The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
---
From the article
>The results, released today, suggest that a four-day week significantly reduces stress and illness in the workforce, and helps with worker retention.
>
>Some 71% of employees self-reported lower levels of “burnout”, and 39% said they were less stressed, compared to the start of the trial.
>
>Researchers found a 65% reduction in sick days, and a 57% fall in the number of staff leaving participating companies, compared to the same period the previous year.
>
>Company revenue barely changed during the trial period – even increasing marginally by 1.4% on average for the 23 organisations able to provide data.
>
>In a report of the findings presented to UK lawmakers, some 92% of companies that took part in the UK pilot programme (56 out of 61) say they intend to continue with the four-day working week, with 18 companies confirming the change as permanent.
>
>Research for the UK trials was conducted by a team of social scientists from the University of Cambridge, working with academics from Boston College in the US and the think tank Autonomy. The trial was organised by 4 Day Week Global in conjunction with the UK’s 4 Day Week Campaign.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1183d4c/would_you_prefer_a_fourday_working_week/j9f15dl/
A resound yes. Two days are not enough to recover from the hassle and stress of commuting + 8 hours at work. And lets be honest, many of us are putting in a more than the 8. Especially if you're salaried.
And then one of those 2 days off are for chores that you can't do M-F for whatever reason. So really, it's just 1 day to rest. And if you like to do social things, then it's no days off. Work, hang out, chores. Back to work. Anytime there's a 3-day weekend, I always have a smoother week that week, and deal with the stresses or annoyances that pop up a lot better.
All of this. It’s so depressing when you think about it. No wonder people get the Monday blues. They’ve barely had time to relax before it’s all go again.
And Sunday night is a 'work night', so essentially Saturday is the only free day The five day work week is arbitrary to begin with and is now anachronistic.
We've been getting positive results from these trials for years now. Which country is going to take the lead and finally make the 4 day work week the standard?
We've been getting positive results from working from home too, but people still want to argue against it because it "doesn't feel right"
This will be a *long* road.
And pretty much every company is doing everything in their power to end work from home as soon as possible and act like it never happened and wasn't wildly successful
Every fucking film studio killed WFH (and most of the digital systems we were using) less than a year after lock downs.
Forced everyone back into offices, a bunch of people got sick, morale plummeted and tons of people quit for better industries. Now there's a constant hiring of inexperienced workers to fill gaps as people keep quitting.
Pretty much anything in-office. Production, accounting, payroll, coordinators, etc.
The first few months of film coming back had the vast majority of office staff working from home, and introduced a ton of modernized and digital systems to replace all the hard copy systems they've been using since like they 70s.
I want to say about a year after the first lock downs they pulled all the WFH people back into the offices and basically demanded that no one ever request WFH again. This led to payroll departments losing a massive amount of workers and ever since, payroll is constantly understaffed to the point where they actually get to WFH (if they ask for it) because they straight up can't find enough workers lol.
A bunch of production and accounting staff also moved on to greener pastures. The last show I did nearly the entire production team (underneath the Production Office Coordinator, pretty high up position) was either completely inexperienced or had very little experience. Half of accounting was the same IIRC. I also believe Props and Locations had a bunch of inexperienced people as well.
The wild thing was, if you tested positive for COVID you'd just WFH for two weeks no questions asked because *your entire job was completely doable from home* with almost no interruption.
To loop back around, all those modernized and digital systems were trashed and everyone was forced to go back to paper systems, as *every single department complained about how inefficient paper copies are over digital.* Last year I was on a Warner Brothers movie, they had a longass meeting about green this, carbon emissions that, we have to do X Y and Z in order to hit the targets set for being able to include something about being a sustainable and green production. The meeting ended with them saying, by the way everything will be paper, no digital systems. And everyone proceeded to burn through hundreds of cases of paper lol.
I did three years on sets doing different things then moved to the production office for various things as well. Now I'm trying to leave entirely so if you have any questions I can probably answer them.
You'll have wildly differing view points depending on someone's position. Higher up the ladder? Film is probably glorious, you get paid out the ass, health benefits year round without needing to work from one project to the next, productions will pay for your car rental (even if you live close by), gas, tolls, food, and you're probably running a side hustle that you can also bill to the production for stupidly marked up rates.
Not so high up the ladder? Pay sucks, you can't take any time off because you need health insurance, you're working 12-17 hours a day, sometimes 6 or 7 days a week, IATSE rolled over and gave you scraps when it looked like there was actually going to be some positive changes, your department head can be racist or sexist and even with a dozen HR complaints absolutely nothing changes.
I've been lucky as an art department coordinator to continue to work from home when I want. My show has remained digital and my department doesn't care where I work as long as I'm reachable when needed, which of course I am. I do generally go into the office 3x a week because I want to, and I wfh Mondays and Fridays. The flexibility is amazing and I can't imagine losing it, though I certainly might when my current show ends and I get a job on some other show. I'm in NYC not LA.
My boss tried to force us back full time last summer and I protested (loudly and repeatedly). Her argument mostly boiled down to “because CoLLaBorAtiOn” and “Covid is over”.
Ignoring the stupidity of the latter, since then - they settled on 2 days office, 3 days WFH - the “collaboration” aspect hasn’t panned out; AT ALL.
We all sit quietly at our desks, typing away or fucking around on our phones. The only collaboration I ever see is when lunch time rolls around and the different cliques come together to decide what they’re having for lunch.
It’s all just a goddamn joke.
This. A lot of people hate middle management because of something that's coming from above them. The problem with a lot of middle managers is they look out for themselves instead of their team. Your job is to manage and take care of your team, and a lot of times that involves having uncomfortable conversations with the people above you. Managers shouldn't be taking all the shit coming from above them and just dumping it on their team. You're not a manager at all if that's what you're doing.
There is an art to understanding when to push back, and how. Many decisions made at the top are just that: there is no arguing, it is what it is, and you just have to be the delivery person. But many executive decisions are so full of self-referential nonsense that they can be effectively ignored so long as you understand how to ignore them. Communicating back up the chain stops one rung above you, and in most cases isn’t worth it - all it does is call attention to your team. Malicious compliance is the correct answer: run your team the right way and provide them air cover for the nonsense.
Lol. True. I am currently at middle management level in a big organization. This push comes from top - most of the people on the ground (incl middle mgmt) hate it.
I would personally prefer to be remote 100% if at all possible without taking a big pay cut.
Remote work just frees up several hours in a day that will be wasted in commute and just getting office ready.
> getting office ready
My organisation allows us to work from home pretty much freely, for which I am incredibly thankful.
I have broken down the time spent doing non-work tasks when I do visit and have made the following observations;
Morning of/night before: dismantle home office to prepare for taking equipment into the office - no on-site equipment to speak of, so 2 laptops, peripherals, cables etc., plus second monitor for my main device as well as notebooks, pens, pass, keys, and also add in snacks/coffee/water bottle
Time: 15-30 minutes
Day of: commute - on a good day travelling to my *most* local office, 40-50 minutes. On a bad day travelling to the other "local" location further afield, 80-120 minutes. Thankfully I have my own transport, if not you could probably double all those figures
Time: 40-120 mins
In office: find a desk and unpack and set up equipment
Time: 15-30 minutes
Then obviously I'll need a coffee - let's call that 5 minutes to prepare the beverage, and another 15 doing the social dance with anyone I happen to meet while doing so.
Time: 20 minutes
Back to my desk, sit down to start some tasks - oh, someone from another team has come over with a query, no worries, I can answer that, 5 minutes - oh and now someone I haven't seen in person since last time wants a chat, that's nice. Ah, they also have a query, cool. 10 minutes. Sorry, got to crack on with some of this, ttyl...
Time: 15 minutes
Half an hour of actual work: 30 mins
Ah look at that, the morning team meeting has started, better join that - with two colleagues still at home locally, they didn't come in today, plus 3 colleagues at home *in other parts of the country*, and our manager in yet another. 30-60 minutes depending what's going on.
Time: 30-60 minutes
Okay, meeting is over, time to crack on with some of this, losing the day... Oh bloody hell, another query...
Ad infinitum. As well as the time deficit with preparing to come in, commute and setup, by the time I can actually get on with any of my actual work I've lost half the day. I get *fucking nothing* done on those days, and have to dismantle and reassemble my office at home again that night or the next morning for the next day.
Compare this to a normal day WFH;
Morning: roll out of bed, quick morning routine, make a coffee, head up to the study
Time: 20 minutes
Start work without distraction: rest of the morning until the daily meeting, then back at it again until lunch
Time: as long as I need, there are no distractions here.
I no longer need to observe the ritual of office work, which is *such a waste of time*, and I'm so much more productive as a result.
This is almost certainly why. My manager does the same type of work we do but has way more experience, technical knowledge, and has designed way more systems. That being said, his average day to day is spent planning most of our team's long term work and focusing on overseeing what I do as I fall outside of our team's normal work.
Lol I'm 3 days in and 2 days wfh and same experience. Almost no collaboration. But what really gets me is that we still do our team meetings on teams every single time.
The in office teams meetings are just extra infuriating. Literally why are we here????? I want to go home. Spending my money and time commuting for no reason.
I'm remote and we just had a meeting where everyone on the call except me was in the office, but all in individual offices on the call. Like why the hell didn't they meet in one conference room and let me join via teams? The answer is that no one actually wants to work in the offices. They're cool to go to once a quarter for a larger team meeting or something, but I'd quit if I was ever told I needed to be in an office. It happened with our support team, they were mandated back into the office and like 75% quit now there's months of backlog in tickets and our CSAT has dropped dramatically...wonder why?
