Research Council Linkage grant in partnership with the
South Australian (through SafeWork SA) and Western Australian Governments (through the State
Department of Health).
We thank Dr Josh Healy (National Institue of Labour Studies, Flinders University) and Dr Josh Fear (The Australia
Institute) for their comments on the draft report. Of course, responsibility for the final text rests with the authors.
1
Contents
Tables……………………………………………. ...................................................................................................................... ii
Figures……………………………………………. ................................................................................................................... iii
Executive summary ........................................ ……………………………………………………………………………1
Section 1: Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Conceptualising work-life interference................................................................................................................................ 12
What AWALI measures ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
The work-life index ................................................................................................................................................................. 14
The AWALI 2010 sample and methodology ..................................................................................................................... 14
What we know from previous AWALI surveys ................................................................................................................ 16
Structure of this report ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
Section 2: The AWALI 2010 sample .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Section 3: Work-life interference: a gendered analysis................................................................................................................. 20
Work-life interference in 2010: Analysis of individual work-life index items .............................................................. 20
Australians’ work-life interference from 2007 to 2010 ..................................................................................................... 28
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Section 4: Working hours and the fit between actual and preferred hours ............................................................................. 32
Employees’ work hours – shorter and longer part-time and full-time hours ............................................................... 32
A 34 hour week? What workers want .................................................................................................................................. 35
The gap between actual and preferred hours ..................................................................................................................... 36
Full-time workers’ preferences: Gender matters .............................................................................................................. 38
Parenting responsibilities and work hours: Fathers work more than they would prefer ........................................... 39
Household composition and work hours ........................................................................................................................... 39
Work-life interference and hours ‘fit’ .................................................................................................................................. 41
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Section 5: Work-life interference: generation, parenting, income and location ...................................................................... 44
Generation and work-life interference across the life course .......................................................................................... 44
Parenting responsibilities ....................................................................................................................................................... 48
Household composition ......................................................................................................................................................... 49
Household income .................................................................................................................................................................. 50
Geographic location ............................................................................................................................................................... 51
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Section 6: Employment characteristics and work-life interference ........................................................................................... 54
Type of employment contract............................................................................................................................................... 54
Self-employment...................................................................................................................................................................... 54
Occupation ............................................................................................................................................................................... 57
Industry ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 58
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................... 59
Section 7: Take leave! Holidays and work-life interference in Australia .................................................................................. 61
Full-time employees’ reasons for not taking full paid leave entitlements .................................................................... 63
Full-time employees’ compensation for unused paid leave ............................................................................................ 64
Full-time employees’ preferences for more money or more holidays ........................................................................... 65
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
References............................................................................................................................................................................................ 67
i
Tables
Table 1 Overview of the AWALI 2010 sample (per cent) ....................................................................................................... 18
Table 2 Household demographics of the AWALI sample, 2010 (per cent) ......................................................................... 19
Table 3 Work-life interference by gender, AWALI 2010 (per cent) ...................................................................................... 20
Table 4 Satisfaction with work-life balance by work hours, AWALI 2010 .......................................................................... 34
Table 5 Actual and preferred work hours by part-time/full-time work status and gender, AWALI 2010 ..................... 35
Table 6 Work hours mismatch (average and per cent) by gender, AWALI 2007 - 2010 ................................................... 36
Table 7 Actual and preferred work hours by household type and gender, AWALI 2010 ................................................. 40
Table 8 Actual and preferred work hours by generation and gender, AWALI 2009 & 2010 ........................................... 45
Table 9 Work hours and work-life index scores by gender, AWALI 2010 .......................................................................... 49
Table 10 Work-life index scores and work hours by household income, AWALI 2010 ................................................... 51
Table 11 Work-life index scores by geographic location, AWALI 2008, 2009 & 2010 ..................................................... 51
Table 12 Work-life index scores of rural/regional and urban employees by gender and parenting status, AWALI
2010 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 13 Work hours and work-life index scores of employees and self-employed workers by gender, AWALI 2010
................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Table 14 Work hours and work-life index scores of employees and self-employed workers by gender, AWALI 2010
................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Table 15 Work-life index scores unadjusted and adjusted for work hours by industry (from highest to lowest
adjusted score), AWALI 2009 and 2010 (combined) ...................................................................................................... 59
Table 16 Used all paid leave in 2009 by gender, age and parenting status, AWALI 2010 and The Australia Institute
TAI 2002 (per cent) ............................................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 17 Used all paid leave in 2009 by gender, work hours, employment contract and occupation, AWALI 2010
(per cent) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 63
Table 18 Uptake of paid leave and work-life index scores by gender, AWALI 2010 ......................................................... 63
Table 19 Full-time employees’ reasons for not taking full leave entitlement by gender, AWALI 2010 and TAI 2002
(per cent) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 64
Table 20 Full-time employees’ reason for not taking full leave entitlement by work hours, employment contract and
occupation, AWALI 2010 (per cent) .................................................................................................................................. 64
Table 21 Full-time employees compensated for unused leave in 2009 by work hours, employment contract,
occupation and gender, AWALI 2010 (per cent) ............................................................................................................. 65
Table 22 Full-time employees preference for pay rise or additional two weeks paid leave by gender, age and
parenting status, AWALI 2010 and TAI 2002 (per cent) ............................................................................................... 65
Table 23 Full-time employees preference for pay rise or additional two weeks paid leave by gender, age and
parenting status, AWALI 2010 ............................................................................................................................................ 66
ii
Figures
Figure 1 Labour force participation rate 1986 – 2010 .............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 2 Index of GDP to hours worked and index of unit labour costs, 1986-2009 (2007=100) ................................. 10
Figure 3 A model of the main factors shaping work-life interference, and their components ......................................... 12
Figure 4 Conceptual Approach: A Work, Home and Community Socio-ecosystem ......................................................... 13
Figure 5 Work interferes with activities outside work reported by full-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 –
2010 (per cent) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 6 Work interferes with activities outside work reported by part-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 –
2010 (per cent) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 7 Work restricts time with family/friends reported by full-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 – 2010
(per cent) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 8 Work restricts time with family/friends reported by part-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 – 2010
(per cent) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 9 Work interferes with community connections reported by full-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 2010 (per cent) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 10 Work interferes with community connections reported by part-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 2010 (per cent) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 11 Feeling rushed or pressed for time reported by full-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 - 2010 (per
cent) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 12 Feeling rushed or pressed for time reported by part-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 - 2010 (per
cent) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 13 Satisfaction with work-life balance reported by full-time employees by gender, AWALI 2008 – 2010 (per
cent) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 14 Satisfaction with work-life balance reported by part-time employees by gender, AWALI 2008 – 2010 (per
cent) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 15 Work-life index scores (unadjusted and adjusted for work hours) for all employees, AWALI 2007-2010
(per cent) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 16 Work-life index scores (unadjusted and adjusted for work hours) for all employees by gender, AWALI
2007 - 2010 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 17 Work–life index scores for full-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 - 2010 ............................................ 30
Figure 18 Work–life index scores for part-time employees by gender, AWALI 2008, 2009 & 2010 .............................. 30
Figure 19 Short and long work hours by gender, AWALI 2010 and Australia 2010 (per cent) ....................................... 33
Figure 20 Work-life index scores by short and long work hours and gender, AWALI 2010 ............................................ 34
Figure 21 Work hours fit with preferences by gender, AWALI 2010 (per cent) ................................................................. 37
Figure 22 Work hours fit with preferences by gender and work hours, AWALI 2010 (per cent) ................................... 37
Figure 23 Work hours fit with preferences by gender and family structure, AWALI 2010 (per cent) ............................ 41
Figure 24 Work-life index scores by work hours fit, AWALI 2010 ....................................................................................... 41
Figure 25 Work hours fit with preferences by generation, AWALI 2009 & 2010 (per cent) ............................................ 46
Figure 26 Work hours fit with preferences by generation and gender, AWALI 2009 & 2010 (per cent) ....................... 46
Figure 27 Work-life index scores by generation and gender, AWALI 2009 & 2010 .......................................................... 47
Figure 28 Part-time and full-time work hours by generation and gender, AWALI 2009 & 2010 (per cent).................. 48
Figure 29 Work-life index scores by work hours, generation and gender, AWALI 2009 & 2010 ................................... 48
Figure 30 Work-life index scores by household structure and gender, AWALI 2010 ........................................................ 50
Figure 31 Work-life index scores by occupation and gender, AWALI 2010 ....................................................................... 58
iii
Executive summary
What is AWALI?
The Australian Work and Life Index (AWALI) measures how work affects the rest of life for
employed Australians. It measures how often work interferes with responsibilities or activities
outside work, how often it restricts time with family or friends, how often it affects connections
and friendships in the local community, overall satisfaction with work-life ‘balance’, and how
often people feel rushed and pressed for time. The AWALI index brings together these five
measures and scales them from 0 (the lowest work-life interference) to 100 (the highest work-life
interference). In AWALI 2010, the national AWALI score was 43.0, very close to the previous
three years.
The context
The AWALI 2010 survey was conducted in March 2010. It is published against the background
of several significant long-term trends.

Firstly, participation in paid work has been increasing steadily (especially amongst women
who are also investing more in their qualifications). This participation includes many – over a
quarter of full-timers – who are working 48 hours or more a week.

Secondly, more paid work is being undertaken out of dual-earner and sole parent homes,
leaving many workers pressed for time – especially women who continue to do two-thirds of
all unpaid work and care.

Thirdly, despite the 2008/09 international economic downturn, Australian GDP has
continued the relatively robust growth of the past decade. However, there has been a
redistribution of GDP from wages to profits: the profit share of GDP is now at a record
level in Australia, in part reflecting falling unit labour cost and rising employee productivity.
Many households are giving more to paid work, while taking home a declining share of its
rewards.

Finally, the age profile of the workforce is changing, with a much older workforce likely in
the near future. This is generating a strong public policy push to increase employment rates,
the span of working life into old age, and increase the hours of part-timers (including many
women and mothers).
This background makes the issue of sustainable engagement in paid work over the life-cycle an
important issue. How does the objective of increasing participation in paid work mesh with
people’s preferences and current working arrangements? And how does the long term increase in
the rate of participation in paid work – in the context of a declining wages share, a rising profit
share, and a sense of overload amongst many – shape the prospects for future increases in labour
participation in Australia in the context of an ageing population?
Economic slowdown, what slowdown?
The economic slow-down in Australia has not been associated with less work-life interference
despite a seven per cent fall in aggregate hours worked between 2008 and 2009. Instead work-life
interference has stayed fairly steady. Unfortunately, negative work-life interference appears to be
recession-proof.
1
What is unchanging?
Over the past four years AWALI has canvassed through four national surveys the views of
almost 10,000 workers about their work-life situation, resulting in some very consistent findings.
Daily life is very busy for many workers and time strains and pressures are common:

The majority of women – 60 per cent – feel consistently time pressured, and nearly half of men also feel this
way: The ‘barbecue-stopper’ of 2001, as John Howard termed it, has not diminished in recent
years. Indeed, some groups appear to be showing signs of increased stress, especially women
in full-time work and working mothers;

Negative work-life effects are widespread: The majority of working Australians say that work – for
all its benefits – has negative effects on the rest of life, creating strain and restricting time
they have for themselves, families and friends, and communities. Many of those affected are
not parents. More than half of all workers find that work interferes with their activities
beyond work and feel often or almost always rushed and pressed for time;

Managerial and professional workers are especially negatively affected with poor work-life scores and long
hours of work: These are the leaders who set the terms of working life for others. Their
pressured working lives do not augur well for the changes in workplace cultures and
supervision and leadership that research shows are very important factors associated with
good work-life outcomes;

Professional women are especially hard-hit: Women in professional occupations have worse worklife interference than their male colleagues, regardless of whether differences in work hours
are statistically controlled or not. This is an important finding in view of the growing
proportion of women who are graduating with professional qualifications. Many will
experience worse work-life outcomes than male colleagues, even when their hours are similar;

Workers in service industries have worse work-life interference: Workers in industries like health,
education, retail, food and accommodation have worse work-life interference, statistically
controlling for differences in work hours. When differences in work hours are not controlled
for, then construction and mining - two industries well known for long work hours - are
associated with worst work-life outcomes;

There is no evidence that self-employment enables a better work-life relationship than being employed: Selfemployment is associated with longer work hours for those in full-time work and for fathers.
This translates into worse work-life interference for full-time, self-employed workers
compared to their employee counterparts;

Casual work does not, as is sometimes assumed, help workers better reconcile work and care: Casuals work
shorter hours than other workers. Statistically controlling for this difference, there is no
evidence that casual work provides any work-life benefits;

Many workers do not work the hours they would prefer: Just over half of all workers worked more
than half a day (4+ hours) more or less than they would prefer taking account of the effect
on their income. Most would like to work less. Working more than preferred is associated
with much worse work-life interference – almost as much as working 48+ hours;

A third of women working full-time would like to work less: This is despite the large proportion of
working women – almost half – who already do;

Many fathers want to work less: Almost half of all fathers living in couple households work more
than they would prefer.
2
Work-life scores by hours of work and gender, AWALI 2010
100
90
Work-life index
80
70
60
50
40
57.1
53.3
30.2
35.3
40.8
40.6
54.1
45
34.8
33.4
39
42.3
Short PT 1-15 hrs
Long PT 16-34hrs
FT 35-47 hrs
30
Long FT 48+ hrs
20
10
0
Men
Women
All

Workers who work long hours are especially negatively affected: As the figure above shows, the worst
work-life scores are experienced by those who work long hours (48+). Almost three-quarters
of those working these hours would like to work less, taking account of the effect this would
have on their pay packets;

Men have worse work-life outcomes than women: This reflects their longer hours. When we allow for
differences in hours, women fare worse than men when they work long part-time hours or
34-47 hours;

Working parents have worse work-life interference: This is especially the case for mothers
(controlling for differences in work hours). However, many workers without children are also
affected by work-life interference;

Part-time work helps, but not as much as might be expected: Part time hours help men much more
than women, as the latter try to meet expectations both at home and at work. Women
working part-time are more likely to experience frequent time pressure than full-time men;

Geographic location does not affect work-life interference: Where workers live – whether in a city, rural
or regional location – has little effect. Factors like hours of work and the nature of the job are
much more influential. However, compared to fathers, mothers in rural/regional areas are
particularly susceptible to work-life strains, a result that is consistent in 2009 and 2010 and
deserves further investigation;

Poor work-life outcomes cost society: While the majority are satisfied with their work-life ‘balance’,
poor work–life outcomes are associated with poorer health, more use of prescription
medications, more stress, and more dissatisfaction with close personal relationships (as our
2007 findings showed). Work–life outcomes are imposing high costs on individuals, families
and the broader community.
3
What’s new?
In addition to examining the factors considered in earlier AWALI surveys, AWALI 2010 pursues
the issues of future employment participation, generational differences and holiday leave. We
find that:

There are no signs that things are getting easier on the work-life front: Indeed, the situation of full-time
women has deteriorated, with a 10 percentage point increase between 2007 and 2010 in the
proportion who find that work interferes with activities outside work– more than three times
the increase amongst similar men;

A quarter of women working full-time and one fifth of similar men were dissatisfied with their work-life
balance in 2010. This proportion has increased over the past three years;

Many workers are working more than they would prefer : This is associated with significantly worse
work-life outcomes;

Most workers – including older workers – are not eager to increase their hours of work: The reverse is
more common despite the fact that just over half of older worker are part-time at present.

There are no signs that Generations X and Y are less interested in work than Baby Boomers: New
generations of workers – Gen X and Gen Y – despite populist generalisations do not appear
to be ‘lazier’ than the Baby Boomers they work alongside. More Gen X are affected by worklife interference because of their longer hours and life-stage of family formation and child
rearing;

All generations share a common preference for a 35 hour week. However, many are far from achieving
it, with significant cost to their work-life ‘balance’;

Gen X men have the worst work-life outcomes compared to other men: This is not surprising given they
also work the longest hours. A substantial portion of these hours are involuntary;

Most workers would rather have an extra two weeks holiday than an equivalent pay rise: Time matters
more than money for most, and this preference is more widespread than eight years ago in a
similar survey;

Many workers don’t take a holiday and it matters: Around six in ten workers stockpile their leave,
about the same proportion as in 2002;

Not taking a holiday is associated with worse work-life interaction. Mothers are particularly negatively
affected;

Work pressures stand in the way of holidays for almost a third of those who stockpile their leave: This
especially affects those working long hours, professionals and those employed on limited
term contracts. Others save their leave to use it at another time;

