4 ms·
the costs outweigh the benefits Well, if you put a low enough price on people's happiness, health, and quality of work, then yes I guess. Anyway: I hope the p
by stinos 10y ago
the costs outweigh the benefits
Well, if you put a low enough price on people's happiness, health, and quality of work, then yes I guess.
Anyway: I hope the people involved in the pilot and happily doing 6 hours shifts now, won't take it too hard if the pilot should be stopped and they're back to 8 hour shifts.
- Freak_NL 10y agoThey are now back to 8 hour shifts, as the two year pilot ended with the close of 2016.
- giarc 10y agoThe trial was for 68 employees and cost $1.7 million USD (they had to hire additional staff). Imagine you took that $1.7m and spent it on those 68 employees. $25,000/employee would go a long way to increasing happiness with perks etc.
- rogerdpack 10y agoYes I suppose the real question is would those employees "elect" for a 6 hour day with a 25% pay cut, or not...that would give you something of a feeling for whether the benefits out weight cost, as it were...
- giarc 10y agoAs mentioned elsewhere in this message, it depends on the job really. Nursing staff in a nursing home might benefit more from shorter shifts. Someone that is sitting at a desk taking phone calls or entering data might benefit from a bit longer of a day. I'm more in the latter camp and my colleagues and I have been talking about doing 4x 9.5 hour days and just rotating who gets Friday's off vs the rest of the week. I could easily come a bit earlier, leave a bit later and get tons of benefits from 3 day weekends.
- rogerdpack 10y agoThough I suppose if there are performance improvements, it might be more of a 15% pay cut, or 10% [?]
- jsz0 10y agoSweden is one of the most liberal countries in the world. When they conclude the costs outweigh the benefits I'm inclined to believe them.