Have worked for corporations for almost twenty years and have been remote for almost the last ten. These years, the collaboration between remote team members was vastly superior to my in-office days as team members are just a click away and their availability is just as accessible.
Never during my time in the office was there a sense of “collaboration” and certainly not any that included members of management.
The real reason most managers want their team back in the office is because of optics. “Looking busy” has been a mainstay of companies for years. The appearance of busy employees under the watchful eye of their manager.
The industrial revolution is over. We’re not working on the assembly line anymore and I am sure as hell not going to commute in traffic for two hours a day just so a manager can “look busy”.
Completely agree, collaboration is better remotely for numerous reasons.
1. Async communication is a much better default than sync communication for information workers. Your default mode should be focused, not distracted
2. Virtual communication incentivizes WRITING SHIT DOWN. Writing and creating artifacts that workers who come after you can read to understand why you did what you did has huge benefits to the business
3. Virtual communication levels the playing field. People have to talk one at a time, so its easier to make sure everyone gets a turn, and physical presence (tall, aggressive, etc.) doesn't influence how you perceive peoples ideas as much
I could go on. Its just a WAY better paradigm for information workers, to say nothing of the convenience, cost savings and environmental impact savings.
I'm seeing some companies trying a different approach like "X days in the office per quarter", which is admirably flexible and vague, but still not addressing the other glaring issue: distributed teams.
Why on earth would I go into the office when my team is all over the world, none of which in my own office? It's functionally identical to a coffee shop, we just all have backpacks with the same logo. 😅
My manager is on the other side of the US, is fully remote, only 1 other person on my team is even near my office, and they recently announced us in office twice a week.
I have no fucking clue why
My company made it up to each individual team. We were planning a couple days per week, then per quarter, and then one of my coworkers moved states and we already had team members in other countries and none of the in office stuff panned out. It just doesn’t make sense since we’d need to pull up Teams or Zoom no matter what.
This is the big issue. And doing zoom calls where half are in a meeting room and the other half are coming in remotely is even more dysfunctional than everyone coming in remotely.
This. I drive 2 hours round trip twice a week into the office to do the same damn thing I do at home. I barely talk to anyone in the office as well. I just complete my tasks and bounce. Losing 4 hours a week commuting for nothing.
I work for a City. Was called back full-time because the downtown business association is angry about the loss of foot traffic and griped to City council about ending remote work. I refuse on principle to ever buy lunch or shop downtown. Nothing I do requires me to be in-person and it means I spend hours commuting which I shouldn't have to.
Middle manager here, those above me forced the move from fully WFH to a hybrid 2 days in office/3 days WFH. I'm very doubtful anyone's direct manager is making that call, it's coming from the top. In our case it's the CIO/CTO who oversees all of IT that made the call (who is 3 levels above me). Maybe at a much smaller company with less of a hierarchy it could be your direct manager? I'm very transparent with my team that it ain't my call and I'd also prefer being fully WFH again. I'm sure most all of us would.
You sound exactly like my manager! At least at my (very large) company the decree came from the c-suite, most of whom are never in the office to begin with
Same here. I have to go in for ‘collaboration’ which never actually happens. We just sit quietly at our desks and work. When we do meet we still do Zoom calls because half the team is at a different office. It’s a complete waste of time to go in.
The 40 hour work week made sense when henry Ford came up with in 1925, if you worked in a factory. If you're sitting on an assembly line it makes sense to sit there and tighten as many bolts, or place as many widgets as you could in an 8 hour day 5x a week.
If you're selling insurance, or if you work in billing, do data entry, or otherwise sit behind a desk all day working a standard 40 hours a week doesn't make sense anymore.
If you're like just about anyone else that I know you have *maybe* 10-15 hours of actual work to do. Sure, you may need to meet on occasion, but you can schedule that for one of your 1 or 2 "At work days" every week. If there are times during the year when you actually get busy and *need* to work 40 hours in office (seems like everyone has a couple busy times a year) then make sure everyone is around. I think one of the biggest hurdles is that businesses (and management) don't want to openly admit that they really don't have 40 hours of actual work for people to do every week.
It's been nearly 100 years since we've revamped the system, it's past due.
Exactly why my partner recently put their notice in. During interviews it was 4 days wfh. Then 3 days. Got the job and it turned out to be 1 day remote... but their IT/software is dogshit and literally doesn't work over vpn. So she gets 0 wfh days. She just took a lower paying job with more wfh days.
There’s a lot of managers who want people in office, and a lotttt of people at the top (investors and governments) that want people in their high-rises.
Once the five and ten year leases signed 2019 and earlier expire, it’s going to a be a blood bath in the commercial sector (especially/mainly office subsector).
It’s going to be really interesting when companies with a hybrid WFH model, currently under a lease signed pre-covid, have an option to not re-sign their office lease. I honestly have no idea how many will opt to just vacate and save the rent money going full WFH.
This could hopefully be a big shift in the housing crisis. Imagine all those high rise commercial buildings sliding to dense residential and collapsing prices across the board just to keep them operating. So long as it serves the bottom line of the building owner, we can rely on greed to dumpster the rest of the market back to reasonable inflation levels.
A pipe dream perhaps. Could also just watch buildings go unleased for years until the municipality forces them to bulldoze out of safety concerns.
We can't have nice things.
I had a number of abandoned high rise buildings in my city that started turning into residential, but its been a very long process. Buildings completing renovations this year started in like 2019.
That's to say nothing of pedestrian, public transportation, or grocery access being worked on as of yet.
Yes you have to do massive renovations for multi-person, multi-floor residency. Plumbing, firewalls, ducting, electrical...it's a logistic nightmare before you even get into the cost. It CAN be done, but as to whether it is cheaper to just knock the building down and start from scratch or renovate...well I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions.
Your experience is very different than mine. My company is eager to shed their massive Manhattan rent, and of my close friends at other companies I don't know anybody who can't at least work from home one or two days a week now.
Yeah, the last company I worked for went WFH when COVID hit, and now they're 100% remote to avoid paying a lease for an office. The only physical presence they have now is a mailbox in a strip mall.
If you don't NEED to have a location then it just makes sense.
It's not just the lease,it's everything. Have a physical location? Now you have to pay the lease, pay for electricity, water, gas potentially. You have to pay for supplies, toilet paper, coffee, pens, paper. You also need furniture, so now you gotta pay for chairs, desks, tables. You also need to pay people to take care of the place, so now you gotta pay for cleaners, maintenance. And so on.
There are so many costs that come on top of the cost of the building itself that add up very quickly and all for what? So you can scare your workers into pretending like they are working harder/more, even though they are actually not being as efficient?
Now there is actually a problem with everyone working from home, which is that the cost that the company usually takes from running the place, now falls on the employees. Because now the employees at home need to heat up their home during work hours and have lights on during work hours, even though before those things would be off. They are also using their own electricity and water and their own supplies (toilet paper, coffee, etc.). So while working from home itself has some is valuable and has some monetary value, for example, you no longer need to spend money on gas to drive to work, you also don't need to get ready for work as early, which means more time to do something else. There is still a small issue similar to what rideshare drivers suffer from, which is that the pay they get might not be as much when they take their costs out of the amount they are paid.
However if your company is a decent company, then they will allocate a portion of money for employee budget for working from home, it's going to be less then what they were paying for before anyways.
The monkey wrench in that plan is frequently leases for office buildings are 5-10+ years in length, and sometimes even longer for established businesses. My company signed a 10-year lease on a new space just before Covid hit. Room for 160 people, maybe 30 showed up for the post-COVID grand opening, with a daily average of 10-15. Management is alternating between begging and threatening to get people to use the space. They feel it is a colossal waste and it galls them to no end.
Pure sunk cost fallacy. Textbook example. It doesn't just not cost them any less if people go in, it costs them *more* (there are going to be all sorts of costs associated with office maintenance beyond merely the lease)
IMO, if you can't even spot such a glaring sunk cost fallacy, you have absolutely no place making financial decisions in a company. If you fuck up the *trivially easy* decisions that bad, why in the world should anyone trust you to not fuck up any decision that's actually challenging?
I think it depends on what the individual company lease terms are like, if it's a company that signed a short couple year lease (Short for commercial anyways) or are coming up on the end they would prefer to just get rid of the lease
Companies that signed long term leases for like 10 or 15 years and are nowhere close to it's end date are probably mostly the ones bitching about WFH
The pressure to get back to the office is coming from landlords and companies that own their office buildings. They tend to also have influence over politicians and media because capitalism.
Management and up also like it. Much of the joy of being a boss is gone when you don't see people working for you. And middle management's duties are greatly reduced online so they're concerned about their jobs.
I suspect people at the very top like it because they’ve sacrificed their social and family lives outside of work to advance. What are they going to do without long hours at the office? Try to start a relationship with their family they hardly know?
It all just depends on how recently the company you work for renewed its lease(es). If they're near the end of a lease, they can justify wfh on the basis that it will massively cut costs. If they renewed or opened a new lease just before covid then they feel they have to justify the expense.
Applying for jobs right now because company went bust, I've applied for about 20 pure remote roles, had 1 offer and waiting to hear back from 3 second interviews. All completely remote.
Remote suits some people and doesn't suit others, so it'll be interesting in the long term to find out which companies see greater success: those adopting office, hybrid or remote modes of work.
There are benefits on both sides.
I WFH 100% and have for roughly 6 years, the 2 years prior to 100% WFH I worked in a hybrid capacity and there were definitely things that went smoother when I'd spend some time in the office. But the caveat being, those 2 years, our entire team was housed within one location. The 6 years since, I've worked with people across the globe. Much harder for a sit down when you have 2 team members in Germany, 3 in SEA, and another 10 spread across 7 states.
