7 ms·

There's no doubt that there's a benefit to the employee, but for corporations to adopt this there has to be a measurable benefit to the company as well. I do t

• bb123 3y ago
  I’d happily take a 20% pay cut for a 4 day work week, if it was offered.
  • totololo 3y ago
    I think that's common in Switzerland. They call it 80% contracts.
    • kwhitefoot 3y ago
      Similarly in Norway.
  • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    I would too but only after I raise my base rate by 25%. If I'm on a salary and have project deadlines it's the same thing anyway.
  • vidarh 3y ago
    It's "sort of" what I've done, only last time I changed jobs I told recruiters it'd take 20%-30% more for me to come into the office full time, and pro-rated below that.
    • xandrius 3y ago
      I just straight out reject any onsite. No money would ever bring me back.
  • bojan 3y ago
    This is very common in the Netherlands.
  • ben_w 3y ago
    I'm told it's a legal requirement for companies to provide that on request here in Germany, though I've never actually tried that yet, don't know any caveats.
  • wahnfrieden 3y ago
    And would you work as much unpaid overtime as you would with a salaried 5 day work week job when pressured to by your boss, owner and peers?
    • ngc248 3y ago
      That is what it would devolve into.
    • kwhitefoot 3y ago
      I never have been pressured by my boss to do unpaid overtime.
      • wahnfrieden 3y ago
        Good for you!
• whatyesaid 3y ago
  If most companies become 4 day work week, that would be the new floor and not a perk no more? You might still have 5 day work week employees who get paid more but to them the perk is money/earlier retirement.
  • EForEndeavour 3y ago
    That's true for all perks: if all firms offered the same perk, that becomes the new floor. But this does not stop companies from offering perks.
  • esafak 3y ago
    Mission accomplished. Otherwise what's the point of increasing productivity? If we can get the work done in less time, we should be able to work less. In an ideal world, we would work as little or as much as we want and be compensated accordingly.
• detourdog 3y ago
  Also large organizations could have smaller facilities by using staggered schedules.
  • ghaff 3y ago
    Now you're hoteling though which people complain about as well.
    • detourdog 3y ago
      What I have heard is that you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people none of the time. I also think the USA is marching towards making the gig economy the new normal so fractional employment will be come normal.
      • ghaff 3y ago
        And some people are fine with that. I know freelancers and consultants who work for multiple companies (generally remotely) and they wouldn't have it any other way.
• kevinventullo 3y ago
  domain knowledge gained over decades really is a competitive advantage if your employees commonly have it I’m not so sure. On the one hand, it seems nearly tautological. Yet, so much of the comp structure and general attitude towards employees in big tech seems to incentivize job hopping every few years. I would prefer not having to do that, but my hand is forced.
  • autoexecbat 3y ago
    It's pretty clear to me that deep knowledge of how the company works and the historical quirks of how things happened, and how the tech-debt works, is considered of only small value to a typical company. I've seen countless examples of people in such positions being discarded without a thought during layoffs. Additionally, having deep expertise in a particular technical area can protect you somewhat during a layoff, but also makes you easier to define a replacement for if there is more that one of you. Companies will get what they pay for. They pay for short term gain.
• burningChrome 3y ago
  In the mid aughts, I worked at a company that put ROWE (results oriented work environment) into practice. This approach basically meant you could work whenever you wanted, as long as you were meeting goals and metrics. There was a list of metrics you had to meet before being eligible for it. They kept it in place for two years and nothing really changed. Devs were still meeting their metrics and the company was still doing well, but when the old VP who put ROWE in place left, the first thing the new VP did was take it away along with some other perks we had. Myself and about seven other devs left within the next 3-4 months. I'm currently working for a large corporation who went through several cycles of trying to get people to come back to the office after C19 slowed down. After three or four versions, they finally gave up and put an optional (hybrid) model in place. It was interesting to hear the stunned VP's glowing about the increased productivity and the company had two of its most successful quarters going into and coming out of the pandemic. I'm guess seeing those results made it easier for them to allow people to work from home more easily. Some anecdotal evidence for your retention theory. Since my current company allowed 100% WFH, our team has had barely any turn over and at least three of the teams I worked with have also have little or no turn over as well. It would stand to reason you probably have a good point about retaining people when you allow them a little more freedom to do their jobs.
