I have no link. Just heard this news on the radio. Some companies are praising the 4 day workweek. They say that this way the employees can rest more and become more productive for the companies.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
PurestEvil on scored.co
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)
> I personally think you'd quickly adapt to that and still put in roughly the same ratio of actual labor to malarkey
If you work 40 hours in 4 days instead of 5, of course it's no big difference. However each work day is a day that cannot be used for any other activity, so having 50% more free days is actually good anyway.
If you'd work however 32 hours in 4 days, it would lead to improvement. Of course it depends on the type of work, meaning if it's something "intellectual" you cannot force more on a permanent basis. I can be as productive in 1 good day as I am in an entire week (programming).
> However, as such, your pay is only 80% of what it was with five days.
Which is not fair, given that productivity on average increases as work hour per week decreases. So you'd be paid 80% while having ~90% of the original productivity. With 50% of work time (aka paid), you'd be around 70-80% productivity. It's even well possible that *some* people work better with less working time.
That is such a bad deal for employees that they simply don't want to do that to a point it became "culture" to work 40h/week. To deviate from that is widely considered special, deviating from the norm. And the norm sure exists because it works best, right? Well, no. It exists because it was established as some form of simplification for ALL employment relations.
It doesn't even translate well for physical labor. How often do I see workers on the road where 1 guy does the work and 4 are talking and watching?
That time only applies in areas which have opening hours for customers. No matter how bad you are as an employee, if you are there, you can communicate with customers and handle whatever needs to be.
But things like programming? It's very hard to estimate how long things take to make, and often it goes into the upwards direction. It's not like "this job takes 200 man-hours" - it takes as long as it takes, and if it's done better it takes less. And a LOT cannot be predicted anyway until it is tested.
In my previous company I heard a project which was supposed to take 2 weeks took 2 years, and was still going on. Incompetence sure played a role on many levels, but things like that can happen.
If you work 40 hours in 4 days instead of 5, of course it's no big difference. However each work day is a day that cannot be used for any other activity, so having 50% more free days is actually good anyway.
If you'd work however 32 hours in 4 days, it would lead to improvement. Of course it depends on the type of work, meaning if it's something "intellectual" you cannot force more on a permanent basis. I can be as productive in 1 good day as I am in an entire week (programming).
> However, as such, your pay is only 80% of what it was with five days.
Which is not fair, given that productivity on average increases as work hour per week decreases. So you'd be paid 80% while having ~90% of the original productivity. With 50% of work time (aka paid), you'd be around 70-80% productivity. It's even well possible that *some* people work better with less working time.
That is such a bad deal for employees that they simply don't want to do that to a point it became "culture" to work 40h/week. To deviate from that is widely considered special, deviating from the norm. And the norm sure exists because it works best, right? Well, no. It exists because it was established as some form of simplification for ALL employment relations.
It doesn't even translate well for physical labor. How often do I see workers on the road where 1 guy does the work and 4 are talking and watching?
That time only applies in areas which have opening hours for customers. No matter how bad you are as an employee, if you are there, you can communicate with customers and handle whatever needs to be.
But things like programming? It's very hard to estimate how long things take to make, and often it goes into the upwards direction. It's not like "this job takes 200 man-hours" - it takes as long as it takes, and if it's done better it takes less. And a LOT cannot be predicted anyway until it is tested.
In my previous company I heard a project which was supposed to take 2 weeks took 2 years, and was still going on. Incompetence sure played a role on many levels, but things like that can happen.