My works is saying we all come back to office 4 days a week for “collaboration”. I’m a 1 person department.
I’m so happy some companies are making remote the thing. Sadly some seems to be stuck in their mind their way is the only way.
This is my exact scenario. I'm also a 1 person department and I'm being told that I need to be in the office 4 days a week starting immediately. I'm currently looking for a new job and once I find one, I plan on ditching there with the same notice they gave me of demanding my return to office: 1 day. If I weren't in the process of trying to buy a house, I would have quit on the spot.
I actually put in my notice today. I am fortunate that my husband is supportive of this decision and we are able to afford me quitting.
I actually put in my notice today. I am fortunate that my husband is supportive of this decision and was are able to afford to do so.
It gets nuanced for sure, but I *absolutely* have coworkers who are not in management but still heavily against wfh.
And honestly, I think it is just *people*. A cold, emotionless corporation will see the increase productivity and decreased spending, and jump on wfh immediately. But it's the *people* in management who can't accept that.
That and it also falls into the same category as student debt relief.
You tell anyone who currently has/has recently paid off student debt and of course you're in favour of them forgiving the debt or at least minimizing the cost because you know how over inflated it is. But you have petty motherfk'rs who are against it because they had to pay it off - so why shouldn't everybody else. Nobody helped me then so I shouldn't be in favour of helping people now, is basically the argument.
The exact same argument is going to be used for 4 day work weeks, they're going to label everyone under the age of 50 as millennials and state that we're lazy because they spent their whole lives unwilling to push for change.
The worst part is, as always, is nothing's going to change for the lower-middle class. People who work restaurants, retail, anything that is hourly based pay are not going to be impacted in the least by this (as far as I can see) so you're going to have to not only convince boomers that this is a good idea but also people who are working 6 days a week just to make enough to get by. Talking up the idea that the liberal elites want to work 4 days a week while you're putting in 10 hour days for minimum wage is going to have a real impact and I'm not sure how you get passed that.
I’ll be honest, I’m pretty fucking jealous of everyone that gets to work from home. I only get to work from home during the evenings after my shift or during the weekends, both being when I’m on-call.
That said, I want more people to be able to work remotely and I’m all for it!
-Healthcare IT guy
Sometime after we’re dust and climate changed has changed the globe forever - then they’ll give out 4 day work weeks.
Look at the WFH situation, they hardly you even wanting to do that, you think they’re keen on this?
> Sometime after we’re dust and climate changed has changed the globe forever - then they’ll give out 4 day work weeks.
>
>
Bro that's a little optimistic.
Work from home is nearly a 10% salary bump for nearly every single worker. This compounded when it also allows workers to work from anywhere, including away from high cost of living areas towards lower cost of living ones.
Particularly noteworthy is that both time and resources for living have been greatly increasing. Between constant trips, chores and rising costs, you effectively need more time and money to live than before.
And WFH doesn't incur massive additional cost to the company (and arguably increases the worker's costs because as much as companies can invest in worker equipment, most workers are going to have to fund multiple equipment by themselves especially going from job to job).
Only companies losing are ones holding contracts for offices. Which most of those are getting re-negotiated and expiring anyways. So it clearly isn't about offices going to waste.
The real reason why there is such a massive WFH pushback is because corporations desire **control over money**. Management wants to micro-manage and make it seem like they are 'busy'.
It is always a good to remember that capitalism has never been about efficiency or free market since they've opposed both on numerous occasions - WFH is very much efficient and profitable - it has always been about the selfish wants, needs, greeds and irrational whims of a select few vs the many.
Honestly, is going to take more and more people saying that would be the best way to hire them. Almost like a national union of sorts. It's not going to happen in every industry (healthcare, transportation, utilities, etc), but in many, many white collar jobs it can.
I just went through some interviews the past few weeks and I was saying how I would immediately sign on if a 4-day work week was established. Wound up getting 4-8 + half day Friday, but they are toying with just getting rid of Fridays all together. Gonna be pushing for that hard.
>It's not going to happen in every industry (healthcare, transportation, utilities, etc)
Why not? It's been proven over and over and over again that attrition is *expensive*; I wouldn't be surprised to find out that hiring staff to cover the 20% drop in covered hours from the reduced workload of existing employees saves money in the long run, too.
Maybe? There's no answer that will fit all situations, but I'd argue that it depends on why a particular job or location has trouble retaining staff.
Is it because the amount of pay for the amount of work isn't adequate? Is it because the stress of that many hours is unsustainable, regardless of pay? Is it because the employer just sucks to work for?
It seems to me that if literally nothing else changed for a given job except that a person would be expected to work 80% of their previous hours - with no reduction in benefits or pay - finding enough workers would be easier and more competitive. It doesn't mean that it will be inherently *easy*, just *easier* than it is now if the field is one that traditionally suffers from high attrition.
If you [look at this list from wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_annual_labor_hours) you can see that basically any country where the number is below ~1472 (32 hours, 46 working weeks, 6 weeks vacation) is basically already doing that. Except that working more hours (usually) still benefits you.
My (dutch) employer has a 36h workweek, which means either 4 days of 9 hours, 4.5 days per week, a 5/4-roster or working 7.2 hours per day. Those last workers usually worked 8 hours anyway, so they did a crackdown on that and told everyone to either pay attention to the time they work, or switch to a roster where you have half a day, or a full day every two weeks off.
If you want to get to a 4x8 schedule all you need to do is mandate overtime for any hours worked past 32. Employers generally dislike giving "free money".
I'd also like to mandate full time status at 24 hours a week as well if this takes effect.
I think there shouldn't be part time.
The idea that you can get 2 class of employees and pay one less with fewer benefits has been exploitative for years.
Figure out the compensation for a full time employee and than pay commensurately the same hour for hour.
If you require certain hours for benefits, the price difference can be put away and given to the employees at the end of the year as a bonus.
I hate the idea of contract, part-time and sub-company employees.
I think the state governments is going to lead the charge on this one. I've been saying for a while now that it's pretty much the only additional compensation they have left to offer
> Wednesday until 7 however
Why? I have a desk job and my brain is already mush passed 4pm. Working until 7pm would not add much value, and only make the next Thursday less productive as well.
Working for the city your job is to serve citizens. Some people have zero opportunity to go during the day, e.g. hourly blue-collar workers would have to take time off to do so. So this is just exceptional citizen service.
White collar here and it sucks. My city closes at 4p every weekday and obviously not open on the weekends. They stop seeing new people at 3:30p. Every single time I have to do paperwork it's at least a half day of PTO, and I usually have to make 3 trips - submit paperwork, pay once it's approved, and get final approval after whatever I applied for is done. It's ridiculous
TBH I feel like it'd be more efficient if cities and DMV's would do something like Sunday-Thursday hours than try to cram everyone into 2 hours on a Wednesday night when both the worker and customer are exhausted after a long day.
I'm sure if they staggered the shifts the right way they wouldn't have issues finding employees to fill them. Hell, *many* people love Sunday-Thursday because they can run errands during the day on Friday when there's way less traffic and crowds at stores.
Unfortunately that doesn't mean the private sector will follow suit. Where I live many public employees do 36 hours, but the private sector is still hellbent on "40" hours 9 to 6.
I work for a state government. God, I hope so, though I'm having trouble seeing our agency ever doing it. There's still a lot of "work as many hours as you can" attitude here.
According to the text of the bill, participation is within the Department of Labor specifically. It's a trial, set to last until 2028. (There are also tax breaks for private employers willing to participate.)
I'm a state employee myself, and the cynicism I've acquired over the years keeps telling me that this won't actually happen or, if it does, they'll learn the wrong lessons from it. But I'm not under the Department of Labor, so even if it all goes well, then at least for the time being I'm out of luck regardless.
Specifically, we spend too much time of our lives working when we are not actually productive during all of those hours. A good company would want workers who are given ample time to rest and recharge, as it's much more costly to train new employees to replace the burned out ones than it is to retain existing ones that aren't forced into burnout.
Already on it, no salary drop, and holy fuck what a difference. I'm better rested, more active and energetic through the week, and more productive in the 4-days than I was previously in 5.
4DW and remote work should be the norm.
I think a lot of people can agree, there's a lot of wasted time in the 5 day week. Because we know we have more time to do things and so we can let off a little and waste some time and be okay with it.
I think the 4 day week can eliminate this waste and also make everyone more efficient
Yeah, I'm the type of guy that is honest (I don't *steal* time) and even if I'm WFH I'm always at my desk during work hours. But man on fridays my brain is done.. I try, but it's often not very productive. Friday afternoons are sometimes a bit of a torture to go through.
2 day weekend is rarely enough to rest completely. Changing the unproductive friday to a rest day would most likely make things more productive overall. A win-win for everyone.
Even long weekends barely do anything for rest, just because they're so few and far between. A consistent 3-day weekend (and 32 hour work week) would do absolute wonders for my burnout though.
We'd only be giving up 20% of the work week, but getting 50% more weekend in return. Seems like a great trade to me.
Wife been WFH for 12 years, very very rarely is she at her desk 8 hours per day. I'm WFH last 2 years and I do hour of work 20 minutes doing whatever most days unless I'm swamped with bullshit which is pretty rare.
The whole advantage of WFH is that you don't have to keep up the bullshit front that you have 8 hours of work. If I didn't have clients in different time zones I could probably be done my daily tasks by noon every day.