Encouraging workers to take their leave will improve work-life outcomes: Relieving the work pressures
which stand in the way, and giving workers access to more paid leave, compared to giving
them a pay rise, may be beneficial.
Feeling rushed?
In 2010, the majority of workers say they are frequently (often or almost always) rushed and
pressed for time. Two-thirds of full-time women (50.1 per cent of men) and more than half of
part-time women (33.5 per cent of men) say this.
Seven out of ten working mothers say they almost always feel rushed and pressed for time, and this
is consistent in recent years. Convincing women who already feel over-worked to increase their
4
hours, or persuading their peers who are not in the labour market to join them, will require a
large shift in the terms of work and home life for Australia’s working mothers.
This could either be achieved by means of the ‘stick’ to push them to work (e.g. withdrawing
benefits for sole mothers) or the carrot (increased tax/benefit gains, or improved flexibility,
childcare and workplace cultures). The latter approach is much to be preferred given how the
former is likely to result in significantly worse work-life interference.
A policy objective of increasing women’s participation rates or hours in paid work seems
optimistic: the policy challenge may instead be to renovate the terms of employment to retain
them. At present, it seems, too much is being asked all round of these workers.
Work less, not more?
Australia has a lower rate of labour force participation than many OECD countries. Our ageing
population, and the consequent increases in the dependency ratio, make raising this a pressing
policy issue, especially amongst older workers, mothers and women. However, successive
AWALI surveys suggest that Australia’s participation issues are not going to be easily addressed,
and they may be exacerbated by a new challenge: retaining the sizeable group of workers who
would like to work less, not more.
A third of full-time women would like to reduce their working hours to part-time – despite the
fact that Australia already has a very high proportion of women who work part-time. There is
little difference on this between mothers of children under 18 and other women.
We find that a third of all workers would like to work fewer hours – even allowing for the effect
on their incomes. The majority of those who want to work less are working full-time. In 2010
full-timers want to reduce their hours by 5.6 hours a week. Sixteen per cent of all workers would
like to work more hours. Two-thirds of these workers are part-time, and would prefer 4.0 more
hours. If these working time preferences were realised, there would be a significant reduction in
labour supply in Australia.
We find no evidence of a desire or willingness to increase employed hours across the generations
of X, Y or Baby Boomers. There is firmer evidence of the reverse.
While policy makers are interested in increasing labour market participation, many workers have
other plans. The time pressures they currently face – especially if they work long hours or are
mothers or women – mean that, rather than increase their working time, they would like to
reduce it, even where it means taking a pay cut. Further, if they have the chance to take a holiday
(and many do not, because of pressure of work) they would prefer more holidays over more pay:
time is trumping money in many Australian households at present.
This context complicates the prospects of ensuring the workforce of tomorrow, especially if we
are to do so whilst maintaining worker well-being. High work-life pressures amongst those who
work long hours, who do not work the hours they would prefer, or do not take their holidays,
raises issues about the sustainability of the existing workforce and levels of worker well-being
into the future.
Poor work-life interference imposes costs on workers and their households and community, as
well as on the health budget. It also affects workplace costs when workers leave their jobs over
poor work-life arrangements, unsympathetic supervisors and overload, affecting profitability and
service quality. These effects go beyond the workplace to affect the larger economy as well as
individuals, families and communities.
5
Australian workers will benefit from more flexibility over the life-cycle, more accommodating
cultures and supervision, and improved job quality. Without changes in work practices and
cultures, chances are that Australia’s labour supply challenges will be exacerbated.
What to do? Implications for policy and action
The accumulating AWALI evidence suggests that reducing negative work-life interference
requires change in the terms of work. Many Australian workers want to cut their hours – and this
will improve work-life outcomes for many, especially those working long hours, or more than
they would like. For others, improved flexibility, better quality jobs and more sympathetic
supervision and work cultures will be beneficial. Seven policy proposals are pertinent:
1. More say over working flexibly
The fact that so many workers – more than half – are not working the hours that they would
prefer, suggests that – despite the flexibility changes of the past two decades – many workplaces
are far from flexible on terms that suit workers’ needs. A more effective and practical employeefriendly flexibility regime is required. Workers who have more say over when, where and how
much they work, have better work-life outcomes.
Improved rights for working parents of pre-school children or children with a disability, as
embodied in the Fair Work Act are a step in the right direction, as AWALI 2009 showed.
However, the fact that work-life issues affect many workers without children or those with other
forms of responsibilities means that a broader right to request flexibility would be helpful.
Further, given the evidence that men’s requests meet with a higher rate of rejection, more
support and appeal opportunities for those whose requests have been refused, and more support
for effective implementation would also assist. Improved rights for employees to request
flexibility are important, but only if these rights have real operational meaning in workplaces
where reasonable workloads, supervision and cultures support their realisation.
2. Long hours of work
Long work hours are now widespread in Australia, especially for men. The worst work-life
interference, as measured by AWALI, occurs amongst long hours workers. Other recent
Australian findings tell us that long hours of work are associated with higher absenteeism and
lower productivity (Holden et al, 2010) and the international evidence about health consequences
of long hours also provides arguments for containing long hours of work. Given the poor worklife scores for those working long hours and the close correlation between long hours of work
and a poor fit between actual and preferred hours, limits on long hours of work are likely to reap
significant benefits. This realisation has led to the adoption in Europe of the European Working
Time Directive which requests each European member state to ensure that working hours are
limited to a weekly working period of not more than 48 hours on average, including any
overtime. There are also requirements in relation to rest breaks and specific recommendations
for some industries. In South Australia, a new Code of Practice for Working Hours came into
effect on 1 July 2010 as part of the work of the state’s Work Life Balance Strategy in response to
the South Australian Government’s Strategic target to improve the quality of life of all South
Australians through the maintenance of a healthy work-life balance.
Given the importance of long hours to poor work-life interference there are good arguments for
considering policy change, including regulatory change, to restrict working hours to no more
than 48 hours on average, including overtime.
3. Reducing the burden on working women
Australian women, especially mothers, are hard pressed for time. Many are working part-time and
many more would like to. This is a consistent finding of AWALI.
6
Efforts to increase women’s hours of employment from part-time to full-time are unlikely to be
successful without substantial changes to current policy settings and workplace arrangements.
Shorter hours clearly suit many women’s needs and preferences more than full-time work - given
current workplace arrangements. Even under existing settings, the majority of women in full-time
or part-time work report feeling frequently rushed or pressed for time. The factors that create
time strains and pressures for working women are well documented: lack of quality, accessible,
affordable childcare, inflexibility at work, unsupportive cultures, disincentives in the wages,
benefits and taxation systems, and inequality in time spent on childcare and domestic work at
home.
Efforts to redistribute unpaid work and care would assist many women to deal with their time
pressure. More flexibility in their working conditions would also assist, as would a reduction in
the hours worked by their partners where these reduce engagement on the home front.
4. More support for working fathers
Many fathers would like to have more say about their working hours and reduce them. Their
requests for flexibility are less often fulfilled and many find their working lives demanding. In this
light, particular policy interventions to support working fathers are important, including ‘fatherspecific’ forms of paid leave, opportunities to work part-time without penalty, and improvements
in access to flexible working conditions generally. A greater proportion of men making use of
non-standard work conditions may improve the quality of part-time work. It may also enable
men to shoulder a greater share of unpaid work and care.
5. More supportive workplace culture, practice, management and
leadership
More supportive first line supervision and workplace cultures that ‘walk the talk’ of flexibility,
workload management, and responsive work patterns over the life-cycle, matter a great deal to
improving work-life integration. AWALI results suggest that despite much talk about flexibility
over the past decade in Australia, many workplaces lack real worker-friendly flexibility. AWALI
findings show that supervisors’ actions matter, as do the expectations of senior managers and
their personal practices. In this light, we recommend that managers, their educators, and
governments, consider giving much greater attention to the promulgation of models of good
practice in relation to work-life friendly practices and the development and use of reliable metrics
to measure the effects of changes in policy and practice.
6. Holidays matter: time, money and rest
AWALI 2010 shows that holidays matter, and that many workers do not take them because of
workload pressures. Once again, managers and supervisors are often most negatively affected,
setting a poor example for others. This suggests that work-life outcomes will be assisted by the
management of workloads to enable vacations, by managers and leaders who set an example by
taking leave and by encouragement to employees to take their holidays. It also means that
increased leave opportunities, including longer holidays, are likely to be associated with improved
work-life outcomes and appreciative workers.
7. Future research
Increasing labour participation, as well as retaining existing workers and increasing their hours of
work, requires good evidence about the factors affecting work-life outcomes, their consequences,
and policies and actions that respond to them. Evidence arising from AWALI suggests that more
worker say over working conditions and hours, supportive supervision and workplace cultures,
and reasonable workloads will all help. However, there is a great deal that we know too little
about, including the health and safety consequences and health costs of poor work-life
7
interference, the particular circumstances of some sub-groups like rural mothers and professional
women, and the forms of regulation, support, education and inducements that will encourage
change in workplace practices, cultures and management. Further research to develop better
metrics to drive change would be helpful. Evaluated interventions, utilising control groups,
would also inform the development of effective responses. At present, despite a large number of
work-family consultants, robust evidence about the most effective practice and change is thin.
Finally, successive AWALI surveys tell us work-life interference is not in decline in Australia.
There are no signs of general improvements. Despite much rhetorical discourse about the
importance of the issue, and its importance in the lives of many Australians, effective action is
slow. More reliable measurement of costs and consequences, and more practical and robust
guides to effective action might help. Clearly, talk is not enough.
8
Section 1: Introduction
Over the past twenty years, Australia has seen very significant increases in both the size of the
workforce and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) with important effects on how we work, and
how work affects life beyond the workplace. The amount of GDP generated from each hour of
work has risen significantly, as have the total hours worked by Australians. At the same time, unit
labour costs have fallen significantly. These factors help explain a shift in the distribution of the
surplus national cake from wages to profit.
The Australian Treasury points out in its 2010 Intergenerational report that over the past four
decades, labour productivity growth has accounted for most of the increase in real GDP per
capita (Australian Government, 2010a, chapter 2). Thus Australians are giving more to work, and
generating more productivity and profit as a consequence, yet many workers – as this report
explores – are negatively affected by their work and as a group take home a declining share of its
rewards. Many workers feel that they are working harder (Allen et al 1999) and that new
technologies – for all their benefits – are making work more unbounded in time and space as it
spills over into home, sleep-time, travel and social life.
Higher levels of employment participation have been identified as a significant policy aspiration,
given our relatively low rates of labour participation especially amongst some population groups
(Australian Government, 2010a). Australia’s 2008 participation rate ranked tenth out of 30
OECD countries (Australian Government 2010a, chapter 2). Two groups of workers are often
spoken of as potential sources of increased participation: women and older workers.
In May 2010, women’s participation in the Australian labour market was 58.3 per cent (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2010b), lower than in the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand.
Participation amongst Australian women, in particular those of child-bearing age, is much lower
than in many similar OECD countries (Abhayaratna & Lattimore, 2006, p 29).
Australia’s ageing population is also a factor. By 2050, it is expected that only 2.7 people of
working age will support each citizen over 65, compared with 5 in 2010 and 7.5 in 1970
(Australian Government, 2010a, p viii).
Boosting the participation of Australians in paid work can occur through several means: by
increasing the proportions of men and women in paid work, the span of years over which people
work or the hours that individuals work. This report looks closely at the latter: the hours of work
that people undertake, examining workers’ views about the hours they currently work, those they
would like to work and how this varies by generation and gender.
Theoretically, there should be considerable scope to increase overall hours worked and general
participation by Australian workers, given the high proportion of part-time workers and the fact
that our participation rates are lower than in many other countries.
We are working more
Paid work is a major part of Australians’ lives. Two-thirds of Australians are now in paid work or
looking for paid work (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010c) and women’s rate of participation
has been rising strongly, compensating for men’s decline and underpinning the overall increase in
labour market participation. Figure 1 illustrates the steady rise since 1986.
9
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
Male participation rate
40.0
Female participation rate
30.0
Persons participation rate
20.0
10.0
0.0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Figure 1 Labour force participation rate 1986 – 2010
Note. ABS data source: Labour Force, Australia, March 2010 (Cat. No. 6202.0), Time Series Spreadsheets.
This change has not seen a shift in unpaid work and care, with women doing around twice as
much as men (Craig & Mullan, 2009), leaving many women in particular rushed and pressed for
time (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009a). Many Australians report intensified work (Allen et al
1999) and almost one in five work 49 hours or more. In the week of the 2006 Census, amongst
those who worked any hours in the week before, 26 per cent of men worked 49 hours or more a
week, 9.4 per cent of women and 18.4 per cent of all those in employment (ABS Census 2006);
27.7 percent of all full-timers worked 49 hours or more (ABS Census).
Figure 2 shows how GDP per hour worked has risen significantly in the past two decades, at the
same time as labour costs have fallen steadily.
Figure 2 Index of GDP to hours worked and index of unit labour costs, 1986-2009 (2007=100)
Note. ABS data source: Australian System of National Accounts (Cat no 5204.0), Table 1, Key National Accounts Aggregates, Time Series.
The combination of more hours in work and declining labour costs has contributed to a very
significant shift in the wages/profit share in Australia. The profit share in Australia is now at a
record level of 27.5 per cent (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010a, p 8) having moved steadily
upward since the mid-1970s, with a steep rise in the past seven years. On the other hand, the
10
wages share has fallen from 62.4 per cent in the mid-1970s to 53.4 per cent in 2007-08. Despite
an increase in labour productivity arising from a more skilled and educated labour market and
more aggregate working hours, the total wages’ share has declined since the mid-1990s and
especially in the last seven years.
It is against this background that we assess work-life interference in 2010, and bring together an
overview of work-life interference over the past four years during which we have been closely
monitoring work-life outcomes in Australia.
Our analysis suggests that some Australian households are paying a high price for the growing
aggregate hours they give to paid work and the greater production that each hour of that work
creates. Longer hours and more demanding work is associated with a high level of negative
spillover from work to household and community life. Our analysis of the impact upon health in
2007 suggests that high levels of work-life interference are associated with significantly worse
health outcomes: those with poorer work-life outcomes have worse health self-assessments,
more visits to a health professional and greater use of prescription medication (Pocock, Skinner
& Williams 2007). Recent Australian research shows that longer hours of work are associated
with higher levels of absenteeism and lower self-perceived productivity (Holden et al 2010).
Participation in work and work-life interference1
Australian women are increasing their qualifications at a faster rate than men, especially through
higher education. However, many women ‘step back’ from both paid work and the use of their
qualifications when they have children to better reconcile work and care. Recent studies of
professional women in Australia suggest that women are working part-time at a higher rate than
they expected to earlier in life (Wyn and Andres 2010).
Australian women make great use of part-time work as a central mechanism for reconciling work
and care, with almost one in two Australian women working part-time, many of them for short
hours and on casual terms. Other mothers withdraw from the workforce entirely. This helps
explain Australia’s low level of workforce participation amongst mothers and results in
significant under-utilisation of women’s skills, contributing to the persistent gender pay gap in
Australia (Cassells, Vidyattama, Miranti, & McNamara, 2009). Analysis of the working time
preferences of Australian working women suggests that – rather than increase their participation
in paid work as governments and employers would like to encourage – many would prefer to
reduce their attachment to paid work given current workplace settings (Pocock, Skinner & Ichii,
2009).
Further, Australia has an ageing, longer-lived workforce. This has two implications. On the one
hand, workers will need to work longer to support themselves in their longer retirements, and on
the other, the care ‘load’ associated with older citizens – much of which will fall to working
carers and women – is likely to increase in the next thirty years. These effects may be associated
with downward pressure on participation rates and skill utilisation unless workplaces
appropriately and effectively support workers’ capacities to meet both their work and other life
commitments.
In this context AWALI 2010 takes a close look at working time preferences and prospects for
increasing aggregate working hours associated with a given working population. In addition, we
have a special focus on differences in work-life outcomes across the generations, comparing
Teen Workers (18 and 19 year olds), Gen Y, Gen X, Baby Boomers and Grey Workers (65 or
more years). Generational differences around work-life preferences and experiences have been
little studied in Australia although broad generalisations are often made. Finally we consider the
1
We use the terms work-life interference and work-life outcomes interchangeable through this
report.
11
question of holidays, examining who does not take their holidays, why and with what effects on
work-life outcomes.
Conceptualising work-life interference
Traditional labour market research predominately analyses the worker as an individual with
particular capacities that can be realised via workplace and educational initiatives; however, we
hypothesize that the individual’s workforce participation is affected by their larger household,
care and life circumstances as well as workplace conditions. Regardless of occupation, all workers
are located in a household and community context beyond the workplace.
Figure 3 shows a selection of the wide range of factors that impact on an individual’s capacity to
effectively engage in work and non-work activities.
Workplace and job characteristics: eg hours of work and fit
with preferences, time commuting, occupation, industry, job
security, workload, supervisor support and employee-centered
flexibility, renumeration
Personal characteristics: eg age, gender, health
Household characteristics: eg care responsibilities including
number and age of children, household type (sole parent, dual
earners etc)
Good/poor
work-life
outcomes
Consequences
Spatial characteristics: eg traffic density, transport
arrangements, size of city or town, and rural/urban location
Community characteristics: eg availability of care substitutes
and other key support services, community support and trust
Figure 3 A model of the main factors shaping work-life interference, and their components
These varied factors do not operate as independent, stand-alone influences on work-life
outcomes. Rather, they intersect and interact to create what is often a complex set of work-life
circumstances which a worker must navigate and manage.
Our approach to conceptualising this complex picture draws on ecological systems theory
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979) as applied by Voydanoff (2007) in relation to work, home and
community. The approach distinguishes the micro-domains of work, home and community (in
which face-to-face relations occur), the meso-systems where these domains intersect (e.g. where
work affects home life and vice versa), the exosystems that represent the external environment in
which a person does not participate but is affected (like the school system affecting a working
parent) and the larger macrosystem (that is, the over-arching law, culture, institutions and broad
belief settings). Together, these make up an ‘ecological system’ of work, home and community.
Voydanoff (2007) melds a demand-resource model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli,
2001) with this ecological system, to identify the characteristics of work, home and community
that create either resources or demands. Demand-resource models consider the degree to which
structural, social and psychological characteristics of key domains (in this case: work, home and
community) place demands on, or alternatively create resources for, an individual or group.
12
Each domain and
intersection creates
demands and resources
that affect capacity to
meet work and life
commitments
Figure 4 Conceptual Approach: A Work, Home and Community Socio-ecosystem
In our recent work we have argued that four other factors are important in this model of work,
home and community ecological systems. Firstly, it is important to unpack work in depth: ‘work’
is a multi-layered concept that requires delineation of the job, the workplace, the firm and the
industry. Further, understanding the demands and resources created by particular work, home
and community ecological systems requires consideration of the concepts of time, space, lifecourse stage and power (e.g. power in the employment relationship and with respect to socioeconomic status and gender) (Pocock, Williams, & Skinner, 2009).
This approach takes us away from the unhelpful and individualistic notion of ‘balance’ between
the domains of work, family and community. The model suggests that a complex ecological
system constructs outcomes for individuals, workplaces, labour markets, families and
communities, and that analysis of these domains, their intersections, and the demands and
resources in each, matter to work-life and well-being outcomes. AWALI, as a measure of worklife interference helps us analyse how work, home and community are currently interacting to
affect individuals and allows us to analyse experience by a variety of workplace, personal and
household characteristics.
What AWALI measures
AWALI contains a number of questions which directly assess respondents’ perceptions of worklife interference (Pocock, Williams, & Skinner 2007). Given that our 2007 survey revealed that
work-to-life interference is much greater than life-to-work interference, we refined AWALI in
2008 to focus only on work-to-life interference. AWALI measures two dimensions of that
interference: first, the impact of work on respondents’ capacity to satisfactorily engage in the
activities and responsibilities of other spheres of life (which we term a ‘general interference’
effect) and, secondly, the time available to spend on activities outside work (which we term a
‘time strain’ effect).
AWALI measures work-life interference that includes, but is not confined to, work-family issues.
Those without children also experience spillover from their working lives onto their
relationships, recreation, households, health and well-being, family life and care responsibilities.
13
AWALI also measures the effects of work on community connections. Putting more hours into
paid work affects our relationships beyond home, including our capacity to build friendship
networks in the broader community, but these are generally not investigated in assessments of
work-life interference.
AWALI also employs a commonly used single measure of time pressure in daily life (feeling
rushed or pressed for time), which is an indirect measure of work-life fit and strain. Finally,
AWALI includes a general assessment of satisfaction with work-life balance.
In sum, AWALI measures perceptions of work-life interference focussing on:

‘General interference’ (frequency that work interferes with responsibilities or activities
outside work)

‘Time strain’ (frequency that work restricts time with family or friends)

Work-to-community interference (frequency that work affects workers’ ability to develop
or maintain connections and friendships in their local community)

Satisfaction with overall work-life ‘balance’