  • sandworm101 3y ago
    I'm with a large organization (government, military) that also implemented a hybrid model under covid and decided to keep it going. But not a day goes by that someone doesn't scream for it to end. We have too many people "working from home" all the time and never getting done the stuff that cannot be done from home. Is the server not responding after the recent power outage? Too bad. The guy to turn it back on only comes in Monday-Tuesday. They put the real property maintenance people on a hybrid model. No joke: The plumbers and electricians still "work from home" half the week. "Hello, this is General Smith." "Sir, ... um .. you are answering your own phone?" "Yup. My EA is working from home thursday-friday and we cannot get the secure phone to forward calls to her cellphone." "Did you talk to IT?" "It is friday. IT works remote on fridays." "How about I come to your office?" "Please do, I'm all alone here."
• risyachka 3y ago
  The work week went from 6 days to 5 and economy growth didn’t stall (when people were waaay less productive) My bet is literally nothing will change if we go to 4-day work week. Can’t say about others but my productivity goes way up with an extra weekend. I am way more rested and eager to do some work in Monday.
  • nickff 3y ago
    Reducing the number of days worked per week per individual increases (relative) overhead costs, including administrative costs, benefits (most notably including healthcare), and capital costs (because everything is being used less, but still devaluing). These are all real changes with real impacts. Also of note, the increase in these costs from going down to 4 days will be substantially larger than the prior one (due to the smaller dividend).
    • ipaddr 3y ago
      Capital costs spent do not go up. An opportunity for saving exist. One extra day means less electrical costs. Admin costs remain static. These costs do not change unless you are hiring someone for that one day. The costs are not going up substantially or at all for most 9/5 businesses
      • nickff 3y ago
        Capital expense is ~= depreciation, which is inversely proportional to the amount of work performed with a given capital asset.
        • ipaddr 3y ago
          Why would depreciation increase with less usage? Wouldn't the opposite occur? Chairs last longer. Copier would last longer.
  • Gustomaximus 3y ago
    I suspect we'd see a bunch of change. A difference of when we moved 6 to 5 days is in those times most business were closed on the weekends + generally people were more tied to one company for longer term. Plus 2 days off is very different than 3 in terms of alternate work opportunity. From that a likely issue is a steep increase in people having second jobs so they work a 4 day job and a second 2/3 day job. I suspect the 4 day week will work well for people with good salaries and market power, but encourage working class to 'work the weekend' in alternate jobs resulting in lower downtime. For this I'd actually like a 4 day week but with it either more restricted business opening on Sunday type thing or significant wage multiples over 3 day weekends to encourage time off vs the 24/7 economy.
• gchamonlive 3y ago
  4day work week won't do magic by itself. The company committing to it must also apply the necessary modifications and seek innovation to tap into this productivity well. It's like in the Industrial revolution when kids (!!) shift were lowered from 18 hours to 12-8 hours. Adults that were assisted by kids also couldn't maintain the same 18 hours shift and for the factories to maintain productivity they had to implement innovations. And would you look at that, the average textile factory today is orders of magnitude more productive and efficient than that of the 19th century.
  • wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Conditions for factory workers in the US haven't improved because it turned out to be an optimal way to improve productivity. It's because of worker movements demanding it again and again. Those productivity innovations you mention would've come either way. In other countries with worse working conditions and even less labor power than the US, factory owners reap the benefits of applying such productivity innovations AND the increased output of longer working hours than is generally tolerated by US workers. From the parent comment: > but for corporations to adopt this there has to be a measurable benefit to the company as well. This is only true in a world where workers are entirely subservient to their masters.
