21 ms·

Ask HN: Would you rather work 4 days per week for 80% salary?

• tacostakohashi 5y ago
  I'd be fine with 4 days / week for 80% salary. I don't expect too many employers would be happy with 100% of the overheads (health insurance, office space, administration) for 80% of the productivity.
  • moooo99 5y ago
    Its not like its actually 80% productivity. Work time usually does not equal productivity time. In most cases, it would probably be 95% productivity for 80% salary with the mentioned 100% overhead
    • kyawzazaw 5y ago
      yeah a lot of employers won't think that way
      • fetchingwater 5y ago
        Then change it bro
  • epaga 5y ago
    I work a 4-day week myself, and I'd guesstimate my productivity more at around 85-90% of a 5-day week. Friday afternoons were always pretty low-productivity as it is, and working only 4 days a week is WAY more motivating than a full 5-day grind, so the other days become more productive on average.
• beforeolives 5y ago
  > I've talked to 100+ companies trying to convince them to offer their developer roles I wouldn't be happy if I heard that some random person is contacting my employer to change the contract and payment structure at the company I work for. Advocating for yourself is one thing, cold calling companies and potentially affecting people that never asked for this is just wrong. Even if it's just to offer it as an option and it doesn't sound compulsory in your pitch. I hope that some unfortunate person with a couple of kids and a mortgage who is just getting by doesn't get get a 20% pay cut because of your actions. I don't get what's in it for you but you're either underestimating the potential damage that you would do if you were successful, or you simply have bad intentions with this.
  • philmcp 5y ago
    I'm not saying "change your entire process". All I'm saying is: If you are struggling to hire (good) developers, consider offering what the majority of them want, but few companies offer. The quality of candidate will increase as you'll have a "competitive advantage" over other companies. My personal preference would be to see (all) developer roles offered as both 4 days @ 80% and 5 days @ 100% i.e. the candidate can choose. This is very common in Switzerland
    • beforeolives 5y ago
      > consider offering what the majority of them want It's a big assumption that you know what the majority of developers want. And advocating for people who have never asked for your help is both arrogant and immoral in my opinion.
      • philmcp 5y ago
        I'm not advocating anything for the current employees, I'm only advocating this for new employees. I think this is where we have gotten confused so I'll update the original post. Also I'm currently running a poll and the majority of people so far (84%) would prefer to either work 3 days @ 60% or 4 days @ 80%. This has also been shown to be the case in my larger studies [1]. [1] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/04/16/introduce-four-day-week-say-public https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/0...
• taurath 5y ago
  In software, there's quite a few other questions to answer first. Will you be on call? Whats the culture around "off-hours" contact? How often if ever does crunch happen? Will the company pay more after 32 hours? What percent of my time is expected to be in meetings vs getting things done, and how much do you expect to be done? I have worked at places with all fridays off during the summer. We did all our releases on time even though summer was usually the biggest time. 4 days really doesn't seem to make much of a difference at all. Fridays are so often either no meeting days or at least not important ones. Overall, I absolutely have taken a paycut for legitimate work life balance increases, and I prefer to work with others who would as well.
  • Sn0wCoder 5y ago
    I agree with your assessment. I am on call for a week once every few months. Sometime it’s light and still get work done other time all we do is field calls and put out fires. Normally we work 40 hours, sometimes more sometimes less. Saying I was only going to work 32 hours and not be available 1 day a week would not work very well. I suspect the employer would win by paying you less but the employee would end up working the same, sometimes more sometimes less. At the end of the day the work needs to be done no matter how long it takes. But I also work 2 jobs full time analyst / programmer and TA CS courses so I might just be an outlier. I make enough to only work 1 job, but I like helping students. The extra money does help and I would not do it for free. So short answer is NO I would not work 4 days a week for 80% pay.
    • taurath 5y ago
      One workplace had an official 7.5 hour workweek, or 37.5 hours. That made it super common for people to take half days or full days off on fridays. We got everything shipped, and salaries were competitive but not absolute top. It was nice, and lots of A tier people working in comfort. Then new management came in and started forcing everyone to crunch every week until almost all the engineers left.
• martini333 5y ago
  I do
• intricatedetail 5y ago
  Since I would be more productive, I would rather expect 120% for 4 days...
• tryauuum 5y ago
  yes, please
• jsjsbdkj 5y ago
  I don't think startups really care about saving 20% on salaries - I think if we're going to get 4-day workweeks the argument needs to be around attracting candidates, and pointing to improved productivity. It's mind-boggling to me how companies are like "there's no qualified candidates", and at least superficially they trip over themselves for "diversity" candidates to make their numbers look better, but they're unwilling to change anyting to attract candidates who have lives outside of work. There's 100% a pool of people who could do amazing work who don't get a chance because startups have this brutal monoculture that excludes them.
