Working Time and the Danish Model:
Defend or Extend?
Felix Behling, Rossella Ciccia and Seán Ó Riain
Sociology and NIRSA
National Univ. Of Ireland Maynooth
www.nuim.ie/newdeals
ILPC, London, April 2015
1
Working Time and the ‘Danish Model’
• Between Universalist Welfare State and the Flexible Labour
Market
• Working Hours as one of the institutional and political
anchors
– Distinctively low working hours, employee centered system
– Class, sector
– Public/private, gender
• Key Changes in the ‘Danish Model’
– Sectoral agreements and the incorporation of welfarist social
investment into industrial relations (pension funds, training,
leave etc)
– Decentralised bargaining over ‘soft’ issues
– Political anchors of the model weakening
– Transformation or Erosion?
Mentions of ‘working time’ and ‘wage’
Jyllands-Posten, 1999-2012
600
500
400
arbejdstimer
300
løn
200
100
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Average number of actual weekly hours of work
in main job per full-time worker
46.0
44.0
42.0
Denmark
40.0
Ireland
Finland
Sweden
38.0
United Kingdom
Norway
36.0
34.0
32.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Locating Working Hours within
Structures of Working Time
‘Standard’
Working Time
Individual Unit The ‘40 Hour’
of Working Time Worker
‘Destandardisation’
Part-time and
Long Hours
Workers
Bounded and
Extended
Flexible
Collective Unit M-F, 9 to 5
of Working Time
Reconciling
Fixed
Individual and
Collective
Rigid Boundaries Porous
Working Time
Boundaries
National Working Time Regimes
Latent classes
Extended
standard
DK
Standard
Extende standard
Standard shifts
Bounded flexibility
Extended flexibility
Flexible shifts
38.0
16.0
24.0
22.0
Multiple flexibilies
Extended flexibility
SE
25.1
23.9
FI
27.8
21.2
NL
31.8
20.4
NO
26.2
22.9
14.7
17.0
19.3
18.4
16.4
16.2
12.2
23.6
12.0
14.9
13.5
22.5
CH
44.2
13.4
IE
35.3
19.7
UK
37.4
20.9
31.9
10.5
12.2
24.0
8.8
14.5
18.4
8.8
Increasing flexibility of working time:
% working variable hours each week
70.0%
65.0%
60.0%
DK
55.0%
SE
50.0%
FI
NO
45.0%
IE
40.0%
UK
35.0%
30.0%
2000
2005
2010
Increasing Extension of Working Week
Works nights at least once a month
Works on weekends at least once a month
65.0%
35.0%
60.0%
30.0%
55.0%
25.0%
50.0%
20.0%
45.0%
40.0%
15.0%
1995
DK
2000
SE
2005
FI
NO
2010
IE
UK
1995
DK
2000
SE
2005
FI
NO
2010
IE
UK
Porosity of Working Time
In the last 12 months you have been contacted outside
working hours at least once?
1995
2000
2005
2010
73.3%
63.6%
60.8%
65.4%
66.4%
53.2%
51.3%
45.4%
63.8%
51.2%
45.7%
38.2%
DK
SE
FI
NO
IE
UK
Control over Working Time
Employer control over working schedules
2005
2010
62.8%
55.5%
50.6%
49.5%
50.0%
58.5%
53.3%
44.8%
41.7%
39.5%
30.8%
30.7%
DK
SE
FI
NO
IE
UK
Distribution of Working Time Regimes
• Workers with Third Level Education:
– Longer hours, less overtime
– Less fixed times, more extended hours (evenings,
weekends)
– More porosity, more control
• Among these Workers:
– Public and Private very similar, gender makes
relatively little difference compared to education
– Porosity/ control trade-off strongest among men in
the private sector, but not by much
The Current Politics of Working Time
• Producer Services: Private Sector Professionals
– Extended Flexible Working Time is relatively large class
– ICT startups - US-style firms with a Danish twist
• Market Services: Retail Workers
– Liberalisation of shop hours since 2000; Shops Act 2012
– Three labour forces (Ilsoe , Navrberg)
• A standard core
• Part-timers (especially students)
• Managers and extended flexible hours
– A ‘new’ trade-off (for Denmark) – money for time
• Social Services: Public Sector
– Defending Standard Time and Control over Hours
– Teachers’ Strike/Lockout 2013 and its Defeat – Enhanced Power
of School Leaders
Working
Time
and the
Danish
Model:
Defend
or
Extend?
FLEXIBILITY WITHIN
STANDARD
WORKING
TIME
working
time
Anchoring Social Bargains
CLASS
GENDER
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
COLLECTIVE
WORKING
WEEK
EXTENDED
WORKING
WEEK
DISTRIBUTED
RELATIVELY
EQUALLY
POLARISATION
and
SEGMENTATION
‘the Danish
model’
2 pillars
2 threats