3 ms·
They have a flaw. This quote says it all: "Packing 40 hours into four days isn't necessarily an efficient way to work." Why pack 40 instead of 32? The point o
by pierrefar 18y ago
They have a flaw. This quote says it all:
"Packing 40 hours into four days isn't necessarily an efficient way to work."
Why pack 40 instead of 32? The point of a 4-day week IMHO is not doing the same work-time in fewer days but to work more efficiently and so do the same work in less work-time, which in turn requires fewer days.
It's all about efficiency for both machines and people. Tell that to Forbes.
- Goladus 18y agoI think the belief is that labor doesn't compress enough to be worth it beyond 40 hours per week. If you're doing manual labor of some sort, chances are you don't really have much room to manage time poorly, which is what 37signals 4-day work week is meant to address.
- pierrefar 18y agoEven labor, of any kind requiring humans to do something, can be made more efficient by automation. So although you can't compress manually labor at all, you can make workers more efficient by giving them machines to help them.
- Tamerlin 18y agoI think Forbes also missed the point that hours aren't the criterion that people should care about, but rather results.
- tstegart 18y agoI agree with Goladus, some people don't have room to manage time poorly. When you work in a factory it is hours that matter because the results don't vary greatly by the amount of time you work. Sure, extremely long hours will make a difference, but if you put 16 doors on 4 cars per hour on a line, working two more hours doesn't really decrease that. You don't have time to goof off and be unproductive. If you just went by results, your whole assembly line would be screwed up, because its, well, a line.