|
Back to life
回归生活
The UK’s Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS), published in 2004, shows that work-life balance polices within workplaces are becoming much more widespread. A closer look at these policies reveals that the work-life balance debate also has a particular perception of life – one centred on caring responsibilities. It is nearly exclusively childcare that features in any recognition of life, accompanied only by the occasional mentioning of care for elderly dependants, as if workers’ lives were only constituted around (child)care responsibility. As the 2004 WERS survey shows, the UK’s increased work-life balance policies centre on term-time working (up to 28 per cent of workplaces since the 14 per cent reported in the 1998 WERS survey), parental leave (73 per cent from 38 per cent) and paid paternity leave (92 per cent from 48 per cent) (Kersley et al., 2006). Furthermore, the care responsibilities underpinning these policies are regarded as those of women. As McDonald et al. (2005, p. 481) note, “although ostensibly gender neutral, these policies in practice revolve around facilitating the working conditions of women”. And although both men and women might experience work as debilitating of their lives, work-life balance polices and practices are targeting at that group of the workforce – women – who still carry most responsibility for childcare, even in “gender neutral” Sweden, as Bergman and Gardiner note in their contribution to this special issue (see also Hu¨ lskamp, 2007; Niejahr, 2007).
英国的工作场所雇佣关系调查（WERS），于2004年出版，结果表明，在工作场所内的工作与生活平衡的政策变得更加广泛。仔细看看这些政策表明，工作与生活的平衡辩论也有一个特别的人生感悟 - 中心关怀的责任。这几乎是独家育儿承认生活在任何功能，只是伴随着照顾老人的家属偶尔提到，如果工人的生活只占左右（孩子）照顾长者的责任。由于在2004 WERS的调查显示，英国的提高工作与生活平衡的政策中心在长期时间工作上升至28元以上的工作场所的14元占1998 WERS的调查报告以来，父母假（73％，从38 ％）和有薪侍产假（92％，48％）（Kersley等，2006）。此外，照顾家庭的责任支持这些政策被视为那些妇女。如McDonald （2005年，页481）注意，“虽然表面上是性别中立的，这些政策在实践中围绕促进妇女的工作条件。”虽然男性和女性可能会遇到自己的生命衰弱的工作，工作与生活平衡的政策和做法，针对该组的劳动力 - 女性 - 谁仍然继续育儿责任，即使在“性别中立”瑞典，伯格曼和加德纳注意到，在这个特殊的问题所作出的贡献（见胡¨lskamp，2007; Niejahr，2007年）。
This narrow equating of “life” with care within work-life balance debate is an outcome of two related interests, that of government and that of employers. Although the phrase “work-life balance” insinuates a fulfilled, holistically balanced life, for neither governments nor employers is worker self-fulfilment the main concern. For government, the issue is not having better lives but breeding new lives; more specifically the reproduction of the future labourforce at a time when birth-rates are in decline (EC, 1999). Only five EU countries had natural population increases by 2004. For the others, population increase occurred through migration. Over 2003, the total EU population increased by 1.2m but of which births accounted for only 0.2m (EC, 2004). The concern is that with less of the population of working age whilst the number of pensioners expands, the government revenue base shrinks whilst expenditure increases. In the UK alarmist headlines scream of a “baby crisis” and the “potentially disastrous consequences as work pressures force young women to shelve plans for a family” with childlessness forecast on a scale not seen since the First World War (Hinsliff, 2006, p. 1). Put succinctly, the problem for government is to find measures that enable parents to both work and spend time at home with their (hoped for) children.
