4 ms·

There is an overhead to having an employee that is almost the same whether they work 4 or 5 days. Employers want value, so they would rather employ 4 people for

There is an overhead to having an employee that is almost the same whether they work 4 or 5 days. Employers want value, so they would rather employ 4 people for 5 days than 5 people for 4 days. In most markets, labour is cheap, employers have the leverage and we work 5 days. Now, in competitive employment markets (e.g. strong software developers) there might be enough leverage for 4 days. Also, the higher salaries get, the less the overhead matters.

loonster 5y ago
Maybe its time to decouple all non salary benefits.
- pharmakom 5y ago
  There's also things like desk space, parking spot, hardware, time dealing with contracts...
  - loonster 5y ago
    Not exactly equal. If two employees work different shifts, most of those issues could be solved by not having separate resources for each employee.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      Gross.
- hansvm 5y ago
  Maybe. Those benefits are usually more efficient for the employee and the employer via tax/accounting advantages and economies of scale. Eliminating such benefits directly impacts the bottom line of the employee, and increasing cash sufficiently to result in the same effective pay results in higher employer costs. Are the benefits of decoupling worth that increased friction? For some examples like health benefits I think the answer is probably yes -- the fact that worse health care is twice as expensive without an employer (even if you personally pay the full cost) seems like an artifact of a broken system as opposed to some real benefit being provided -- even people who disagree with universal healthcare should agree on that point. Other examples like free food and a gym/shower at the office aren't as clear cut in my mind. It's really nice to be able to bike to the office, not smell like ass when I start working, and have breakfast ready when I get there. Plus I'm not sure eliminating those benefits would actually result in a 4-day work week. You still have per-employee overhead purely from hiring/retention efforts and whatnot, and there's a lot of inertia to the 5-day week.

loonster 5y ago

Maybe its time to decouple all non salary benefits.

pharmakom 5y ago
There's also things like desk space, parking spot, hardware, time dealing with contracts...
- loonster 5y ago
  Not exactly equal. If two employees work different shifts, most of those issues could be solved by not having separate resources for each employee.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    Gross.
hansvm 5y ago
Maybe. Those benefits are usually more efficient for the employee and the employer via tax/accounting advantages and economies of scale. Eliminating such benefits directly impacts the bottom line of the employee, and increasing cash sufficiently to result in the same effective pay results in higher employer costs. Are the benefits of decoupling worth that increased friction? For some examples like health benefits I think the answer is probably yes -- the fact that worse health care is twice as expensive without an employer (even if you personally pay the full cost) seems like an artifact of a broken system as opposed to some real benefit being provided -- even people who disagree with universal healthcare should agree on that point. Other examples like free food and a gym/shower at the office aren't as clear cut in my mind. It's really nice to be able to bike to the office, not smell like ass when I start working, and have breakfast ready when I get there. Plus I'm not sure eliminating those benefits would actually result in a 4-day work week. You still have per-employee overhead purely from hiring/retention efforts and whatnot, and there's a lot of inertia to the 5-day week.