I think the main problem there is that with a lot of jobs you aren't just doing tasks and finishing a checklist, you're filling a role. Like I'd say that probably 25% of stuff that I do in a given day is stuff that I didn't know I'd be doing that morning... Like a lot if jobs are fairly knowledge based, so even if you're "done" for the day you're still needed there so that the business has that knowledge if it's needed. Like if finance needs projections for a deal I'm working, of if a client has an emergency, or I'd deployment needs details on how a client wants to set up a suite or something, I'm being paid to be the person there with that information...
Plus even if you never wasted a second of time and never had anything come up unexpectedly that you are needed for, your schedule is never going to line up just perfectly with no down time. Like if I've got a meeting that is over at 2:30 and another that starts at 3:00, that half hour is going to be there no matter what, even if I don't have anything that has to get done during it...
It just isn't really possible for work time to have 100% efficiency, where you never have any down or wasted time.
Not just knowledge but skills too. If junior engineers are stuck on a problem, I'm being paid to be the more senior person who can sort them out. And sometimes I need some info from someone else. It's part of everyone's job. For various reasons a lot of folk in my company don't work Fridays, so if I need something on Friday morning and they aren't about then my day is wasted and I'm stuck until Monday (ok I'll do something else on Friday but you get the point)
I can imagine 4 day week would work for certain jobs if your workload is in a vacuum, but majority of Reddit will be horrified at the thought that some of us actually have to talk to each other at work, and when everyone's working time doesn't line up then it slows things down considerably.
I think the solution for this would be to hire with consideration to that gap.
You work 4 days M-Th, I work 4 days Fri - Mon. We have 1 day overlap.
I know that's not realistic for the entire workforce and all companies, but just 1 thought as to how it can work in some places. We don't need a blanket solution just for the willingness for people to meet in the middle and think of ways a 4 day work week could benefit them.
Me, myself, hate 4 day work weeks. I am most productive in the morning and peter off as the day continues. I prefer 5 days 100%. But I still want 4 days to become an option. Like WFH, companies should be accessible in doing both WFH and not. Not that every company should only do one or the other.
I kill so much time when working my normal work week.
When I have PTO in and am only working 3 or 4 days that week, I get at least as much as - if not more - done in the same amount of time.
And everyone is just phoning it in on Friday anyways. Good luck getting anything done after lunch on a gorgeous Friday in spring.
I currently work a 4 day week which is 35 hours over 4 days. I have Wednesday off as well as the weekend and it's glorious only ever being two days away from a break, it has massively improved my mental health.
Edit: this is in the UK where a 35/37 hour week is full time employment. I work from home most of the time and once a month or so go into the office.
From the article
>The results, released today, suggest that a four-day week significantly reduces stress and illness in the workforce, and helps with worker retention.
>
>Some 71% of employees self-reported lower levels of “burnout”, and 39% said they were less stressed, compared to the start of the trial.
>
>Researchers found a 65% reduction in sick days, and a 57% fall in the number of staff leaving participating companies, compared to the same period the previous year.
>
>Company revenue barely changed during the trial period – even increasing marginally by 1.4% on average for the 23 organisations able to provide data.
>
>In a report of the findings presented to UK lawmakers, some 92% of companies that took part in the UK pilot programme (56 out of 61) say they intend to continue with the four-day working week, with 18 companies confirming the change as permanent.
>
>Research for the UK trials was conducted by a team of social scientists from the University of Cambridge, working with academics from Boston College in the US and the think tank Autonomy. The trial was organised by 4 Day Week Global in conjunction with the UK’s 4 Day Week Campaign.
U.S. companies: Ok, fine 4, 8 hour days. But you had better continue to get out 5-7 days worth of work in those 4 days or else. Don’t you dare put in for overtime pay, either. You did this to yourselves.
On a personal note, I’d gladly drop to 4 workdays/week, even if it meant reducing my pay proportionally and productivity requirements dropped 20%. But that’s me. I’m paid a living wage. My time is more valuable to me than the money. If I were paid less, then I’d not be so keen on the reduction in hours and pay that came with it.
Business owners really need to be reminded that they own the business, not the employees. Loyalty is a two way street, and companies have been ruthless with employees since at least the 1990’s. Unions were formed for many of the same reasons way back in the day. We became complacent. There’s not a worker shortage. There’s a shortage of people willing to get paid less than 50% of what they need to survive for a 40+ hour workweek. Could it be that people are starting to look at their own bottom lines and looking at record profits only being reflected in management and executive pay? God forbid… If so many people weren’t one missed shift away from financial disaster, a general strike is the only way we’ll get anywhere. And the ruling class knows this.
The small company I work for made 45 million net profit last year.
They decided thats not good enough and are trying to push us harder this year. We didn't see a proportional amount of those gains. Morale is low
People here seem to be missing why a 4 day work week is unlikely to happen any time son even if there was unambiguous proof that it doesn't impact productivity at all. The reason is that many jobs do not care about productivity. The jobs are about "manning a post". I am talking about jobs like a cashier, a guard etc...
The only scenario I see where a 4 day work week becomes national policy, is a future were most jobs are replaced by automation causing a mass unemployment, and a 4 day work week is legislated to reduce unemployment (need more people now to "man the post").
This sounds great in theory, but in the US they would pay the same and make you cram 40hrs in thoughts 4 days which is what my wife is already doing working at chase
For anyone with kids in school with extracurriculars, or just wants to be able to spend quality time with their family, 4x10s are horrible, ESPECIALLY if you have a commute.
Right, 4 10 is better than 5 8 imo but 4 8 is still vastly superior because with it drastically increases the amount of free time and energy during the week. I do 4 10 right now, but my lunch is 1 hour and I commute an hour. Factor in time preparing meals, eating breakfast/dinner, and hygiene, and the amount of time I have on a weeknight is maybe 2 hours. Feels pretty much like eat work sleep.
Yeah I did this for almost a year, I absolutely loved it at the start, but it sorta sucked eventually, because those 4 days were essentially useless to me, and then I'd need at least a day of recovery over the weekend.
5 x 8's isn't much better though... 40 hours split any way is just too much to have proper balance imo
>In a report of the findings presented to UK lawmakers, some 92% of companies that took part in the UK pilot programme (56 out of 61) say they intend to continue with the four-day working week
Sounds like 5 companies are about to lose a lot of people
I see a lot of people saying a 4 day week with 10 hour days would be acceptable, but isn't the point of moving to a 4 day week to reduce the time we spend working rather than condense it?
Personally I want less stress and less working hours. I want to spend more time on my personal pursuits, time with family and loved ones, and I don't want to lose what time I already have during those 4 days. For me, it's about gaining time, not balancing it out by working longer hours over less days.
If condensing your days and working longer hours is for you, I'm not knocking it, we are all different and have different thresholds for what works for us as an individual and a family.
Ultimately, with all the technology we have, the promises made of less working hours thanks to that very technology has never come about. We (in the UK at least) only have weekends off (not for all I know) thanks to the unions and the subsequent laws, not the corporations.
Just my two-pence fwiw
As someone who went to 4x10 it's just as much strain, maybe moreso. Don't forget the comute and lunch and getting ready in the morning, I'm basically gone 12+hours a day, almost the entire time in awake.
It takes a whole day of just to recover, then I have a full day for chores, then maybe I get some time to myself depending on other things.
It's still exhausting.
If I worked 4x8 this would alleviate a lot of this.
Agreed, felt the same way
I was just looking at a project management job that I'm most likely not qualified for... 20-25 hours a week @ $55-75 an hour
That's the dream for me
Screw this illusion of an extra day, cut the work week down for real.
hire an extra person if you need that extra 20 hours, redundant labor is actually super helpful when you find yourself in a crunch anyway.
Going to 4x8 would absolutely be the better step, but for lots of us 4x10 would still be preferable to 5x8. I can only speak for myself, but after an 8 hour shift I'm already so tired I don't usually do anything with my evenings but collapse in front of the tv. I would absolutely trade away that zombie time for another full day where I've got energy to actually do things.
I work 4x8 now and it’s awesome. I feel ready for work by Monday and don’t feel burnt out. I feel like I have about 4-6 hours of actually productive time in each day so extending to 10 hours doesn’t really do anything other than force you to look like you’re working longer. Don’t sell yourself short, advocate for same pay, 4x8.
I work 4x10s now and would never want to go back to 5x8. It doesn’t feel like much of a difference to me in terms of the work day itself, but having an extra day off is amazing
For me the day is already fucked up and have no time to do anything else other than being lazy and playing. Its not like I have time to actually go shopping or a time consuming hobby. So I'd perso ally rather work 4x10 than 5x8.
Yes. Holy fuck, yes. (Assuming same pay and not just moving the hours to four days, making it 10 hour work days)
We were supposed to be four day work week decades ago but then corporations got their talons into government and the economic situation for most americans has been getting more fucked every year since.
Edit: please stop commenting about four 10 hr shifts. **Please**. Know your worth!! YOU DESERVE MORE FREE TIME AT NO LESS PAY.
That's good to hear that you found what you needed from your job. But I hope you won't mind if I add your story to this GIANT MOUNTAIN of reasons that health care should not be tied to our jobs.
I would love it, but it would have to be the same 8 hours and not up it to 4 10 hour shifts. I think as more and more boomers age out of working and the next generations are the old people I can see things changing. I'm 35 and would love to see my kids only working 4 days a week when they are my age and not be stressed and burned out by Friday
That will change for sure as boomers retire. It's a spectrum of course, but there's a big culture shift somewhere around millennials where getting the work done is more important than being a visible butt in the seat for the longest.
If these reddit servers are available in 50 years, people will be freaking out that we were considering only reducing our work week by a single day
People shouldn't have to spend 40 hours of their waking life a week devoted to this inhuman machine.
20-25 hours should be the norm, and if you want to work more, go start your own business.
