Trialling the future of jobs

Perpetual Guardian. A low-key Kiwi company that essentially helps people deal with arrangements as they approach the end of their lives.

Ironic then that it should be conducting a high-profile trial potentially paving the way for the future of employment in this country. One possible future, at least. One which our legislators should be considering closely.

The firm is piloting a shorter working week, in which employees work four days but are paid for the full five. Success would be happier, healthier, more productive workers still able to contribute at the same capacity, or maybe even more, to the company’s bottom-line.

Many other employees and firms will be very interested to see the results of the six-week trial.

But here’s another interesting irony. The firm’s project is just one possible outcome from major, ongoing change in the way billions of people around the globe are employed and remunerated.

Because of these looming changes, some of the globe’s captains of industry are considering their own perpetual guardian of sorts: a universal income that benefits the poor and those potentially alienated by advances in technology, automation and Artificial Intelligence.

For many impacted over the next decade or so, it will not be about working shorter hours on the same or better money. Various commentators are saying that many millions will see hours of work and pay eroded by new technology and robotics. Some are experiencing this right now. Many will lose their jobs entirely, if they are unable to adapt and retrain for new roles. Those commentators tell us that those affected will not be just the usual suspects - drivers, factory workers and call-centre staff. Other jobs under threat include financial workers, librarians, even journalists. There are many more.

This is worrying some of the world’s most influential and wealthy people, including Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and, in New Zealand, our own Gareth Morgan. They, as well as many others, are advocating a universal basic income to provide a safety net for those at risk and the wider economy; it would be paid regardless of the person’s work status.

Their concern is partly selfinterest: what good are bold, innovative products and technologies if there are fewer people to pay for them. But they also see the sense in those benefiting from such change making a contribution towards its consequences. This is a recognition that the creation of such a benefit would potentially involve a redistribution of wealth on a massive, global scale. Much of that would need to come from the pockets of the wealthy few benefiting the most from this new technological revolution.

That is only fair. It also recognises a truth demonstrated during the lethargic recovery to the global financial crisis: the haves need the have-nots. The former may make up the one per cent, but they are nothing without the spending of the other 99. The trickle-down theory has been reversed.

All of this will mean big changes, not only for the future employment environment but also the politicians and policymakers who will create and support its infrastructure. The Labour Party has studied this area through its own Future of Work Commission.

Now that they are in government, we hope they are watching this particular Kiwi trial and other global developments closely.