When I foolishly mentioned to a friend that I was thinking about writing about work-life balance, she raised a perfectly plucked eyebrow and asked: "And what, precisely, would you know about it?", writes Breda O'Brien
In order to fill the split second of time required for her to realise that such petty considerations as knowing nothing about a topic never stopped an opinion columnist before, I started to babble about the various family-friendly work options I have tried, such as job-sharing.
Sadly, it only caused her to advise me sweetly that really, I should mind myself, before she parted from me.
In the 1970s, learned articles were being written about how human beings in the 21st century would manage the copious amount of leisure time that they would have at their disposal.
The reality of the 21st century is that the majority of workers are exhausted, frazzled, and juggling numerous responsibilities. In some cases, it is because of the stage of life people have reached, for example, parents who still have young children, but whose own parents are also needing more time and help.
In other cases, like younger couples, they are likely to be both working, to have a long commute to a hideously expensive house they never get time to relax in, and to have constant worries about how their children are coping with third-party childcare.
But even the young, free and single are working longer hours.
Yesterday was "Work your proper hours" day in Britain, and next Tuesday is "Work-Life Balance" day in Ireland. The Trade Union Congress (TUC) in Britain instituted "Work your proper hours" because of the "long hours" culture there. That culture exists in Ireland, too.
An Irish survey of employers published in 2003 showed that 86 per cent of senior managers and professionals, 61 per cent of junior managers and 36 per cent of other non-manual workers worked longer than standard hours.
The TUC found that the only people working more unpaid overtime than senior managers were teachers and academics, who average 11.5 hours of unpaid overtime a week, although they do have longer holidays.
The TUC picked February 25th to highlight the issue, because if all the unpaid hours were worked at the beginning of the year, the average worker would receive his or her first pay cheque of the year on February 25th.
However, teaching staff would not be paid until March 22nd. All of this probably goes to show that teachers really are mad, or deluded, because some of the "long hours" culture originates with bosses who equate time spent in the office with productivity.
Basically, people are afraid to go home for fear of being seen as lacking commitment. However, a lot of the unpaid hours teachers put in are at home, and therefore gain no brownie points from anyone. Another incentive that keeps people working long hours is the hope of promotion, which is virtually non-existent in teaching.
Ordinarily, this would lead to the conclusion that teachers are conscientious and committed people, but that couldn't possibly be right, could it?
The "Work-Life Balance" day is an initiative of a framework committee that operates as part of Sustaining Progress. Very sensibly, they point out that achieving a work-life balance makes for happier and more productive employees, and greater worker loyalty.
The stereotype of the young mother with children seeking greater flexibility is no longer altogether accurate. People need to work shorter hours, or more flexible hours, for all sorts of reasons, from the need to rationalise commuting time, to caring for elderly relatives or people with disabilities.
Women are still more likely to opt for shorter hours than men, which in part accounts for why women's average earnings are lower, and so many of them do not have adequate pensions.
It is still more acceptable for women to express a wish to achieve some kind of balance between work and the other responsibilities in their lives.
Some feminists bemoan the fact that many women work shorter hours, or give up work completely, especially if they have more than one child.
The more sensible feminist is likely to see that there is no more merit in being chained to the office than being chained to the kitchen sink.
It still remains difficult to achieve that elusive balance. At various times, I have experimented with both job-sharing and working from home. I was interested to hear a friend of mine say that she worked two-thirds of her normal hours as a job-sharer, although officially it was meant to be half.
I had come to the same conclusion, and it was one of the reasons I eventually abandoned job-sharing. Working from home is no panacea, either.
I found that children resent even more than your absence at work the fact that you are actually at work in the house, and you feel like a heartless monster if you shoo them away when they come to visit you.
I still shudder when I remember someone whom I interviewed from home. He said to a co-worker in his office that some flaky woman from a newspaper who seemed to have 10 children screaming in the background was probably going to write utter rubbish about him as a result. Unfortunately, the person he confided in is a friend of mine, who told me gleefully that she was certain it was me even before he mentioned my name.
She did later kindly tell me that he was pleasantly surprised at what I wrote, and that she did let him know it was four, not 10 children, but it served to confirm that working from home sometimes has more hazards than rewards.
If ever there were a case for "workers of the world, unite", this is it. Until people who think they do not need flexible work practices start to support fully those who do, employers will be able to blame disquiet among other workers as a reason not to institute life-friendly practices.
Anyway, start by making next Tuesday your own personal work-life balance day. Take your breaks, eat your lunch, switch off the annoying reminders that you have e-mail, and smile at the boss as you leave on time. Who knows, together we might start a revolution.