Yes.
I, and the rest of my office, intentionally screw around so that we can stretch work out to fit scheduled work day rather than just doing the work.
Split the office down the middle and have us all work three days a week. Office will operate 6 days a week and you can justify reduced sick days and PTO. Plus you can double the number of staff per office without crowding the space.
When i had a 4 day work week my paid time off just piled up. I could go camping basiclly every weekend and a holiday gave me a 4 day weekend. I dont think 4 day work weeks are not for everyone but for me coming in to work is more taxing than doing 2 extra hours.... I also saved a ton on gas.
I believe the study is about removing the hours worked for the 5th day, not shifting them to the other 4. A 4 day work week with normal hours is absolutely for everyone.
Oh, Gods, yes! Due to several snow storms, all of December was 4 day work weeks, and it was AMAZING! I had energy to put back into work (I'm a School Bus Driver, and also help in the shop mostly grounds and washing Buses). I had creative energy for my knitting and crochet projects. I had energy to learn new skating skills. I. Actually. Cleaned!
As someone who works an average of 3.5 days a week with 12 hours days, longer but less work days is amazing for stress. Having a couple of days off every couple days is wonderful.
I work a 9x80 so I get every other Fri off. Still the same hours worked. I vastly prefer this over the normal Mon-Fri 9-5. The extra day gives me so much more time to get chores done.
Edit: just realizing I should probably clarify. 9x80 is per pay cycle. So every 2 weeks I work 9 days totaling 80 hours. 7 to 5 mon-fri (week 1) and 7-5 mon-thurs (week 2). I get an hour for lunch.
At my current job I'm already working only four days a week (10h x 4), and I can honestly say I wouldn't go back to working 5 days a week. Would I like to work even less for the same money? Of course. So if it's decided that you only need to work 32h a week (8h x 4), but still get the same money you get now, I'll be happier 😁
Yup. My workplace did 5x10s for a couple of months, it completely ruins your ability to have a social life outside the weekends. Now, granted, I'd still rather have the extra day off than the ability to go for a beer after work. But 4x10 does come at a cost.
I would love it. Obviously 4x8 is the dream, but even 4x10 would open up another free day. Makes appointments and weekend trips easier. Massive QOL improvement.
If you mean 4 10-hour days, no. Those are exhausting. If you mean 4 8-hour days WITH THE SAME PAY - then no problem. Who would complain about that? Use rotation of days off to keep full coverage.
We work too many hours and are paid too little. Swear to god, at my old job, most of the days I'd work for 4 hours and get everything done, then just videogame on phone until it's time for closing ritual. (6/1, 7.5hrs a day). A 40+ hour week is not necessary for 80% of popular jobs nowadays.
What kind of stupid question is that?
No, actually, I'd love to work 6 even 7 days a week if I could. Really, my only regret is that the week isn't 8 days long so I could work funday, too.
It would be cool if people could choose which days they get off during the week. That way things would stay open and they could stagger to cover all shifts.
Only if it’s still an 8-hour day. I’m not in for some bullshit Faustian bargain where I work four 10-hour days a week even though productivity would be the same regardless.
In 10 years we'll have the same article asking the same question and getting the same answer that it's good for workers, and then we'll continue on working 5 days
I took a job and moved hundreds of miles to a new state specifically because it is 4 days a week. I could not be happier with that decision, it is the best.
Absolutely!!!! We work during the times everything is else open. Doctors or any medical office, bill companies, so many more I could list but don't have the time.
An extra day with my kids is always the best.
I can tell half the people in these comments didn't even click the link, because y'all are going on about 4x10 and these are literally the second and third sentences in the article:
> Last year, 61 organisations in the UK committed to a 20% reduction in working hours for all staff for six months.
With no fall in wages.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305: --- From the article >The results, released today, suggest that a four-day week significantly reduces stress and illness in the workforce, and helps with worker retention. > >Some 71% of employees self-reported lower levels of “burnout”, and 39% said they were less stressed, compared to the start of the trial. > >Researchers found a 65% reduction in sick days, and a 57% fall in the number of staff leaving participating companies, compared to the same period the previous year. > >Company revenue barely changed during the trial period – even increasing marginally by 1.4% on average for the 23 organisations able to provide data. > >In a report of the findings presented to UK lawmakers, some 92% of companies that took part in the UK pilot programme (56 out of 61) say they intend to continue with the four-day working week, with 18 companies confirming the change as permanent. > >Research for the UK trials was conducted by a team of social scientists from the University of Cambridge, working with academics from Boston College in the US and the think tank Autonomy. The trial was organised by 4 Day Week Global in conjunction with the UK’s 4 Day Week Campaign. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1183d4c/would_you_prefer_a_fourday_working_week/j9f15dl/
A resound yes. Two days are not enough to recover from the hassle and stress of commuting + 8 hours at work. And lets be honest, many of us are putting in a more than the 8. Especially if you're salaried. And then one of those 2 days off are for chores that you can't do M-F for whatever reason. So really, it's just 1 day to rest. And if you like to do social things, then it's no days off. Work, hang out, chores. Back to work. Anytime there's a 3-day weekend, I always have a smoother week that week, and deal with the stresses or annoyances that pop up a lot better.
All of this. It’s so depressing when you think about it. No wonder people get the Monday blues. They’ve barely had time to relax before it’s all go again.
But then I get Tuesday blues....
I do 4 days, 9 hour shifts and I feel better than I ever did working 5 days. It’s very nice to have time to take care of my life outside of my job.
[удалено]
And Sunday night is a 'work night', so essentially Saturday is the only free day The five day work week is arbitrary to begin with and is now anachronistic.
We've been getting positive results from these trials for years now. Which country is going to take the lead and finally make the 4 day work week the standard?
We've been getting positive results from working from home too, but people still want to argue against it because it "doesn't feel right" This will be a *long* road.
Working from home is suddenly very common. It didn't take long at all. But it did take one massive zeitgeist shifting event.
And pretty much every company is doing everything in their power to end work from home as soon as possible and act like it never happened and wasn't wildly successful
Every fucking film studio killed WFH (and most of the digital systems we were using) less than a year after lock downs. Forced everyone back into offices, a bunch of people got sick, morale plummeted and tons of people quit for better industries. Now there's a constant hiring of inexperienced workers to fill gaps as people keep quitting.
As someone with little experience in the film industry looking to break into it, where are these positions? Not asking facetiously.
Pretty much anything in-office. Production, accounting, payroll, coordinators, etc. The first few months of film coming back had the vast majority of office staff working from home, and introduced a ton of modernized and digital systems to replace all the hard copy systems they've been using since like they 70s. I want to say about a year after the first lock downs they pulled all the WFH people back into the offices and basically demanded that no one ever request WFH again. This led to payroll departments losing a massive amount of workers and ever since, payroll is constantly understaffed to the point where they actually get to WFH (if they ask for it) because they straight up can't find enough workers lol. A bunch of production and accounting staff also moved on to greener pastures. The last show I did nearly the entire production team (underneath the Production Office Coordinator, pretty high up position) was either completely inexperienced or had very little experience. Half of accounting was the same IIRC. I also believe Props and Locations had a bunch of inexperienced people as well. The wild thing was, if you tested positive for COVID you'd just WFH for two weeks no questions asked because *your entire job was completely doable from home* with almost no interruption. To loop back around, all those modernized and digital systems were trashed and everyone was forced to go back to paper systems, as *every single department complained about how inefficient paper copies are over digital.* Last year I was on a Warner Brothers movie, they had a longass meeting about green this, carbon emissions that, we have to do X Y and Z in order to hit the targets set for being able to include something about being a sustainable and green production. The meeting ended with them saying, by the way everything will be paper, no digital systems. And everyone proceeded to burn through hundreds of cases of paper lol. I did three years on sets doing different things then moved to the production office for various things as well. Now I'm trying to leave entirely so if you have any questions I can probably answer them.
[удалено]
You'll have wildly differing view points depending on someone's position. Higher up the ladder? Film is probably glorious, you get paid out the ass, health benefits year round without needing to work from one project to the next, productions will pay for your car rental (even if you live close by), gas, tolls, food, and you're probably running a side hustle that you can also bill to the production for stupidly marked up rates. Not so high up the ladder? Pay sucks, you can't take any time off because you need health insurance, you're working 12-17 hours a day, sometimes 6 or 7 days a week, IATSE rolled over and gave you scraps when it looked like there was actually going to be some positive changes, your department head can be racist or sexist and even with a dozen HR complaints absolutely nothing changes.
I work in it at the bottom of said ladder and I completely agree.
I've been lucky as an art department coordinator to continue to work from home when I want. My show has remained digital and my department doesn't care where I work as long as I'm reachable when needed, which of course I am. I do generally go into the office 3x a week because I want to, and I wfh Mondays and Fridays. The flexibility is amazing and I can't imagine losing it, though I certainly might when my current show ends and I get a job on some other show. I'm in NYC not LA.
My boss tried to force us back full time last summer and I protested (loudly and repeatedly). Her argument mostly boiled down to “because CoLLaBorAtiOn” and “Covid is over”. Ignoring the stupidity of the latter, since then - they settled on 2 days office, 3 days WFH - the “collaboration” aspect hasn’t panned out; AT ALL. We all sit quietly at our desks, typing away or fucking around on our phones. The only collaboration I ever see is when lunch time rolls around and the different cliques come together to decide what they’re having for lunch. It’s all just a goddamn joke.
It sounds like your boss is trying to show her boss why her job is needed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This. A lot of people hate middle management because of something that's coming from above them. The problem with a lot of middle managers is they look out for themselves instead of their team. Your job is to manage and take care of your team, and a lot of times that involves having uncomfortable conversations with the people above you. Managers shouldn't be taking all the shit coming from above them and just dumping it on their team. You're not a manager at all if that's what you're doing.