  • qeternity 5y ago
    As someone who is actively hiring, can you elaborate a bit? What are the worst aspects of this monoculture that a company that is just now establishing its culture can focus on avoiding?
    • throwaway3699 5y ago
      Leet code challenges - you are not Google. Offices in super expensive locations (get out of cities and provide WFH for those who wish to stay!). Uber cosmopolitan politics shoved down everyone's throats. Many things
      • paulcole 5y ago
        > Uber cosmopolitan politics shoved down everyone's throats. What’s a specific example of this?
        • patrick451 5y ago
          - Management proselytizing Black Lives Matter. - Official company polls asking if I have been vaccinated. Particulars of my health status are none of their business. - Mandated diversity, inclusion, and equity training. - Statements from the C-Suite about the Derek Chauvin trial.
• fuball63 5y ago
  I currently do this, but I work all 5 weekdays. I just work shorter days Monday - Wednesday. I love it, it is my favorite perk of the job I have. I'm able to use my afternoons to exercise, take care of chores around the house, and run errands if necessary. My night after dinner time is completely free. Another perk that's similar but not exactly the same thing is flexible schedule, meaning if I have something to do during work, I can "make up the hours" later. This is especially powerful when you work 80% time normally. I would say that the reason most companies don't want to do 4 day weeks is because of meeting schedules. This is why I'm here each work day; so I can be at my team standups every day.
  • lowsenberg 5y ago
    I agree, I work part time (30hrs) at a company in Germany where "full time" is 35 hours/week, which more and more companies adopt here. It's great. I'm done early in the afternoon and there is plenty of time left to spend with my family.
• philmcp 5y ago
  From an employers perspective, I believe there are many advantages: - 4 day week job listings get 15% more applications [1] - Staff will be more productive. Microsoft experimented with a 4-day work week and productivity jumped by 40% [2] - Staff will be happier and healthier [3] - Staff retention will improve (e.g. "Now that I'm working a 4 day week, I could never go back to work 5 days") - Some developers would compromise salary. In our current poll 84% of people would prefer to either work 3 days @ 60% salary or 4 days @ 80% salary - Reduced office costs (e.g. close the office 1 day per week) - It's better for the environment (e.g. less travel, closed offices etc) [1] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/four-day-workweek-research_l_6075b007e4b08f435f253a68 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/four-day-workweek-res... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/04/microsoft-japan-four-day-work-week-productivity https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/04/microsoft... [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38843341 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38843341 Link to the poll: https://twitter.com/philostar/status/1393199633543966723 https://twitter.com/philostar/status/1393199633543966723 Link to the website: https://www.4dayweek.io https://www.4dayweek.io
  • Aachen 5y ago
    Whether it's an environmental improvement depends on what your employees do on the day off. Less will be attributable to the company, but it's a giant leap to say this means it's better for the planet. I like the references for 1-3, even if they might be cherry-picked it's still more likely to be signal than noise, but the rest seems like leaps and assumptions. There are very few companies where everyone wants to work 4 days, let alone have that day not be flexible, so closing the office for a day seems out of reach for all but the smallest businesses. Retention I'm also not so sure about, virtually every company in our line of work supports 36 or 32 hours per week and they virtually all pay proportional to hours so that's all same same.
  • vasper 5y ago
    It is doable and in some countries like Switzerland even a common practice to offer an 80% - 100% workload (if you look at https://swissdevjobs.ch/ https://swissdevjobs.ch/ or any other tech job board you will notice it occurs quite often) The problem is that an 80% workload for companies also means 80% of the salary which makes sense if someone wants to work part-time, but it's not the implementation of a 4-day work week idea. Personally, I believe a 4-day work week will sooner or later be a standard, simply because Developers (including myself) waste a lot of their daily time and by having a constrained time-frame they will also be more efficient. In the same time (hopefully) management might reduce the number of meetings forced onto the Dev team.
• sdevonoes 5y ago
  I would work 4 days per week (this is, 32h/week) for 100% salary. I'm not joking. The current 5 day/week, 40h/week is nonsense: the only reason software companies offer such a contract is because of "tradition", they are not interested in thinking about "Hey, perhaps working less than 40h/week makes us equally productive? Let's try!". Some companies in some countries offer 7.5h/day (37.5h/week) and NOTHING bad happened. Turns out it probably improves the lives of the company's employees (which in turn, improves the company itself). No, I wouldn't work 4 days per week for 80% of the salary. Hell, I would be more productive working 4 days per week! Why on earth would I receive less money? If any, pay me more. Obviously, this only applies to a few jobs out there (e.g., software engineering).
• deagle50 5y ago
  4 days wouldn't equal 80% of the time, you'd be expected to work extra on those 4 days and get nothing for it.