    • gchamonlive 3y ago
      Oh sure, don't get me wrong. I am not a techno-positivist that believes innovations will save us from evil. That was only to illustrate how a change in working policy has to go alongside technical and cultural adaptations. These worker movements are crucial to keep workers from getting both pressured to produce more AND work longer hours.
      • wahnfrieden 3y ago
        Got it. The parent’s line about a company needing to maintain or increase productivity in order to make an improvement to working conditions is one that only those truly part of ownership should be making. Especially when it’s never said so in both directions: if productivity improved (through automation or otherwise) then the workers shouldn’t have to work as long hours. Only actual owners get to work less if they wish to in wage labor business. And it is their privilege to demand workers increase or maintain productivity if they wish to work fewer hours.
• tshaddox 3y ago
  > but for corporations to adopt this there has to be a measurable benefit to the company as well. > I do think there is one clear benefit as measured in the article - employee retention. Well, sure, I think that's a given. This is also, for example, why companies pay their employees money in exchange for their labor. The measurable benefit to the company is that very few people would work for free.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  > There's no doubt that there's a benefit to the employee, but for corporations to adopt this there has to be a measurable benefit to the company as well. This assumes that the company and employees must have adversarial priorities. This is only true if that’s how the company wants to be structured Employee owned companies have no such adversarial structures The fact that a large number, not all, of billion dollar companies are not employee owned, is not a proof that it’s the optimal way to run a company. It’s only optimal for Capital In fact most companies are employee owned if for no other reason than they are small LLCs you don’t know the name of but are, for example, driving your FedEx packages around.
• 2muchcoffeeman 3y ago
  I worked a 4 day week for over a year while the pandemic was going. I'm not sure about total output, but per day, I was definitely more productive since everyone had different days off. I got paid for 1 day LESS, so I eventually went back to 5 days. I'd rather get paid for a full day of work, while we all slack off a bit.
• Jzush 3y ago
  I have to wonder about that. There has been data for years now, confirmed via Covid that work from home not only works but saves companies millions in rent/bills/equipment and that doesn’t even include things like cheaper insurance rates due to having less people on the premises. And yet companies are chomping at the bit to get people to return to the office. There seems to be a fine balance CEOs and board members want to hit between saving money and ensuring they have their boots as firmly placed on their lessers as possible.
• fasa99 3y ago
  Here's the thing. If you come in with low-mid trust and say "Expectations are 9-5, 5 days a week, in office" that's what you'll get. If you come in with high-trust and say "four day workweek, flexible hours, remote" you may well get 5-6 days a week most weeks and 7 days a week in crunch times, still with high morale. People are fearful of the latter approach because if the wrong people are hired, it can absolutely be abused. The flipside is that the former approach will seem stifling to the right people.
  • janosdebugs 3y ago
    If the wrong people are hired, they will spend 5 days a week drinking coffee, attending meetings that generate more meetings to seem super busy, and generally slacking off.
• gklitz 3y ago
  > There's no doubt that there's a benefit to the employee, but for corporations to adopt this there has to be a measurable benefit to the company as well. Thats a very Murican way to look at it. You know, workers Can also just demand it, worked for a lot og stuff in Europe. Like 5week vacation minimum. Unlimited paid sickdays, Paternity and maternity leave etc. The idea that everything has to be a net positive for corporations is silly. We are a society of people, and corporations have to be a net positive for our society not the other way around.
  • throwuxiytayq 3y ago
    I think it’s largely a question of whether a 4-day work week cuts your country’s GDP by 20%. People go to work because there’s work that needs to be done, you know.
• kulahan 3y ago
  Got a new job recently that’s 80% remote. I find myself fantasizing about what I might do to keep my job and excel, simply because sitting on my porch on a sunny day with my cats is an unreasonably relaxing experience. I’ve never given a damn where I worked until now.