这种狭隘等值的“生命”与照顾在工作与生活的平衡辩论的结果是两个相关的利益，政府和雇主。尽管这句话的“工作与生活的平衡”影射是充实的，从整体上平衡的生活，既不是政府也不是雇主，工人自我实现的主要关注的问题。政府，问题是不是有更好的生活，但养殖的新生活，更确切地说再现未来labourforce的出生率都在下降（EC，1999）的时候。只有五个欧盟国家，2004年人口自然增加。对于别人，人口增长发生过迁移。欧盟总人口，比2003年增加了1.2米，但，占出生仅0.2M（EC，2004年）。值得关注的是政府，而领取养老金的人数扩大劳动年龄人口少，收入基数缩小而增加开支。在英国危言耸听标题尖叫的“婴儿危机”和“潜在的灾难性后果，因为工作压力迫使年轻女性自第一次世界大战（Hinsliff，2006年，第1）没见过的规模搁置计划”为家庭无子女的预测。简言之，政府的问题是找到措施，使家长在家工作和花费时间与他们的儿童（希望）。
Conversely, the problem for employers is that employees, especially women, do have children and, with a shrinking labour force, measures need to be found to draw into work the reserve army of mothers. Indeed, the “foundations” of work-life balance debate lay with employers with perceived recruitment and retention problems recognising the increase in the number of “parents .. .who have to fit their working lives around their childcare responsibilities” (IDS, 2000, p. 1). The solution is the introduction of “family-friendly” flexible employment. However, flexibility has to be compatible with business needs (IDS, 2000) and is introduced as firm financial circumstances allow, as Schneider et al. (2006) show for Germany. Employers seem to offer few work-life balance provisions that exceed the statutory minima set by government (Hyman and Summers; Burgesset al. in this issue). As with government, employers also recognise that it is women who still have most responsibility for childcare. Consequently, despite the rhetoric of work and “life”, the emphasis for employers is on women being able to tip the balance in favour of work or, more prosaically, being able to get out of the home and away from their children. An indicative example of this approach is provided by German company Wintershall AG below.
相反，雇主的问题是员工，特别是妇女，有儿童，并与劳动力萎缩，措施需要拉进工作的后备军的母亲。的确，“基金会”的工作与生活的平衡辩论打下与感知的招聘和保留的问题，认识到“父母的数量增加雇主..围绕他们照顾孩子的责任“（IDS，2000年，第1页），以适应他们的工作生活。解决的办法是引进“家庭友好”的灵活就业人员。然而，灵活性与业务需求相兼容（IDS，2000）和介绍，作为坚定的财政情况允许，施耐德等。 （2006年）显示，德国。雇主似乎提供几个工作与生活的平衡规定，超过政府所订的法定最低（海曼和萨默斯Burgesset的人。在这个问题）。与政府，雇主也承认它是女性谁仍然有大部分育儿责任。因此，尽管工作和“生命”的言论，强调雇主对妇女能够打破平衡有利于工作，或者，更直白，家庭和远离自己的孩子能够走出。这种方法是由德国温特斯AG公司下面的一个指示性的例子。
Thus, although the state and employers come at the problem from different angles, the problem is commonly defined: the desirability and feasibility of separating life and work in order to accommodate domestic responsibilities, meaning family needs – both having and not having families. Undoubtedly, caring responsibilities and especially care for young children pose unresolved problems for many (and indeed female) workers but this narrow perception of life unnecessarily limits work-life balance policy and practice. Even for those who can neatly separate work and life, life outside work consists of more than care but standard work-life balance provisions neither attempt to lessen violence to the body nor take “life” in all its rich varieties into account.http://www.ukassignment.org/ygkczy/
因此，虽然国家和雇主的问题，从不同的角度来，这个问题通常被定义为：生活和工作分开，为了适应国内的责任，这意味着家庭的需要 - 有没有家庭的可取性和可行性。毫无疑问，照顾的责任，尤其是照顾年幼子女，对尚未解决的问题很多（实际上女）工人不必要的限制，但这种狭隘的对生活的感悟工作与生活平衡的政策和做法。即使对那些谁可以整齐地工作和生活分开，工作以外的生活由多照顾，但标准工作与生活的平衡，以减少暴力的身体，也不考虑在其所有品种丰富的“生命”的规定，也不尝试。
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
