4 ms·

That is an unpopular opinion in the same way that saying "The 40 hour work week isn't for everyone" is an unpopular opinion.

User23 6y ago
Especially since it's observably true that for knowledge workers, almost nobody actually spends even close to a full percentage of their work hours doing the work in their job description. The productivity loss from requiring say 30 hours a week a week instead of 40 would be significantly less than a 25% decrease. In fact I wouldn't bet against a gain in total productivity.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  I've been furloughed down to 32 hours a week for 5 months (mostly taking 3 day weekends). It has had a noticeable (downward) impact on tempo, but we aren't necessary looking for ways to make it the permanent way to organize the week either. It would be hard to sell me on taking Wednesday off, but I can see where people with more obligations would get a lot out of an arrangement like that.
  - watwut 6y ago
    I think you get more gain if you lower amount of hours per day rather then skip a day. Skipping a day is more comfortable for people who want free day.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I suspect that if I technically worked 6 hours a day it wouldn't make much difference. I already have a pretty flexible schedule and, like most people, it's not like I'm heads-down 8 hours a day. On the other hand, lop a full day off a week and, while I'd shift some work as I do when I'm traveling, I'd do fewer things.
- saberdancer 6y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if % of effective hours remained the same, regardless if you are working 40 or 30 hours a week. I especially doubt it would increase total productivity, I could accept that it would improve efficiency. Any short term study will observe effects of people wanting to "reward" shorter working week and aren't really representative. This type of change needs a long "stealth" study period.

4 ms·

That is an unpopular opinion in the same way that saying "The 40 hour work week isn't for everyone" is an unpopular opinion.

by tolbish 6y ago

User23 6y ago
Especially since it's observably true that for knowledge workers, almost nobody actually spends even close to a full percentage of their work hours doing the work in their job description. The productivity loss from requiring say 30 hours a week a week instead of 40 would be significantly less than a 25% decrease. In fact I wouldn't bet against a gain in total productivity.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  I've been furloughed down to 32 hours a week for 5 months (mostly taking 3 day weekends). It has had a noticeable (downward) impact on tempo, but we aren't necessary looking for ways to make it the permanent way to organize the week either. It would be hard to sell me on taking Wednesday off, but I can see where people with more obligations would get a lot out of an arrangement like that.
  - watwut 6y ago
    I think you get more gain if you lower amount of hours per day rather then skip a day. Skipping a day is more comfortable for people who want free day.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I suspect that if I technically worked 6 hours a day it wouldn't make much difference. I already have a pretty flexible schedule and, like most people, it's not like I'm heads-down 8 hours a day. On the other hand, lop a full day off a week and, while I'd shift some work as I do when I'm traveling, I'd do fewer things.
- saberdancer 6y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if % of effective hours remained the same, regardless if you are working 40 or 30 hours a week. I especially doubt it would increase total productivity, I could accept that it would improve efficiency. Any short term study will observe effects of people wanting to "reward" shorter working week and aren't really representative. This type of change needs a long "stealth" study period.