Frequency of feeling rushed or pressed for time.
The work-life index
To arrive at the AWALI composite work-life index measure, we average and standardise the five
measures of work-life interference described above. The minimum score on the index is 0
(indicating the lowest work-life interference) and the maximum score is 100 (the highest worklife interference). The five-item work-life index has satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s
 = .82).
In the 2010 survey, the average (mean) score on the index is 43.3, and the median is 40.0 (the
middle score of which 50 per cent of respondents’ scores fall above, and fifty per cent fall
below). Therefore, scores above the average score of around 43 indicate a work-life interference
that is worse than average, and scores below this level indicate a better than average work-life
relationship.
Past AWALI surveys
Each AWALI survey contains a core set of items relating to employment and social
demographics, the work-life index items and an additional set of questions on one or two
particular themes. The 2007 data collection featured items on life-to-work interference and the
extent of commitments outside work (caring responsibilities, domestic work, and volunteer
work). The 2008 data collection featured items on unsocial work hours (weekends and
evenings/nights) and organisational culture. The 2009 data collection featured an international
comparison of work-life fit, analysis of employee requests for flexibility and their outcomes, and
participation in education. This 2010 report provides an overview of work-life interference over
the past four years. It summarises the implications for increasing participation in paid work. The
report also explores intergenerational differences in work-life interaction and considers the issues
of holidays: who takes them and how they affect work-life interference.
The AWALI 2010 sample and methodology
The concepts, methods, literature, measures and pre-tests underpinning AWALI are set out in
Pocock, Williams and Skinner 2007 The Australian Work and Life Index (AWALI): Concepts,
Methodology & Rationale.
14
AWALI surveys a randomly selected cross-section of the adult Australian employed population
by means of computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). Of those successfully contacted by
phone, 54.8 per cent participated in the 2010 survey.
AWALI surveys different people each year: it is not a longitudinal survey of the same people. As
such it can be seen as ‘taking the temperature’ of work-life interference at a point in time, and it
allows us to compare results over time.
AWALI 2010 is a national stratified sample of interviews conducted over four weekends in
March. As in previous years, Newspoll conducted the survey. In accord with usual Newspoll
practice, respondents were selected by means of a random sample process which includes a
quota set for each capital city and non-capital city area, and within these areas a quota set for
statistical divisions or subdivisions. Household telephone numbers were selected using random
digit dialling, and there was a random selection of an individual in each household by means of a
‘last birthday’ screening question. The survey sample comprises 2,803 employed persons, 2,377
were employees and 380 were self-employed (46 did not specify).
Telephone surveys have strengths and weaknesses. They allow fast data collection and increased
quality controls through interview controls and clarifications, and they permit data collection
from individuals regardless of their reading and writing ability. A system of callbacks and
appointments to facilitate a higher response rate and inclusion of responses from people who do
not spend a great deal of time at home means that this possible distortion is minimised in
AWALI. However, the survey is likely to be biased against those who do not have a telephone at
home.
Statistical conventions in this report
The following statistical conventions are used in this report unless otherwise specified.
Following Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) conventions, full-time employment is defined as
35 or more work hours per week. All contrasts discussed in the text are statistically significant
(i.e. not likely to be due to chance) at p < .05. The Dunn-Bonferroni correction was applied to
multiple comparisons.
Work hours have a clear and consistent impact on work-life interference: as hours increase worklife interference also tends to increase. Therefore, work hours are entered as a covariate in some
analyses in which mean scores on the index measure are compared. This means that the effect of
work hours on the index scores is removed, or ‘controlled’, to observe the effect of another
factor (e.g. gender) on work-life index scores. In this type of analysis we are essentially asking the
‘what if’ question of how work-life interference differs between groups (e.g. men and women) if
they worked the same hours. For example ‘what if men and women worked the same hours,
would there be any difference in their work-life interference?’
The dynamics of the interaction between work and non-work activities are likely to be different
for self-employed persons compared to employees. Therefore, in analyses that do not directly
compare self-employed persons and employees, we focus exclusively on employees. Section 6
examines differences between the self-employed and employees.
As a sample drawn from a much larger population, the estimates presented in this report are
subject to a degree of sampling bias; that is, the estimates may be different from the figures that
would have been reported had all Australian workers been surveyed. Two strategies have been
used to reduce this bias. All reported estimates have been weighted by Australian Bureau of
Statistics data on age, highest level of schooling completed, sex and area (capital city and balance
of State/Territory) to adjust for differences between the AWALI sample and the Australian
population on these key demographics. We also follow the threshold rule used in the HILDA
study (Heady, Warren, & Harding, 2006) which sets a minimum of 20 units (i.e. respondents)
15
that must contribute to the value of a cell for that figure to be considered reliable. Estimates that
do not meet this threshold requirement are accompanied by an asterisk indicating that the
estimate should be interpreted with caution.
What we know from previous AWALI surveys
Previous AWALI surveys have shown that work-life interference affects many Australian
workers and that this work-based interference is much more significant than the reverse life-towork interference effect.
A range of employment factors are associated with poor work-life outcomes. Across four years
of AWALI surveys we consistently observe that higher work-life interference is associated with
jobs that lack flexibility and have high workloads, an unsupportive organisational culture and
longer work hours.
There is much more to work hours than their length. Unsocial work hours (evenings, weekends)
and hours that are a poor fit to preferences are also strongly associated with worse work-life
outcomes.
We consistently observe that casual work and self-employment are not associated with better
work-life outcomes compared to permanent workers or employees. Those in managerial and
professional occupations are most likely to have poor work-life outcomes.
Particular social-demographic characteristics are also associated with worse work-life outcomes.
Not surprisingly, parenting responsibilities have a significant impact on increasing work-life
strains. This most likely explains the higher levels of work-life interference observed for those in
their middle years (34-55 years).
AWALI 2009
In AWALI 2009 we focused on three key issues: workers’ requests for flexibility and their worklife outcomes, work-life barriers to participation in education and training and benchmarking
Australia to international data on work-life fit.
In 2009, we observed that one in five Australian workers had made requests for flexibility, and
the majority of these were women (29.1 per cent made requests compared to only 16.3 per cent
of men). Just over two-thirds of these requests were granted, and successful requests were more
likely for women, part-timers and mothers. Having a request fully granted significantly reduced
work-life interference compared to those who had a request rejected or partially granted. This
2009 data provides a baseline against which the impact of the Fair Work Act 2009 on Australian
workers’ access to flexible work arrangements can be evaluated.
The second major focus of AWALI 2009 was on the relationship between participation in
education and training and work-life outcomes. It was clear that engaging in education or training
increased work-life challenges and strains, especially for women. Further, work-life issues (lack of
time, fitting study in with work family commitments) were prominent barriers to workers’
willingness to consider future engagement in education or training (see Skinner, 2009 for a
detailed report).
In 2009 Australia ranked ninth out of 32 countries on the extent to which work was perceived to
fit in with family and social commitments.
Structure of this report
This report falls into seven sections. Section 2 describes the AWALI sample and its
representativeness and general characteristics. Section 3 analyses the work-life interference of
men and women in 2010, considering the component parts of the AWALI index and its
summary measure and comparing it to previous years. Given the significance of working hours
to work-life interference, Section 4 focuses on work hours and their fit with preferences. Section
16
5 analyses the personal and household characteristics of respondents and their work-life
interference, including a special focus on differences across the generations (Teen Workers, Gen
X, Y and Baby Boomers and Grey Workers). Section 6 considers employment characteristics and
work-life interference. The last section considers the uptake of paid holiday leave and the effects
on work-life outcomes.
17
Section 2: The AWALI 2010 sample
The AWALI 2010 sample comprises 2,803 employed persons (2,377 employees, 380 were selfemployed, 46 did not specify). Overall, the AWALI sample is representative of the Australian
labour market at the time of the survey, although there are a few exceptions (Table 1).
Table 1 Overview of the AWALI 2010 sample (per cent)
Men
55.4
Women
44.6
All
100.0
ABS survey
Men: 54.6; Women: 45.4
6.7
7.1
6.9
7.4
WA
11.1
11.3
11.2
10.8
QLD
20.0
21.4
20.6
20.5
NSW
32.6
30.6
31.7
31.3
VIC
25.7
25.9
25.8
25.0
TAS
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.1
ACT
Age group
18–24
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
14.7
14.9
14.8
16.8
25–34
24.4
21.9
23.3
21.8
35–44
24.1
22.1
23.2
22.5
45–54
20.5
23.6
21.9
22.1
55–64
12.5
14.9
13.6
13.7
3.9
2.6
3.3
2.7
33.2
36.4
34.6
26.1
TAFE/college
40.8
33.7
37.7
34.0
Secondary school
Occupation
Manager
26.0
29.9
27.7
38.7
13.8
8.1
11.2
13.3
Professional
27.5
30.9
29.0
21.8
Technician/trade
20.2
3.5
12.8
14.7
Community/personal service
5.8
13.8
9.3
8.9
6.5
23.1
13.9
14.8
6.4
10.0
9.8
12.5
1.1
7.0
9.1
6.1
8.5
9.4
6.4
10.7
85.0
15.0
90.4
9.6
87.4
12.6
81.2
18.8
18.2
49.7
32.2
30.1
81.8
50.3
67.8
69.9
All
State
SA
65+
Highest level of education
University degree
Clerical and administrative
Sales
Machinery operators
Labourers
Type of employment
Employee
Self-employed
Work hours
Part-time (< 35 hours per
week)
Full-time (35+ hours per
week)
Note. ABS data sources: ABS Cat. No. 6105.0, Australian Labour Market Statistics, April 2010; ABS Cat. No. 6227.0 Education and
Work Australia, May 2009; and ABS Cat. No. 6359.0 Forms of Employment, November 2009. ABS data includes those aged 15 years
and older.
18
The AWALI sample provides a good representation of employed Australians by gender, state,
age group and work hours.
The AWALI sample is reasonably representative by education and occupation, although there is
an over-representation of those with higher qualifications and those in professional occupations.
Self-employed workers are also slightly under-represented in the AWALI sample.
The AWALI sample also slightly under-represents casual workers. In the AWALI sample 17.6
per cent of employees are employed casually, compared to ABS estimates of 19.8 per cent
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009b). This could reflect the inclusion of workers aged 15 to 17
years in ABS surveys, whereas the AWALI sample is aged 18 years and older.
Turning now to the household composition reported by AWALI respondents, Table 2 shows
that the majority of respondents are partnered (60.6 per cent). Just under half (45.5 per cent) of
respondents were living in households with children. Of those respondents who had children,
around one-third had a pre-school aged child. Single parents comprised only a small proportion
of the sample (5.0 per cent). The most common household type was partnered with children
(36.5 per cent).
Table 2 Household demographics of the AWALI sample, 2010 (per cent)
All
Adults in household
1 adult
2 or more adults
Marital status
Married/de facto
Divorced, separated, never married or widowed
Children in household
No children
1 child
2–3 children
4 or more children
Ages of children1,2 (parents only)
≤4
5–12
13–17
Type of household
Single parent
Couple with children
Single no children
Couple no children
19.8
80.2
60.6
39.4
54.5
16.4
27.4
1.7
35.4
54.7
43.6
5.0
36.5
28.6
29.9
Note. 1Percentage as proportion of respondents with children in the household. 2Total is
greater than 100 as some had children in more than one age group.
19
Section 3: Work-life interference: a gendered analysis
In this section we present an in-depth examination of men’s and women’s responses on each of
the five questions that comprise the work-life index, and also report trends on the composite
work-life index measure which combines these five items into a single score. AWALI 2010
provides a unique and valuable opportunity to examine trends over four years from 2007.
The focus in this section is on comparing men’s and women’s work-life interference, as gender
has a strong influence on work-life outcomes. When examining gender differences it is also
important to take into account differences in work hours, as men are more likely to work longer
hours than women. Women are also more likely to take primary responsibility for unpaid
domestic and care work (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009a), which can increase the risk of
work-life strains and tensions.
Most analyses in this section exclude self-employed persons given that self-employment is a
qualitatively different working arrangement compared to being an employee.
Work-life interference in 2010: Analysis of individual work-life index items
Frequent work-life interference has remained a common experience for Australian men and
women over the past four years (Table 3). Work is reported to often or almost always interfere
with activities outside work and time with family and friends, for around one quarter of
employees with no sign that this trend is diminishing. In addition, in 2010 around 30 per cent of
employees reported that work ‘sometimes’ interferes with life outside work on these two
measures. Just over 50 per cent of employees often, or almost always, feel rushed or pressed for
time, and around 30 per cent ‘sometimes’ experience time pressure.
Table 3 Work-life interference by gender, AWALI 2010 (per cent)
2007 Often/
2008 Often/
almost always
almost always
Work interferes with activities outside work
Men
22.7
23.7
Women
16.2
19.6
All
19.8
21.8
Work interferes with enough time with family or friends
Men
27.3
27.8
Women
20.7
23.7
All
24.3
25.9
Work interferes with community connections
Men
20.7
21.9
Women
17.0
16.4
All
19.0
19.3
Feel rushed or pressed for time
Men
49.9
50.2
Women
55.6
60.2
All
52.5
54.9
Satisfaction with work-life balance
2008 Satisfied
Men
69.0
2009 Often/
almost always
2010 Often/
almost always
24.8
22.3
23.6
25.2
23.0
24.2
26.9
24.1
25.6
28.2
24.8
26.6
17.8
16.7
17.3
19.3
16.1
17.9
47.1
62.0
54.2
2009 Satisfied
67.2
47.2
60.8
53.5
2010 Satisfied
67.0
Women
67.5
67.7
66.9
All
68.3
67.5
66.9
Note. Response scale on all items except satisfaction scale was never, rarely, sometimes, often, almost always. Table excludes self-employed
persons. 2010 N = 2377, 2009 N = 2306, 2008 N = 2383, 2007 N = 1431.
20
In 2010, around three quarters of Australian employees report that work interferes with their life
outside work and feel time pressure some or most of the time. As observed across the four years
of data collection, work is less likely to interfere with community connections; just under 20 per
cent of employees report frequent work-community interference. Broad ‘satisfaction with worklife balance’ also remains consistently high, with 67 per cent of workers reporting they are
satisfied overall with their work-life balance. This finding suggests that some workers expect and
can tolerate some levels of work-life interference.
Looking at men and women separately, men consistently report slightly higher rates of work
interference with time for family and friends and community connections, although the latter
gender difference for community connections is not statistically significant. Across the four years
of data collection, time pressure demonstrates the largest statistically significant gender
difference. In 2010, frequent time pressure is reported by 61 per cent of women compared to 47
per cent of men. Nevertheless, there is little difference in men’s and women’s overall satisfaction
with their work-life balance. We now turn to a more detailed trend analysis of these five
measures of work-life interference for men and women working part-time and full-time.
Work interferes with activities outside work
Men FT
As Figure 5 shows 27.8 per cent of full-time employees report work frequently interferes with
activities outside work in 2010. This is a significant increase from 22.4 per cent in 2007. There
has also been a slight increase in the frequency of work-life interference from 2008 to
2009/2010, with little change between these latter two years. This increase in work-life
interference in the last three years is evident for both full-time men and women though it is more
pronounced (and only statistically significant) for women. There has been a 10 per cent increase
in frequent work-life interference for full-time women from 2007 to 2010, compared to a 2.8 per
cent increase for full-time men.
2007
43.8
31.7
24.5
2008
43.0
32.4
24.6
2009
39.5
Women FT
2010
41.5
2007
45.8
2008
44.1
2009
44.5
2008
43.4
2009
10
20
23.2
34.1
24.1
33.7
27.8
31.0
50
often/almost always
22.4
32.4
40
sometimes
28.8
33.1
30
never/rarely
29.1
30.5
41.2
0
18.4
32.7
38.5
2010
27.3
35.8
40.7
2007
27.1
31.3
36.8
2010
All FT
33.4
27.8
60
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 5 Work interferes with activities outside work reported by full-time employees by gender, AWALI
2007 – 2010 (per cent)
Note. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2010 N = 1647, 2009 N = 1539, 2008 N= 1715 & 2007 N = 875.
21
As expected, across the four years of AWALI data collection, part-time employees consistently
report lower levels of work-life interference on each of the work-life index measures. As Figure 6
shows, across 2007 to 2010, around 15 per cent of part-time employees report work frequently
interferes with their non-work activities, with very little difference between men and women.
Men PT
2007
53.0
2008
56.0
2009
53.0
Women PT
2010
57.7
2007
2008
2010
53.6
0
10
20
30
15.9
13.5
15.1
15.8
14.8
29.9
60
70
often/almost always
13.2
31.3
50
sometimes
16.7
25.1
40
never/rarely
15.0
32.1
59.1
54.0
14.6
31.4
54.8
2009
32.4
30.8
51.9
2008
17.4*
24.5
54.2
2007
26.6
31.0
60.4
2009
12.3*
26.4
55.5
2010
All PT
34.7
16.4
80
90
100
%
Figure 6 Work interferes with activities outside work reported by part-time employees by gender, AWALI
2007 – 2010 (per cent)
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2010 N = 728, 2009 N = 746,
2008 N= 664, 2007 N = 328.
Time with family and friends
In 2010, work frequently restricted time with family and friends for thirty per cent of full-time
employees, which is similar to reported rates in 2008 and 2009 and slightly higher than in 2007
(Figure 7). Frequent time restrictions are also slightly more likely to be reported by full-time
employees than work interference with non-work activities (27.8 per cent). As observed in 2009,
full-time women are slightly more likely to report frequent time restrictions (32.0 per cent)
compared to full-time men (29.7 per cent). There is also evidence of an increase in time
restrictions for full-time women in 2009/2010 compared to 2007/2008, whereas reported time
restrictions for full-time men have remained relatively steady across the past four years.
22
Men FT
2007
34.5
Women FT
29.2
37.6
32.0
30.4
2009
37.4
32.9
29.7
2010
37.5
32.8
29.7
2007
33.6
2008
40.9
39.5
2009
2010
0
10
29.6
34.2
37.9
30.9
31.6
20
30
40
50
often/almost always
27.9
32.1
34.9
sometimes
32.0
37.9
38.2
2009
never/rarely
32.9
29.4
34.2
2008
28.1
36.6
38.6
2007
25.4
32.4
30.5
2010
All FT
36.3
2008
30.5
60
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 7 Work restricts time with family/friends reported by full-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007
– 2010 (per cent)
Note. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2010 N = 1647, 2009 N = 1542, 2008 N = 1717, 2007 N = 873.
As expected, part-time employees are also less likely to report time restrictions with family and
friends compared to full-time workers. Figure 8 shows that 18 per cent of part-timers report
frequent time restrictions of this kind in 2010, compared to around 15 per cent of part-timers
reporting frequent restriction of non-work activities in previous years. For the first time in the
four years of AWALI surveys, part-time men are more likely to report frequent restrictions in
relation to time with family and friends (20.8 per cent), compared to part-time women (16.9 per
cent). This is also a significant increase in time restrictions for part-time men compared to
previous years: an 8.5 per cent increase from 2008 to 2010. This trend is not evident for parttime women.
Women PT
Men PT
2007
55.3
2008
2009
60.0
2010
61.5
2007
2008
57.1
2009
57.8
25.5
10
20
30
16.4
26.8
14.7
25.1
60
70
often/almost always
15.1
26.3
50
sometimes
16.9
32.4
40
never/rarely
15.0
28.2
56.9
0
18.2
27.3
58.5
2010
14.9
24.8
57.2
2009
14.5
20.8
33.7
52.5
2008
12.3*
17.7
54.9
2007
15.6*
30.5
51.4
2010
All PT
29.1
57.2
18.0
80
90
100
%
Figure 8 Work restricts time with family/friends reported by part-time employees by gender, AWALI
2007 – 2010 (per cent)
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2010 N = 728, 2009 N = 748, 2008 N = 664,
2007 N = 329.
23
Community engagement
The frequency that work interferes with community connections for full-timers has remained at
around twenty per cent across the past four years (Figure 9). For full-time men there has been a
slight decrease in the frequency of work-community interference from 2007/2008 to 2009/2010.
The trend for full-time women over time is less consistent and is not statistically significant.
Men FT
2007
47.3
2008
54.2
2009
55.1
Women FT
2010
22.7
22.7
23.2
24.4
53.2
20.5
26.3
20.5
2007
48.9
2008
50.4
2009
49.3
28.5
22.2
2010
50.4
27.9
21.7
2007
All FT
30.0
26.2
24.9
28.9
47.8
20.7
28.7
52.8
24.9
22.3
2009
53.0
26.0
21.0
2010
52.2
26.9
21.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
sometimes
often/almost always
23.5
2008
0
never/rarely
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 9 Work interferes with community connections reported by full-time employees by gender,
AWALI 2007 - 2010 (per cent)
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2010 N = 1646, 2009 N =