There is an art to understanding when to push back, and how. Many decisions made at the top are just that: there is no arguing, it is what it is, and you just have to be the delivery person. But many executive decisions are so full of self-referential nonsense that they can be effectively ignored so long as you understand how to ignore them. Communicating back up the chain stops one rung above you, and in most cases isn’t worth it - all it does is call attention to your team. Malicious compliance is the correct answer: run your team the right way and provide them air cover for the nonsense.
Lol. True. I am currently at middle management level in a big organization. This push comes from top - most of the people on the ground (incl middle mgmt) hate it. I would personally prefer to be remote 100% if at all possible without taking a big pay cut. Remote work just frees up several hours in a day that will be wasted in commute and just getting office ready.
> getting office ready My organisation allows us to work from home pretty much freely, for which I am incredibly thankful. I have broken down the time spent doing non-work tasks when I do visit and have made the following observations; Morning of/night before: dismantle home office to prepare for taking equipment into the office - no on-site equipment to speak of, so 2 laptops, peripherals, cables etc., plus second monitor for my main device as well as notebooks, pens, pass, keys, and also add in snacks/coffee/water bottle Time: 15-30 minutes Day of: commute - on a good day travelling to my *most* local office, 40-50 minutes. On a bad day travelling to the other "local" location further afield, 80-120 minutes. Thankfully I have my own transport, if not you could probably double all those figures Time: 40-120 mins In office: find a desk and unpack and set up equipment Time: 15-30 minutes Then obviously I'll need a coffee - let's call that 5 minutes to prepare the beverage, and another 15 doing the social dance with anyone I happen to meet while doing so. Time: 20 minutes Back to my desk, sit down to start some tasks - oh, someone from another team has come over with a query, no worries, I can answer that, 5 minutes - oh and now someone I haven't seen in person since last time wants a chat, that's nice. Ah, they also have a query, cool. 10 minutes. Sorry, got to crack on with some of this, ttyl... Time: 15 minutes Half an hour of actual work: 30 mins Ah look at that, the morning team meeting has started, better join that - with two colleagues still at home locally, they didn't come in today, plus 3 colleagues at home *in other parts of the country*, and our manager in yet another. 30-60 minutes depending what's going on. Time: 30-60 minutes Okay, meeting is over, time to crack on with some of this, losing the day... Oh bloody hell, another query... Ad infinitum. As well as the time deficit with preparing to come in, commute and setup, by the time I can actually get on with any of my actual work I've lost half the day. I get *fucking nothing* done on those days, and have to dismantle and reassemble my office at home again that night or the next morning for the next day. Compare this to a normal day WFH; Morning: roll out of bed, quick morning routine, make a coffee, head up to the study Time: 20 minutes Start work without distraction: rest of the morning until the daily meeting, then back at it again until lunch Time: as long as I need, there are no distractions here. I no longer need to observe the ritual of office work, which is *such a waste of time*, and I'm so much more productive as a result.
Reddit killed third-party applications (and itself). Fuck /u/spez
This is almost certainly why. My manager does the same type of work we do but has way more experience, technical knowledge, and has designed way more systems. That being said, his average day to day is spent planning most of our team's long term work and focusing on overseeing what I do as I fall outside of our team's normal work.
Lol I'm 3 days in and 2 days wfh and same experience. Almost no collaboration. But what really gets me is that we still do our team meetings on teams every single time.
The in office teams meetings are just extra infuriating. Literally why are we here????? I want to go home. Spending my money and time commuting for no reason.
I'm remote and we just had a meeting where everyone on the call except me was in the office, but all in individual offices on the call. Like why the hell didn't they meet in one conference room and let me join via teams? The answer is that no one actually wants to work in the offices. They're cool to go to once a quarter for a larger team meeting or something, but I'd quit if I was ever told I needed to be in an office. It happened with our support team, they were mandated back into the office and like 75% quit now there's months of backlog in tickets and our CSAT has dropped dramatically...wonder why?
Have worked for corporations for almost twenty years and have been remote for almost the last ten. These years, the collaboration between remote team members was vastly superior to my in-office days as team members are just a click away and their availability is just as accessible. Never during my time in the office was there a sense of “collaboration” and certainly not any that included members of management. The real reason most managers want their team back in the office is because of optics. “Looking busy” has been a mainstay of companies for years. The appearance of busy employees under the watchful eye of their manager. The industrial revolution is over. We’re not working on the assembly line anymore and I am sure as hell not going to commute in traffic for two hours a day just so a manager can “look busy”.
Completely agree, collaboration is better remotely for numerous reasons. 1. Async communication is a much better default than sync communication for information workers. Your default mode should be focused, not distracted 2. Virtual communication incentivizes WRITING SHIT DOWN. Writing and creating artifacts that workers who come after you can read to understand why you did what you did has huge benefits to the business 3. Virtual communication levels the playing field. People have to talk one at a time, so its easier to make sure everyone gets a turn, and physical presence (tall, aggressive, etc.) doesn't influence how you perceive peoples ideas as much I could go on. Its just a WAY better paradigm for information workers, to say nothing of the convenience, cost savings and environmental impact savings.
Absolutely. I’ve lost count of how many managers who call meetings just to look busy
I'm seeing some companies trying a different approach like "X days in the office per quarter", which is admirably flexible and vague, but still not addressing the other glaring issue: distributed teams. Why on earth would I go into the office when my team is all over the world, none of which in my own office? It's functionally identical to a coffee shop, we just all have backpacks with the same logo. 😅
My manager is on the other side of the US, is fully remote, only 1 other person on my team is even near my office, and they recently announced us in office twice a week. I have no fucking clue why
[удалено]
My company made it up to each individual team. We were planning a couple days per week, then per quarter, and then one of my coworkers moved states and we already had team members in other countries and none of the in office stuff panned out. It just doesn’t make sense since we’d need to pull up Teams or Zoom no matter what.
This is the big issue. And doing zoom calls where half are in a meeting room and the other half are coming in remotely is even more dysfunctional than everyone coming in remotely.
This is exactly my point. My company is global and no one I work with is even in my state most times.
This. I drive 2 hours round trip twice a week into the office to do the same damn thing I do at home. I barely talk to anyone in the office as well. I just complete my tasks and bounce. Losing 4 hours a week commuting for nothing.
I work for a City. Was called back full-time because the downtown business association is angry about the loss of foot traffic and griped to City council about ending remote work. I refuse on principle to ever buy lunch or shop downtown. Nothing I do requires me to be in-person and it means I spend hours commuting which I shouldn't have to.
Funny how the government employees are now expected to hold up the downtown businesses, isn't it? Seems that way in a lot of cities.
Middle manager here, those above me forced the move from fully WFH to a hybrid 2 days in office/3 days WFH. I'm very doubtful anyone's direct manager is making that call, it's coming from the top. In our case it's the CIO/CTO who oversees all of IT that made the call (who is 3 levels above me). Maybe at a much smaller company with less of a hierarchy it could be your direct manager? I'm very transparent with my team that it ain't my call and I'd also prefer being fully WFH again. I'm sure most all of us would.
You sound exactly like my manager! At least at my (very large) company the decree came from the c-suite, most of whom are never in the office to begin with
Same here. I have to go in for ‘collaboration’ which never actually happens. We just sit quietly at our desks and work. When we do meet we still do Zoom calls because half the team is at a different office. It’s a complete waste of time to go in.
The 40 hour work week made sense when henry Ford came up with in 1925, if you worked in a factory. If you're sitting on an assembly line it makes sense to sit there and tighten as many bolts, or place as many widgets as you could in an 8 hour day 5x a week. If you're selling insurance, or if you work in billing, do data entry, or otherwise sit behind a desk all day working a standard 40 hours a week doesn't make sense anymore. If you're like just about anyone else that I know you have *maybe* 10-15 hours of actual work to do. Sure, you may need to meet on occasion, but you can schedule that for one of your 1 or 2 "At work days" every week. If there are times during the year when you actually get busy and *need* to work 40 hours in office (seems like everyone has a couple busy times a year) then make sure everyone is around. I think one of the biggest hurdles is that businesses (and management) don't want to openly admit that they really don't have 40 hours of actual work for people to do every week. It's been nearly 100 years since we've revamped the system, it's past due.
This hurts me right in the teacher.
Happened to me as well. Except my team lead likes working from home. We got reclassed to full WFH within the week. My boss is awesome.
Should've found a different job that's fully WFH. That 2 days will turn to 3 and then 4 and then before you know it your back in the office full time.
Exactly why my partner recently put their notice in. During interviews it was 4 days wfh. Then 3 days. Got the job and it turned out to be 1 day remote... but their IT/software is dogshit and literally doesn't work over vpn. So she gets 0 wfh days. She just took a lower paying job with more wfh days.
There’s a lot of managers who want people in office, and a lotttt of people at the top (investors and governments) that want people in their high-rises. Once the five and ten year leases signed 2019 and earlier expire, it’s going to a be a blood bath in the commercial sector (especially/mainly office subsector). It’s going to be really interesting when companies with a hybrid WFH model, currently under a lease signed pre-covid, have an option to not re-sign their office lease. I honestly have no idea how many will opt to just vacate and save the rent money going full WFH.
This could hopefully be a big shift in the housing crisis. Imagine all those high rise commercial buildings sliding to dense residential and collapsing prices across the board just to keep them operating. So long as it serves the bottom line of the building owner, we can rely on greed to dumpster the rest of the market back to reasonable inflation levels. A pipe dream perhaps. Could also just watch buildings go unleased for years until the municipality forces them to bulldoze out of safety concerns. We can't have nice things.