  • foolmeonce 5y ago
    People who work 5 days aren't really working just 100%, they complain that they are asked to stay late and work weekends with little or no comp. (I.e. comp days that are more vacation days they can never actually schedule.) It is actually easier to penalize a company that makes you work more than agreed upon when the agreement is less than 100%.
• HDMI_Cable 5y ago
  I'm in school right now, so I can't comment on this, but I would love a 4 day week with Wednesday as the extra day off. I've tried it, and it's just amazing. [1] Relevant CGP Grey video. --- [1] https://youtu.be/ALaTm6VzTBw https://youtu.be/ALaTm6VzTBw.
• jeff_vader 5y ago
  Yes.
• fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  I’ve had jobs where I worked 80 hours and jobs where I worked 20 hours and they were all officially normal full time jobs. As an overtime-exempt salary worker, the official number of hours I work doesn’t matter very much. If you want to work less, just spend less time working. You don’t need to try to convince your boss to sign off on it. If your job is too hard for you to meet expectations with your preferred work-life balance, find an easier job.
  • lotsofpulp 5y ago
    What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Being expected to be available for work 4 days per week vs 5 days per week has nothing to do with how many hours you actually work.
    • santoshalper 5y ago
      I believe he is saying that most jobs say one thing about hours and then often do another thing entirely. So in that world, taking a lower paying job for a theoretically better work life balance probably isn't going to pan out.
      • fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
        Yeah, I think going around telling employers that you want to get paid 80% salary to work at 80% capacity is a huge mistake. You’re giving up your negotiating position and won’t get offered good jobs. You will probably end up getting paid less than half as much as you could have if you didn’t mention to your employer that you aren’t that into working. On the other hand, you can find jobs that pay really well but have a chill work-life balance.
        • lotsofpulp 5y ago
          Yes, but the main benefit of 4 day weeks is having 3 days where you can do whatever you want. It’s not about not being “into” working. Of course, the employer will want you for as many days as possible, since even if you’re sitting there doing nothing 80% of the day on Friday, why not have you obliged in case something comes up.
• steego 5y ago
  I worked for a small company that was affected by the post-911 slowdown and the company reduced the hours to Mon-Thurs for a year. We had to economize a little more, but I was happy with it. I started doing side work, spent more time learning things or sometimes I would do nothing. I'd have a hard time doing it willingly because it's not just me. But if it was forced on me, I wouldn't complain.
• silicon2401 5y ago
  100%, and I agree with your interpretations. The only reason for working I've ever had is to be able to support what I really want in life: health, passions, etc. I have zero need for work for fulfillment, social life, satisfaction, or whatever or reasons people say that want to work. My biggest goal is early retirement, but working less would make the wait much more bearable.
• rch 5y ago
  9-80 at 100% seems easier to implement, and more representative of actual working conditions.
• dQw4w9WgXcQ 5y ago
  I made that move at the beginning of this year and it works great. Min hours is set at 24 with the flexibility to work more at an hourly rate. It's a win-win, I'm cheaper to the company, feel more free, and they still get most of my mental performance at lower cost. A 5x6hr or 6x6hr schedule seems to work well also. SW is a mental game, and similar to learning an instrument the reps and sleep time in between matters more than giant globs of hours with declining productivity and potential bad habits/injuries due to fatigue.
• shpx 5y ago
  No, because realistically I work 1-2 days for 100% salary.
• k_ 5y ago
  My partner and me kinda did it: we are both at 90%, taking every other wednesday to take turns taking care of our child. It's really worth it, and the pay cut is manageable.
• torvald 5y ago
  4 days for 80%, maybe. It depends greatly where you are in life. But as you also state, i wonder if, due to Parkinson’s Law, that it would be mutual beneficial for all both employers – and employees – to work 4 days for 90% of the pay?
• dejv 5y ago
  I actually do, after years of being indie developer I joined fintech company as a tech lead and am working 4 days a week for 80% of pay and spend extra day working on my farm. I do have flexible schedule, but usually take either Wed or Thu day off. As far as I know I was first who had this arrangement two years ago, but now I see it quite common among my team. I am also thinking about lowering my work to 3 days a week for further pay reduction.
• andischo 5y ago
  I currently work 32 hours / week at 80% pay and have done so for some time. On paper we agreed on 5*6,4 hours per week, but it is really flexibel. In practice I work somewhere between 32-40 hours a week and additionally take a couple of days off per month. For me, it's the best arrangement I've ever had. If I don't feel like it or need to take care of some other stuff, I just work for a couple hours a day. Other times I really enjoy it and work 8-10. Additionally I get long weekends without having to use any holidays. I also think my employer gets a better deal this way. Being productive 8 hours a day is more or less wishful thinking. I think the reality is somewhere between 4-6 hours for normal people. Hence I'm still almost as productive asif I were working 40h/week, but at 80% the cost for my employer. Everybody wins.
