5 ms·

This is a fairly common thing here in the Netherlands actually, four day work week. Most of my colleagues I know who does this to have some extra time with thei

by iamtew 12y ago

This is a fairly common thing here in the Netherlands actually, four day work week. Most of my colleagues I know who does this to have some extra time with their family/kids. Usually it's a split in the middle of the week or something, for example my manager doesn't work tuesday's, it's his "papadag" as he then spends time with his kids and don't have to send them off to day-care or get a nanny. Another colleague of mine dropped his contract from 40 hours a week down to 32 hours so he would have an extra day to work on his music career and an upcoming album. Obviously these arrangements will affect your salary as you work less.

nl 12y ago
I had a few meetings in the Netherlands when I was there on business, and was very impressed with the flexibility and number of people working less than 5 days. I worked 4 days a week for a year when we had a child, and that was somewhat unusual (for a man in Australia). I'd much prefer increased flexibility over less hours.
jacquesm 12y ago
That's not the whole story. For single parents going from 40 to 32 hours per week can be a net-neutral operation from a money perspective. The various tax breaks will increase with just about the same as your net salary drops. In rare cases you'll even end up with net a bit more than before. Going from 32 to 24 might still be the same, below that the balance shifts and you end up with less. I just ran the numbers with one of my employees in NL and we came to this exact conclusion so she decided to work one day less. In countries with a strong social net the equation is not always as simple as time*hourly rate, your situation should be taken into account as well.
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  So you're saying you earn the exact same net amount working 32 vs 40 hours? brb talking to the boss.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    As a single parent, in a country where you get subsidies for things like rent, child care, health insurance and so on, yes, it can work out like that. So what works for my employee would not work for me (because our social situation is different).
  - smileysteve 12y ago
    Many of the commenters are saying that they actually burn out a little more because those 32 hours are more productive than the 40. The research here also says that the 32 hours can be just as productive as the 40.
adrianb 12y ago
Everybody has papadagen where I work too. However I've always wondered how much getting one is decided by the difficulty of securing daycare for all children and the costs it has. Would they still get one if the daycare was cheaper and with plenty of room for everyone or would they prefer the salary increase?
yitchelle 12y ago
A family of that we know has a job sharing between the parents. This is an interesting arrangement as they are sharing the same job. I think the dad does 3 days and the mum does 2 days. They have found it worked for them and they can share the joy of looking after their kids on a weekly basis. They still do the 8hr/day for 5day/week. In this way, they are having vatertag and muttertag every week.
karmajunkie 12y ago
> obviously these arrangements will affect your salary I don't really find this obvious or self-evident. One of my very biggest complaints about the economic climate today is that all of the productivity gains go to the owners, and very little to workers. If I as a worker am producing more, it follows that I should be working less, or paid more (which amounts to the same thing.) to do otherwise eliminates jobs that would otherwise need to be done, and takes advantage of workers.
- nawitus 12y ago
  If the market works, then the worker should get gains too. However, these examples were of reducing total hours worked and presumably also reducing total productivity to some degree.
- runeks 12y ago
  > One of my very biggest complaints about the economic climate today is that all of the productivity gains go to the owners, and very little to workers. The solution to this is to become an owner. Now, creating and operating a company is probably harder than working for it, for it it weren't, why wouldn't people just become owners if it pays better?
- hueving 12y ago
  >gains go to the owners, and very little to workers. If there is such an obvious imbalance, why doesn't everyone just quit and start their own company?
  - esrauch 12y ago
    Because of the obvious barriers to entry to reach a point where you are exploiting workers? Or because some people probably would prefer not to exploit others for profit? Your point would make some sense if all owners of companies bootstrapped them from startups, when in reality they were likely just someone who was otherwise wealthy and became owners once it was already a successful company when the original owners already cashed out (or passed on, depending on the age of the company).
  - 12y ago

by iamtew 12y ago

nl 12y ago

I had a few meetings in the Netherlands when I was there on business, and was very impressed with the flexibility and number of people working less than 5 days. I worked 4 days a week for a year when we had a child, and that was somewhat unusual (for a man in Australia). I'd much prefer increased flexibility over less hours.

jacquesm 12y ago

That's not the whole story. For single parents going from 40 to 32 hours per week can be a net-neutral operation from a money perspective. The various tax breaks will increase with just about the same as your net salary drops. In rare cases you'll even end up with net a bit more than before. Going from 32 to 24 might still be the same, below that the balance shifts and you end up with less. I just ran the numbers with one of my employees in NL and we came to this exact conclusion so she decided to work one day less. In countries with a strong social net the equation is not always as simple as time*hourly rate, your situation should be taken into account as well.

Cthulhu_ 12y ago
So you're saying you earn the exact same net amount working 32 vs 40 hours? brb talking to the boss.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  As a single parent, in a country where you get subsidies for things like rent, child care, health insurance and so on, yes, it can work out like that. So what works for my employee would not work for me (because our social situation is different).
- smileysteve 12y ago
  Many of the commenters are saying that they actually burn out a little more because those 32 hours are more productive than the 40. The research here also says that the 32 hours can be just as productive as the 40.

adrianb 12y ago

Everybody has papadagen where I work too. However I've always wondered how much getting one is decided by the difficulty of securing daycare for all children and the costs it has. Would they still get one if the daycare was cheaper and with plenty of room for everyone or would they prefer the salary increase?

yitchelle 12y ago

A family of that we know has a job sharing between the parents. This is an interesting arrangement as they are sharing the same job. I think the dad does 3 days and the mum does 2 days. They have found it worked for them and they can share the joy of looking after their kids on a weekly basis. They still do the 8hr/day for 5day/week. In this way, they are having vatertag and muttertag every week.

karmajunkie 12y ago

> obviously these arrangements will affect your salary I don't really find this obvious or self-evident. One of my very biggest complaints about the economic climate today is that all of the productivity gains go to the owners, and very little to workers. If I as a worker am producing more, it follows that I should be working less, or paid more (which amounts to the same thing.) to do otherwise eliminates jobs that would otherwise need to be done, and takes advantage of workers.

nawitus 12y ago
If the market works, then the worker should get gains too. However, these examples were of reducing total hours worked and presumably also reducing total productivity to some degree.
runeks 12y ago
> One of my very biggest complaints about the economic climate today is that all of the productivity gains go to the owners, and very little to workers. The solution to this is to become an owner. Now, creating and operating a company is probably harder than working for it, for it it weren't, why wouldn't people just become owners if it pays better?
hueving 12y ago
>gains go to the owners, and very little to workers. If there is such an obvious imbalance, why doesn't everyone just quit and start their own company?
- esrauch 12y ago
  Because of the obvious barriers to entry to reach a point where you are exploiting workers? Or because some people probably would prefer not to exploit others for profit? Your point would make some sense if all owners of companies bootstrapped them from startups, when in reality they were likely just someone who was otherwise wealthy and became owners once it was already a successful company when the original owners already cashed out (or passed on, depending on the age of the company).
- 12y ago