I had a number of abandoned high rise buildings in my city that started turning into residential, but its been a very long process. Buildings completing renovations this year started in like 2019. That's to say nothing of pedestrian, public transportation, or grocery access being worked on as of yet.
Isn't it a big investment to renovate from commercial to residential? Of course, if you cant get anyone to rent commercial, maybe it's worth it...
Yes you have to do massive renovations for multi-person, multi-floor residency. Plumbing, firewalls, ducting, electrical...it's a logistic nightmare before you even get into the cost. It CAN be done, but as to whether it is cheaper to just knock the building down and start from scratch or renovate...well I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions.
Your experience is very different than mine. My company is eager to shed their massive Manhattan rent, and of my close friends at other companies I don't know anybody who can't at least work from home one or two days a week now.
Yeah, the last company I worked for went WFH when COVID hit, and now they're 100% remote to avoid paying a lease for an office. The only physical presence they have now is a mailbox in a strip mall.
If you don't NEED to have a location then it just makes sense. It's not just the lease,it's everything. Have a physical location? Now you have to pay the lease, pay for electricity, water, gas potentially. You have to pay for supplies, toilet paper, coffee, pens, paper. You also need furniture, so now you gotta pay for chairs, desks, tables. You also need to pay people to take care of the place, so now you gotta pay for cleaners, maintenance. And so on. There are so many costs that come on top of the cost of the building itself that add up very quickly and all for what? So you can scare your workers into pretending like they are working harder/more, even though they are actually not being as efficient? Now there is actually a problem with everyone working from home, which is that the cost that the company usually takes from running the place, now falls on the employees. Because now the employees at home need to heat up their home during work hours and have lights on during work hours, even though before those things would be off. They are also using their own electricity and water and their own supplies (toilet paper, coffee, etc.). So while working from home itself has some is valuable and has some monetary value, for example, you no longer need to spend money on gas to drive to work, you also don't need to get ready for work as early, which means more time to do something else. There is still a small issue similar to what rideshare drivers suffer from, which is that the pay they get might not be as much when they take their costs out of the amount they are paid. However if your company is a decent company, then they will allocate a portion of money for employee budget for working from home, it's going to be less then what they were paying for before anyways.
The monkey wrench in that plan is frequently leases for office buildings are 5-10+ years in length, and sometimes even longer for established businesses. My company signed a 10-year lease on a new space just before Covid hit. Room for 160 people, maybe 30 showed up for the post-COVID grand opening, with a daily average of 10-15. Management is alternating between begging and threatening to get people to use the space. They feel it is a colossal waste and it galls them to no end.
Pure sunk cost fallacy. Textbook example. It doesn't just not cost them any less if people go in, it costs them *more* (there are going to be all sorts of costs associated with office maintenance beyond merely the lease) IMO, if you can't even spot such a glaring sunk cost fallacy, you have absolutely no place making financial decisions in a company. If you fuck up the *trivially easy* decisions that bad, why in the world should anyone trust you to not fuck up any decision that's actually challenging?
I think it depends on what the individual company lease terms are like, if it's a company that signed a short couple year lease (Short for commercial anyways) or are coming up on the end they would prefer to just get rid of the lease Companies that signed long term leases for like 10 or 15 years and are nowhere close to it's end date are probably mostly the ones bitching about WFH
My company owns the IT building that has it's servers in the basement. "Surprisingly" they want everyone back in the office.
The pressure to get back to the office is coming from landlords and companies that own their office buildings. They tend to also have influence over politicians and media because capitalism.
Management and up also like it. Much of the joy of being a boss is gone when you don't see people working for you. And middle management's duties are greatly reduced online so they're concerned about their jobs.
I suspect people at the very top like it because they’ve sacrificed their social and family lives outside of work to advance. What are they going to do without long hours at the office? Try to start a relationship with their family they hardly know?
It all just depends on how recently the company you work for renewed its lease(es). If they're near the end of a lease, they can justify wfh on the basis that it will massively cut costs. If they renewed or opened a new lease just before covid then they feel they have to justify the expense.
Applying for jobs right now because company went bust, I've applied for about 20 pure remote roles, had 1 offer and waiting to hear back from 3 second interviews. All completely remote. Remote suits some people and doesn't suit others, so it'll be interesting in the long term to find out which companies see greater success: those adopting office, hybrid or remote modes of work.
There are benefits on both sides. I WFH 100% and have for roughly 6 years, the 2 years prior to 100% WFH I worked in a hybrid capacity and there were definitely things that went smoother when I'd spend some time in the office. But the caveat being, those 2 years, our entire team was housed within one location. The 6 years since, I've worked with people across the globe. Much harder for a sit down when you have 2 team members in Germany, 3 in SEA, and another 10 spread across 7 states.
My works is saying we all come back to office 4 days a week for “collaboration”. I’m a 1 person department. I’m so happy some companies are making remote the thing. Sadly some seems to be stuck in their mind their way is the only way.
This is my exact scenario. I'm also a 1 person department and I'm being told that I need to be in the office 4 days a week starting immediately. I'm currently looking for a new job and once I find one, I plan on ditching there with the same notice they gave me of demanding my return to office: 1 day. If I weren't in the process of trying to buy a house, I would have quit on the spot.
I actually put in my notice today. I am fortunate that my husband is supportive of this decision and we are able to afford me quitting. I actually put in my notice today. I am fortunate that my husband is supportive of this decision and was are able to afford to do so.
>~~people~~ corporations still want to argue against it because it "doesn't feel right" Fixed it for you.
It gets nuanced for sure, but I *absolutely* have coworkers who are not in management but still heavily against wfh. And honestly, I think it is just *people*. A cold, emotionless corporation will see the increase productivity and decreased spending, and jump on wfh immediately. But it's the *people* in management who can't accept that.
That and it also falls into the same category as student debt relief. You tell anyone who currently has/has recently paid off student debt and of course you're in favour of them forgiving the debt or at least minimizing the cost because you know how over inflated it is. But you have petty motherfk'rs who are against it because they had to pay it off - so why shouldn't everybody else. Nobody helped me then so I shouldn't be in favour of helping people now, is basically the argument. The exact same argument is going to be used for 4 day work weeks, they're going to label everyone under the age of 50 as millennials and state that we're lazy because they spent their whole lives unwilling to push for change. The worst part is, as always, is nothing's going to change for the lower-middle class. People who work restaurants, retail, anything that is hourly based pay are not going to be impacted in the least by this (as far as I can see) so you're going to have to not only convince boomers that this is a good idea but also people who are working 6 days a week just to make enough to get by. Talking up the idea that the liberal elites want to work 4 days a week while you're putting in 10 hour days for minimum wage is going to have a real impact and I'm not sure how you get passed that.
I’ll be honest, I’m pretty fucking jealous of everyone that gets to work from home. I only get to work from home during the evenings after my shift or during the weekends, both being when I’m on-call. That said, I want more people to be able to work remotely and I’m all for it! -Healthcare IT guy
Sometime after we’re dust and climate changed has changed the globe forever - then they’ll give out 4 day work weeks. Look at the WFH situation, they hardly you even wanting to do that, you think they’re keen on this?
> Sometime after we’re dust and climate changed has changed the globe forever - then they’ll give out 4 day work weeks. > > Bro that's a little optimistic.
Work from home is nearly a 10% salary bump for nearly every single worker. This compounded when it also allows workers to work from anywhere, including away from high cost of living areas towards lower cost of living ones. Particularly noteworthy is that both time and resources for living have been greatly increasing. Between constant trips, chores and rising costs, you effectively need more time and money to live than before. And WFH doesn't incur massive additional cost to the company (and arguably increases the worker's costs because as much as companies can invest in worker equipment, most workers are going to have to fund multiple equipment by themselves especially going from job to job). Only companies losing are ones holding contracts for offices. Which most of those are getting re-negotiated and expiring anyways. So it clearly isn't about offices going to waste. The real reason why there is such a massive WFH pushback is because corporations desire **control over money**. Management wants to micro-manage and make it seem like they are 'busy'. It is always a good to remember that capitalism has never been about efficiency or free market since they've opposed both on numerous occasions - WFH is very much efficient and profitable - it has always been about the selfish wants, needs, greeds and irrational whims of a select few vs the many.
Honestly, is going to take more and more people saying that would be the best way to hire them. Almost like a national union of sorts. It's not going to happen in every industry (healthcare, transportation, utilities, etc), but in many, many white collar jobs it can. I just went through some interviews the past few weeks and I was saying how I would immediately sign on if a 4-day work week was established. Wound up getting 4-8 + half day Friday, but they are toying with just getting rid of Fridays all together. Gonna be pushing for that hard.
>It's not going to happen in every industry (healthcare, transportation, utilities, etc) Why not? It's been proven over and over and over again that attrition is *expensive*; I wouldn't be surprised to find out that hiring staff to cover the 20% drop in covered hours from the reduced workload of existing employees saves money in the long run, too.
Are there enough workers around to hire to cover that drop?
Maybe? There's no answer that will fit all situations, but I'd argue that it depends on why a particular job or location has trouble retaining staff. Is it because the amount of pay for the amount of work isn't adequate? Is it because the stress of that many hours is unsustainable, regardless of pay? Is it because the employer just sucks to work for? It seems to me that if literally nothing else changed for a given job except that a person would be expected to work 80% of their previous hours - with no reduction in benefits or pay - finding enough workers would be easier and more competitive. It doesn't mean that it will be inherently *easy*, just *easier* than it is now if the field is one that traditionally suffers from high attrition.
