How did we end up with total working hours?

English translation Marko Saajanaho

From a historical perspective, it is far from obvious that all the work done by university researchers and teachers is the basis of their salary. Until the 1980s, teaching happened to be that basis. And not just any teaching, but lectures (contact teaching, practically) and teaching at seminars.

Collective agreements clearly determined the teaching hours of each academic professional group. Thus, professors’ salaries were based on four hours per week, associate professors’ salaries on six hours per week, and lecturers’ salaries on either sixteen (for lecturers in the lower wage bracket) or fourteen hours per week (in the higher wage bracket). Full-time associate lecturers taught the same amount as lecturers did on average. There was a separate regulation for two hours of seminar teaching to be equivalent to one hour of contact teaching. In addition, universities had assistants and senior assistants with clearly defined weekly research hours (12–14 hours) and teaching and administrative work when required. For the other professional groups, research was not even mentioned.

The consequence was that universities had positions for both teaching (lectureships) and research (professorships and assistantships). At many facilities, the line between the two was clearly drawn in terms of both status and practical responsibilities.

From a historical perspective, it is far from obvious that all the work done by university researchers and teachers is the basis of their salary.

In the 1980s, with my freshly obtained master’s degree, I worked as a research assistant and full-time associate lecturer. My experience suggested that the teaching workload of lecturers and full-time associate lecturers was very heavy. Studies on higher education indicate the same.

The first issue with this rigid system was that simultaneous contact teaching by two teachers was practically impossible, as only one could be compensated for their teaching work. Additionally, every university teacher had to ‘fulfil’ their set number of weekly hours because their salaries were determined by their teaching hours. ‘Forced teaching’ was a common talking point.

Another issue was the fact advising students was not considered teaching. Naturally, research, developing teaching, and participating in social discourse were considered everyone’s personal matters.

From a rational point of view, this system supported the academic freedom of hard-working members of academia. But at the same time, it created a structural obstacle to hinder career progression for those who failed to secure Academy of Finland funding against stiff competition. Other sources of funding were few and far between. Considering the situation, it was quite natural for the so-called Lecturers Committee to suggest a switch to total working hours as early as 1968, a system in which all practical work determines one’s salary payment.

It was quite natural for the so-called Lecturers Committee to suggest a switch to total working hours as early as 1968, a system in which all practical work determines one’s salary payment.

However, progress was slow, as it took until 1988 for the parties of the labour market to agree on a trial collective agreement, or beginning the so-called work obligation experimentl (FI: työvelvollisuuskokeilu) at what was then called the Helsinki School of Economics and the University of Jyväskylä. It was agreed at the same time that a monitoring study for the experiment would be started (1988–1994) at the current Finnish Institute for Educational Research. This author was hired as a researcher for the monitoring study.

The core problem regarding total working hours was how the annual working hours of university researchers and teachers should be determined. Namely, no one knew the exact amount of time. This was a difficult question in the 1988 collective bargaining process, complicated further by all trade unions more or less opposing the switchover to total working hours. There were fears of university accountants and timecards starting to reduce professors’ and researchers’ working hours.

The experiment was considered both unnecessary and a threat to academic freedom. This fear was understandable because in the 1970s, the degree reform forced upon universities by the Ministry of Education was still fresh in people’s memories.

As a compromise, it was agreed that the normal working hours would equal the average annual working hours of government officials. In the 1980s, that was 1,600 hours on average. At the start of the experiment, it was thought universities could either hire new personnel or reduce working hours if the average 1,600 hours were exceeded.

However, the collective agreement did not specify that employees would be paid separately for hours exceeding 1,600. To compensate, a ceiling was negotiated for contact teaching hours (i.e. former teaching hours), and any teaching past that point would be remunerated separately.

It was agreed that the normal working hours would equal the average annual working hours of government officials. In the 1980s, that was 1,600 hours on average.

The goal of the experiment was to facilitate sensible planning of teaching and research at the department and faculty levels, foster the development of teaching, and free up time for research now that wages were no longer tied to strict weekly teaching hours. In addition, the idea was that people’s working hours could vary from year to year as long as the unit’s average working hours were realised at the department (or other main unit) level. The prerequisite for such an arrangement was that the department’s staff had to be able to agree on the matter themselves. Quite a few units reached agreements on, for example, rotating research leave while colleagues hanlded teaching duties.