• jonplackett 5y ago
  YES! And I have been doing it for the last 9 years. In fact I recently went down to 3 days a week for 60% salary and that's even better (although I do use the other day for other work sometimes if it's something I'd like to do). Main benefit has been increased time with my daughter. My 2 cents for anyone trying it: 1) Take Monday off - everyone is still getting stuff together on Monday so it won't be so disruptive. Plus, you won't hate Mondays anymore :) 2) Be very strict with the day off. Never compromise on it, at least for the first few months. Make sure everyone understands that you are absolutely not working and cannot work that day and things will be OK. If you don't it will cause confusion and many problems.
• medlazik 5y ago
  4 days per week for 100% salary. Those 20% need to be taken from dividends of the parasitic class.
• chiefalchemist 5y ago
  My sense is, it's one less day, but not necessarily 20% less productivity. That is, 4 days on and 3 off helps to refresh the mind and the body. So at 80% the employer is probably getting 85%, perhaps more. Finally, it's worth considering, for companies that honor the standard Monday holidays (in the USA and UK) those are already 4 day weeks. If that's 10 holidays, we're now only talking 40-ish days. If days were 8.5 hrs not 8 That's another ~10 days. Now you're around 30 days. Maybe that's a number you can sell? I'm certainly trying to do so.
• mam3 5y ago
  Yes. planning to ask soon to my compagny.
• throwaway3699 5y ago
  Let's say you hire two engineers, both at 50% salary. They will be strictly worse than a single engineer on 100% salary. To make it worthwhile for a small company you're looking at more like a 50% discount for 4 days work. Not a good deal imo.
  • josephwegner 5y ago
    > They will be strictly worse than a single engineer on 100% salary Citation needed. I don't think this is an obvious conclusion. There is certainly some threshold where it becomes less efficient (40 engineers, 1hr/week each??), but I'm not sure 20hr/week is a clear threshold.
    • throwaway3699 5y ago
      Basic economics. Some examples is equipment, mentoring and knowledge transfer. Two engineers have to do that individually, they have separate equipment sometimes in the realm of thousands of dollars. You might spend tens of thousands on employee time getting people ramped up. You also have to factor in that more people means more communication channels. Smaller teams are going to be more efficient because they can all talk to each other. For some organisations the salary can be less than half of the total cost to hire an employee. Two identical people who already have ramped up, have free equipment, etc...? Maybe.
      • Y3VzdGFyZA 5y ago
        Just playing devil's advocate: * People don't work effectively for 40 hours every week 100% of the time. Perhaps 2 people working 20 hours allows greater utilization of the time with less waste because each person is fresh for greater parts of the work week. (We'd need multiple well designed studies and attempts to find the right amount of time). * All the onboarding and upfront costs you mentioned are legitimate, but small in the grand scheme of things. Once onboarded, hopefully they are creating value. Two people onboarding together could also take some of the load off a mentor as they could help each other. * Not all engineers are equivalent. Some might have a ton of database experience, another could be more ops oriented, and a third might have great algorithmic thinking. All can be good engineers for the role. But if you had 2 or all 3 then maybe the increased diversity of experience and skills can make the work progress faster with a higher quality. * More people meaning more communication channels is a real concern. It's also something you have to deal with at some point. Management in general is about finding ways to work efficiently, and just like any other scenario you'd take this one into account when deciding how to work. Figure out smaller specializations, or chunk work in ways that compliment the team, or structure documentation/ideas/communication in a way that can be picked up by others.
• godot 5y ago
  A few years ago (before I switched to full remote in 2018), I wondered something similar and I even went as far as wanting half time/pay: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14808178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14808178 Ever since I went full remote, and this was in 2018 well before the pandemic, I no longer feel like working full time is a hindrance to my life in general (outside of work) and I can still do most things I want to do. In the age of pandemic and working remote being the norm, I imagine the interest for reducing work days is less intense than before for other folks too. Having said that, I really like what you're doing, pushing for a new way to work; even if that doesn't become a standard, it would be nice to see it become an option. The common responses you get really make me sad as well. The first two at least made an attempt to give you a reason for rejection, the last one is just so infuriating. "We are only looking for full-time employees" as a response basically just says "Go away, don't waste my time". I'll say though, from the perspective of the company, almost no company is ever going to receive a cold call/email from you and say, hey, this suggestion sounds good, let's change our entire company culture based on this one random person's opinion. If this movement indeed gets traction, it'll take companies lots of time to change. It's similar to remote work (before the pandemic). Remote has been viable for a long time, but it took companies consciously making a huge effort to do so (barring a pandemic that forces them to).
