|
Introduction: What work?
What life? What balance?
Critical reflections on the work-life balance debate
介绍：什么样的工作？
什么样的生活呢？什么样的平衡？
工作与生活的平衡辩论的批判性反思
Abstract
摘要
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to initiate critical reflection on the assumptions and evidence underpinning the work-life balance debate.
目的 - 这篇文章的目的是发起批判性反思的假设和证据的基础工作与生活的平衡辩论。
Design/methodology/approach– The article reviews a range of international literature focused on
and related to the work-life balance debate and issues.
设计/方法论/途径-文章回顾了一系列国际文献主要集中在有关工作与生活平衡的辩论和问题。
Findings– In the work-life balance debate, over-work is perceived as the problem. Nevertheless,
beyond working time and the provision of flexible working practices to enable child care, there is little in the debate abut the need to change work per se. The debate also narrowly perceives “life”, equating it with women’s care work, hence the emphasis again of family-friendly polices.
发现，在工作与生活的平衡辩论，过度工作视为问题。然而，超出工作时间和提供灵活的工作方式，使儿童保健，很少有在辩论中紧靠需要改变工作本身。辩论还差一点感知“生命”，它等同与妇女保健工作，因此再次强调家庭友好的政策。
Research limitations/implications – The article suggests that reconceptualisation is required in
analyses of both work-life balance and the relationship between work and life.
研究限制/影响 - 文章表明重复概念化是必需的工作与生活的平衡工作和生活之间的关系的分析。
Practical implications– The article implies that current work-life balance policies are myopic in
terms of addressing the needs and aspirations of employees.
现实意义-文章暗示，当前工作与生活平衡的政策是短视的解决员工的需求和愿望。
Originality/value – The article offers a synthesis of evidence that is wider than that typical in
current analyses of work and life.
独创性/价值 - 本文提供了一个综合的宽度比典型的证据就是目前的分析工作和生活。
Keywords Consumption, Family-friendly organizations, Job satisfaction, Hours of work, Lifestyles
关键词：消费，家庭友好组织，工作满意度，工作时间，生活方式
Paper type Literature review
纸张类型文献综述
Introduction
介绍
The articulation of work and life, cast as work-life balance, has become a key feature of much current government, practitioner and academic debate. The main message of this debate is the need for “good work-life balance”. However, the debate and subsequent policy are too often based on assumptions about work and life derived from blunt readings of empirical data or misconceptions about employee attitudes to work and life. What is required therefore is analysis that explores the back-story to work-life balance debate as well as the operation of work-life balance policies. Compiling critical reflections on many aspects of the work-life balance debate, this special issue of Employe e Rela tions hopes to initiate such analysis.
当今的工作和生活,扮演工作与生活的平衡,已成为一个关键特性当前的很多政府、从业者和学术争论。这场辩论的主要内容是需要“好工作与生活的平衡”。然而,辩论和随后的政策往往基于假设关于工作和生活源自钝读数经验数据或误解关于员工工作和生活态度。什么是必需的,因此分析探讨了有关对工作生活平衡的辩论以及操作的工作与生活的平衡政策。编制关键反思平衡工作与生活的许多方面辩论,这个特殊问题的员工关系希望发起这样的分析。
http://www.ukassignment.org/azdxassignment/
All of the articles in this special issue are drawn from a stream on the work-life boundary at the 24th Annual International Labour Process Conference hosted by the University of London in 2006. This stream resulted from our dissatisfaction with much current debate about work-life balance. Our individual and collective research over the years has revealed that only some workers experience work and life as separate and balanceable. For other workers, work and life are intertwined, even amalgamated, so that they cannot or do not want to distinguish and disentangle work and life (see for example Eikhof and Haunschild, 2006; Warhurst, 1996; Warhurst et al. , 2008; but we are not alone in this observation, see for example Nippert-Eng, 1996; Salaman, 1974; Sennett, 2004; Westwood, 1984). The work-life balance debate seems to centre on a number of questionable assumptions and perceptions: that work is experienced as negative, with long working hours a particular problem; that “life” can be equated with caring responsibilities, most particularly childcare, with the result that women are the primary target of work-life balance provisions; and that work and life are separable and in need of being separated. Such assumptions need to be interrogated and it is the aim of this introduction to begin that critical reflection. The contributions to the special issue then unpack in more detail the issues of working time (Roberts), the control of working hours (Wise et al.), the influence of employee representation (Hyman and
Summers) and the state (Burgess et al.) on, and occupation (Moore) and industry (Bergman and Gardiner) differences within, work-life balance practice and policy.
在所有的文章中，这个特殊的问题都来自2006年由英国伦敦大学主办第24届国际劳工流程大会上的在一股潮流工作与生活的边界。这股潮流导致我们不满关于工作与生活平衡的当前辩论。多年来我们个人和集体研究显示，只有部分工人的经验作为单独的和平衡的工作和生活。其他工人的工作和生活交织在一起，甚至合并，使他们能不能或做不希望来区分和理清工作和生活（见例如Eikhof和Haunschild，2006; Warhurst的，1996年; Warhurst的等人。，2008;但我们并不孤单，在这个观察，例如Nippert工程，1996;萨拉曼，1974年，2004年森尼特维斯特伍德，1984年）。中心的工作与生活平衡的辩论似乎对一些可疑的假设和认识：工作经历为阴性，工作时间长一个特定的问题，“生命”可以等同于照顾的责任，最特别是托儿，导致妇女工作与生活的平衡规定的主要目标，工作和生活都需要被分离可分离。这种假设需要进行审问，这是本介绍的目的开始，批判性反思。贡献更详细的特殊问题，然后解压问题的工作时间（罗伯茨），控制工作时间（Wise等），影响了雇员代表（海曼
萨默斯）和状态（Burgess等。），职业（摩尔）和行业（伯格曼和Gardiner）内部的分歧，平衡工作与生活的实践和政策。
|
