SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's time to implement a 4-day workweek
In May, Andrew Yang, the entrepreneur and former Democratic presidential candidate, floated the idea of implementing a four-day workweek to better accommodate working Americans in a time of uncertainty, saying a shorter workweek could have mental-health benefits for employees.
There's not one overarching definition of a four-day workweek. "There are different models for the shortened week, some of which envision the same output condensed into fewer hours while others simply imagine longer hours spread over fewer days," a Washington Post report said.
Some involve a three-day weekend, while others mean a day off midweek.
[...] "It would help get us off of this hamster wheel that we're on right now, where we're all sort of racing against the clock in service of this giant capital-efficiency machine," Yang said. "And the race is driving us all crazy."
In a Harris poll conducted in late May, 82% of employed US respondents said they would prefer to have a shorter workweek, even if it meant longer workdays.
The idea of a shorter workweek has become so popular in Finland that Prime Minister Sanna Marin has called for employers to allow employees to work only six hours a day, four days a week. In New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern proposed the policy as part of a coronavirus economic recovery effort.
Andrew Barnes, the CEO of Perpetual Guardian, introduced a four-day workweek at his company in New Zealand in 2018.
Barnes, a cofounder of the nonprofit platform 4 Day Week Global and the author of "The 4 Day Week," said he found that "stress levels drop, creativity goes up, team cohesion goes up" under such a policy.[...] Microsoft experimented with a four-day workweek last year at a subsidiary in Japan as part of its "Work-Life Choice Challenge." The subsidiary closed every Friday in August and said it saw productivity jump by 40% compared with the previous year.
I'm somehow attracted to the idea, be it only for the reason the weekends are the most productive time for me, with no meeting interruptions (large grin)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by srobert on Wednesday August 12 2020, @05:08PM (33 children)
Several years ago my company decided to implement our 40 hour work week as (4) 10 hour days per week. With an hour off for lunch on our own time, that translates for me into 7AM to 6PM for 4 days. It's a long day, but if I must work 40 hours, then it's a better way of doing it. Longer weekend, fewer commutes, etc. It's worth it.
Of course that brings up the issue that we're now 20 years into the 21st century. Why the hell are we still working 40 hours a week? And a lot of people are doing more than that. Moreover, for the typical family, both parents are selling 40 hours or more to their employers (if they're fortunate enough to have jobs). That's 80 hours per family. When I was a kid in the 60's, we were promised that new technology would result in dad having a shorter work week, and mom having an easier time taking care of the home. The future ain't what it used to be and has proven to be a big disappointment. Where'd we go wrong? IMHO we busted the unions and outsourced our manufacturing abroad. Those were stupid things to do.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by PaperNoodle on Wednesday August 12 2020, @05:26PM (21 children)
I did enjoy 4 10's but like you the say it's a long day. I prefer 9 hour days and every other Friday is a day off. 9 hours wasn't such a long day and having a 3day weekend every other weekend was nice.
B3
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 12 2020, @05:41PM (20 children)
May I point out that hourly wages makes a person lazy?
As a younger man, I worked 60, 70, and even more hours per week. Generally, I set a goal, reached that goal, then knocked off for the day.
Now that I work by the hour, an 8 hour work day seems like a long day. It's made me lazy, I tell you! I don't set goals, instead, I am waiting for the stupid clock to roll around to 7:00 AM so that I can go home.
Worse, I'm often more tired after 8 hours than I ever was after 10 or 12 hours!! Alright, age has something to do with that, but it isn't all age.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @05:50PM
This is how I work, there are never enough hours in the day or days in the week. Government can set whatever policy they like, self-employed people will still be doing the maximum number of hours they can.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Wednesday August 12 2020, @06:04PM (13 children)
You say that like it's a bad thing. There aren't enough jobs to go around. I think we could benefit by encouraging people to be a little lazier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @06:52PM (1 child)
My company went to 40hr/4day workweeks for a while. It was great getting 3 days off in a row, work ethics were better, it was hourly but you also a small cut (1-2%) of your productivity. Everyone was happy until California said anything over 8 hr/day is overtime pay. The company went back to 40hr/5day weeks and shit fell apart.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 13 2020, @01:53AM
A big part of the problem here is one-size-fits-all. California is particularly notorious for this practice.
And you see a lot of it in posts in this discussion such as "you can't be productive for 10 hours" without any regard for what your job is or how long the commute.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday August 12 2020, @06:55PM
So let's embrace policies that will grow the number of jobs. Limiting job duration is a way to artificially reduce supply of jobs. Which would work if demand for jobs were perfectly inelastic - but that isn't true, labor markets are enormously elastic. There's substitute goods like foreign labor and automation. There's potential marginal demand for labor which can manifest if costs of labor are low enough.
In other words, reducing the number of hours we can work simultaneously reduces supply of labor and decreases the value of that labor. It's a dumb idea that moves the whole economy of labor in a bad direction.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday August 12 2020, @11:25PM (9 children)
We certainly would benefit, except people won't actually be lazier.
What they will do is work at something they enjoy, like gardening or fishing or walking the dog or knitting.
