> I'm always sceptical of these proposals. At the risk of sounding trite, I suspect a hundred years ago some people were wary of the 5 day week too, and yet he

> I'm always sceptical of these proposals. At the risk of sounding trite, I suspect a hundred years ago some people were wary of the 5 day week too, and yet here we are, for the most part, enjoying <sic> the arrangement of two days off per week. > Less production will result in less revenue. I gather the intent is that there won't be 'less production', and consequently won't be less revenue. And/or perhaps the reduction in production won't be linearly correlated with the reduction in revenue. > Companies are only going compensate employees for value of their labour, so less labour will eventually mean less compensation. As with any large multi-national organisation, examining the remuneration of the exec layer may reveal some disparities with how profit is shared, and there may be some interesting options to explore there. > Perhaps for some reason that I don't quite understand people get more (or an almost equalivent) amount of work done in four days as they do in five, but if not, this is just going to result in lower wages. Consider that Unilever, a company valued at around $150b, likely has people that have already thought out the implications and risks of this plan.