3 ms·

This article is so dramatic. "Look at how hard it was for these companies to go to four days a week." It's not hard. You just declare Friday a weekend. Then

This article is so dramatic. "Look at how hard it was for these companies to go to four days a week." It's not hard. You just declare Friday a weekend. Then you do everything like before. Did you have meetings on weekends? No? Good, move the Friday ones to another day because they're on the weekend now. Who is going to answer customer support emails on Friday? The same people who answered on Saturday and Sunday, and maybe you'll pay them extra work on the weekend. What if we can't get everything done? You probably weren't getting everything done before, and you either worked on Saturday or just said screw it. Do the same thing. The only slightly reasonable issue brought up was the lawyers who wanted to work four days but kept having to go to court on Friday. Yes, if you work with external entities, you either have to be willing to say no to working on Friday or if you can't, you have to wait for them to also move to four days. But very few people are actually in a position where they can't say no to the client (the lawyer being one of the few exceptions). The WSJ wants to make it sound like a massive undertaking because they are pro-business and anti-worker. Don't buy the hype.

treebeard5440 3y ago
I like how you broke this down - it’s really not that hard
manicennui 3y ago
I was surprised to see this in the WSJ at all. Obviously they did it so they could sow doubt. This entire article is likely PR for ActivTrak though: "Many four-day-week employers don’t appear to be operating more efficiently, though, according to data from ActivTrak, a maker of workforce analytics software. Gabriela Mauch, vice president of ActivTrak’s productivity lab, suspects that is because management hasn’t revamped the way teams work."
ncallaway 3y ago
> But very few people are actually in a position where they can't say no to the client (the lawyer being one of the few exceptions). Yea, I agree with this. As the lawyer, when the court asks you your preferred dates for scheduling something, don't give them a Friday. If the Court asks you to schedule something on a Friday, you could politely request it moved to another day. If the Court says: "too bad, this Court works Fridays, and I'm going to schedule something for Friday", then you show up on Friday. Exactly the same way that you would if the Court said: "I'm going to schedule something for a Saturday".
chiefalchemist 3y ago
> The WSJ wants to make it sound like a massive undertaking because they are pro-business and anti-worker. I agree. It's just a shame that for the most part we're still using a lens that's so binary. I understand why say Fortune 500 companies are so slow to change. But why are the rest? If you're competing for talent - and nearly all companies are - and "we're on a 4-day workweek" would be appealing, why not do it? On my last contract I worked 4 days x ~8.5 hrs with Fridays off. LOVED IT. I was more productive and never had to face "This client / project annoys the shit out of me...And even nore so on a Friday." There's nothing to be said for that ;)
- ziddoap 3y ago
  >If you're competing for talent - and nearly all companies are - and "we're on a 4-day workweek" would be appealing, why not do it? At my workplace, this is how we ended up shifting to a 4-day work week. We were in a bit of a squeeze for hiring, and the last few candidates we had hired didn't end up working out. We shifted to a 4-day work week and we have found we're getting higher quality applicants that would have presumably skipped over us for a more prestigious name, a company offering 4-day already, or whatever. Not saying it's guaranteed to be the same for others, but it's worked remarkably well for us in our talent search.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    It is, at least for now, a point of differentiation. It also could be dog-fooding. That is, how of is it, "We're innovative. We're pro-team...4DWW? What's that?" The other thing is, not everyone wants Friday off. Therefore, the company can remain open 5 days, but not everyone is available all five days.
    - ziddoap 3y ago
      >The other thing is, not everyone wants Friday off. Therefore, the company can remain open 5 days, but not everyone is available all five days. We rolled it out this way. Business is still open 5 days, roughly half the staff has Mondays off and the others have Fridays off. Staff have a "buddy" on the other schedule that they touch base with in case something needs to be taken care of on one of their days off.
yndoendo 3y ago
To be far, the metric of a salary at 40 hours is not valid. The time to commute should be count against that 40 hours and yet we exclude it. You're driving to work means work is taking your time, they also know where you live and how long it takes so there should be no scruples there. Current metric fuzzes reality and allows for persuasion against 35 work weeks because people think they are only working 40 hours a week. To be far, I find 9:00-17:00 to be a destructive cookie-cut mentality too. Prefer having about 12 hours of continual time when implementing a new feature or working a new solution. This allows for laying out the solution and better refactoring to make it cleaner. 9:00 to 17:00 does not allow for this because continual thoughts have to be shelved for the next day which takes more energy and time to try and rev-up again to continue where one left off. To be far, a CEO or President or Owner or Manager seeing you in the office is a social engineering hack. "They are there so they must be doing work, I'm getting what I payed for."
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  My guess is it's because the commute is really up to the employee. So if someone moves does the employer adjust their salary? What if I ride to work on my bike a few times a week (15 miles)? Perhaps there could be some time stipend, so days may start a bit later and end sooner than 9-5.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Some companies do indeed do transport stipends for this reason. $100 a month for gas, maintaining a bike, bus/train ticket reimbursement, etc. Doesn't happen often and it doesn't replace the time you take, but it's not unheard of. Time stipend would he interesting, but Idk if it'd really gain traction, especially with more white collar work offering full remote.
gwbas1c 3y ago
> Good, move the Friday ones to another day because they're on the weekend now That only works if you cancel the bullshit meetings, and empower your employees to say no to bullshit meetings.

