The EconomistOctober 17th 2020 Business 552
Bartleby Stop all the clocks
T
wo hundredyears ago, a device
began to dominate the world of work.
No, not the steam engine—the gadget
was the clock. With the arrival of the
factory, people were paid on the basis of
how many hours they worked, rather
than their material output.
In the “putting out” system that pre-
vailed before the factory era, merchants
would deliver cloth to be woven, spun,
stitched or cut to a worker’s home. Each
worker would then be paid for the items
they produced. That gave the weavers
and spinners freedom to work when it
was convenient. At the factory, in con-
trast, workers were required by the own-
er to turn up for a set shift.
The tyranny of time was marked by a
number of innovations. As few workers
owned watches or clocks in the 19th
century, people known as “knocker-
uppers” would roam the streets rapping
on doors and windows to wake workers
at the right time. Later, factories would
use hooters and whistles to signal the
start and end of shifts, and employees
would punch in and out using a time
clock. Eventually, as workers moved
farther away from their place of employ-
ment, the power of the clock led to daily
rush hours, as millions headed to and
from work. Often they paid a penalty in
terms of time wasted in traffic jams or
awaiting delayed trains.
The clock’s authoritarian rule may at
last be weakening. Flexible working
existed well before the pandemic. But it
only offered employees the ability to
choose when in the day they worked
their allotted hours. Remote working has
brought a greater degree of freedom. A
survey of 4,700 home-workers across six
countries commissioned by Slack, a
corporate-messaging firm, found that
flexible working was viewed very posi-tively, improving both people’s work-life
balance and productivity. Flexible workers
even scored more highly on a sense of
“belonging” to their organisation than
those on a nine-to-five schedule.
It is hardly surprising that workers
prefer flexibility. Working a rigid eight-
hour schedule is incredibly restricting.
Those are also the hours when most shops
are open, when doctors and dentists will
take appointments, and when repairmen
are willing to visit. Parents on a conven-
tional routine may be able to take their
children to school in the morning but are
unlikely to be able to pick them up in the
afternoon. Many families find themselves
constantly juggling schedules and giving
up precious holiday time to deal with
domestic emergencies.
On reflection, it is also not too shocking
that home-workers feel they are more
productive. After all, few people have the
ability to concentrate solidly for eight
hours at a stretch. There are points in the
day where people are tempted to stare out
of the window or go for a walk; these may
be moments when they find inspiration orrecharge themselves for the next task.
When they do this in an office, they risk
the boss’s disapproval; at home, they can
work when they are most motivated.
Remote working is not possible for
everyone, of course. There is a long list of
industries, from emergency services to
hospitality and retail, where people need
to turn up to their place of work. But for
many office workers, remote working is
perfectly sensible. They may maintain
some fixed points in the week (staff
meetings, for example) but perform
many of their tasks at any time of the
day—or night. Office workers can now be
paid for the tasks they complete rather
than the time they spend (which firms
would have to monitor by spying on
people at home).
What is striking about Slack’s study is
the widespread nature of support for
home-working. Overall, just 12% of the
workers surveyed wanted to return to a
normal office schedule. In America
black, Asian and Hispanic employees
were even more enthusiastic than their
white colleagues. Women with children
were generally keen, reporting an im-
provement in their work-life balance—
though a gap exists between discon-
tented American women and those in
other countries, who are much happier
(the availability of state-subsidised child
care helps explain the difference).
Of course, the new schedule carries
dangers: people may lose all separation
between work and home life, and suc-
cumb to stress. To inject some human
contact, companies may embrace a
hybrid model in which workers go into
the office for part of the week. But overall
office-workers’ freedom from time’s
yoke is to be welcomed. The clock was a
cruel master and many people will be
happy to escape its dominion.Flexible working is countering the tyranny of timejustified. Airbus says it is now in full com-
pliance with the rules, and grumbles that
the wtoappellate body that decides such
matters is in limbo. America’s long-stand-
ing claims of unfair treatment at the hands
of the body have led it to veto new appoint-
ments, leaving the arbiter inquorate.
With no knockout blow on either side,
the spat may end in a negotiated settle-
ment. America has been more reluctant to
talk. But it may reconsider, given the size of
the eu’s permitted retaliation—and Boe-
ing’s precarious position. The aerospace
giant has more to fear from the devastatingeffect of the pandemic on the world’s air
travel. The continued grounding of the 737
max, its cash cow, after two fatal crashes
means that battered carriers are cancelling
orders without penalty.
Airbus has not escaped unscathed. Last
month it said it would cut more jobs on top
of the 15,000, out of a global workforce of
130,000, announced in June. It has shaved
output to 40% of capacity. Like Boeing, it
has lost around half its market value since
the start of the year.
The European firm nevertheless looks
in a bouncier mood. It is said to be plan-ning to ramp up production of its a 320
single-aisle aircraft as early as next year,
perhaps hoping to win 737 max customers.
Airbus also has a broader range of planes
and a factory in Alabama, which lets it es-
cape tariffs on jets sold to American cus-
tomers (though not on imported parts),
whereas Boeing assembles all its planes at
home. Airbus has just unveiled plans to
bring a hydrogen-powered net-zero-emis-
sions aircraft to the skies by 2035. Boeing,
already weighed down by the max debacle,
may do best to put yesterday’s fight behind
it and prepare for the next bout. 7