She explains in an interview that people should think about improving working conditions rather than a 4-day week that is mandatory for everyone, that the disappearance of the tavern can also have a negative impact on people's health, and what could be done today to make the tavern culture flourish again.
The tavern is often described as a mirror of society, as a place in which the big is reflected in the small: Here, topics and complex topics are visible that also play a role on a larger level. One specific issue is the shortage of skilled workers. What are the reasons for this?
I can think of three things about this: First, there is a shortage of skilled workers in some areas and industries, while elsewhere it affects all workers and not just skilled workers. Second, the recruitment crisis can be described in part as a crisis of appreciation. Some employers can't afford to pay more, but they would have to do so to make the job attractive — others could but don't want to. This is seen as a lack of appreciation among employees. And then, of course, there are also regions where the skilled workers don't even exist — regardless of pay and working conditions. The reasons for the shortage of workers and skilled workers are complex.
It is said that the death of the tavern is unstoppable. What would happen if there were no more taverns?
It has social and in some cases even health value if there is a place where people can get together and not drink a coffee or even eat warm food for an insane amount of money. Restaurants and coffee shops are public spaces. They can save people from loneliness. They can prevent people who live alone or are widowed from eating poorly. They can even help you save costs in the medium term, as we know that loneliness can make you ill.
So could taverns provide preventive protection against sequelae of loneliness, such as depression?
Outside metropolitan areas in particular, the spaces that represent coffee houses and inns are also a health policy issue. It can therefore also be seen as a health policy measure, in the sense of public health. And that should be worth something to the public sector, for example in the form of public contributions. But we also have to put things into perspective here, because inns in particular have a history as places where ostracism, harassment and, of course, alcohol abuse took place. You sometimes tend to idealize these places as inclusive, humanist places, which they often were not. But should be.
In addition to financial contributions, are there also other means to promote taverns as social places?
Yes, there is. In municipalities where there are no longer coffee shops and inns, the public sector could, for example, provide the space and pay the rent. And finance a person who helps a few hours a week to coordinate everything. Then there could be a cycle of volunteers who would work with you. This is just one example among many that could be used to ensure that the catering industry continues to exist, that it can be financed and that it also solves other problems — such as that of loneliness, because many people feel condemned to inaction in retirement, for example. They could contribute a great deal to the common good in this way.
By doing so, you are addressing an important point, namely that of meaningfulness. A meaningful job is also something that the younger generation is looking for today. Could you then put them back on as a result of this upgrading of gastronomy?
You could also think big and say: If there was an unconditional basic income, it would also be possible for certain people to do such work in the first place. The death of the tavern is not a trivial phenomenon, although I would almost say gastronomic deaths, because the coffee house is also affected. It is also an important social space.
More women work in service, or in the lower-paid sectors of catering in general. Is that another reason why these jobs are paid less?
Whether something is seen as work and how it is assessed is not just about the job alone. Cooking is a good example. When I take a cooking class, I pay for it. Everyday cooking at home is unpaid care work. And when someone cooks in a restaurant, it's a paid job. Who does the work, in which context, and how valuable society sees it, is socially formed. And it is always the case that those jobs that were historically carried out primarily by women and unpaid are not well paid today.
How can that be changed?
One option here would of course also be an unconditional basic income, because then there would no longer be those jobs that are so stressful, poorly paid or otherwise unpleasant that people only do them to survive. Remuneration and working conditions would then have to improve to such an extent that people would like to continue working despite their basic income. But that would also often mean that this work is done more sustainably — that there are fewer sick leaves and layoffs. Sustainable work also has benefits for companies. Although affordability can be a problem in the small business sector in particular. There should be support there. Otherwise, one can hope that gender stereotypes will be resolved in society, that wages and collective agreements will be harmonized. Another frequently heard suggestion is minimum wages, which we in Austria have de facto through collective agreements. There is also an imbalance between the sexes when it comes to overtime. You must also be able to afford to work overtime voluntarily. We need to think about all these control instruments. For me, it is not just about gender equality, but that work is fairly paid and that working conditions are such that you can — and want to — do it in the long term.
Would the 4-day week be a model for the catering and hotel industry?
I'm not a fan of enforcing a 4-day week by law. I think it works well in companies that do this voluntarily. There are examples of hotels that have reduced working hours without employing additional people. But you can't force that and it doesn't work everywhere. In the end, it must be a question of working conditions such that people can work their jobs longer throughout their lives. Sometimes it is due to other factors, but the working conditions are often such that people cannot or do not want to work until the legal retirement age. Our first goal must therefore be to design the work in such a way that they can and want to. And then still saying, 'They don't want to because they're lazy, 'doesn't get us anywhere. And that is also not true.
What would you like for the debate on the topic of work?
I want two things. First: That the discussion is more empirically based. That you can also see that many of the things that harm workers also hurt entrepreneurs. And that you get out of this camp thinking. Of course, it is important not to disguise power relations. What I'm trying to say is that the boundaries between those who have a hard time and those who benefit no longer run clearly along employers and employees. There are many small entrepreneurs who are doing poorly. And there are employees who earn great money. And secondly, I think the debate should focus on how to make sustainable work possible. To this end, the debate on reducing normal working hours must be de-ideologized. We must conduct this debate without blinders.
When you talk about empirical foundations: Would it be possible to create an empirical basis for them, i.e. to prove that the tavern is a place with health policy relevance?
On the one hand, there is already data showing the positive health effects of social encounters. In addition, you could see if there is a natural experiment somewhere. In other words, two comparable places, for example, also in terms of prosperity, because we know that socio-economic status also has an impact on life expectancy. One still has a coffee house or tavern, and the other no longer. It would therefore be possible.
Barbara Prainsack, political scientist, author and professor at the University of Vienna, researches medicine and health policy at home and abroad and writes: “What we work for” (2023) — well-founded, far-sighted, eloquent, empathetic and at the highest international level.
Further information on the subject of unconditional basic income can be found in the two publications by Barbara Prainsack, among others: “On the value of people” (2020) and “What we work for” (2023).
