What does good work mean for you?

Blog 77 Comments

I’m leading the Review of Modern Employment for UK Government and I am determined that the Review will be bold and offer a comprehensive strategy for a better work future.

I decided early on that tackling exploitation, confusion and perverse incentives in work would only be likely if we all care as much about the quality of employment as about its quantity.

Good work is something the RSA cares about deeply.

We need a good work economy because

  1. Most people in poverty are already in work.

  2. Bad work is bad for people’s health and wellbeing

  3. Bad work is more likely to be low productivity work and thus bad for the economy

  4. Automation will impact the future of work 

  5. Bad work – with no choice or voice for workers – just feels wrong in 2017

But if good work for all is to become a reality, I need to show that there is strong support in civil society and the wider public for this goal.

The RSA wants you to talk about what good work means to you.

We have a few weeks to persuade whoever wins the next election that good work matters.

Post a video on Facebook or Twitter using #GoodWorkIs to tell us what good work means for you

Or comment below to share your conversation about good work

Join the discussion

77 Comments

Please login to post a comment or reply

Don't have an account? Click here to register.

  • Now sooner are we set a task than someone want's to change it! Before we discuss 'good work' I suggest we need to discuss 'work' - that rapidly disappearing occupation of human mind and body. To my mind, the time is not far off where every newborn child will be entitled to a lifelong benefits package that changes as the child/person grows through the various stages of her/his life. At any one time, work will be a privilege for a few - a 'select few'. Of course, just because it will be a privilege doesn't mean it will be good - so perhaps this discussion is more timely than I thought originally.

  • What's good work? As some people who have shared their thoughts here I think that the answer can be very different from the employers, employees and law maker’s perspective. 

    We all work because we need it and it's the only way we have to thrive professionally and pay the bills. Let’s be realistic about it. From an employee point of view I think that good work is hard-work, and it's up to me how I balance it with life and therefore if I make it "bad" enough to become a workaholic.  Employers shouldn’t abuse workers and that’s the law, and if workers are being mistreated or abused they have always had the means to raise their voices and do something about it. My big “but” here is that workers themselves are so passive that they don’t even complain about it! So it’s true that all of us complain to our colleagues, family and friends,  but not the employers because of fear of being labelled as “subversive” or even being fired so that’s also good to bear in mind.

    Employers have some degree of responsibility for sure in making their employees succeed and enhance their skills while they contribute to society, but workers also have the moral responsibility to be productive and appreciate the opportunity given to them so the responsibility here is shared. Finally, as per the law makers we “elect” the group of people who draft and pass the laws on our behalf so are they doing a “good” job? Or just working on their own agendas?

    I hope that the points raised as a result of this exercise clearly reflect all aspects of employment and the people involved. 

  • The What Works Centre for Wellbeing has recently issued this leaflet giving a summary of why it makes good business sense to invest in employee wellbeing, what 'good work' looks like and what sort of actions employers need to consider at individual, team and organisation level to create 'good work'.

    https://whatworkswellbeing.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/factsheet-why-invest-employee-wellbeing-may2017.pdf

  • I am an "older" person who has had a lifetime of working in a variety of short 2-3 year contract roles , and progressed to Chief officer role leading a small organisation, I had to take some time out for personal family reasons.  I have, on attempting to return to work after 12 months, realised that there is a need to re-evaluate the way we perceive and value older people wishing to contribute to the workplace in society. I have been repeatedly astonished at the assumption that my experience makes me too "well qualified" for jobs I apply for, even though I make it clear when asked (which always happens) that I wish to take less responsible roles but would, if it would be helpful, be happy to contribute my experience but equally happy to just do the job described.  I suspect that offer means I may be a threat to some who are less confident in their roles as managers and  I sincerely hope  that one of the things that may come out of this debate about what good work means, is a better understanding of the value that life experience may bring to the workplace and the ways that this can be utilised in a non exploitative and non threatening way to enhance the service or product for all. 

     

    We are going to need to consider how to optimise the skills and resources we have lying dormant in our communities as we lose access to so many young EU state employees  and one of the ways to plug this gap may be to consider how we can encourage older people to stay in work, return to work or take on roles that we need to fill to function as a society.  There will be a need for some positive marketing with employers and employees to enable this to happen in a way which enhances, empowers and enables older people to stay in, or return to the workplace.  For me,  this would contribute significantly to describing what 'good work'  is in today's society.  

  • In my by long experience of working, a most important aspect of "good work" is having enough time to do it well, or at least satisfactorily. Having done something well also brings respect. A century of efficiency drives narrowing and restricting job descriptions have led to time costs being drastically reduced in a variety of ways: through paying workers less per specified task (as with agricultural, ware house or delivery workers), allocating less time to tasks (as with health and care workers, educators, bank and other administrative staff), or squeezing more tasks into the same time (as with self-employed tendering for new works while completing old tasks, or home workers also being carers).....to give only a few examples. Time costs money and for work to be "good", proper time for doing it has to be accounted for through stronger regulation of where company profit goes, or through increase in taxes for public expenditure. Thank you Matthew Taylor for leading such a very important report.

Related articles