Work time in the form of long hours or control over work scheduling (flexibility) dominates much of the debate, and organisational policies and interventions, around sustaining a healthy work-life relationship. In this study we challenge this assumption, and argue instead for the importance of the quantity of work (work overload). Using data collected in a national Australian study, we found that work overload was the strongest predictor of full-time employees' work-life conflict. Work hours, their fit with preferences, and control over work scheduling also demonstrated small to moderate associations with work-life conflict. This study indicates that time-based work-life policies, procedures and interventions are necessary, but not sufficient, for addressing work-life conflict. Effective management of work overload, with its potential to contribute to emotional strain/exhaustion and long work hours, should be considered as a keystone strategy to support a healthy work-life relationship.Time is a prominent feature of work-life discussions, policies and strategies, particularly around issues of long work hours and flexibility in work scheduling. In this paper we question whether a time-based approach to work-life issues is sufficient to guide effective policies and interventions. Instead we argue that addressing issues of workload, work overload in particular, should