Work–life balance in the United States

The general presumption during this period was that the courts would allow regulation of labor concerning women and children, who were thought to be incapable of bargaining on an equal footing with employers and in special need of protection.

Over the next ten years, the government passed legislation requiring a 40-hour work week for individual industries nearly every time the issue arose in court.

Beginning in the 1920s, advertisers persuaded Americans that happiness would not come from leisure time, but from purchasing commodities, and he concluded that this made it easier for managers to "allow" workers to make more money by working longer hours.

[3] Social scientists would conclude that a new work ethic began as Americans left the psychology of scarcity and adopted one of abundance.

Instead of reducing wages, employers decided to lay off many workers and attempted to protect the employees that remained by encouraging them to job share.

President Herbert Hoover's Commission for Work Sharing pushed voluntary hours reductions, and it is estimated that nearly three to five million jobs had been saved.

[2] Companies such as Sears, General Motors, and Standard Oil reduced the number of days worked each week, and Akron began a six-hour workday.

"[2] Congress began hearings on mandating the 30-hour workweek, and the Senate even passed the bill (which was written by Hugo Black and sponsored in the House by William Connery) fifty-three to thirty.

Labor leaders were encouraged to support the NIRA instead of the Black-Connery Thirty-Hour Bill with a guarantee of union organization and collective bargaining.

[2] With automation of the workplace in "full swing" by the 1970s, large numbers of women began entering the work force and an "awareness of stress rose to the forefront".

[5] In the publication Type A Behavior and Your Heart, cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray H. Rosenman wrote about the "hurry sickness" common to "workaholics"—people who had no friends and who "never relaxed or went to museums".

It has been widely employed to examine workplace pressures and their relationship with research data on coronary heart disease, musculoskeletal illnesses, psychological strain and absenteeism.

According to 'The Workaholic Syndrome', written by Judith K. Sprankle and Henry Ebel, "By their sheer numbers and the consequently narrowing opportunities at every upward run of the organizational ladder, the baby-boomers have been compelled to do more, to move faster, to compete harder.

Social critic Jeremy Rifkin states, "Back in the agriculture-based society, people were more attuned to generatively,[5] and middle-stress disorders and diseases of affluence were not part of life.

John Burton, dean of the school of management and labor relations at Rutgers University said that part of the reason for the decline is that "a number of states made it difficult to get stress into the system.

These effects can include higher rates of absenteeism, reduced productivity, decreased job satisfaction, lower levels of commitment and loyalty and rising healthcare costs.

[7] These types of programs have been found to have slight changes in job satisfaction but are overall not effective in lowering levels of stress and work-life conflict.

[9] It is recommended that leaders model healthy behavior instead of promoting long working hours or undervaluing employees who require time off for personal matters.

Research indicates the effectiveness of the following strategies in alleviating excessive pressure on employees: Implementing flexible working hours, adopting a four-day workweek, providing childcare subsidies, offering support for elder care and granting more vacation time.

[10] Perspectives on work-life conflict were greatly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic as many workers and organizations were forced to shift to remote work or implement new safety protocols.

At the same time, it was also proven to increase family involvement and life satisfaction, which has the potential to translate into more effective and productive work in the future.

[11] On the other hand, with the "normalization" of remote work, women who are unable to spend long hours on-site due to care chores may no longer be punished with promotions and salary increases.

[12] With increased life satisfaction and family engagement, individuals may be in better states of mind and consequently able to give more attention to their work.

One current law that guarantees employees time off is the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 signed under U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The term "parent" does not include an employee's in-laws or children over the age of eighteen unless they are "incapable of self-care" because of mental or physical disability that limits one or more of the "major life activities.

[13] In addition to the Family Leave and Medical Act, there are many other federal and state statutes that allow employees legal time off from work.

This could cut down on the amount of time he/she has for family, friends, or leisure activities, increase stress, and could even lead to occupational burnout.

Denmark, Sweden and Norway are ranked in the top 10 countries with the best work–life balance and have all adopted the social-democratic welfare state regime.

According to Dr. Deirdre Anderson of Cranfield School of Management "women's place in the labor market is fairly low" compared to the United States, which allows time for family and additional source of income.

The common factor between the nations that have prosperous work–life balance is flexible working hours, parental leave and child care policies.