1542, 2008 N = 1717, 2007 N = 871.
Work is less likely to interfere with community connections for part-time employees: 11 per cent
of part-timers report frequent interference in 2010 (Figure 10). Looking over time, workcommunity interference has not shown a consistent trend, with part-time men slightly less likely
to report frequent interference in 2007 and 2009, whereas part-time women were slightly less
likely to report frequent interference in 2007 and 2010. In 2010, as observed in 2008, men
working part-time were more likely to report frequent work-community interference (13.7 per
cent) compared to part-time women (9.9 per cent), whereas the opposite pattern was observed in
2009. The 2008 and 2009 estimates for part-time men should be interpreted with caution due to
small sample sizes.
24
Men PT
2007
74.7
2008
63.4
2009
Women PT
14.0*
14.6
71.2
2007
15.0
61.5
2008
65.2
2007
65.2
2008
0
10
20
30
21.9
40
7.7
50
60
70
80
often/almost always
11.8
18.2
67.0
sometimes
9.9
27.0
18.9
never/rarely
11.0
24.9
72.2
2010
7.5
11.0
19.7
69.3
2009
13.7
17.4
69.3
2010
6.4*
30.9
71.7
2009
8.2*
22.6
79.0
2010
All PT
17.1
9.6
11.0
90
100
%
Figure 10 Work interferes with community connections reported by part-time employees by gender,
AWALI 2007 - 2010 (per cent)
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2010 N= 728, 2009 N = 748,
2008 N = 664, 2007 N = 328.
Time pressure
Time pressure in daily life continues to be a common experience for full-time employees, and
especially women (Figure 11). It also affects many women who work part-time. Across the past
four years, 55 to 57 per cent of full-time employees report feeling frequently rushed or pressed
for time. Women are consistently more likely to be frequently time pressured (64.8 per cent in
2010) compared to men (50.1 per cent in 2010). The likelihood of frequent time pressure has
slightly decreased for men over the past four years, although this change is not statistically
significant. Time pressure has remained relatively stable for women over the past three years.
The shorter work hours of part-timers reduces their exposure to time pressure in daily life. In
2010 half (49.5 per cent) of part-time employees report frequent time pressure, as observed in
2008 and 2009 (Figure 12). As is the case for full-time employees, women working part-time are
more likely to report frequent time pressure (56.4 per cent) compared to men (33.5 per cent).
Indeed, as observed in previous years, women working part-time are more likely to experience
frequent time pressure than men working full-time. Looking over time, there was a slight peak
for women and decline for men in time pressure in 2009, with 2010 rates comparable to those
observed in 2008.
25
Men FT
Women FT
All FT
2007
17.0
29.8
53.2
2008
15.3
31.4
53.3
2009
17.4
31.2
51.4
2010
16.6
33.3
50.1
2007
8.2
32.4
2008
10.4
26.2
2009
7.5
26.0
66.6
2010
7.1
28.1
64.8
59.4
63.4
never/rarely
sometimes
2007
14.0
2008
13.6
29.5
57.0
2009
13.8
29.2
57.0
2010
13.3
31.4
55.3
0
30.7
10
20
often/almost always
55.3
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 11 Feeling rushed or pressed for time reported by full-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 2010 (per cent)
Note. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2010 N = 1647, 2009 N = 1543, 2008 N = 1718, 2007 N = 877.
Men PT
2007
34.0
2008
26.7
2009
Women PT
15.8
31.3
10.6
33.3
2009
12.0
30.0
2010
13.1
33.5
51.0
56.2
30.5
sometimes
56.4
33.8
14.9
35.4
49.6
19.0
31.9
49.1
2010
19.7
30.7
49.5
10
20
30
often/almost always
45.3
2009
0
never/rarely
58.0
21.0
2008
27.9
33.1
2008
2007
32.1
36.5
35.2
2007
30.6
41.2
35.6
2010
All PT
35.4
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 12 Feeling rushed or pressed for time reported by part-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 2010 (per cent)
Note. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2010 N = 755, 2009 N = 728, 2008 N = 665, 2007 N = 330.
It is important to note that, overall, 60.8 per cent of women felt almost always rushed and
pressed for time in 2010. This high level of very time pressured women is consistent in recent
years (60.1 per cent in 2008, 62.0 per cent in 2009). Mothers are particularly affected with 69.4
per cent of mothers almost always rushed and pressed for time in 2010 (compared to 58.0 per
cent of fathers). Once again, this trend in high time pressure for mothers is consistent in recent
26
years (71.2 per cent in 2008 and 69.7 per cent in 2009). Clearly, many mothers are feeling
consistently pushed when they hold down a job as well as care for children, and this is likely to
affect their inclination to participate in paid work and the hours they work (see Section 5 for
further discussion).
Satisfaction with work-life balance
Women FT
Men FT
As observed in previous years, the majority of full-time employees are satisfied with their worklife balance (63.9 per cent), with men more likely to be satisfied (66.0 per cent) compared to
women (60.0 per cent) (Figure 13). However, dissatisfaction with work-life balance has increased
across the past three years, with one quarter of full-time women, and one fifth of men,
dissatisfied with their work-life balance in 2010. The increase is particularly marked amongst fulltime women.
2008
12.1
67.1
2009
20.1
14.4
65.5
2010
19.7
14.3
66.0
2008
15.9
2009
23.8
22.5
2010
13.9
60.2
17.6
26.9
2008
All FT
20.8
13.2
21.4
59.9
not satisfied
60.0
neutral
2009
21
15.6
63.5
2010
22.2
13.9
63.9
0
10
20
30
satisfied
64.7
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 13 Satisfaction with work-life balance reported by full-time employees by gender, AWALI 2008 –
2010 (per cent)
Note. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2007 data not reported due to change in response scale. 2010 N = 1642, 2009 N = 1537, & 2008 N
= 1718.
As Figure 14 shows, three quarters of part-time employees are satisfied with their work-life
balance (73.5%). Men working part-time are slightly less likely to be satisfied (71.4 per cent) than
women (74.4 per cent), a reversal of the pattern observed in 2008. Indeed, there has been a small
decline in part-time men’s work-life balance satisfaction over the past three years, whereas parttime women’s work-life balance satisfaction has shown little change.
27
Men PT
Women PT
2008
6.5
2009
12.8
2010
14.3
80.4
12.3
74.9
14.3
71.4
2008
11.6
2009
13.7
10.2
76.1
not satisfied
2010
12.7
12.9
74.4
neutral
2008
All PT
13.0
10.2
11.8
76.6
12.1
satisfied
77.6
2009
13.4
10.9
75.7
2010
13.2
13.3
73.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 14 Satisfaction with work-life balance reported by part-time employees by gender, AWALI 2008 –
2010 (per cent)
Note. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2007 data not reported due to change in response scale. 2010 N = 728, 2009 N = 747. & 2008 N =
665.
Australians’ work-life interference from 2007 to 2010
The work-life index
In this section we report on key trends on the work-life index, a composite measure of the five
work-life index items discussed previously. The work-life index is a standardised scale with 0 as
the lowest score (very low work-life interference) to 100 as the highest score (very high work-life
interference).
When we report on the work-life index we often report scores that have been statistically
adjusted for differences in work hours between the groups that are being compared (e.g. men
and women, or the self-employed compared to employees). As we discuss in Section 4, the
length of work hours has a substantial effect on work-life interference. Therefore, to identify the
unique contribution (independent of work hours) that gender, employment type or other such
factors have on work-life interference, we statistically control for work hours.
Key trends by gender and work hours
Here we report on work-life index scores for men and women both adjusted and not adjusted for
differences in work hours. As Figure 15 shows, there has been little change in work-life
interference from 2007 to 2010 for employees overall. As observed in previous years, when
gender differences in work hours are not taken into account (unadjusted scores), men and
women have equivalent levels of work-life interference (Figure 12). Average work hours are
longer for men. When this difference in work hours is statistically controlled (adjusted scores),
we find in 2010 – as in previous years - that women report higher levels of work-life interference
(45.7) compared to men (40.8).
28
100
90
Work-ilfe index
80
70
2007
60
50
42.2
42.6
43.3
43.0
42.3
42.8
43.6
43.3
2008
40
2009
30
2010
20
10
0
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Figure 15 Work-life index scores (unadjusted and adjusted for work hours) for all employees, AWALI
2007-2010 (per cent)
Note. 2010 N = 2377. 2009 N = 2276. 2008 N = 2361.
100
90
Work-ilfe index
80
70
60
50
41.6 41.7 43.8 43.1
46.8 45.7
43.6 44.2
42.8 42.6 42.9 42.9
41.0 41.4 40.4 40.8
2007
40
2008
30
2009
20
2010
10
0
Women
Men
Women
Unadjusted
Men
Adjusted for work hours
Figure 16 Work-life index scores (unadjusted and adjusted for work hours) for all employees by gender,
AWALI 2007 - 2010
Note. 2010 N = 2377, 2009 N = 2276, 2008 N = 2361, 2007 N = 1192.
It appears that the economic slow-down in Australia has not been associated with less work-life
interference, despite an overall fall in hours worked from 2008 to 2009 of seven per cent
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010d). Work-life index scores have stayed fairly steady over the
period with no sign of a fall associated with the 2009 decline in aggregate hours: in fact there was
a slight increase in the work-life index in that year, suggestive of worse work-life outcomes in the
downturn, despite lower hours.
Considering part-time and full-time employees separately, a similar trend is evident. There is little
change in work-life interference for full-time employees from 2007 to 2010. Full-time women’s
work-life interference has decreased slightly from 2009 to 2010, but this difference is not
statistically significant. In 2010 women working full-time have slightly higher index scores (47.1)
compared to men (45.0), indicating full-time women may be more at risk of work-life
interference, although this difference is not statistically significant (Figure 19).
29
100
90
Work-liffe index
80
70
60
50
43.6
44.8 45.0 45.0
45.6 45.9
49.2 47.1
2007
44.3 45.2 46.4 45.7
40
2008
2009
30
2010
20
10
0
Men
Women
All
Figure 17 Work–life index scores for full-time employees by gender, AWALI 2007 - 2010
Note. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2010 N = 1647, 2009 N = 1531, & 2008 N = 1705, 2007 N = 865
As observed previously in the analysis of individual work-life index items, work-life interference
is lower for part-time workers (37.1) compared to those working full-time (45.7) (Figure 18).
Women working part-time have higher work-life interference (38.7) compared to part-time men
(33.6). As Figure 18 shows, there has been little change in work-life interference of part-time
workers from 2007 to 2010.
100
90
Work-life index
80
70
2007
60
50
40
35.2 35.2 32.6 33.6
36.6 36.4 38.1 38.7
36.2 36.1 36.4 37.1
30
2008
2009
2010
20
10
0
Men
Women
All
Figure 18 Work–life index scores for part-time employees by gender, AWALI 2008, 2009 & 2010
Note. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2010 = 728, 2009 N = 745, & 2008 N = 656.
Summary
Four years of AWALI data collection provide an opportunity to examine trends in Australian’s
work-life outcomes over a time span that has seen major changes including the global financial
crisis, a change of government and significant changes to industrial relations law and employee
entitlements including the introduction of the Fair Work Act 2009.
Whilst we observe small changes and differences across the years, consistent patterns and trends
are evident.
A substantial proportion of Australian workers, around one-quarter, often or almost always feel
that work interferes with their quality of life by reducing their capacity to engage in activities
outside work and spend time with family and friends.
30
The majority (60 per cent) of women continue to feel frequent time pressure, and nearly half of
men also report being often or almost always rushed or pressed for time. For many Australian
workers, daily life is very busy, and time strains and pressures are common.
Gender differences in work-life interference are consistent. On average, men work longer hours
than women. Therefore, analysis of gender differences must either compare men and women
working similar hours (e.g. part-time or full-time) or statistically control for differences in work
hours. Using both approaches women consistently have higher work-life interference per hour
worked compared to men, whether they are working full-time or part-time.
As would be expected, part-time work is associated with lower levels of work-life interference,
although this effect is stronger for men. For example, 56.4 per cent of women working part-time
report frequent time pressure compared to only 33.5 per cent of part-time men. More part-time
women (56.4 per cent) report frequent time pressure than full-time men (50.1 per cent).
Furthermore, men working part-time have lower scores on the work-life index compared to parttime women. Analysis of responses on individual index items indicates that much of this
difference is due to the intense time pressure reported by part-time women. Williams, Pocock
and Bridge (2009) observed that flexible and reduced hours/part-time work may place some
women at more risk of role overload and work-life strains, as they are seen as a resource for
school, home, family and community activities. When combined with paid work, these
commitments and expectations create very busy lives for many women.
Finally, when we ask workers about their overall levels of satisfaction with their work-life balance
the majority (around 67 per cent) report feeling satisfied, and this pattern is consistent across the
four years of AWALI data collection. However, more workers – especially full-timers – now
report being dissatisfied with their work-life balance and fewer say they are neutral.
31
Section 4: Working hours and the fit between actual and preferred hours
In this section we apply a work-life lens to describe and analyse participation in part-time and
full-time work, with a particular focus on gender differences in work hours, their fit with
preferences, and the implications for work-life outcomes and women’s willingness and capacity
to increase their engagement in paid employment.
As observed in previous AWALI surveys, one of the strongest influences on work-life
interference is the length of work hours (Pocock, Skinner & Ichii, 2009; Skinner & Pocock 2008;
Pocock, Skinner & Williams, 2007). We have also observed in past AWALI data collections that
there is much more to work hours than simply distinguishing between part-time and full-time
work. Here we examine shorter and longer part-time and full-time hours, describing who works
these hours and the associated work-life outcomes.
We also examine the degree of fit between actual and preferred hours, a useful indicator of the
extent to which working time is experienced as too long (or too short). In effect, this measure, of
how work hours fit with preferences, captures the extent to which work hours suit individual
worker’s needs, commitments and lifestyle. This section continues to focus on employees, with a
separate analysis of self-employed workers presented in Section 6.
Employees’ work hours – shorter and longer part-time and full-time hours
In 2010, employee respondents worked an average of 36.5 hours a week (including paid and
unpaid overtime), with men working on average 10 more hours each week (41.4) compared to
women (31.6). Underneath these averages lie further significant gender differences.
In 2010, less than half (48.5 per cent) of all employees work between 35 and 47 hours a week
(Figure 19). These hours are more common for men (53.7 per cent) than women (42.4 per cent).
One fifth (20.0 per cent) of employees work longer full-time hours (48+): a long working week
that is more common for men (28.7 per cent) compared to women (9.8 per cent).
Nearly half of women employees work part-time (47.8 per cent) compared to just 17.6 per cent
of men employees. Longer part-time (16 to 34) hours are also more common for women: 31.0
per cent of women work these hours compared to only 12.0 per cent of men. A small, but not
insignificant, proportion of all women also work shorter part-time hours defined here as between
1 to 15 hours per week (16.8 per cent), a work arrangement that is rare for men (5.6 per cent).
This distribution is close to that revealed by the ABS Labour Force survey (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2010b) (Figure 21), although there are more workers in AWALI reporting long fulltime (48+) compared to the national average.
32
Men
5.6 12.0
ABS
6.9 10.6
53.7
28.7
59.7
AWALI
16.8
31.0
ABS
17.6
30.4
AWALI
10.8
20.7
ABS
11.8
19.6
22.6
42.4
9.8
44.8
6.9
48.5
20.0
Short PT 1-15hrs
Long PT 16-34hrs
FT 35-47hrs
Long FT 48+ hrs
All
Women
AWALI
0
10
20
52.9
30
40
50
60
15.4
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 19 Short and long work hours by gender, AWALI 2010 and Australia 2010 (per cent)
Note. PT = part-time, FT = full-time. Figure excludes self-employed persons. N = 2365.
Differentiating between shorter and longer hours within part-time and full-time employment is
important from a work-life perspective. We define longer part-time hours as between 16 to 34
hours per week, and longer full-time hours as 48+ hours per week, based on the ILO definition
of ‘excessively long hours’ (Lee, McCann & Messenger, 2007).
As Figure 20 shows, employees overall work-life interference worsens as work hours lengthen,
with statistically significant differences between each category of work hours. The largest increase
on the work-life index is evident in the movement from working 35 to 47 hours to 48+ hours a
week. As expected, very long full-time hours are associated with the worst work-life interference.
These patterns can be observed for men and women and they are consistent across the four years
of AWALI data.
It is also noteworthy that women consistently report higher work-life interference in each
category of work hours, although statistically significant differences are only observed for those
working long part-time or 35 to 47 full-time hours. The highest work-life interference across all
groups is reported by women working longer full-time hours (an index score of 57.1). As
observed in previous AWALI surveys, part-time work is associated with lower work-life
interference for men than for women. Indeed, equivalent work-life interference is reported by
women working shorter (1 – 15) part-time hours and men working longer (16 to 34) part-time
hours. These patterns indicate that women’s work-life interference is more sensitive to increases
in work hours. It is also clear that men’s and women’s work-life outcomes are likely to improve
with reduced work hours, particularly from a reduction in very long full-time hours.
33
100
90
Work-life index
80
70
60
50
40
57.1
53.3
30.2
35.3
40.8
40.6
Short PT 1-15 hrs
54.1
45
34.8
33.4
39
Long PT 16-34hrs
42.3
FT 35-47 hrs
30
Long FT 48+ hrs
20
10
0
Men
Women
All
Figure 20 Work-life index scores by short and long work hours and gender, AWALI 2010
Note. PT = part-time, FT = full-time. Figure excludes self-employed persons. N = 2365.
The negative work-life impact of long work hours are also clearly evident when we consider
satisfaction with work-life balance. We previously observed that, overall, 67 per cent of
employees are satisfied with their work hours (73.5 per cent of part-timers and 63.9 per cent of
full-timers). When we differentiate long full-time hours (48+), the drop in satisfaction is clear and
substantial for men and women (Table 4). Around half of long hours workers are satisfied with
their work-life balance, a minority (16.1 per cent) are neutral, and around thirty per cent are
dissatisfied. Women working these hours are more likely to be dissatisfied (35.2 per cent) than
men (27.6 per cent.
Table 4 Satisfaction with work-life balance by work hours, AWALI 2010
1-15 hours
16– 34 hours
35– 47 hours
48+ hours
15.7
12.8
71.5
27.6
16.5
55.8
24.9
12.9
62.2
35.2
14.8*
50.0
19.4
12.9
67.6
29.3
16.1
54.6
Men
Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
Satisfied
19.7*
9.9*
70.4
11.8*
16.3
71.9
Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
Satisfied
11.9
11.4
76.8
13.2
13.7
73.1
Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
Satisfied
13.7
11.0
75.3
12.7
14.5
72.7
Women
All
Note. **Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. Figure excludes self-employed persons. N = 2365.
34
A 34 hour week? What workers want
When examining the relationship between work hours and work-life outcomes it is important to
acknowledge that individuals are likely to have different needs and preferences for time spent in
paid work depending on their personal circumstances. It is well established that consistently
working very long full-time hours is likely to impair health and well-being (Caruso, 2006). What
has received less acknowledgement and recognition is that, regardless of the actual length of
work hours, working longer (or shorter) hours than preferred can have a significant negative
impact on well-being (Barnett, 2006; Wooden, Warren, & Drago, 2009).
Here we report on the prevalence of this kind of poor fit amongst Australian employees relative
to their preferences and examine the implications for work-life outcomes. As in previous years,
we asked employees about their preferred hours, taking into account how a change in work hours
would affect their income.
Overall, in 2010, Australian workers would prefer to work 2.6 hours less per week, the same as
the hours gap observed in 2009 (2.6 hours) and slightly less than the hours gap observed in 2008
(3.6 hours) (Table 5).
As observed in previous years, full-time employees would prefer to reduce their working week by
an average of 5.6 hours, or about three quarters of a day. Similar proportions of men and women
in full-time work would like to work less, even though men work longer full-time hours (46.1)
compared to women (42.3). Taking into account the effect on their income, women prefer a 35.9
hour week and men a 40.6 hour week, and this is a consistent preference over four years.
Table 5 Actual and preferred work hours by part-time/full-time work status and gender, AWALI 2010
Actual work hours
Preferred work hours
20.3
46.1
41.4
26.6
40.6
38.1
Work hours
mismatch
Work-life index
-6.8
5.5
3.9
33.6
45.0
42.9
-2.8
5.9
1.8
38.7
47.1
43.1
-4.0
5.6
2.6
37.1
45.7
43.0
Men
Part-time
Full-time
Total
Women
Part-time
Full-time
Total
20.0
42.3
31.6
22.6
35.9
29.6
Part-time
Full-time
Total
20.1
44.8
37.0
23.9
39.0
34.3
All
Note. The work hour gap for those who prefer more hours is negative reflecting the number of extra hours desired to work (i.e., actual hours
minus preferred hours). Table excludes self-employed persons. Index scores not adjusted for work hours. N = 2365.
On average, part-time workers would prefer more hours – around four hours per week. Men
working part-time would like more hours (6.8 hours) compared to women who would prefer to
work an additional 2.8 hours. Even though men and women working part-time report similar
average hours, negative work-life interference is much higher for women than men. Women’s
greater role in unpaid work may also account for women’s preference not to increase their parttime work hours by more than a few hours per week, compared to the substantial increase in
part-time work hours desired by men. A much greater proportion of part-time men are
involuntarily under-employed than women, reflecting the lack of suitable full-time jobs
(particularly for less educated men).
35