treebeard5440 3y ago

I like how you broke this down - it’s really not that hard

manicennui 3y ago

I was surprised to see this in the WSJ at all. Obviously they did it so they could sow doubt. This entire article is likely PR for ActivTrak though: "Many four-day-week employers don’t appear to be operating more efficiently, though, according to data from ActivTrak, a maker of workforce analytics software. Gabriela Mauch, vice president of ActivTrak’s productivity lab, suspects that is because management hasn’t revamped the way teams work."

ncallaway 3y ago

> But very few people are actually in a position where they can't say no to the client (the lawyer being one of the few exceptions). Yea, I agree with this. As the lawyer, when the court asks you your preferred dates for scheduling something, don't give them a Friday. If the Court asks you to schedule something on a Friday, you could politely request it moved to another day. If the Court says: "too bad, this Court works Fridays, and I'm going to schedule something for Friday", then you show up on Friday. Exactly the same way that you would if the Court said: "I'm going to schedule something for a Saturday".

chiefalchemist 3y ago

> The WSJ wants to make it sound like a massive undertaking because they are pro-business and anti-worker. I agree. It's just a shame that for the most part we're still using a lens that's so binary. I understand why say Fortune 500 companies are so slow to change. But why are the rest? If you're competing for talent - and nearly all companies are - and "we're on a 4-day workweek" would be appealing, why not do it? On my last contract I worked 4 days x ~8.5 hrs with Fridays off. LOVED IT. I was more productive and never had to face "This client / project annoys the shit out of me...And even nore so on a Friday." There's nothing to be said for that ;)

ziddoap 3y ago
>If you're competing for talent - and nearly all companies are - and "we're on a 4-day workweek" would be appealing, why not do it? At my workplace, this is how we ended up shifting to a 4-day work week. We were in a bit of a squeeze for hiring, and the last few candidates we had hired didn't end up working out. We shifted to a 4-day work week and we have found we're getting higher quality applicants that would have presumably skipped over us for a more prestigious name, a company offering 4-day already, or whatever. Not saying it's guaranteed to be the same for others, but it's worked remarkably well for us in our talent search.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  It is, at least for now, a point of differentiation. It also could be dog-fooding. That is, how of is it, "We're innovative. We're pro-team...4DWW? What's that?" The other thing is, not everyone wants Friday off. Therefore, the company can remain open 5 days, but not everyone is available all five days.
  - ziddoap 3y ago
    >The other thing is, not everyone wants Friday off. Therefore, the company can remain open 5 days, but not everyone is available all five days. We rolled it out this way. Business is still open 5 days, roughly half the staff has Mondays off and the others have Fridays off. Staff have a "buddy" on the other schedule that they touch base with in case something needs to be taken care of on one of their days off.

yndoendo 3y ago

To be far, the metric of a salary at 40 hours is not valid. The time to commute should be count against that 40 hours and yet we exclude it. You're driving to work means work is taking your time, they also know where you live and how long it takes so there should be no scruples there. Current metric fuzzes reality and allows for persuasion against 35 work weeks because people think they are only working 40 hours a week. To be far, I find 9:00-17:00 to be a destructive cookie-cut mentality too. Prefer having about 12 hours of continual time when implementing a new feature or working a new solution. This allows for laying out the solution and better refactoring to make it cleaner. 9:00 to 17:00 does not allow for this because continual thoughts have to be shelved for the next day which takes more energy and time to try and rev-up again to continue where one left off. To be far, a CEO or President or Owner or Manager seeing you in the office is a social engineering hack. "They are there so they must be doing work, I'm getting what I payed for."

paulryanrogers 3y ago
My guess is it's because the commute is really up to the employee. So if someone moves does the employer adjust their salary? What if I ride to work on my bike a few times a week (15 miles)? Perhaps there could be some time stipend, so days may start a bit later and end sooner than 9-5.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Some companies do indeed do transport stipends for this reason. $100 a month for gas, maintaining a bike, bus/train ticket reimbursement, etc. Doesn't happen often and it doesn't replace the time you take, but it's not unheard of. Time stipend would he interesting, but Idk if it'd really gain traction, especially with more white collar work offering full remote.

gwbas1c 3y ago

> Good, move the Friday ones to another day because they're on the weekend now That only works if you cancel the bullshit meetings, and empower your employees to say no to bullshit meetings.