• mLuby 5y ago
  Alternatively, now you can hire a senior engineer (4d/w) with your budget for a mid-level engineer (5d/w).
• bla3 5y ago
  I was offered to do this at my current job and I didn't take the offer. I feel I wouldn't really disconnect on the additional day off, so it'd be a full 20% pay cut without it really being a full 20% work cut.
  • skeeter2020 5y ago
    This is common. You do a FT job for 80% pay IME
• a3n 5y ago
  Hell to the yeah. But how would you manage death marches?
• dave_sullivan 5y ago
  I work on hourly or daily rates, so yes, when I only work 2.5 days per week I get half of what I might if I worked 5. But I shoot for a relatively high hourly so it works out fine. What's the point of money if you can't spend it because you're working all the time?
• mfbx9da4 5y ago
  So many people theoretically would say yes but in practice say no.
• Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Absolutely but only if those were eight hour days, not ten hour days. Of course like any salaried job, there will be times when extra effort is required, including extended hours, but it couldn't be a regular thing for the employer to claw back that extra day off.
• badtuple 5y ago
  I would definitely do so. I'm a single person who isn't looking to start a family, so I don't really use most of the money I make. It'd give me time to work on my more esoteric/mathy/experimental programming projects that I enjoy. At this point in my career getting job offers is pretty easy, so I wouldn't take a pay cut for no reason...but trading back time sounds super fair. Of course, I'd have to talk to the company to make sure we agree on what the boundaries and expectations are. Just like with the current 5 day set up, ambiguity can easily be taken advantage of or lead to unexpected outcomes for both parties. That's not a reason to be hesitant, it's just a reason to be explicit and make sure everyone is upfront about discussing it maturely from the outset. Like others, I've worked at a company who had fridays off in the summer and it really didn't hinder productivity at all. We just planned accordingly.
• mfbx9da4 5y ago
  I currently do this except I work 6 days a week and get paid 80% of what I should be.
• metacritic12 5y ago
  This probably would mainly work well with A) highly talented software engineers who want to make much less than they could make for easier lifestyle or B) low productivity companies. The reason is that companies that employ software engineers are engines for transforming labor to value. They get a multiple in dollars in revenue out of their labor cost to you. Suppose this multiple is 3x. Then if an software engineer works 80% time, the indifference point for the company isn't paying 80%, but actually paying 40%. I don't think that number is acceptable to most employees. Of course, this is politically popular with the HN crowd because many people are software employees. But you need to look at it from the other side too. How could you make it work then? Well if you were a superstar before that made $200, you probably can get away with 4 days as week and $80. Or if the company is a low productivity company (e.g. their multiple of EV on the employees time is really low like 1.1), then they can probably 80% time for 75% pay. With matching markets (employee/employer) you need to solve both sides' problems. (It's easy to solve just one side's problem: just advocate for doubling/halving employee pay. Employees/employers will love that.)
  • lukevp 5y ago
    I don’t understand your argument. If 8 engineers work for $100 each, work 40 hours per week and output 320 hrs of work a week, or 10 engineers work for $80 each, 32 hours per week and output 320 hrs of work… there is overhead of managing more people, yes, but the people will likely be more productive per hour than the 40 hr per week people. Why does it matter if the company is making 3x or 30x on the hours per employee when we’re discussing the hours/pay ratio per employee, which would stay the same?
    • metacritic12 5y ago
      That's a good point. It depends on whether the company's production function really is just 3x the cost of each employee. Clearly, on average, it has to be a high multiple, but on the margin it probably does drop to 1x. I concede that the argument for sublinear would have to be something about overhead or n-choose-2 communication costs.
• poletopole 5y ago
  I can and have done so for a period of 7 years. The problem is that developers want to work for fancy big box companies with big salaries and it's exactly those type of companies that aren't going to allow you to do this. You have to find a small to medium sized business if you want flexible hours. If you do get an interview with such a business make sure it's clear as part of your contract you only plan on working 32 hours a week. After a while they may try to cajole you into working more hours and you will need to stand your ground.
• sundaeofshock 5y ago
  As an employee, I would only take a 32-hour/week job if I was paid by the hour. It wouldn't take long for extra hours to be the norm if the roll was salaried. I'd also want to understand how benefits are handled: - Insurance: what plan is offered and how much does the company pay? - 401(k) and matching? - PTO: how much is earned and how can it be used. - Holidays: what if Christmas falls on a Friday? Do I get a different day off?
• motohagiography 5y ago
  Why accept a 20% pay cut? Let's say you are training for for the olympics, caring for a relative, volunteering for an organization, or something similar, just make your availability 4 days per week. If your time is structured, you aren't "off" on fridays, you're busy.