The gap between actual and preferred hours
There has been little change in the magnitude of the gap between actual and preferred work
hours over four years of AWALI surveys (Table 6). Men consistently report working around four
hours, and women two hours, more than preferred.
As in previous AWALI reports, we define a ‘poor hours fit’ as a gap of four or more hours (about
half a day) between actual and preferred hours. On this basis, the proportion of workers reporting
a poor hours’ fit has remained steady from 2007 to 2010. In 2010, just over half (52.8 per cent) of
employees did not have a good fit between their actual and preferred hours. As discussed below,
the majority of those who would prefer to change their hours would like to work less.
Table 6 Work hours mismatch (average and per cent) by gender, AWALI 2007 - 2010
2007
2008
2009
2010
3.1
52.8
3.9
55.8
2.1
50.6
1.8
49.2
2.6
51.8
2.6
52.8
Men
Work hours mismatch
Proportion mismatch (4+ hours)
4.1
55.2
4.2
54.0
Women
Work hours mismatch
Per cent mismatch (4+ hours)
3.5
54.2
3.0
48.7
All
Work hours mismatch
Proportion mismatch (4+ hours)
3.8
54.8
3.6
51.6
In 2010, working more hours than preferred continues to be the most common form of hours
mismatch (Figure 21). Just over one-third (36.6 per cent) of workers would prefer fewer hours,
with less than half this proportion preferring longer hours (16.2 per cent).
Women are more likely to have a good match (within four hours) between their actual and
preferred hours (50.7 per cent) compared to men (44.2 per cent). Just under one-third of women
(32.0 per cent) would like to work fewer hours and 40.4 per cent of men would like to join them.
There is also a clear association between work hours preferences and occupation. Preferences for
fewer hours are more common for those in managerial or professional occupations (46.3 per
cent) compared other occupations (30.3 per cent). A preference for more hours is more common
for those in non-professional occupations. This finding suggests that the redistribution of hours
from those who would like to work less, to those who would like to work more, would not be
easy given their different occupational locations.
These findings have significant implications for strategies and initiatives to increase employment
participation. The majority of Australian workers (83.8 per cent) feel the length of time they
spend in paid work is about right (within four hours), or too long. As respondents were asked to
take into account the effect on their income of any change to their work hours, these findings
indicate that incentives and supports to increase employment participation must extend beyond
the economic, to social policy and workplace culture.
36
Men
15.4
Women
17.2
44.2
40.4
50.7
Work more
32.0
No change
All
16.2
0
10
47.2
20
30
Work less
36.6
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 21 Work hours fit with preferences by gender, AWALI 2010 (per cent)
Note. No change = 0 – 3 hours gap between preferred and actual hours. Work more = prefer to work 4 or more hours more than
actual hours. Work less = prefer to work 4 or more hours fewer than actual hours. Figure excludes self-employed persons. N =
2365.
While there is considerable policy attention focussed on the need to increase participation in paid
work, there is little attention paid to the risk of reduced labour market participation of those who
feel they are already working too much, or the fact that many workers are happy with their
current hours – many of them part-time – with no intention of increasing them.
The likelihood of a mismatch between actual and preferred hours is significantly influenced by
both gender and work hours. As Figure 22 shows, those employees working part-time are most
likely to have a good hours’ fit (55.9 per cent). About half (52.0 per cent) of those working a 35
to 47 hour full-time week have a good hours’ fit; however, a substantial proportion (38.8 per
cent) of those working a 35-47 hour week would prefer fewer hours.
Women
Men
Part-time
46.4
Full-time (35-47 hrs)
11.8
Long full-time (48+ hrs)
3.8*
Part-time
54.2
Full-time (35-47 hrs)
24.5
5.6
Long full-time (48+ hrs)
71.7
59.4
19.6
55.9
8.8
52.0
3.8*
0
No change
76.6
9.3
Long full-time (48+ hrs)
10
Work less
38.8
23.4
20
Work more
45.8
35.3
Full-time (35-47 hrs)
10.1
48.6
3.7*
5.9*
34.0
30.5
Part-time
All
47.7
72.8
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 22 Work hours fit with preferences by gender and work hours, AWALI 2010 (per cent)
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. No change = 0 – 3 hours gap between preferred and actual hours.
Work more = prefer to work 4 or more hours more than actual hours. Work less = prefer to work 4 or more hours fewer than
actual hours. Figure excludes self-employed persons. N = 2355.
Not surprisingly, those working long full-time hours (48+) are most likely to want to work less:
indeed, nearly three quarters of these workers (72.8 per cent) would prefer shorter hours.
37
Women working long full-time hours are most likely to prefer shorter hours (76.6 per cent),
although a clear majority of similar men (71.7 per cent) would like to join them.
More substantial gender differences are evident within full-time employment (37-47 hours) and
in part-time employment. Men working 35-47 hours are more likely to be satisfied with their
work hours (54.2 per cent) compared to women (48.6 per cent). Women in this group are more
likely to prefer fewer hours (45.8 per cent; 34.0 per cent of men), and less likely to prefer longer
hours (5.6 per cent; 11.8 per cent of men).
Very clear gender differences are evident in the experience of part-time work hours. The majority
of women working part-time are satisfied with their hours (59.4 per cent), with 30 per cent
preferring longer hours and only 10 per cent preferring shorter hours. In contrast, the majority
(52.3 per cent) of men working part-time would prefer to change their hours, and most would
like to work more.
These findings suggest that efforts to increase women’s hours of employment from part-time to
full-time are unlikely to be successful without substantial changes to support women’s
participation in paid work. Shorter hours clearly suit women’s needs and preferences better than
full-time work under current circumstances. Even under existing arrangements, the majority of
women in full-time or part-time work report feeling frequently rushed or pressed for time. The
factors that create time strains and pressures for working women are well documented: lack of
quality childcare, inflexible work hours, and inequality in time spent on childcare and domestic
work at home (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009a; Craig, 2007; Craig & Mullan, 2009; Pocock,
2003).
Recent studies of Australian communities show how configurations of jobs, homes and
community services also make an important difference to work-life outcomes, with women and
men whose jobs are located close to essential services, educational facilities and their homes
having much better work-life outcomes (Williams, et al., 2009). These configurations affect
commuting patterns, community engagement and the strength of resilience in communities, with
important effects in both high and low income suburbs.
Strategies to address these work-life strains and challenges – including through urban
development and suburban planning – are central to the success of efforts to increase women’s
engagement in paid work, especially full-time work. They are also important to the persistent,
wide gap between men’s and women’s earnings, as women pay a high penalty for withdrawal
from paid work or extended periods of part-time work (Cassells, et al., 2009).
Full-time workers’ preferences: Gender matters
As the previous analysis shows, many women working full-time would prefer to reduce their
work hours. In 2009, we observed that a third of full-time women would prefer to work parttime. In 2010, this trend persists: 33.0 per cent of full-time women with children would prefer to
work part-time even taking into account the effect on their income. Interestingly, 30.0 per cent of
full-time women without parenting responsibilities for children aged under 18 years agree, with
no statistically significant difference between mothers and women without parenting
responsibilities.
The work hours’ preferences of men working full-time are very different to women’s. Only 13.6
per cent of men working full-time would like to work part-time. Men without parenting
responsibilities are slightly more likely to prefer part-time hours (15.3 per cent) compared to
those with parenting responsibilities (11.8 per cent). Fathers’ preferences to remain full-time
most likely reflects the predominance of the male full-time/female part-time dual earner
household in Australia.
38
These findings provide further evidence that much more needs to be done to support women’s
participation in paid employment. The fact that one-third of women working full-time would
prefer to reduce their hours to part-time, regardless of a reduction in income, indicates that fulltime work for Australian women is not meeting their work-life needs and preferences.
Parenting responsibilities and work hours: Fathers work more than they would prefer
In this section we broaden our analysis of the factors that impact on work hours and preferences
by examining household composition. Parenting responsibilities are often the major focus of
research and public discussion around work-life issues, and it is well established that in Australia
women with children, especially younger children, reduce their work hours to provide care for
their children (Australian Government, 2009; OECD, 2002).
As would be expected, parenthood has a significant influence on actual and preferred work
hours, and this differs for men and women. On average, men work longer hours than women
and this gap is particularly evident for those with children aged 17 years or younger (27.8 hours
for women; 43.2 hours for men). Fathers also report working four more hours than they prefer,
whereas mothers report a much better match between actual and preferred hours with a
preference to work one hour less a week. Overall, fathers would prefer to work a full-time week
of 38.9 hours, and mothers a long part-time week of 27.1 hours. The age of children makes little
difference to the overall size of the hours mismatch. There is no significant difference in
preferred hours amongst mothers regardless of the age of their children. Fathers of preschoolers
would like to work a few more hours than fathers of teenagers.
The significant influence that parenting has on women’s employment participation is also evident
in comparisons of individuals with and without parenting responsibilities. Women without
parenting responsibilities work an average of six more hours (34.4 hours per week) than mothers.
The opposite pattern is evident for men: fathers work an average of five more hours than men
without parenting responsibilities who work 40.1 hours per week on average. Women with or
without parenting responsibilities report similar levels of hours mismatch (1.6 and 2.5 hours,
respectively), whereas men with parenting responsibilities report twice this level of mismatch (5.0
hours) compared to men without parenting responsibilities (2.6 hours).
Household composition and work hours
Broadening the analysis to consider household composition provides further insight into the
factors likely to influence men’s and women’s actual and preferred work hours. For instance, the
‘struggle to juggle’ is likely to be qualitatively different for single parents compared to those in
partnered relationships. Table 7 shows that work hours and preferences differ significantly by
household composition and these patterns also vary for men and women.
Partnered fathers work the longest hours (40.2) and also report the greatest mismatch (5.3)
between actual and preferred hours. In contrast, partnered mothers report the shortest hours,
and are working an average of 2.2 hours longer than preferred. The preferred hours of partnered
mothers are almost half that of partnered fathers.
For both men and women, single individuals without children report the second longest work
hours. The gender difference for singles without children in actual hours worked is also large
(men work 8.4 more hours than women), but not as substantial as the difference between
partnered men and women with children (men work 17.2 hours longer than women in this
group). Despite this difference in work hours, single men and women without children report
working just over three hours longer than preferred (3.4 for men; 3.3 for women).
Single parents comprised only a small proportion (5.2 per cent) of the sample. The estimates for
single fathers must be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size (n = 27). For single
parents, the trends are very similar for men and women. Single parents work the shortest hours.
39
Single parents also report the best fit between their actual and preferred hours. This raises
questions about policies to increase sole parents’ hours in paid work. The better work-life
outcomes that they currently enjoy (relative to couple households) are associated with fewer
hours.
Table 7 Actual and preferred work hours by household type and gender, AWALI 2010
Actual work hours
Single with children
Couple with children
Couple without children
Single without children
35.5*
45.7
38.8
41.5
Single with children
Couple with children
Couple without children
Single without children
30.9
28.5
35.5
33.1
Single with children
Couple with children
Couple without children
Single without children
32.1
39.1
37.3
37.7
Preferred work hours
Men
32.7*
40.2
37.1
37.8
Women
31.5
26.3
32.4
30.1
All
31.8
34.9
34.9
34.3
Work hours mismatch
-1.6*
5.3
2.2
3.4
-0.6
2.2
1.8
3.3
-0.8
4.1
2.0
3.4
Note. The work hour gap for those who prefer more hours is negative reflecting the number of extra hours desired to work (i.e. actual hours
minus preferred hours). Table excludes self-employed persons. N = 2317.
Household composition and work hours ‘fit’
Using the benchmark of four or more hours’ gap between actual and preferred hours as a
substantial mismatch (i.e. of around ½ a day), we now examine which household compositions
are associated with the greatest work hours’ mismatch relative to preferences for men and
women.
Starting with those working more than they would prefer, Figure 23 shows that, amongst all
employees, partnered individuals with children are most likely to be working longer hours than
they would like (41.6 per cent), closely followed by single persons with no children (39.4 per
cent). Reflecting their shorter work hours, single parents are least likely to be working more than
their preferences (29.8 per cent).
Partnered fathers are most likely to be working more than they would prefer compared to all
other groups (men and women): almost half (48.9 per cent) would like to work fewer hours. Just
over forty per cent (41.4 per cent) of single men with no children would like to reduce their
hours, whilst just over 30 per cent of single fathers and partnered men without children would
prefer fewer hours.
As observed previously, women are less likely to be working more than they would like, probably
reflecting their shorter work hours. Women without children, whether they are partnered or not,
are most likely to be working more than they would like (36.5 and 36.7 per cent, respectively).
This accords with their longer work hours compared to other women (Table 7).
A preference to work longer hours (i.e. four or more hours) is most common for single parents
(21.9 per cent) and partnered individuals without parenting responsibilities (20.4 per cent). In this
latter group, men are more likely to prefer more hours (23.4 per cent) compared to women (17.2
per cent). Sample size restrictions prevent analysis of single mothers and fathers.
40
All
Women
Men
Couple with children
9.2
41.9
Couple without children
48.9
23.4
Single with children
13.8*
Single without children
13.8
Couple with children
16.3
Couple without children
17.2
Single with children
43.4
11.4
Couple with children
11.9
41.4
53.0
20.4
Single with children
21.9
36.5
45.9
10
Work less
41.6
34.8
48.2
29.8
47.9
30
No change
36.7
44.9
20
Work more
29.4
46.5
12.7
0
30.7
46.3
51.9
Couple without children
Single without children
31.0*
44.7
24.7
Single without children
33.2
55.2*
40
39.4
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 23 Work hours fit with preferences by gender and family structure, AWALI 2010 (per cent)
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. No change = 0 – 3 hours gap between preferred and actual hours.
Work more = prefer to work 4 or more hours more than actual hours. Work less = prefer to work 4 or more hours fewer than
actual hours. Figure excludes self-employed persons. N = 2170.
Work-life interference and hours ‘fit’
Work hours’ fit with preferences can be used as a proxy measure of work-life fit: working four or
more hours than preferred is a reasonable indication that, from a time strain perspective, work is
not fitting in well with other life commitments. Indeed, of those who are working four or more
hours than they would prefer, 70.0 per cent of women and 62.6 per cent of men report being
often or almost always rushed and pressed for time.
As Figure 24 shows, there is a clear association between poor work-life interference and working
more hours than desired. Work-life interference is significantly higher for men and women who
would prefer to reduce their working week by four or more hours. As observed in 2009, there is
no significant difference in work-life interference between those who would prefer more hours
and those who are satisfied (within four hours) with their current work hours.
100
90
Work-life index
80
70
60
52.4
50
40
37.2
40.4 38.7
36.2
52.8 52.6
37.9 37.1
Men
Women
All
30
20
10
0
Work more
No change
Work less
Figure 24 Work-life index scores by work hours fit, AWALI 2010
Note. No change = 0 – 3 hours gap between preferred and actual hours. Work more = prefer to work 4+ more hours than actual
hours. Work less = prefer to work 4 or more hours fewer than actual hours. Figure excludes self-employed persons. N = 2377.
41
It is also noteworthy that the index score for those working four or more hours than preferred is
comparable to that of employees working long hours (48+) (Figure 20). This is an important
observation, as it indicates that what constitutes ‘long hours’ should be defined by both length of
work time and how this fits with workers’ preferences (Barnett, 2006). Both these indicators of
what constitutes ‘reasonable hours’ have clear links with work-life outcomes. Indeed, the
International Labour Office’s concept of ‘decent working time’ includes both the hours worked
and their fit with workers’ preferences (i.e. whether too few or too many hours are worked)
(Boulin, Lallement, Messenger, & Michon, 2006).
A poor fit between actual and preferred hours is important. Its effect on work-life interference as
measured by AWALI is almost equivalent to the score generated by working more than 48 hours
a week. So preferences – and the failure to find a good fit with them – are an important issue.
Those workers working six hours more than they would prefer are likely to have the same kind
of very poor work-life outcomes (index score = 53.6) as workers working more than 48 hours a
week. A substantial proportion of Australian workers (32.8 per cent of men and 27.0 per cent of
women) would like to reduce their work time by six or more hours a week. This group includes
not only long hours’ workers but it also includes one-fifth (22.9 per cent) of men working 35 to
47, and over a third (36.2 per cent) of similar women. Of those working long hours (48+), 67.1
per cent of men and 76.6 per cent of women would like to reduce their working week by six or
more hours.
Summary
Increasing employment participation has been identified as central to ensuring Australia’s
economic growth and prosperity, and to address the ageing of the population in general and the
labour force in particular (Australian Government, 2010a).
Women have been identified as a priority group for strategies to increase employment
participation as their overall labour market participation and their work hours are, on average,
lower than that of Australian men and lower than in many other OECD countries (OECD,
2007).
For women, the most common employment arrangement is longer part-time or full-time hours.
Long full-time hours (48+) for women are uncommon. In contrast, most Australian men work
between 35 to 47 hours or more than 48 hours a week. Longer hours of work are associated with
worse work-life interference. The distinction between longer and shorter hours within part-time
and full-time work is also important.
It is not surprising that very long hours (48+) are associated with worse work-life interference.
What we also observe in 2010 is that not all part-time hours are equal from a work-life
perspective; work-life interference increases with a movement from shorter (<15) to longer parttime (16 to 34) hours. This is a significant observation; it cannot be assumed that all part-time
work offers the same degree of protection against work-life interference.
As in 2009, we also find evidence that part-time work is more beneficial for men’s than women’s
work-life outcomes; women consistently report higher levels of work-life interference in parttime work than men.
There is evidence that many Australians are not happy with their current work hours. Working
more hours than preferred is common: more than a third of Australian workers would like to
reduce their working week by four or more hours, while part time workers would prefer on
average around four hours more work per week.
The risk factors for working more hours than preferred differ for men and women. Women
often reduce their work hours when they have parenting responsibilities, for example by working
part-time whilst their partner continues to work full-time. In contrast, men’s work hours either
42
remain unchanged or increase with parenthood. There is also a strong association between
working longer hours and a mismatch between actual and preferred hours.
There are particular problems for fathers: almost half of all fathers living in couple households
work more than they would prefer. Almost three-quarters of those working 48 hours or more
would like to cut their hours. Women working 35-47 hours are also more likely than similar men
to want to work less.
Clearly, for many women full-time work hours do not fit well with their preferences. Indeed, a
third of women working full-time would like to reduce their work hours to part-time, and there is
little difference between mothers and other women.
On average, Australian employees are working 2.6 more hours than preferred, the same as in
2009. The gap differs significantly by gender, work hours and parenting responsibilities. Three
groups of employees are working around two-thirds of a day longer than they would like each
week: men working long hours, full-time fathers and full-time women.
Working more than preferred also carries a significant work-life penalty. Workers who are
working more than they would like have much higher levels of work-life interference than those
who are satisfied with their hours or would prefer more hours.
In sum, most Australian workers in 2010 feel that they are giving sufficient or too much time and
energy to paid work. This is especially the case for men and women working full-time, and longer
hours in particular. Part-time work provides a better work hours’ fit for women, but increases the
risk of under-employment, relative to preferences, for men. Parenting responsibilities also
increase the likelihood for a poor fit between actual and preferred hours for men, as they are less
