Apparently worked in England:
NGL - I wouldn’t mind having Wednesdays off.
Never working more than 2 days in a row, one day during the week to get stuff done, a proper weekend to relax.
Seems like a win/win.
thats more or less what one of my coworkers does. the advantage is that after coming off a day off, people are more refreshed, rather than working all the days straight and slowing down as you approach the weekend.
it sucks of course for vacation planning (less flexible) but its definitely better for mental/physical stress
I’ve been thinking about working Mon-Thu and Tue-Fri on alternate weeks so that every other weekend would be four days long. I think it would be better for me personally.
I could see that.
Mon-Thur (Fri-Mon)
Tue-Fri (Sat-Sun)So you’d never have WORSE than a normal weekend, but still get one day during the week to, I dunno, go to the DMV or get an oil change or whatever.
Did ChatGPT write the title?
Garbage training, garbage output. Same with underpaid interns
I think each company has to do what’s best for them.
I mainly work in sales and a four day work week wouldn’t interest me. It’d impact my sales.
I work 5-6 days a week 2-3 hours per day.
When you let “each company do what’s best for them” we get mining companies hiring pinkerton to murder miners. We get Triangle Shirtwaist. We get Bhopal.
We need the force of law behind things like this, or we get fucked by greed, every single time. You do what’s best for you, but corporations need laws.
I am not sure how you got murdering people from what I said.
I don’t want a law pushing four day work weeks. Doesn’t interest me. I’m fine with each company picking the schedule they want to offer.
OK. And what I’m telling you is that without a law, it won’t happen.
How did I get from here to there? The 5-day work week literally saved lives. Saved peoples’ bodies. Extended lifespans. Gave children back their parents. I don’t think a single labor regulation has ever protected workers as much as the 5-day week.
The 4-day week would take it further. It’s worth doing, and it will not happen if we let every corporation decide for themselves.
Just playing devil’s advocate here, but doesn’t the article prove that it has happened?
And now, being a bit more genuine, I think it’s tricky with places where people aren’t salaried. Like people who make most of their money through commissions and bonuses based on sales targets (car salespeople, etc). Also caregiving, where margins are slim because of shitty insurance reimbursements and caregivers get paid based on hourly work
I think the thing is you are already working less than a 4 day week (32 hr … ) your doing 18 at most so I don’t think you really can comment on this one …
Do it for hourly people or give the choice to allow workers to do five. For many jobs it would just mean people working more hours per day to keep up with the volume.
That’s the ponit same pay as 40 hr for 32 hr. . Better work/life balanced. I know it will not matter to you as you pick your hrs but there are a ton of people that are not that lucky… if they whant to work 40 nothing is stopping them the company will just have to pay 8hrs of overtime.
The answer is more workers…
We already have a worker shortage. So no the answer isn’t more workers.
My gf is salary and works 50 hours a week. Four days a week means she’s working 12-13 hour days. She doesn’t want that.
We don’t have a worker shortage we have a shortage of well paying jobs. If companies pay better than people will take the jobs… and that sucks she has to work so much has they try hiring at better wages or you know she could say no…
Not EVERYONE on salary is exempt from overtime pay.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17d-overtime-professional
Also, drivers and farmers are exempt from overtime pay, but you should check it out. Salaried overtime pay is a HUGE point of wage theft.
Would love to reduce the number of hours worked while retaining same comp. However, I don’t think more workers is a viable solution, because that’d imply companies eating the 20% extra cost. Whether or not they can get it through shareholders and the board aside, fact that the amount of working aged adults are shrinking (due to boomers retiring and lesser children in later generations) makes it much harder to add more head counts. There must be ways to improve efficiency without corporate/shareholder greed, and that’s a tough pill for the world to swallow without very drastic changes (UBI for example).
But there it is… if the top took a hiar cut that would cover it. Lower entrance requirements to get the job… means more eligible works… it’s a tuff one yes. Is there enuff workers maybe. But it’s worth a try.
I’m stuck in middle management, and have many middle and senior management peers, so I see both sides of the arguments here getting pushed back hard. I cannot begin to imagine the top willing to take a cut, there’s no benefit for them what so ever. Anything lower tries to justify will just be brushed off. On the flip side, I definitely do not want to reduce entrance requirements… bad hires hurts my team’s performance in non linear fashion.
If meaningful changes were to happen, it would have to be mandated by laws and regulations, but I don’t see a path for those laws and regulations to change without drastic societal changes that would support such.
Good news! Nobody wants to cut your hours. Bernie Sanders’ proposal would cut the standard work week down from 40 hours to 32. Since you already work less than 32 hours per week, this change would have no impact on you.
I agree. The government should not get in the way of companies - no matter what.
Did you drop the /s?
Some people just drink the kool-aid