• Turing_Machine 5y ago
  Not really the same, but many years ago I had a job that, though 40 hours per week, did it by having Monday-Thursday being 9 hour days, then the whole company took off at noon on Friday. It was pretty nice. You could schedule appointments or whatever for Friday afternoon, or if not, enjoy a longer slab of weekend time. If you were leaving town for the weekend, you could avoid the Friday evening traffic rush and perhaps even get to where you were going with plenty of time to get a good camping spot, or room, or whatever.
• stillbourne 5y ago
  How about 4 days a week for 100% salary?
• softwaredoug 5y ago
  I find WFH means I work fewer though more intense days. I work pretty intensely M-Th. Probably easily 10 hours. Then Friday-Sunday I disconnect (Friday mornings are demos and fun mtgs). Fri-Sun I can _completly_ disconnect for a while. So personally I want Mo-Th and 100% of my salary :)
• ctdonath 5y ago
  No. I'd rather work 6 days a week for >120% salary. I like my work. I contribute to society by working - that's why I get paid, my work is worth something. Given more $, I can better provide for family (which includes freeing wife to focus 100% on family care & opportunities, rather than 20%). To really make it work, keep the "normal" work at 5 days @ 100%, then another proportionally-paid day to work on deep technical debt: there is much in any codebase which really should be fixed/improved, but is too obtuse/obscure to convince management it needs time doing in place of any of other numerous tasks. Result is more than 20% increase in productivity, by warding off defects and friction. Employer might want to review that option further in light of me spending that additional time anyway working a secondary job: better I spend more time (and get more $) focusing on extended work on same project, than being temporally & mentally unavailable. Reducing my time & salary by 20% as suggested would mean wife would have to take on a full-time job, dropping her family time massively in return for little more than making up for my salary drop. I'd rather sacrifice a few of my own hours per week to better support family's time together.
• hn_ta 5y ago
  > - We are a start up working hard to launch so it wouldn't work for us. I read this as: "we've advertised this as full time, but really it's 24/7" I think that's a reach. I fail to understand how you'd arrive at such a conclusion. From my anecdotal experience, most startups would actually prefer paying more if that meant they could get 6 days of work. But regardless, I think your conclusion for that particular point is a reach, unless there is more context/information around this. > I personally believe that working 4 days per week doesn't equate to 80% output, more like 90%, and therefore I feel the salary should reflect this. I believe it is super difficult to generalize this. For some, it could be that 4 days per week = 70% of 5 days per week, and for some it could be that 4 days per week = 90% of 5 days per week as you mentioned. Now, if people fall into the category of 4 days > 80% output, then good for them no? They can finish 5 days worth of work in 4.25 days and chill out the rest of the time and take it easy? Especially in these times when most tech employees are WFH, they can simply just spend time with their family, catch up on a show, do some house errands, read books etc etc.
• LukeShu 5y ago
  > We are a start up working hard to launch so it wouldn't work for us. I read this as: "we've advertised this as full time, but really it's 24/7" I'm not sure that's a fair reading. I'm sure there are places that are like that, but I think that for a lot of places a more accurate read is "we already have more work to do than people to do it; we're addressing that by actively hiring (rather than by overworking people); one of our biggest challenges right now is hiring fast enough." Given that hiring is a major challenge, I'm not surprised that it doesn't seem like a good play to take 80% of the capacity for the same effort of hiring. Yeah, yeah, diminishing returns, so you're probably losing less than 20% productivity. But I'd be shocked if on average it's as low as the 5% that one commenter claims (or even negative as another commenter claims. I figure 20% is still "in the ball park". It'd be worth it if offering it as a perk makes the organization 25% better at hiring. And I believe that it can help, but I'm not sure it can help 25%. ---- > This is also due to Parkinson’s Law. Parkinson's law states that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion". In a lot of organizations, that does indeed apply. But in some organizations, especially startups, the situation is "here's a list of work that we'll never get to, get through as much as you can in the time available"; there's no spare time for work to expand in to. Now, you still get diminishing returns on more hours worked. But not as bad in some organizations as in others. ---- But I'm just an IC, and I haven't talked about this with leadership, so what do I know?
• ctdonath 5y ago
  Employer wants as much done as possible ASAP. Physical & biological & social realities mean one person can be expected to produce 40 hours per week, 60 on occasion. There isn't an endless supply of quality knowledge workers, so (assuming the "80% movement" takes hold) filling that additional productivity expectation becomes difficult as businesses compete for a limited pool - more so as it's hard to fill a 20% gap when there's only "80%" or "100%" workers to fill it with (you don't get good knowledge workers part-time long-term). Ergo (roughly speaking) you're asking employers to cut cumulative productivity 20%, and thus revenue/profits 20% for ... what? while other employers race forward with "100%" employees, producing 25% more per week. 40-50 hour weeks seems about the limit before employee productivity & availability ends. Claims of how productive ("refreshed! rested! alert!") employees are on shorter work weeks doesn't translate to comparable results, i.e.: 80% work time doesn't produce near 100%. My personal goal is productivity. Give me more time at home, yes, I'll be productive there ... but I can be more productive via an employer (that's why I'm employed) than growing/building what I need on a farm. Cutting work hours means less work getting done, both for my own ends and my employer's bottom line.