likely than women to work part-time when they have children.
These findings make mechanisms that help workers – both men and women – organise the
hours they would prefer important. Work-life interference is increased in Australia by the
presence of so many workers who would like to work less. Many of them are in jobs with long
hours. Others appear to have difficulty getting their hours down, whether they are working fulltime or part-time. This means that the increased flexibility in employment conditions and
regulation in Australia over the past two decades has failed on an important and fairly basic front:
helping workers work the hours they prefer. Long hours are a particular problem for many men
who work them and many fathers find that they cannot get the hours at home they would prefer.
As AWALI 2007 data showed, this is exacerbated by the longer average commutes that long
hours’ workers experience.
In this light, improved rights for employees to request changes in their hours of work are
important, but only if these rights have real operational meaning in workplaces where workloads,
supervisory practices and workplace cultures give them real life (Bailyn, 1997; Lewis, 2001;
Pocock, 2005; Skinner & Pocock, 2008). While there is much focus on mechanisms to permit
workers to reduce their hours from full-time to part-time when they are carers, this analysis
suggests there should be more consideration paid to mechanisms that allow long hours’ workers
to reduce their hours.
43
Section 5: Work-life interference: generation, parenting, income and location
In Section 4 we observed how gender, parenting responsibilities and household composition are
associated with significant differences in work hours, their fit with preferences and the magnitude
and likelihood of working hours more than preferred. In this section we examine the association
between socio-demographic characteristics and work-life interference using the work-life index.
Generation and work-life interference across the life course
The ageing of the Australian population is leading to calls for older workers to maintain their
attachment to paid work, and for increases in the age of retirement and eligibility for retirement
support (Skills Australia, 2010). What do older workers think about their current working hours,
how do they fit with their preferences, and what are the effects on work-life interference? Are
there differences in the preferred working patterns of workers from different generations? This
section turns to these issues.
Here we consider five generations of workers, as follows:
 Teen Workers aged 18 to 19 years
 Generation Y aged 20 to 29 years
 Generation X aged 30 to 44 years
 Baby Boomers aged 45 to 64 years
 Grey Workers who we define as those aged 65 or more
These categories capture the major age groupings in each generation. For this analysis we pool
data from AWALI 2009 and 2010 to create sufficient sample sizes for the youngest and oldest
generations.
Work hours and fit with preferences
As Table 8 shows, there are clear generational differences in actual and preferred work hours and
their degree of ‘fit’, and these patterns differ for men and women. As expected, actual work
hours are longest for Gen X and Baby Boomers who are at or near their peak stage of career and
work engagement. Work hours are shorter for Gen Y and Teen Workers, many of whom are still
engaged in education or training.
Generational differences in work hours are most evident for men; male Gen X and Baby
Boomers work more than 40 hours per week, with substantially lower work hours for men at the
start and end of their working lives. In contrast, with the exception of the youngest and oldest
workers, women’s work hours remain at a ‘long part-time’ level of around 32 to 33 hours per
week across the three Generations of X, Y and Baby Boomers.
There are no signs in this data of a ‘lazy’ Gen Y or Gen X cohort, compared with Baby Boomers.
Indeed, Gen X men work the longest hours – almost three more than Baby Boomers. All three
generations would prefer to work around 34-35 hours a week, with similar preference patterns
amongst men and women. In all three generations, women want to work less than the same aged
men.
This data does not provide evidence of new generations of workers in their twenties or thirties
who work less than Baby Boomers, or who want to work less. Instead, preference patterns are
remarkably consistent across the generations.
Teen Workers and Grey Workers have the best match between their actual and preferred hours,
although Teen women would like to work about two hours more. Gen Y men and women are
also fairly close to their preferences. Gen X and Baby Boomers, particularly men, are most likely
44
to want to reduce their hours. Indeed, men in these generations would like to work around half a
day less.
With the exception of young women aged 18 to 19 years, there is no evidence of a desire or
willingness to increase employment participation in any of the generations. On the contrary,
workers are either satisfied with their work hours, or, in the case of Gen X and Baby Boomer
men, would like to substantially reduce their hours. Across all of the generations women prefer
part-time work hours, and this is also the case for the youngest and oldest generations of men.
These patterns of mismatch between actual and preferred hours are also evident when we
consider overall preferences to increase or reduce work hours, using the benchmark of four or
more hours difference between actual and preferred hours. As Figure 25 shows, it is only with
the youngest two generations (Teens and Gen Y) that there is any evidence of an appetite to
increase work hours, and only for around one quarter of these workers. In contrast, around forty
per cent of both Gen X (43.5 per cent) and Baby Boomers (37.7 per cent) want to reduce their
working time by four or more hours. Thirty per cent of Gen Y workers would like to do the
same, compared to a quarter who would like to work more. Grey Workers have the best fit
between their actual and preferred work hours. They are not, on average, looking for more hours
of work.
Table 8 Actual and preferred work hours by generation and gender, AWALI 2009 & 2010
Actual work hours
Teen workers (18 -19 years)
Gen Y (20 - 29 years)
Gen X (30 - 44 years)
Baby Boomers (45 - 64 years)
Grey workers (65+ years)
28.6
38.2
45.1
42.5
29.6
Teen workers (18 -19 years)
Gen Y (20 - 29 years)
Gen X (30 - 44 years)
Baby Boomers (45 - 64 years)
Grey workers (65+ years)
20.4
32.2
32.0
33.2
23.2
Teen workers (18 -19 years)
Gen Y (20 - 29 years)
Gen X (30 - 44 years)
Baby Boomers (45 - 64 years)
Grey workers (65+ years)
24.9
35.7
39.3
38.0
27.2
Preferred work hours
Men
30.8
37.7
40.4
38.4
27.7
Women
22.5
32.3
29.0
30.5
21.7
All
27.1
35.4
35.4
34.6
25.3
Work hours mismatch
-0.6
1.0
4.6
4.0
0.0
-2.1
0.0
2.7
2.7
1.4
-1.3
0.6
3.8
3.4
0.6
Note. The work hour gap for those who prefer more hours is negative reflecting the number of extra hours desired to work (i.e. actual hours
minus preferred hours). Table excludes self-employed persons. N = 4684.
45
Teens
27.3
Gen Y
61.5
24.1
Gen X
11.3
45.7
11.8
30.2
44.7
Work more
43.5
No change
Baby
Boomers
13.5
Grey
workers
14.4*
0
10
48.8
64.0
20
30
Work less
37.7
40
21.6
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 25 Work hours fit with preferences by generation, AWALI 2009 & 2010 (per cent)
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. No change = 0 – 3 hours gap between preferred and actual hours.
Work more = prefer to work 4 or more hours more than actual hours. Work less = prefer to work 4 or more hours fewer than
actual hours. Figure excludes self-employed persons. N = 4684.
Looking at men and women separately (Figure 26), the clearest gender differences are evident in
Gen X and Baby Boomer generations, the life stages where family responsibilities and
work/career engagement are likely to be at their peak. Nearly half (47.8 per cent) of Gen X men
would prefer fewer hours, the highest proportion of any generational group. Nearly forty per
cent (38.3 per cent) of Gen X women would like to join them. Dissatisfaction with work hours
and a desire to work less is also high for Baby Boomer men (41.0 per cent) and women (34.4 per
cent).
Teens
28.6
Women
Men
Gen Y
57.1
24.0
Gen X
10.2
Baby Boomers
11.7
Grey workers
13.6*
44.8
31.3
42.0
47.8
47.3
Teens
26.0
Gen Y
24.3
Gen X
13.7
Baby Boomers
15.2
Grey workers
13.3*
0
14.3
10
41.0
62.1
24.2*
66.9
47.0
28.7
48.0
34.4
66.7
30
40
No change
Work less
38.3
50.3
20
Work more
7.1*
20.0*
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Figure 26 Work hours fit with preferences by generation and gender, AWALI 2009 & 2010 (per cent)
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. No change = 0 – 3 hours gap between preferred and actual hours.
Work more = prefer to work 4 or more hours more than actual hours. Work less = prefer to work 4 or more hours fewer than
actual hours. Figure excludes self-employed persons. N = 4684.
46
Work-life interference
As we have observed previously, one of the best predictors of work-life interference is the length
of work hours. Not surprisingly, the youngest and oldest generations with the shortest work
hours and best work hours fit with preferences also report the lowest work-life interference
(Figure 27). Grey Workers in particular are likely to have good work-life outcomes.
However, when we adjust for working hours, Teen men and women have high work-life
interference relative to other generations, probably reflecting their juggle of study, work and the
rest of their lives.
100
90
80
Work-life index
70
60
50
40
42.3
37.4
41.7
41.1
41.7 41.7 42.2
41.0
Gen Y
42.9
39.0
29.3
25.5
30
Teen workers
49.6 48.8 48.3
46.4 45.7
46.3
36.3
29.2
Gen X
Baby Boomers
20
Grey workers
10
0
Men
Women
Men
Unadjusted
Women
Adjusted for work hours
Figure 27 Work-life index scores by generation and gender, AWALI 2009 & 2010
Note. Figure excludes self-employed persons. Index scores adjusted for work hours. N = 4681.
Looking at index scores unadjusted for work hours, Gen X men have the worst work-life
outcomes compared to all other men, which is not surprising given they also work the longest
hours. For women the picture across generations is different, with Grey Workers having the best
work-life outcomes, followed by Baby Boomers and Teen Workers. Despite their shorter work
hours, Gen Y and Gen X women have the same levels of work-life interference as Gen X men,
possibly related to the women’s higher levels of participation in education and caring
responsibilities.
Adjusting for work hours changes the generational story most dramatically for Teen Workers;
their work-life interference is on par with that of older generations (X and Y) when differences in
work hours are controlled.
Finally, controlling for work hours women consistently report worse work-life interference
compared to men, and this is particularly pronounced for younger generations (Teens, Gen X
and Y) and for Grey Workers. Men and women in the Baby Boomer generation show little
difference in their work-life outcomes, whether differences in work hours are controlled or not.
Full-time and part-time work across the generations
Average work hours differ across the generations, and this is especially the case for men (Table
8). These differences are also reflected in the distribution of workers across part-time and fulltime work (Figure 28). The majority of Gen Y (75.7 per cent), X (93.1 per cent) and Baby
Boomer (83.9 per cent) men are in full-time employment, with the youngest and oldest male
workers more evenly distributed between part-time and full-time employment. Amongst women,
there is a more even distribution between part-time and full-time employment in Gen Y, X and
Baby Boomer generations, with the youngest and oldest female workers highly concentrated in
part-time work (74.0 and 66.7 per cent, respectively).
47
100
93.1
90
83.9
75.7
80
74.0
66.7
70
55.7
60
%
52.2
50
48.8
44.1
42.7
47.8
44.3
57.3
55.9
51.2
Teen workers
Gen Y
40
33.3*
30
26.0
24.3
Baby Boomers
16.1
20
Grey workers
6.9
10
Gen X
0
Part-time
Full-time
Part-time
Men
Full-time
Women
Figure 28 Part-time and full-time work hours by generation and gender, AWALI 2009 & 2010 (per cent)
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. N = 4684.
As discussed in Section 3, full-time work is associated with worse work-life interference, and this
is particularly the case for women. The work-life strains associated with full-time work are also
evident across the generations (Figure 29), with the least negative impact on the youngest and
oldest workers. These patterns are also evident for men and women.
There is also evidence that the work-life benefits of part-time work are not evenly distributed
across the generations. Baby Boomers and Grey Workers gain the most benefit from part-time
work, and this is particularly the case for Grey Workers. Work-life outcomes for Gen X and Gen
Y also benefit from part-time work, but the magnitude of reduction in work-life interference is
significantly lower compared to the older generations.
100
90
Work-life index
80
70
60
50
40
46.0
39.0 39.5
39.7
47.7
45.2
41.2
Part-time
36.3
32.3
30
Full-time
20.5
20
10
0
Teen workers
Gen Y
Gen X
Baby Boomers Grey workers
Figure 29 Work-life index scores by work hours, generation and gender, AWALI 2009 & 2010
Note. N = 4684.
Parenting responsibilities
It is well established and widely acknowledged that parenting responsibilities can increase the
challenge of achieving a good work-life relationship (Craig, 2007). As in many other countries,
Australian mothers are most often the primary care givers, especially of very young children.
48
Looking at index scores unadjusted and adjusted for work hours, it is clear that parenting
responsibilities increase work-life interference for men and women (Table 9).
As we observed in Section 4, women are most likely to reduce their work hours to manage both
child care and paid work responsibilities, whereas men are likely to maintain or increase their
work hours with parenthood. Therefore, it is particularly important when examining the effect of
parenting responsibilities on work-life interference to control for differences in work hours.
Table 9 Work hours and work-life index scores by gender, AWALI 2010
Work hours
Child < 18 years
No child
All
43.2
39.9
41.4
Child < 18 years
No child
All
34.5
27.8
31.6
Child < 18 years
No child
All
36.5
37.4
37.0
Index unadjusted
Men
46.2
40.2
42.9
Women
45.7
41.1
43.1
All
46.0
40.6
43.0
Index adjusted
43.1
38.8
40.9
50.2
42.4
45.7
46.7
40.6
43.3
Note. N = 2377.
When we control for differences in work hours the impact of parenting responsibilities on
increasing work-life interference persists for men and women (Table 9). However, it is clear that
parenthood has the greatest impact on work-life outcomes for mothers. Employee women with
children have the highest work-life interference compared to women without children and men
with or without children.
Household composition
The experience of sole parents (here defined as those with children aged 17 years or younger) is
likely to be very different from partnered parents. This distinction is particularly important for
examining the effect of parenthood on men’s work-life relationship. Partnered fathers work
around 10 hours longer every week compared to sole-parent fathers. In contrast, sole-parent
mothers work two hours more than partnered mothers, on average.
In this analysis we focus exclusively on employees, as our sample of self-employed persons is not
of sufficient size to support more detailed analysis.
Statistically adjusting for differences in work hours, we can examine the impact of different
household structures on men’s and women’s work-life interference. As Figure 30 shows,
parenthood, whether partnered or sole, is associated with higher work-life interference for men
and women. The clearest gender difference is evident for couples with children; partnered
women have significantly higher work-life interference compared to partnered men. Estimates
for single parents should be interpreted with caution, due to the low sample size.
49
Work-life index
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
49.3 49.6 49.5
52.3
43.6
47.9
38.2
42.2 40.2
38.9
43.4 41.7
Men
Women
All
Single parent
Couple with
children
Couple without
children
Single without
children
Figure 30 Work-life index scores by household structure and gender, AWALI 2010
Note. Table excludes self-employed persons. Index scores adjusted for work hours. N = 2317.
Household income
Turning to the effects of household income, estimates for the lowest income group should be
interpreted with caution due to the small sample size.
Household income is a resource that can be used to ease work-life pressures and strains.
Additional income can be used to purchase supports (e.g. child-care, house cleaning, gardening),
and time saving goods (e.g. pre-prepared foods) and is likely to be more available to higher
income individuals and households generating a ‘positive resource’ for them. On the other hand,
higher levels of household income are usually associated with longer work hours and
employment in managerial or professional occupations where high levels of work-life
interference are common, generating what we call a ‘negative stress’ effect.
Those on lower incomes must manage work and family commitments without time-saving
resources, and they are more likely to experience time strains and negative stress related to
reliance on public transport and longer commutes from suburbs located at a distance from their
jobs (Masterman-Smith and Pocock 2008).
Men and women in the lowest income group (< $30,000) report the shortest work hours. Those
on higher incomes of $30,000 to $89,000 work longer hours (around 38 hours for men and 30
hours for women). Work hours are significantly longer in the highest income group ($90,000+),
and this is particularly the case for men.
Controlling for differences in work hours, those with the highest incomes report the worst worklife interference (although the contrast with the lowest income group did not reach statistical
significance most likely due to the small sample size of the lower income group) (Table 10). This
suggests that the negative stress effect dominates the positive resource effect amongst higher
earners: their access to income to purchase resources and support does not override the negative
effect of their longer hours and more demanding jobs it seems.
However, there are some important gender differences. Women in the lowest and highest
income groups report the worst work-life outcomes (although the contrast is not significant for
low income women again most likely due to the low sample size). Nevertheless, when differences
in work hours are controlled, the work-life index scores of low and high income women are
equivalent.
50
For men, there is little difference in work-life interference for those earning more than $30,000
per year. Men earning less than $30,000 per year report the best work-life outcomes, but this
contrast is not statistically significant (most likely due to the small sample of low income men).
In each income group, women report higher work-life interference than men, with the greatest
contrast evident in the highest and lowest income groups.
There is little difference in women’s and men’s work hours in low income households, yet
women report higher work-life interference than men, whether index scores are adjusted or
unadjusted for work hours. This suggests that living on a low income has a worse effect on
women’s work-life outcomes relative to men’s.
In contrast, women in higher income households work significantly (10.5) fewer hours than
similar men. When this difference is not statistically controlled, high income men and women
report equivalent levels of work-life interference. Controlling for this difference in work hours, it
is clear that increased financial resources do not ease work-life pressures for higher income
women relative to men.
Table 10 Work-life index scores and work hours by household income, AWALI 2010
< $30,000
Men
Women
All
Hours
22.9
20.7
21.4
Index
33.7
46.9
40.3
$30,000 – $59,999
$60,000 – $89,999
Hours
38.4
30.2
34.4
Hours
39.2
31.2
35.2
Index
39.4
42.8
41.1
Index
40.4
44.1
42.3
$90,000+
Hours
45.1
34.6
41.2
Index
42.3
48.8
45.6
Note. Table excludes self-employed persons. Index scores adjusted for work hours. N = 2377.
Geographic location
As observed in previous years, there is little difference in work-life interference between the
states and territories. The estimates for South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital
Territory should be interpreted with caution due to the lower sample sizes for these states
(<300).
Table 11 Work-life index scores by geographic location, AWALI 2008, 2009 & 2010
2008
2009
2010
ACT
43.8
44.7
46.8
NSW
43.6
44.7
44.5
SA
39.3
41.2
43.7
TAS
39.8
43.0
38.9
QLD
44.0
43.6
42.3
VIC
43.0
41.9
41.7
WA
39.3
41.7
42.6
Note. Figure excludes self-employed persons. 2009 N = 2422. 2009 N = 2276. 2008 N = 2361. 2010 N = 2377.
Rural/regional and urban workers’ work-life interference
Where people live can have a major influence on the ease with which work and life commitments
and responsibilities can be integrated. Citizens in rural and regional areas may have higher
transport costs, spend more time travelling, and services may be more limited or difficult to
access. On the other hand, people living in smaller communities may experience stronger social
networks and community connectedness which can provide important work-life supports.
Overall, there is little difference in the work-life interference of employees living in rural/regional
compared to urban locations and this is consistent with results in 2009. Contrasts emerge when
gender and parental status are taken into account.
There is little difference in the work hours between these two geographic groups. The largest
difference was for workers without children; urban men and women in this group work slightly
longer hours (2.5 and 2.4 respectively) than their rural/regional counterparts.
51
Table 12 shows the adjusted index scores for employees in urban and rural/regional locations.
There is very little change from 2009 to 2010 for each of the groups, with the exception of
fathers living in rural/regional areas. Their work-life interference has increased from 2009 to
2010, but it should be noted that the 2009 index score is comparable to the 2008 result (40.0).
As observed in 2009, mothers living in urban or rural/regional areas report the highest levels of
work-life interference in 2010. The gap between the index scores of mothers and fathers is also
greatest for those in rural/regional areas. This suggests that mothers in rural/regional areas are
particularly susceptible to work-life strains, a result that is consistent in 2009 and 2010.
Index scores for employees without parenting responsibilities are comparable across all of the
groups presented in Table 12. This further supports the argument that parenting in rural/regional
areas, particularly for women, is a significant work-life challenge.
It is likely that there are similarities and differences in the work-life challenges and supports that
impact on urban and rural/regional women. Clearly more research is required to investigate this
question, and to identify strategies to support the work-life outcomes of women in all geographic
locations and perhaps especially mothers in rural and regional areas.
Table 12 Work-life index scores of rural/regional and urban employees by gender and parenting status,
AWALI 2010
Rural/regional
_____________________________
2009
2010
Index – adjusted
Index – adjusted
Child < 18 years
No child
All
36.8
37.5
37.2
41.5
37.8
39.6
Child < 18 years
No child
All
51.3
44.6
48.0
50.6
43.1
48.2
Child < 18 years
No child
All
44.1
41.1
42.6
46.4