The implementation strategy of the work obligation experiment was a core part of the experiment’s success. According to the chosen approach, each unit got to decide how they wanted to implement – or not implement – flexible work obligations. As such, no one was forced into a certain method at the University of Jyväskylä during the experiment.

From this, we can probably learn that the implementation strategy of higher education reforms is as integral as the content of the reform itself. For any reform to succeed, it is essential to consider if university staff are treated as passive targets of the reform or if they are made into active subjects for the implementation.

What were the consequences of flexible working hours?

In our monitoring study, we observed that the so-called forced teaching was already reduced by approximately ten percent in the first trial year at the University of Jyväskylä. The experiment also had an effect on university lecturers being widely accepted as part of the research community. This made facilities’ operational methods more equal.

The experiment also fostered cooperation between teachers, as two teachers could – and indeed often did – teach the same course. According to the monitoring study, only five percent of University of Jyväskylä staff wanted to return to the former practice four years after the experiment began (1992).

The experiment also contributed to the development of teaching becoming an accepted part of academic work and careers. This was also helped by the study of university pedagogy becoming theoretically more diverse and expanding academically through new positions. Many universities also established teaching development units that both sustained conversations about teaching and supported teaching development in different ways. At the same time, efforts were made to increase appreciation of university teaching, because academic careers were built on research and still are.

However, these actions have not removed the tension between teaching and research because this tension is a permanent component of academic work. However, total working hours have changed the nature of the tension. Until the 1980s, the differences were between professional groups providing teaching (lecturers) and research (professors), whereas now the tension has become more personal and part of every academic’s career.

The work obligation experiment remained a theme in higher education politics, as trade unions were slow to change their opinions. However, perceptions did change as a result of positive experiences from the experiment and those reported via the monitoring study. The University of Joensuu joined the trial collective agreement in 1992, and ten years after the start of the experiment (1998), total working hours or a more flexible definition of academic work extended to all universities. Universities of applied sciences approved it in 2004.

What did NOT result from the work obligation experiment?

If you are a more critical reader, you may have already wondered why such a great reform did not revolutionise the academic world. I will try to shed a light on this question with some help from history.

 Finland was in the midst of an economic growth period with higher education budgets increasing by roughly twenty percent per year when the work obligation experiment began in the late 1980s. Then recession hit. In its wake, public funding for higher education slumped from approximately 85 percent to slightly over 60 percent. It has remained around this level ever since. At the same time, the number of students increased but permanent university personnel stayed the at the former level. One consequence of the recession was an increase in external funding, which universities used to hire project researchers on short-term contracts. ‘Unusual careers’ started to become the norm.

The flexible working hours arrangement helped adjust to the recession. However, it also helped cement the 1,600-hour abstract as the norm with zero thought about increasing the number of employees or reduce workloads if there was simply too much to do. Something that also was not considered was the idea of those 1,600 hours as a mere tool for working hours planning, which was never meant to reflect actual working hours.

The only visible sign of total working hours is that 1,600 (or 1,624/1,612), which has gradually turned into the basis for annual work planning.

In the 21th century, teaching development has become increasingly systematic, with pedagogic training for academic staff as one of the reasons. Meanwhile, teaching development has become part of academic work. The only visible sign of total working hours is that 1,600 (or 1,624/1,612), which has gradually turned into the basis for annual work planning.

This number of hours is an ethical and moral problem if it is considered to reflect actual working hours. Thanks to working hours studies, we know every academic personnel group works considerably more than just 1,600 (or 1,612) hours a year.

One easily ignored fact of total working hours is that nowadays, everything that academic work entails can be marked as work in work plans – teaching, research, guidance, managerial tasks, social and joint responsibilities of the university community. This structure largely results from the adoption of total working hours. One might assume that both individual work and the entire unit’s working time resource planning are now more sensible than before, because now we can include the full spectrum of tasks in the discussion. This may also help understand that working hours are a limited resource. It probably does all of us some good to consider each year where we would like to spend our limited resource, and indeed where we can spend it.