• antisthenes 5y ago
  We should be anchoring 4-day workweek at 90% (or more), rather than 80%, when talking to employers. If you claim that people are more productive and diminishing returns kick in at the 4-day mark, then that by definition means that the first 80% of time spent on work is responsible for more than 80% of output. A good point in favor of doing this is multiple EU countries already operating on a 35-hour work week and paying 100% of the salary. This is equivalent to 91.42% at 32 hours. That's the number we should be trying to aim for.
• cybwraith 5y ago
  Definitely would. I have done so in the past. Had to move on from that job, sadly, and I'm back to 5 day weeks. The key is the company needs a good way to handle overtime/extratime during emergencies and crunches. For example, if I were to work 40+ hours in an emergency week, I should get an extra day off the next week (or after the crisis). Some feedback for your site: Require salary range to be listed.
• curiousguy 5y ago
  I would continue working 5 days a week for 100% and I’m also thinking in start making some freelancer work in my spare time. My reasons are: 1- I struggle to self motivate and do something productive, if I have more time I would, at best, play video, at worse I would waste time arguing about politics in Reddit. 2- I’m a software engineer and I normally finish all my daily tasks in 4 hours ish. The rest of the day, while I’m waiting for more task, I’m available if anyone needs my help, but most of the time I’m doing nothing. And now that I’m working from home, this 'nothing' results in personal things. So 4 days week would only lead to do the same work done but in 4 days instead of 5 and get pay less. 3- I’m single and in my late 20s. I want to work more now so when I start a family I can work less.
• saltybytes 5y ago
  I think it's very common in Europe to adapt your working hours to your situation in life. Many of my European friends decrease their hours for a small pay cut since they have children now or have to take care of elderly. Just call HR and discuss the deal. Done. I recently worked for a Belgium startup in the NY office. Many of my coworkers in the old world had an agreement to work less for less pay. When I asked my HR in US to reduce hours for less pay due to Covid-19 the answer was exactly like OP listed: "we have always done it this way... it's not possible in US ... if you decrease your hours by one hour you will count as half-time employee and lose all benefits". In an instant I would give up 20% pay for an extra day off. Covid-19 is far from over and lots of parents are still juggling all sorts of issues.
  • disambiguation 5y ago
    > it's not possible in US ... if you decrease your hours by one hour you will count as half-time employee and lose all benefits /thread for US employees really surprised 80 other comments ITT and no one else mentioning this
    • cybwraith 5y ago
      This isn't actually a law though, in the US. Its just the most prevalent corporate/insurance/hr policy. I have worked several places where "full time" employment counted as 30 hours or more, with access to benefits, etc.
    • Mountain_Skies 5y ago
      Is it always true? When I worked for a grocery chain, I was part time but because I averaged over a certain threshold of hours per week that was less then 40, I received full time benefits. This might have been a union requirement rather then a legal one but it worked out the same for me regardless of whose requirement it was.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  • 5y ago
• igetspam 5y ago
  In a heartbeat. Like others, I could probably afford to do 60% for three days. The reality is that I'm a startup junky and it's unlikely to work. I tend to work in fast environments with rather grueling work loads, which usually comes with a disregard for personal time. At the later stages, things cool off and I take advantage of my front loading of work to relax a bit. Then I find another one. It's a terrible cycle and if I ever have an "F you" valued exit, I'll stop for good. Or maybe work three days a week.
• antfarm 5y ago
  I see it this way: 3 days off / 4 days work = 3/4 = 0.75 2 days off / 5 days work = 2/5 = 0.4 So with a 4 day work week you can nearly double the ratio of free days to work days for only a fifth of your salary.
• DoomHotel 5y ago
  I negotiated a deal at a former employer where I worked 4 x 9.5 hour days with Wednesdays off. I took a 5% pay cut and lost a proportional amount of vacation time. I kept my benefits but had to pay a slightly higher share for my contribution to the health care plan. It worked out very well—I especially liked having Wednesdays to run errands when government offices and banks etc. were open.
• thelastinuit 5y ago
  Yes.
• leipert 5y ago
  The thing that really changed my perspective was a comment on HN: 20% reduction in work days means 50% increase in off days. Personally I have the feeling that I need like a day to disconnect from work topics and focus on other things, so the extra day would help.