41.4
43.5
Urban
______________________________
2009
2010
Index – adjusted
Index – adjusted
Men
44.4
44.0
39.9
39.1
42.1
41.6
Women
51.1
49.7
42.5
41.3
46.8
45.5
All
47.7
46.8
41.2
40.2
44.5
43.5
Note. Data excludes self-employed persons. Index scores adjusted for work hours. Rural/regional N = 869. Urban N = 1508.
Summary
As observed in previous years, social-demographic characteristics related to life stage, parenting
status, household composition, income and location exert a significant influence on work-life
outcomes. Gender interacts with these factors, often producing different effects for men and
women.
Work-life outcomes differ significantly across the generations. Generation X and particularly
men in this group, are most likely to experience poor work-life outcomes. Gen X men, along
with Baby Boomer men, work the longest hours. A substantial portion of these hours are
involuntary; these men would like to work around half a day less. We find no evidence that Gen
X and Gen Y workers would like to work less than Baby Boomers: in fact, working hours
preferences are remarkably stable across the generations.
For men and women, across the generations, there is little evidence of an appetite to increase
working hours. Rather, the majority of workers in each generation are either satisfied with their
work hours or would prefer to work less. Gen X workers are most likely to prefer a reduction in
52
work hours; 47.8 per cent of Gen X men and 38.8 per cent of women would like to work at least
four hours less per week.
Baby Boomers would also prefer to work less; 41.0 per cent of men and 34.4 per cent of women
in this generation want to reduce their work hours by half a day (4 hours) or more.
Work-life interference is highest for Gen X and Gen Y men and women when parenting and
work/career commitments are both likely to be at their peak. Controlling for work hours, it is in
these generations that we also see the greatest gender difference, with women reporting higher
work-life interference than men.
The overlap between work/career and family commitments most likely explains the fact that the
work-life outcomes of Gen X and Gen Y are least likely to benefit from part-time work. In
contrast, there are clear work-life benefits associated with working part-time for Baby Boomers
and Grey Workers.
As expected, parenting responsibilities are associated with increased work-life interference. This
effect is strongest for women. Household income also has different associations with men’s and
women’s work-life outcomes. Controlling for differences in work hours, there is little change in
men’s work-life interference across household income groups, although it seems that low income
men have the lowest work-life interference. Women in the lowest and highest household income
brackets have the worst work-life interference. Clearly, living in a low income household (< $30,
000) places greater work-life strains and pressures on women compared to men.
Women’s work-life outcomes are also more sensitive to the effects of geographic location. The
largest gap between father’s and mother’s work-life interference occurs for those living in
rural/regional locations. For fathers, living in a rural/regional location is associated with lower
work-life interference compared to their urban counterparts, whereas mothers’ report
comparable work-life interference whether in the city or the country.
53
Section 6: Employment characteristics and work-life interference
How do different forms of employment, and its various characteristics, affect work-life
interference? We consider how work-life outcomes differ across different forms of employment
(part-time, full-time and self-employment), occupations and industries, and compare those on
permanent/ongoing, fixed term or casual contracts.
Unless indicated otherwise, we adjust for differences in working hours allowing us to focus on
specific characteristics of work beyond the effects created by longer or shorter hours.
Type of employment contract
Amongst our survey group of 2803 employed persons, 2377 were employees and 380 were selfemployed (46 did not specify). Of employees, 73.0 per cent were employed as ongoing or
permanent employees (77.1 per cent of men and 68.3 per cent of women), 9.3 per cent were on
fixed term contracts (9.5 per cent of men and 9.1 per cent of women) and 17.6 per cent were
employed casually (13.4 per cent of men and 22.6 per cent of women). This is slightly lower than
the proportion of casual workers indicated by ABS surveys (19.8 per cent in November 2009)
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009b). This possibly reflects the fact that the ABS labour force
survey includes respondents aged 15 years and older while AWALI includes those aged 18 years
and over.
There are substantial differences in work hours for employees on these different forms of
employment contract. Casuals work fewer hours than other employees (20.5 for all; 24.2 for men
and 17.7 for women). There is little difference in the work hours of permanent/ongoing (40.7)
and fixed term employees (39.4), although men in permanent employment tend to work slightly
longer hours (44.4) than men on fixed term contracts (42.2), a difference not observed for
women on such contracts (35.6 and 35.7 hours, respectively).
Given that casual employees work around half the hours of permanent or fixed term employees,
it is no surprise that they also report the lowest level work-life interference on the work-life index
when differences in work hours are not taken into account.
When these differences in work hours are statistically controlled, there is no difference in worklife interference between these three types of employment contracts for men, women or all
employees. Further, within each of the types of employment contract, women report higher
work-life interference compared to men, statistically controlling for differences in work hours.
This confirms findings from early AWALI surveys: casual terms of work do not confer more
positive work-life outcomes.
Furthermore, casual work does not enable a better fit of work hours to preferences. Casual
workers are most likely to prefer to increase their working week by four or more hours (44.6 per
cent) compared to permanent (9.4 per cent) or fixed term (16.4 per cent) workers. Only ten per
cent of casual workers want to reduce their working time by four or more hours, compared to 42
per cent of permanent and fixed term employees. Male casual workers are most likely to prefer
more hours (50.3 per cent), and 40.6 per cent of their female co-workers want to join them.
Self-employment
In many ways self-employment can be a qualitatively different way of engaging in paid work
compared to being an employee. Self-employment can create the opportunity for greater control
over the timing, arrangement and conduct of work. On the other hand, with increased autonomy
can come greater responsibility, for example with regard to business administration, finance and
meeting deadlines.
54
Self-employment, work hours and work-life interference
Here we examine the intersection of employment type and work hours (part-time, full-time) to
further investigate the work-life effects of being self-employed compared to being an employee.
Looking at work-life index scores, there is little evidence that self-employment benefits work-life
outcomes (Table 13).
Amongst all workers there is no significant difference in work-life interference between the selfemployed and employees, whether differences in work hours are statistically controlled or not.
However, there are gender differences, with no difference in work-life outcomes between
employee and self-employed women but higher work-life interference for self-employed men.
These findings suggest that, there are aspects of self-employment that are particularly detrimental
to men’s work-life outcomes, beyond the effect of their longer hours. These may include, for
example, unfixed hours, and the need to develop work contacts and maintain business records.
The impact of self-employment on both work hours and work-life outcomes also needs to be
considered in the context of part-time and full-time employment.
Table 13 shows that, for men and women, these differences in work-life interference occur for
full-time but not part-time workers. Employee men and women and self-employed men in parttime employment work around 20 hours per week, with self-employed women working slightly
fewer hours (17.7). In full-time work both men and women in self-employment work longer
hours than their employee counterparts; 6.3 hours longer for women and 5.5 hours for men.
These differences in work hours are reflected in the (unadjusted) work-life index scores. Starting
with part-time workers, employee and self-employed men work equivalent part-time hours and
also report comparable, and low, levels of work-life interference. The slightly longer hours of
part-time women employees compared to self-employed women are associated with worse worklife interference; however, this difference is not statistically significant (most likely due to the
relatively small sample size of part-time self-employed women). Furthermore, self-employed men
and women working part-time report similar levels of work-life interference, whereas part-time
employee women have higher work-life interference compared to their male counterparts.
Table 13 Work hours and work-life index scores of employees and self-employed workers by gender,
AWALI 2010
Employee
____________________
Work hours Index unadj.
Part-time
Full-time
All
20.3
46.1
41.4
33.6
45.0
42.9
Part-time
Full-time
All
20.0
42.3
31.6
38.7
47.1
43.1
Part-time
Full-time
All
20.1
44.8
37.0
37.1
45.7
43.0
Self-employed
___________________
Work hours
Index unadj.
Men
21.0
34.5
51.6
51.7
44.3
47.7
Women
17.7
32.9
48.6
54.1
31.3
42.1
All
19.2
33.6
51.0
52.2
40.0
45.8
All employed
____________________
Work hours Index unadj.
20.5
46.9
41.8
33.8
45.9
43.6
19.7
42.8
31.5
38.1
47.8
43.1
20.0
45.5
37.3
36.7
46.5
43.4
Note. Employee N = 2377. Self-employed N = 380.
Full-time men and women in self-employment have worse work-life interference compared to
their employee counterparts, most likely reflecting their longer work hours. This difference is
55
only statistically significant for men probably reflecting the small sample size of full-time selfemployed women.
In sum, these findings indicate that part-time employment provides the greatest work-life
benefits for men (self-employed or employee) and self-employed women. These benefits are also
evident for employee women working part-time but they are smaller. Full-time work is associated
with higher work-life interference across the board, with no evidence that self-employment
assists men or women to achieve better work-life outcomes.
Self-employment and parenting responsibilities
Some workers, especially women, may choose self-employment as a strategy to better manage
work and family responsibilities (Williams, Skinner, & Pocock, 2008). As in previous AWALI
surveys, we continue to find that self-employment does not assist parents to reduce their worklife interference compared to those who are employees.
There are, however, some differences in the work hours of self-employed and employee parents.
Self-employed fathers work an average of 6.1 hours longer than employee fathers, while selfemployed mothers work 4.5 hours less than their employee counterparts.
Adjusting for these differences in work hours, employee and self-employed women report
comparable levels of work-life interference regardless of parenting responsibilities. Therefore, it
seems that self-employment for women does not provide any work-life benefits or disadvantages.
When differences in work hours are controlled, it is clear that male employees’ work-life
relationship is the least affected by parenting responsibilities. The least difference in work-life
outcomes between those with and without parenting responsibilities is observed for employee
men. In addition, for men the greatest contrast between employees and self-employed workers
occurs amongst fathers. This suggest that self-employment per se, independent of longer work
hours, has a detrimental effect on fathers’ work-life relationship. Employee men also report the
best work-life outcomes compared to women (employee and self-employed) and self-employed
men.
Table 14 Work hours and work-life index scores of employees and self-employed workers by gender and
parenting status, AWALI 2010
Employee
_____________________
Work
Index
Index
hours
unadj.
adj.
Self-employed
______________________
Work
Index
Index
hours
unadj.
adj.
Men
49.3
55.8
50.5
Child <
18 years
No child
All
43.2
46.2
43.1
39.9
41.4
40.2
42.9
38.8
40.9
39.5
44.3
Child <
18 years
No child
All
34.5
45.7
50.2
30.0
27.8
31.6
41.1
43.1
42.4
45.7
32.3
31.3
Child <
18 years
No child
All
36.5
46.0
46.7
37.4
37.0
40.6
43.0
40.6
43.3
All employed
______________________
Work
Index
Index
hours
unadj.
adj.
44.2
47.9
44.4
39.8
47.6
Women
46.8
40.1
45.3
39.8
41.8
40.2
43.8
38.9
41.7
52.5
28.0
45.7
50.5
42.7
47.6
34.2
31.5
40.9
43.0
42.5
46.5
43.3
38.4
42.1
All
53.0
51.5
37.5
47.0
47.5
37.0
40.0
39.3
45.8
41.4
46.5
37.3
37.3
40.5
43.5
40.7
44.1
Note. Employee N = 2377. Self-employed N = 380.
56
Gender differences in work-life interference are less evident for self-employed workers. When
work hours are not statistically controlled, self-employed fathers report the highest work-life
interference compared to men without children and self-employed women. Controlling for work
hours effectively eliminates these differences: regardless of parenting responsibilities selfemployed men and women report similar levels of work-life interference.
In sum, for those workers with parenting responsibilities, self-employment is most likely to be
associated with higher work-life interference for men (compared to other men). For women,
there is little difference between being an employee or self-employed, although employee
mothers are likely to have higher work-life interference than employee fathers.
Occupation
A consistent finding in the AWALI surveys is that managers and professionals have the worst
work-life interference compared to most other occupational groups (Figure 31). This pattern is
evident whether differences in work hours are statistically controlled for or not. (Figure 31 shows
adjusted index scores that control for work hours).
As expected, differences in work hours closely match these occupational trends in work-life
interference with a few exceptions. Managers and professionals work the longest hours (46.1 and
38.2 hours, respectively). Longer hours are also reported by male technicians and trade workers
(44.2; 31.4 for women), and male machinery operators and drivers (44.9).
Looking across all occupations (Figure 31), men consistently work longer hours than women.
The largest difference in work hours is evident for technicians and trade workers (12.8 more
hours), and sales, machinery operation/driving and labouring (9.8 more hours in each
occupation).
Considering differences in work-life interference by occupation and controlling for differences in
hours, three points are clear from Figure 31. Firstly, there are larger differences in work-life
interference between occupations than between men and women within them. Secondly, worklife scores are positively related to skill level, with managers and professionals being the most
likely to report work-life interference. Thirdly, the differences between men and women are
almost always in men’s favour, with the largest gender gaps apparent in technical and trades and
clerical and administrative occupations (although these are not always statistically significant).
An important question for future research is the particular characteristics of professional work
that put women more at risk of work-life interference than men. Men in professional
occupations report working 7.0 hours longer than their female colleagues, which provides further
evidence to suggest that job quality factors (e.g. work intensity, time pressure, evening and
weekend work, or unpaid care responsibilities) may more strongly impact on professional
women’s work-life outcomes.
57
37.9
41.2
39.5
Labourers
39.7
36.1*
37.9
Machinery operators/drivers
39.8
42.6
41.2
Sales
38.6
44.2
41.4
Clerical & administrative
Men
42.7
43.2
43.0
Community & personal services
Women
All
38.7
45.0
41.8
Technicians & trades
Professionals
42.9
49.5
46.2
Managers
45.3
48.7
47.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Work-life index
Figure 31 Work-life index scores by occupation and gender, AWALI 2010
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. Figure excludes self-employed persons. Index scores adjusted for work hours. N
=2377.
Industry
In this analysis we combine the 2009 and 2010 AWALI data to create larger sample sizes for
industry groups.
Work hours differ significantly across industries. The longest hours are reported by those in
mining (49.6), construction (44.6), electricity\gas\water\waste services (42.7) and transport,
postal and warehousing (42.1). The lowest hours are reported in arts and recreation (28.1),
accommodation and food services (29.4) and retail trade (30.4).
Table 15 shows work-life index scores by industry, both unadjusted and adjusted for differences
in work hours.
Even with the combined 2009/2010 data we do not find that contrasts between specific
industries reach statistical significance. This may be due to small sample sizes for some industry
groups (e.g. wholesale trade, rental/real-estate services).
There are, however, trends in the data which provide some insight into the industry-related
factors that may impact on work-life outcomes.
Controlling for differences in work hours, work-life interference is highest (> 45.0 on the index)
in health care/social assistance, accommodation/food services, professional/scientific services,
retail trade and education and training. There is little difference in the adjusted and unadjusted
index scores for these industries. This suggests that factors other than work hours contribute to
the poor work-life outcomes of workers in these industries. It is notable that four out of these
five industries are primarily focused on delivering services to clients, customers or in the case of
58
education, students. Work that centres on interactions with others in delivering goods or services
has been identified as having unique stressors such as the requirement for ‘emotional labour’ in
managing the mood and emotion of oneself and others (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). This is
one possible explanation for the predominance of these industries in the top rankings for poor
work-life outcomes.
In contrast, when the effect of work hours is controlled, mining and construction are amongst
the six industries with the lowest work-life interference. It is in these industries that we also see
the largest gap between unadjusted and adjusted index scores, indicating that work hours have a
strong influence on work-life outcomes in these industries. As observed previously, workers in
mining and construction report the longest hours compared to other industries.
Table 15 Work-life index scores unadjusted and adjusted for work hours by industry (from highest to
lowest adjusted score), AWALI 2009 and 2010 (combined)
Index
adjusted
46.9
46.4
46.1
44.7
45.8
43.7
43.3
42.5
42.5
42.1
40.5
41.6
41.4
40.8
40.7
40.3
39.6
39.0
38.6
Health care and social assistance
Accommodation and food services
Professional/scientific and technical services
Retail trade
Education and training
Financial and insurance services
Information media and telecommunications
Arts and recreation services
Agriculture/forestry and fishing
Rental/hiring and real estate services
Transport/postal and warehousing
Public administration and safety
Administrative and support services
Wholesale trade
Electricity/gas/water and waste services
Mining
Other services
Manufacturing
Construction
Index
unadjusted
45.0
42.6
46.6
41.4
45.5
45.0
45.0
38.0
44.8
42.1
43.0
42.2
39.4
42.6
43.5
46.5
39.7
40.8
42.3
Note. Figure excludes self-employed persons. N = 4684.
Summary
The experience of paid work can be qualitatively different according to a range of employment
characteristics such as self-employment, occupation, industry and type of employment contract.
As observed in previous AWALI surveys, these differences have a significant impact on the
capacity of workers to achieve good work-life outcomes.
Consistent with earlier years we find no work-life benefit for casual workers compared to fixed
term or permanent employees, once differences in work hours had been controlled.
There is also no evidence that self-employment enables workers to achieve a better work-life
relationship compared to being an employee. Self-employment is associated with longer work
hours for those in full-time work and for parents. This translates into worse work-life
interference for full-time self-employed workers compared to their employee counterparts.
Part-time work, whether in self-employment or as an employees, is associated with better worklife outcomes. However, female employees benefit less from part-time work than men.
59
There is also no evidence that self-employment assists those with parenting responsibilities.
Indeed, for fathers self-employment is associated with longer hours and worse work-life
interference compared to their employee counterparts, whereas for mothers, there is little
difference in work-life outcomes between employees and the self-employed.
In each AWALI survey, managers and professionals consistently emerge as working the longest
hours, and having the worst work-life interference. Further, women in professional occupations
have worse work-life interference than their male colleagues, whether differences in work hours
are controlled or not. This is an important finding in view of the growing proportion of women
who are graduating with professional qualifications and the strategic role that managers occupy in
setting the terms and norms of employment for others.
Industry sector also makes a difference to work-life outcomes. Although the differences between
specific industries are not statistically significant, the trends in the data indicate that industries
that involve providing services to other people (e.g. health, education, food and accommodation,
retail) are associated with worse work-life interference, controlling for differences in work hours.
Two industries well known for long work hours, construction and mining, are associated with the
worst work-life outcomes when differences in work hours are not statistically controlled.
60
Section 7: Take leave! Holidays and work-life interference in Australia
How does having a holiday affect work-life outcomes?
AWALI 2010 investigates annual leave, and how different patterns of annual leave taking, affect
work-life interference.
Having a paid annual holiday is a working condition that many Australian workers value. For
many, a paid holiday is associated with relaxation, quality time with family and friends and long
term health (Tourism Australia, 2009, p. 2). A recent Dutch study found that health and wellbeing improved on holidays, although these positive effects were short-lived on return to work
(de Bloom et al, 2010).
Australia’s labour law has provided paid leave to most employees since 1941, with most
permanent full-time employees entitled to four weeks paid leave (the standard since 1973), shift
workers to a week more, and permanent part-timers to a pro-rata level.
Casual workers are paid a loading which in theory compensates for the loss of paid leave as well
as the more precarious nature of their employment. The growth in casual employment in
Australia has seen an increase in the proportion of Australian workers who do not have a paid
leave entitlement. In June 2009, 74.4 per cent of Australian employees were entitled to paid