Spending your entire life working to make money so that you can live your life is not for everyone.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 13 2020, @01:55AM (8 children)
Or rotting on the couch watching TV. Or joining a street gang to make ends meet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday August 13 2020, @02:58AM (7 children)
If that is what they want to do, I don't see why it's any of your business.
If they're not put in the position where they have to make that choice then they won't make that choice. But of course if fewer hours of work means not earning enough to get by, then I suppose they will have to make that choice, won't they?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 13 2020, @01:01PM (6 children)
It becomes my business when someone wants to do something that will mess up my life to enable and protect such a lifestyle.
"IF". "IF". Lot of ifs with no justification for them.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday August 13 2020, @10:18PM (5 children)
Really? Weird.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 14 2020, @01:00AM (4 children)
And what's supposed to be the benefit? Some vague assertion that people will, like, do stuff? Well, I think I can already figure that out from what they do now.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday August 14 2020, @01:17AM (3 children)
And you've accused me of making assumptions? wow, OK.
People discuss the possibility of people working shorter weeks and your mind goes straight away to "your rights" and the possibility of violence.
That says quite a lot about you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 14 2020, @02:54AM (2 children)
You can already do that. There's no need to "implement" any sort of shorter work week. Just work less or squeeze what you work into less days.
It's painfully clear that this is really advocacy to force everyone to implement labor policy rather than just some call for people to voluntarily work fewer days per week.
That I can read between the well delineated lines.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday August 14 2020, @03:15AM (1 child)
But I'm making assumptions. Ok then.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 14 2020, @03:46AM
Or maybe we like to talk about the multiple definitions of a four-day work week as presented by the Washington Post? The people who feel less guilt when they work four days a week instead of five?
Why redefine full time work rather than just work part time?
(Score: 1) by PaperNoodle on Wednesday August 12 2020, @06:23PM
Could be different levels of engagement for work? I had similar levels of work productivity based on my excitement toward a project.
The only issue I had working 60-70 hours a week was that if I needed to run some errands during the day the employer I had would say something akin to "you need to be at work during regular business hours" regardless how many hours a week/day I put in. In one case, they would take it out of vacation time. I left both of those employers.
It's one reason I appreciate having a set number of hours to work and having a set time off.
B3
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @07:06PM (2 children)
If you're leaving at 7AM, that's why you're tired. Working midnights is a horrible strain on the body.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @07:30PM (1 child)
If you're a vampire, it's an even greater strain to work daylight hours.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday August 12 2020, @07:50PM
Sunblock - also causes vitamin d deficiency when overused in some non-vampires who like the pasty white death pallor as a fashion statement. Anyone remember the SPF 5000 purple gunk from Robocop?
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @07:47PM
Right! Part age, part early onset dementia! Hang in their, Runaway! Working graveyard means no one can see you napping!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Wednesday August 12 2020, @06:23PM (10 children)
First of all, and don't tell this your boss, but you working 4x10 hours is not in his interest because you can't be productive for 10 hours. Not even with a one hour break in between.
As for why we're still working 40 hours despite being at least twice as productive [ourworldindata.org] as we used to be 50 years ago: Because corporations prefer to pocket the increased productivity instead of paying twice the workers. Duh.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by srobert on Wednesday August 12 2020, @06:36PM
I'll moderate that as insightful and add also because we're stupid enough to let them get away with it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 12 2020, @07:40PM (8 children)
If nothing else, twice the workers means twice the liability - odds of an HR oriented lawsuit. Every person you hire is a potential existential risk to your company, more people = more risk.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Thursday August 13 2020, @08:08AM (7 children)
How? The average person can only fuck up so much in any given amount of time. How is that chance higher at 2x20 hours than at 1x40?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 13 2020, @11:23AM (5 children)
Give Bill Clinton two hot interns instead of one... see the problem?
It's more of a bad apple thing, most hot interns won't be taking down the company, but... sooner or later you'll tie into one that can twist it around into a real problem - whether it's a slip and fall artist, a delivery driver who "follows all company policy and training" and still ends up killing people while on duty, Richard Pryor in Superman III... the major concern in interviews is "cultural fit" and that is a big overlap with "won't come in here and trash the place from the inside out." Hire twice as many bodies, now twice as many people have access to the inside, and if it's one in a million new hires that will take you down from the inside - hiring twice as many people does double your odds - maybe a bit more since people who work until they're exhausted don't have as much time and energy to plot and scheme...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Thursday August 13 2020, @01:18PM (4 children)
If you assume that people are working against you, do not hire them. I'm sorry, but when did it actually become normal to assume that people working for you are trying to screw you over?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 13 2020, @02:15PM
Most of them aren't, in an organization of 100,000+ employees you can safely bet more than one of them are.
Even in smaller organizations, each new hire is a risk - low risk, but each new hire is a risk, and that risk is just about impossible to completely evaluate/eliminate during a reasonable interview process.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 14 2020, @01:33AM (2 children)
When people started working for other people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @03:46AM (1 child)
Ah ha, some insights into the conservative brain. Go easy on that amygdala little guy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 14 2020, @03:53AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 13 2020, @01:13PM
Not all risk is per hour. You also have the problem that the average person is going to find a second 20 hour a week job.