• Raed667 5y ago
  As someone in their early(ish) career. I would love to, but I can't afford the 20% pay-cut. Also, due to French regulations, working 80% will lose you 35%+ of your paid holidays. So that's something to keep in mind.
• bradlys 5y ago
  I grew up going to four day a week schools because our school district was too poor to afford the fifth day. I’d like to go back. For 80% of the pay? Hard to say. Honestly, my costs are a bit fixed. The problem I have is that even at the ~400k/yr I make, I don’t have enough still. I need closer to 500-600k to feel comfortable. Slice that down by 20% and it’s getting me back where I’m at (uncomfortable). I think I’d have to move and live in an entirely different area where giving up 20% of my income would have no sizable effect on my life. (Including retirement and so forth)
• rognjen 5y ago
  1. You should try this in Europe. It's more common to work part time. 2. You should try with non startups. Lifestyle businesses often have a better work life balance that this provides. As for would I do it? Yes, I've done it.
• juancn 5y ago
  No. Why would I do that? I'm not a factory line worker were my output is correlated to the number of hours I spend at work. I'm paid because I add value, how and at which times I add such value is mostly up to me. Yes, there are deadlines and incidents, there's coordination with others, but if I'm available at weird hours when really needed (i.e. value again), I expect freedom to choose when I do what's needed and take downtime even if it's the middle of a typical workday.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• HardwareLust 5y ago
  I'd rather work 4 10's for 100% salary.
• sjs382 5y ago
  Unless your goal is a simple reduction of hours, you may be able to negotiate fewer days without compromising on salary. For example, I work what is called a "9/80" schedule. I work 9 hours, M-Th and on Fridays, I alternate between a day off and working 8 hours. This gives me a 3 day weekend every other weekend, while still putting in 80 hours every two weeks.
• rajandatta 5y ago
  YES - absolutely. I think the personal and societal benefits to health and well being stand out. Less so perhaps if you're younger with lesser responsibilities to families and elder care. I've tried other arrangements - longer hrs/day in return for 1 day off every 2 weeks. Worked well and the benefits are such that at this stage 80% of salary for fewer hours would be a good arrangement. The real danger is the unstated but practical assumption that you're on the book for fewer hours and lower pay but in real life expected to continue to do 50, 60, more hours week because of culture and events.
• dyeje 5y ago
  I would accept a 4 day workweek at 100% salary. I'm not going to accept less pay for something the current research says is going to increase my productivity [1]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-says-4-day-workweek-boosted-workers-productivity-by-40 https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-say...
• sershe 5y ago
  That really depends on how much I make full time and - very importantly - how it is taxed. As of today, I'd work 1.5 days for 30% of my salary (and I suppose 30% health insurance coverage? :)). Maybe even 1 day, tight but still doable. I bet I would be much more productive per time unit, too.
• swman 5y ago
  I’ll work 4 days a week for 100% salary. If the profits aren’t going down why is my salary going to go down?
• nickd2001 5y ago
  I do 32 hrs contract for 80% of normal salary. Thoroughly worth it for the extra day off. Previously I did 37.5 hrs over 4 days, which made the days too long and tiring, so 5th somewhat wasted trying to recover. Before that, did 34 hours (90% contract) over 4 days, also a little tiring but partly cos of a long commute. 80% over 4 days, and WFH, is a fantastic combination leading to much more job satisfaction. Some people may be scared of missing meetings the day they're not in, or looking less committed etc.... well the answer to that is try to persuade your collegaues to do 4 days too. ;) clearly there's the loss of salary. But s/w devs make a good wage. Even losing 20% you're doing better than a lot of other professions, and people doing all those other jobs still manage to buy a house somewhere, (might not be in a posh area) and drive a Citroen or Kia ;) Interview is a good time to negotiate this. :)
• sincarne 5y ago
  I did it. I was a front-end developer at an agency. I took Monday off to be with my daughter before she started school. Later on I cut my hours even further and took on the bulk of the housework, childcare, cooking, shopping, etc. I’m fortunate in that my wife has a career she loves, and excels at, so we don’t really want as long as we are on top of our spending. Which I have time to manage. It has been the best thing for our family.
• pawelkomarnicki 5y ago
  I did it, it was fun but made some problems with/for people working full time
• BigBalli 5y ago
  I don't trade time for money.
• timkofu 5y ago
  Yes.
• kameit00 5y ago
  I went from 40 hours a week to 35 hours a week a few years ago. ... you can't buy lifetime with money. I got the chance and took it. No regrets.
• tfont 5y ago
  I did this once fore awhile, and it was worth it for the period of time. But at times, having extra cash (or the expected salary based on your lifestyle) can also go a long way! In the end, it's about managing priorities (at the time) and stress. Working less that increase focus and avoid burn out by giving you freedom to do "other" personal things.