holiday leave in their main job, 77.9 per cent of men and 70.6 per cent of women, leaving a
quarter of all workers without paid leave (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009c).
Compared to OECD countries, Australia’s leave provisions are not generous: they are average.
While the US does not offer any comprehensive entitlement to paid leave, other countries offer
more (France provides 30 paid days, and Finland, Norway and Sweden 25 (Ray and Schmitt
2007, p. 2).
In 2009, Tourism Australia began a campaign to encourage Australians to stop stockpiling their
leave, and to use their annual leave. Our results confirm the wisdom of this encouragement: not
taking leave is associated with worse work-life outcomes.
We asked full-time permanent and fixed-term employees (working more than 35 hours a week)
about their patterns of annual leave taking, and we compared results with 2002, when The
Australia Institute (TAI) asked a comparable group of randomly selected respondents the same
questions (Denniss 2003).
Table 16 shows that in 2009 the majority of Australian employees did not take all their annual
leave entitlement: four in ten did so, leaving 59.7 per cent stockpiling some portion of their leave
entitlement. In 2002, 39 per cent of all employees used all their paid leave.
There are no significant differences in 2009 between the leave behaviour of those of different
ages, parenting responsibilities, incomes, or from different kinds of households. Both women
and men stockpile leave at similar levels.
61
Table 16 Used all paid leave in 2009 by gender, age and parenting status, AWALI 2010 and The Australia
Institute TAI 2002 (per cent)
All
Age
18 – 24 yearsa
AWALI 2010
________________________
Men
Women
All
41.0
39.2
40.3
TAI 2002
________________________
Men
Women
All
38
41
39
34.3
37.3*
35.3
-
-
-
25 – 34 years
40.1
31.9
37.5
-
-
37
35 – 49 years
41.1
42.9
41.7
-
-
36
50 – 59 years
45.6
43.6
44.6
-
-
50
60+ years
Parenting responsibility
Children < 18 years
44.9
38.5*
43.2
-
-
-
40.5
39.6
40.3
-
-
44
No children < 18 years
Household composition
Single parent
41.4
38.9
40.3
-
-
38
57.9*
42.9*
47.5
-
-
Couple with children
41.7
40.4
41.5
-
-
Couple without children
40.7
41.0
40.8
-
-
42.0
36.0
40.0
-
-
**
Single without children
Household income
< $30 000
**
**
**
-
$30 000 - $59 999
44.2
39.6
42.5
-
-
42
$60 000+
40.1
39.0
39.7
-
-
39
Note: *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. **Estimate not provided due to inadequate sample size. ‘-‘ Data not available. aTAI
data only included those aged 25 – 59 years. Both surveys exclude part-time and casual employees and the self-employed. TAI N = 345. AWALI
N = 1528.
Holiday stockpiling and work-life interference
Turning to working hours, however, we do find some interesting differences. Those working
long hours are less likely to take all of their leave than those who work between 35-47 hours (
Table 17). This holds for men and women. Given that those working long hours experience
much worse work-life interference, their lower level of leave taking is unlikely to be helping them
reconcile their work with the rest of their lives.
Contract work appears to be associated with quite gendered differences in leave taking, with
women on fixed term contracts more likely than women on permanent contracts to take all their
leave, while men on fixed term contracts are much less likely to take leave compared to their
counterparts on permanent contracts. This may reflect the occupational and industry sexsegmentation of contract work.
Whether male or female, just over four in ten professional workers take all their leave, compared
to slightly less non-professionals (39.7 per cent) and a smaller proportion of non-professional
women in particular (36.8 per cent).
How does the failure to take all leave affect work-life interference? We find significant effects,
with those who do not take all their leave having worse work-life interference (Table 18). The
difference is small amongst men but wider amongst women. Mothers are particularly badly
affected when they do not take leave: mothers of children under 18 years had a work-life score of
55.8 which is worse than the poor work-life outcomes of those who work more than 48 hours a
week (who have a score of 54.1), or those who work more than they would prefer (52.6).
62
Table 17 Used all paid leave in 2009 by gender, work hours, employment contract and occupation,
AWALI 2010 (per cent)
Men
Women
All
42.0
41.4
41.7
48+
Employment contract
Permanent/ongoing
37.2
34.7
36.6
41.8
38.3
40.6
Fixed term
Occupation
Managerial/professional
32.6
46.0
38.0
41.3
41.9
41.5
All other occupations
41.0
36.8
39.7
Work hours
35 – 47 hours
Note: Table excludes part-time and casual employees, and the self-employed. N = 1528.
There is no significant difference in work-life interference between parents and those without
children who took all their leave (Table 18). There is however a significant difference between
parents and those without children who did not take their leave, with both fathers and mothers
having much worse work-life interference where they did not take all their leave, compared to
their peers without parenting responsibilities. The take-home message here is: taking leave can
assist in reducing work-life interference, and it is particularly important that women and parents
use their leave. Their work-life outcomes are likely to be more negative, and in some cases much
more negative, where they do not use their leave entitlements.
These patterns of work-life interference outcomes are the same whether working hours are
controlled or not.
Table 18 Uptake of paid leave and work-life index scores by gender, AWALI 2010
Child < 18 years
No child
All
Took all paid leave
___________________________________
Men
Women
All
45.2
48.1
45.9
44.5
44.1
44.4
44.8
45.3
45.0
Did not take all paid leave
______________________________
Men
Women
All
48.4
55.8
50.2
42.3
44.5
43.2
45.3
48.1
46.3
Note: Table excludes part-time and casual employees, and the self-employed. N = 1528.
Full-time employees’ reasons for not taking full paid leave entitlements in 2009
Why don’t people use their leave? The most common reason for not taking leave is that workers
are saving it for a future holiday (Table 19). This reason was selected by four in ten of all workers
in both 2002 (Denniss, 2003) and 2010, with close agreement between women and men. Thirty
per cent of employees said they were too busy at work to take all their leave. This is very close to
the proportion affected by ‘busyness’ in 2002 (39.1 per cent); however, a larger proportion of
women said they were too busy to take leave in 2009 than in 2002, while there was no change for
men. Thirteen per cent said they could not get the time off that suited them and this is very
similar to the proportion in 2002 and similar for both sexes.
These were the dominant reasons, in the above order, amongst parents and those without
children aged 17 years or younger. Younger workers were more likely to say they were saving
their leave for a future holiday, while older workers were more likely to say they were too busy at
work to take leave.
63
Table 19 Full-time employees’ reasons for not taking full leave entitlement by gender, AWALI 2010 and
TAI 2002 (per cent)
Saving leave for future holiday
Could not get time off that suited you
Too busy at work
Rather have the money than extra holidays
Preferred to work rather than take holidays
Leave paid out when changed jobs
Other reason
AWALI 2010
_______________________
Men
Women
All
41.8
39.5
41.0
13.1
13.5
13.2
29.1
33.8
30.7
8.1
5.4*
7.2
10.0
6.8
8.9
6.4
4.0*
5.6
17.2
15.6
16.6
TAI 2002
____________________
Men
Women
All
39.5
37.3
38.8
11.3
15.1
12.5
29.4
28.2
29.1
3.9
3.2
3.7
8.1
5.7
7.4
8.3
2.7
6.6
2.2*
7.3
3.7
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. Multiple responses were allowed on this item. Table excludes part-time and casual
employees, and the self-employed. AWALI N = 905. TAI N= 198.
Those working long hours (48+) were more likely than those working 35-47 hours to say that
they were too busy to take leave: 41.5 per cent of those working long hours said they were too
busy compared to 25.5 per cent of those working 35-47 hours (Table 20). They were also less
likely to say they were saving their leave for a future holiday: basically it appears that long hours
workers struggle to find the time for leave in the face of work demands.
Not surprisingly, professional workers also struggled against work pressures more than nonprofessionals with 36.9 per cent saying they were too busy to take leave compared to 25.4 per
cent of non-professionals (Table 20). Fixed term contract workers appear to be affected by the
same factors with a larger proportion (39.0 per cent) saying they are too busy to take leave than
those in permanent employment (29.8 per cent). A smaller proportion of limited term contract
workers say they are saving leave for future holidays.
Table 20 Full-time employees’ reason for not taking full leave entitlement by work hours, employment
contract and occupation, AWALI 2010 (per cent)
Work hours
_____________
35-47
48+
Saving leave for future holiday
Could not get time off that suited you
Too busy at work
Rather have the money than extra holidays
Preferred to work rather than take holidays
Leave paid out when changed jobs
Other reason
44.3
13.2
25.5
8.1
9.5
6.3
17.6
34.0
13.3
41.5
4.9*
7.7
3.9*
14.4
Contract
________________
Ongoing
Fixedterm
42.3
28.0
12.8
17.1*
29.8
39.0
6.8
**
9.1
**
5.0
**
16.2
20.7*
Occupation
____________
Prof.
Other
39.0
11.5
36.9
3.3*
6.4
4.3*
16.0
42.1
14.5
25.4
10.4
11.3
6.2
17.5
Note. *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. **Estimate not provided due to inadequate sample size. Multiple responses were
allowed on this item. Table excludes part-time and casual employees, and the self-employed. AWALI N = 905. TAI N= 198.
Full-time employees’ compensation for unused paid leave in 2009
Most workers are compensated for the leave they do not take, with little differences between the
sexes, those with or without children, or by age. The most common means of compensation was
by carrying over leave (83.5 per cent could do this) while 15.3 per cent could have their untaken
leave paid out or partially paid out.
Men working long hours were less likely to be compensated for their unused periods of leave
compared to men working 35-47 hours, and all women (Table 21). Workers on fixed term
contracts were also significantly less likely to be compensated for their untaken leave compared
to permanent workers and this holds for both women and men.
64
Table 21 Full-time employees compensated for unused leave in 2009 by work hours, employment
contract, occupation and gender, AWALI 2010 (per cent)
Men
Women
All
92.4
93.4
92.8
48+
Employment contract
Permanent/ongoing
87.6
90.6
88.2
91.6
93.7
92.3
Fixed term
Occupation
Managerial/professional
80.7
81.8*
81.0
90.2
96.1
92.2
All other occupations
90.9
90.6
90.9
Work hours
35 – 47 hours
Note. Table excludes part-time and casual employees, and the self-employed. N = 891.
Full-time employees’ preferences for more money or more holidays
How do workers view a potential trade off between more holidays or more money in their pay
packets? In 2002, 51.6 per cent of respondents preferred a two week holiday to an equivalent pay
rise of 4 per cent (Denniss, 2003). In 2010, the preference for leave time over money was more
pronounced, with 56.5 per cent of respondents saying they would choose holiday time over a pay
rise (Table 22).
Table 22 Full-time employees preference for pay rise or additional two weeks paid leave by gender, age
and parenting status, AWALI 2010 and TAI 2002 (per cent)
All
Age
18 – 24 yearsa
AWALI 2010
__________________________________________
4 per cent pay rise
2 weeks paid leave
_____________________
_____________________
Men
Women
All
Men
Women
All
43.4
43.5
43.4
56.6
56.5
56.6
TAI 2002
____________
4%
2wks
_____
_____
All
All
44.7
51.6
51.4
44.4
49.0
48.6
55.6
51.0
-
-
25 – 34 years
45.5
47.8
46.2
54.5
52.2
53.8
39.7
57.2
35 – 49 years
38.5
40.0
38.9
61.5
60.0
61.1
47.1
48.6
50 – 59 years
43.5
45.0
44.1
56.5
55.0
55.9
48.9
47.6
60+ years
Parenting responsibility
Children < 18 years
57.1
44.0*
52.1
42.9
56.0*
47.9
-
-
40.1
42.3
40.7
59.9
57.7
59.3
47.8
47.9
No children < 18 years
Household composition
Single parent
46.8
44.0
45.6
53.2
56.0
54.4
42.5
54.1
**
42.1
41.5
**
57.9
58.5
-
-
Couple with children
38.3
39.6
38.7
61.7
60.4
61.3
-
-
Couple without children
48.7
46.0
47.5
51.3
54.0
52.5
-
-
44.9
41.0
43.6
55.1
59.0
56.4
-
-
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
$30 000 - $59 999
53.1
42.3
48.8
46.9
57.7
51.2
53.7
43.7
$60 000+
41.5
43.7
42.2
58.5
56.3
57.8
41.4
56.2
Single without children
Household income
< $30 000
Note: *Estimate unreliable due to insufficient sample size. **Estimate not provided due to inadequate sample size. aTAI data only included those
aged 25 – 59 years. TAI data not available for gender × socio-demographic categories. Table excludes part-time and casual employees, and the
self-employed. TAI N = 345. AWALI N = 1559.
65
In 2010, men and women share the same preferences, and workers of all ages put holiday time
before money. That said, workers over 35 years are more likely to prefer holiday time with 61.1
per cent of 35-49 year olds having this preference compared to 51.0 per cent of those aged 18-24
years.
Parenting responsibilities and household composition make little difference to preferences with
most in each group preferring a holiday to a pay rise. However, more parents in 2010 (59.3 per
cent) prefer holiday time than in 2002 (47.9).
Many more men on fixed term contracts (66.7 per cent) than permanent male employees (33.3)
preferred more holiday time to more money (Table 23). However, there is no significant
difference between professionals and non-professionals and those working full-time or very long
hours: all these groups share a greater preference for more holiday time than more money.
Table 23 Full-time employees preference for pay rise or additional two weeks paid leave by gender, age
and parenting status, AWALI 2010
4 per cent pay rise
__________________________
Men
Women
All
Work hours
35 – 47 hours
2 weeks paid leave
________________________
Men
Women
All
44.0
42.5
43.4
56.0
57.5
56.6
48+
Employment contract
Permanent/ongoing
42.9
47.6
44.0
57.1
52.4
56.0
44.5
43.7
44.2
55.5
56.3
55.8
Fixed term
Occupation
Managerial/professional
33.3
42.6
36.9
66.7
57.4
63.1
41.6
44.4
42.6
58.4
55.6
57.4
All other occupations
44.8
43.1
44.2
55.2
56.9
55.8
Note. Table excludes part-time and casual employees, and the self-employed. N = 1559.
Summary
In sum, this analysis suggests that many Australian workers continue to stockpile leave. The
proportion who do so – around six in ten – is consistent with the level recorded in 2002.
Many save their leave to take a holiday at another time. But for many others work demands
crowd out their desire to take their leave. This especially affects those working long hours,
professionals and those employed on limited term contracts.
Failure to take accumulated leave is associated with significantly worse work-life interference. So
those who seek a good balance between work and the rest of life should take their leave,
especially mothers for whom accumulated leave is particularly associated with poor work-life
outcomes.
In 2002 51.6 per cent of workers said they would prefer an extra two weeks leave to an
equivalent pay rise, and this has increased to 56.5 per cent in 2010. This preference is stable
between different types of workers.
These findings suggest that efforts to encourage workers to take their leave, especially by
relieving work pressures, will improve work-life outcomes. Further, more attention should be
paid to giving workers more access to more paid leave compared to giving them a pay rise.
66
References
Abhayaratna, J., & Lattimore, R. (2006). Workforce participation rates - How does Australia compare? Canberra:
Productivity Commission.
Allen, C., O’Donnell, M. & Peetz, D. (1999). More tasks, less secure, working harder: Three dimensions
of labour utilisation. Journal of Industrial Relations, 41, 519-535.
Ashforth, B. E. & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity.
Academy of Management Review, 18, 88-115.
Auer, J. & Elton, J. (2010). Work, Life and Health Study. Final Report. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life,
University of South Australia.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009a). Australian Social Trends, March 2009 (Cat. No. 4102.0). Canberra:
ABS.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009b) Employment Arrangements, Retirement and Superannuation, Australia,
(Cat. No. 6361.0). Canberra: ABS.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009c) Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership, Australia, (Cat.
No. 6310.0). Canberra: ABS.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010a). Australian System of National Accounts, 2008-2009 (Cat. No.5204.0).
Canberra: ABS.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010b). Labour Force, Australia, Detailed - Electronic Delivery, Mar 2010 (Cat.
No. 6291.0.55.001). Canberra: ABS.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010c). Labour Force, Australia, March 2010 (Cat. No. 6202.0). Canberra:
ABS.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010d). Labour Force, Australia, March 2010 (Cat. No. 6202.0), Time Series
Spreadsheets. Canberra: ABS.
Australian Government (2009). Review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999.
Canberra: Australian Government.
Australian Government (2010a). The 2010 Intergenerational Report. Canberra: The Treasury.
Australian Government (2010b). Social Inclusion: Overview. Canberra: Australian Government.
Bailyn, L. (1997). The impact of corporate culture on work-family integration. In S. Parasuraman & J. H.
Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 209-231.).
Westport, CT: Quorum.
Barnett, R. C. (2006). Relationship of the number and distribution of work hours to health and quality-oflife (QOL) outcomes. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, 5, 99-138.
Boulin, J., Lallement, M., Messenger, J. & Michon, F. (2006). Decent working time. Geneva: International
Labour Office.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Caruso, C. C. (2006). Possible broad impacts of long work hours. Industrial Health, 44, 531-536.
Cassells, R., Vidyattama, Y., Miranti, R. & McNamara, J. (2009). The impact of a sustained gender wage gap on the
Australian economy. Canberra: NATSEM, University of Canberra.
Craig, L. (2007). Contemporary motherhood: The impact of children on adult time. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate
Publishing.
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2009). The policeman and the part-time sales assistant: Household labour supply,
family time and subjective time pressure in Australia 1997-2006. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 40,
545-560.
de Bloom, J., Geurts, S.A.E., Taris, T.W., Sonnentag, S., de Weerth, C. & Kompier, M.A.J. (2010). Effects
of vacation from work on health and well-being: Lots of fun, quickly gone. Work & Stress, 24, 196-216.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands - resources
model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499- 512.
Denniss, R. (2003) Annual leave in Australia: An analysis of entitlements, usage and preferences. The Australia
Institute Discussion Paper No. 56. Canberra: The Australia Institute.
Duxbury, L. & Higgins, C. (2008). Work-life balance in Australian in the new millennium: Rhetoric versus
reality. Retrieved 24 April 2008 from http://www.beaton.com.au/
67
European Commission, Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2010) ‘Working conditions,
Working time directive’. Brussels: European Commission.
Heady, B., Warren, D. & Harding, G. (2006). Families, incomes and jobs. A statistical report of the HILDA
survey. Melbourne: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of
Melbourne.
Holden, L., Scuffham, P.A., Hilton, M.F, Vecchio, N.N & Whiteford, H.A. (2010) Work performance
decrements are associated with Australian working conditions, particularly the demand to work longer
hours. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52, 281-290.
Jaumotte, F. (2003). Female labour force participation: Past trends and main determinants in OECD countries. Paris:
OECD.
Lee, S., McCann, D. & Messenger, J.C. (2007). Working time around the world. Geneva: International Labour
Organisation.
Lewis, S. (2001). Restructuring workplace cultures: The ultimate work-family challenge?. Women in
Management Review 16, 21-29.
Masterman-Smith, H., & Pocock, B. (2008). Living low paid: The dark side of Prosperous Australia Sydney:
Allen & Unwin.
OECD (2002). Babies and bosses - reconciling work and family life (Vol. 1): Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands
Paris: OECD.
OECD (2007). Babies and bosses - reconciling work and family life: A synthesis of findings for OECD countries. Paris:
OECD.
Pocock, B. (2003). The work/life collision. What work is doing to Australians and what to do about it. Sydney:
Federation Press.
Pocock, B. (2005). Work/care regimes: Institutions, culture and behaviour and the Australian case. Gender,
Work & Organization, 12, 32-49.
Pocock, B., Skinner, N., & Ichii, R. (2009). Work, Life and Workplace Flexibility: The Australian Work and Life
Index (AWALI) 2009. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia.
Pocock, B., Skinner N., & Williams, P., (2007). Work, Life and Time: The Australian Work and Life Index
(AWALI) 2007. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia.
Pocock, B., Williams, P., & Skinner, N. (23-27th August 2009). Conceptualising work, family and community:
What’s missing and how the field of employment relations can help (Keynote address). Paper presented at the
International Industrial Relations Association Conference, Sydney.
Pocock, B., Williams, P., & Skinner, N. (2007). The Australian work and life index (AWALI): concepts,
methodology and rationale. Adelaide: Centre for Work and Life, University of South Australia.
Ray, R. & Schmitt, J. (2007). No-vacation nation USA – a comparison of leave and holiday in OECD countries.
Washington: Centre for Economic Policy and Research.
SafeworkSA (2010) Code of Practice on Working Hours. Adelaide: SafeworkSA.
http://www.safework.sa.gov.au/show_page.jsp?id=8489
Skills Australia (2010). Australian Workforce Futures. A Workforce Development Strategy. Canberra: Australian
Government.
Skinner, N. (2009). Work-life issues and participation in education and training. Adelaide: NCVER.
Skinner, N., & Pocock, B. (2008). Work, Life and Workplace Culture: The Australian Work and Life Index
(AWALI) 2008. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia.
Tourism Australia (2009) No leave, no life: Research findings, Tourism Austalia,
http://www.noleavenolife.com/pdf/Research%20lo-res.pdf
Voydanoff, P. (2007). Work, family, and community: Exploring interconnections. New York: Psychology Press.
Williams, P., Pocock, B., & Bridge, K. (2009). Linked up Lives: Putting Together Work, Home and Community in
Ten Australian Suburbs. Overview Report. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia.
Williams, P., Skinner, N., & Pocock, B. (2008). ‘Clawing back time’: Expansive working time and
implications for work-life outcomes in Australian workers. Work, Employment and Society, 22, 719-730.
Wooden, M., Warren, D., & Drago, R. (2009). Working time mismatch and subjective well-being. British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 47, 147-179.
Wyn, J. & Andres, L. (2010) The making of a generation: The children of the 1970s in adulthood. Vancouver:
University of British Columbia Press.
68