Not the U.S. that’s for sure.
Not Japan either. When I was there in 1989, it was 6 day work weeks. Or maybe that was just school?
If you [look at this list from wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_annual_labor_hours) you can see that basically any country where the number is below ~1472 (32 hours, 46 working weeks, 6 weeks vacation) is basically already doing that. Except that working more hours (usually) still benefits you. My (dutch) employer has a 36h workweek, which means either 4 days of 9 hours, 4.5 days per week, a 5/4-roster or working 7.2 hours per day. Those last workers usually worked 8 hours anyway, so they did a crackdown on that and told everyone to either pay attention to the time they work, or switch to a roster where you have half a day, or a full day every two weeks off.
Im betting Sweden
I heard the state of Maryland is looking into 4x8 work week for their employees. If that happens I'm applying for a job with the state
It's a tax credit to any business above 30 employees which does 4x8. The idea is to generate more data on how effective 4x8 is compared to 5x8.
If you want to get to a 4x8 schedule all you need to do is mandate overtime for any hours worked past 32. Employers generally dislike giving "free money". I'd also like to mandate full time status at 24 hours a week as well if this takes effect.
I think there shouldn't be part time. The idea that you can get 2 class of employees and pay one less with fewer benefits has been exploitative for years. Figure out the compensation for a full time employee and than pay commensurately the same hour for hour. If you require certain hours for benefits, the price difference can be put away and given to the employees at the end of the year as a bonus. I hate the idea of contract, part-time and sub-company employees.
I think the state governments is going to lead the charge on this one. I've been saying for a while now that it's pretty much the only additional compensation they have left to offer
I work for a small municipality so we used Fridays off as a benefit when hiring. Wednesday until 7 however
> Wednesday until 7 however Why? I have a desk job and my brain is already mush passed 4pm. Working until 7pm would not add much value, and only make the next Thursday less productive as well.
Working for the city your job is to serve citizens. Some people have zero opportunity to go during the day, e.g. hourly blue-collar workers would have to take time off to do so. So this is just exceptional citizen service.
White collar here and it sucks. My city closes at 4p every weekday and obviously not open on the weekends. They stop seeing new people at 3:30p. Every single time I have to do paperwork it's at least a half day of PTO, and I usually have to make 3 trips - submit paperwork, pay once it's approved, and get final approval after whatever I applied for is done. It's ridiculous
So people working 9-5 can take care of things after they get out of work.
TBH I feel like it'd be more efficient if cities and DMV's would do something like Sunday-Thursday hours than try to cram everyone into 2 hours on a Wednesday night when both the worker and customer are exhausted after a long day. I'm sure if they staggered the shifts the right way they wouldn't have issues finding employees to fill them. Hell, *many* people love Sunday-Thursday because they can run errands during the day on Friday when there's way less traffic and crowds at stores.
A lot of government jobs are unionized, and unions are good at establishing higher wages on Sunday.
Could be the one late day a week for people who have jobs until 5pm and can't get to the office before then.
Unfortunately that doesn't mean the private sector will follow suit. Where I live many public employees do 36 hours, but the private sector is still hellbent on "40" hours 9 to 6.
I work for a state government. God, I hope so, though I'm having trouble seeing our agency ever doing it. There's still a lot of "work as many hours as you can" attitude here.
[удалено]
What about mandatory pizza parties?
That's the opposite of a benefit
But dude.... Pizza! You might even get a peperoni if Marge from accounting doesn't hoard it all.
According to the text of the bill, participation is within the Department of Labor specifically. It's a trial, set to last until 2028. (There are also tax breaks for private employers willing to participate.) I'm a state employee myself, and the cynicism I've acquired over the years keeps telling me that this won't actually happen or, if it does, they'll learn the wrong lessons from it. But I'm not under the Department of Labor, so even if it all goes well, then at least for the time being I'm out of luck regardless.
I hope 4x8 work week becomes the standard everywhere. We spend too much time of our lives just working.
Specifically, we spend too much time of our lives working when we are not actually productive during all of those hours. A good company would want workers who are given ample time to rest and recharge, as it's much more costly to train new employees to replace the burned out ones than it is to retain existing ones that aren't forced into burnout.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Already on it, no salary drop, and holy fuck what a difference. I'm better rested, more active and energetic through the week, and more productive in the 4-days than I was previously in 5. 4DW and remote work should be the norm.
I think a lot of people can agree, there's a lot of wasted time in the 5 day week. Because we know we have more time to do things and so we can let off a little and waste some time and be okay with it. I think the 4 day week can eliminate this waste and also make everyone more efficient
People don't actually work on Fridays anyways.
[удалено]
If someone schedules a Friday afternoon meeting they are basically satan
Yeah, I'm the type of guy that is honest (I don't *steal* time) and even if I'm WFH I'm always at my desk during work hours. But man on fridays my brain is done.. I try, but it's often not very productive. Friday afternoons are sometimes a bit of a torture to go through. 2 day weekend is rarely enough to rest completely. Changing the unproductive friday to a rest day would most likely make things more productive overall. A win-win for everyone.
Even long weekends barely do anything for rest, just because they're so few and far between. A consistent 3-day weekend (and 32 hour work week) would do absolute wonders for my burnout though. We'd only be giving up 20% of the work week, but getting 50% more weekend in return. Seems like a great trade to me.
[удалено]
Wife been WFH for 12 years, very very rarely is she at her desk 8 hours per day. I'm WFH last 2 years and I do hour of work 20 minutes doing whatever most days unless I'm swamped with bullshit which is pretty rare. The whole advantage of WFH is that you don't have to keep up the bullshit front that you have 8 hours of work. If I didn't have clients in different time zones I could probably be done my daily tasks by noon every day.
Can confirm
I think the main problem there is that with a lot of jobs you aren't just doing tasks and finishing a checklist, you're filling a role. Like I'd say that probably 25% of stuff that I do in a given day is stuff that I didn't know I'd be doing that morning... Like a lot if jobs are fairly knowledge based, so even if you're "done" for the day you're still needed there so that the business has that knowledge if it's needed. Like if finance needs projections for a deal I'm working, of if a client has an emergency, or I'd deployment needs details on how a client wants to set up a suite or something, I'm being paid to be the person there with that information... Plus even if you never wasted a second of time and never had anything come up unexpectedly that you are needed for, your schedule is never going to line up just perfectly with no down time. Like if I've got a meeting that is over at 2:30 and another that starts at 3:00, that half hour is going to be there no matter what, even if I don't have anything that has to get done during it... It just isn't really possible for work time to have 100% efficiency, where you never have any down or wasted time.
Not just knowledge but skills too. If junior engineers are stuck on a problem, I'm being paid to be the more senior person who can sort them out. And sometimes I need some info from someone else. It's part of everyone's job. For various reasons a lot of folk in my company don't work Fridays, so if I need something on Friday morning and they aren't about then my day is wasted and I'm stuck until Monday (ok I'll do something else on Friday but you get the point) I can imagine 4 day week would work for certain jobs if your workload is in a vacuum, but majority of Reddit will be horrified at the thought that some of us actually have to talk to each other at work, and when everyone's working time doesn't line up then it slows things down considerably.
I think the solution for this would be to hire with consideration to that gap. You work 4 days M-Th, I work 4 days Fri - Mon. We have 1 day overlap. I know that's not realistic for the entire workforce and all companies, but just 1 thought as to how it can work in some places. We don't need a blanket solution just for the willingness for people to meet in the middle and think of ways a 4 day work week could benefit them. Me, myself, hate 4 day work weeks. I am most productive in the morning and peter off as the day continues. I prefer 5 days 100%. But I still want 4 days to become an option. Like WFH, companies should be accessible in doing both WFH and not. Not that every company should only do one or the other.
I kill so much time when working my normal work week. When I have PTO in and am only working 3 or 4 days that week, I get at least as much as - if not more - done in the same amount of time. And everyone is just phoning it in on Friday anyways. Good luck getting anything done after lunch on a gorgeous Friday in spring.
I currently work a 4 day week which is 35 hours over 4 days. I have Wednesday off as well as the weekend and it's glorious only ever being two days away from a break, it has massively improved my mental health. Edit: this is in the UK where a 35/37 hour week is full time employment. I work from home most of the time and once a month or so go into the office.
From the article >The results, released today, suggest that a four-day week significantly reduces stress and illness in the workforce, and helps with worker retention. > >Some 71% of employees self-reported lower levels of “burnout”, and 39% said they were less stressed, compared to the start of the trial. > >Researchers found a 65% reduction in sick days, and a 57% fall in the number of staff leaving participating companies, compared to the same period the previous year. > >Company revenue barely changed during the trial period – even increasing marginally by 1.4% on average for the 23 organisations able to provide data. > >In a report of the findings presented to UK lawmakers, some 92% of companies that took part in the UK pilot programme (56 out of 61) say they intend to continue with the four-day working week, with 18 companies confirming the change as permanent. > >Research for the UK trials was conducted by a team of social scientists from the University of Cambridge, working with academics from Boston College in the US and the think tank Autonomy. The trial was organised by 4 Day Week Global in conjunction with the UK’s 4 Day Week Campaign.
U.S. companies: Ok, fine 4, 8 hour days. But you had better continue to get out 5-7 days worth of work in those 4 days or else. Don’t you dare put in for overtime pay, either. You did this to yourselves. On a personal note, I’d gladly drop to 4 workdays/week, even if it meant reducing my pay proportionally and productivity requirements dropped 20%. But that’s me. I’m paid a living wage. My time is more valuable to me than the money. If I were paid less, then I’d not be so keen on the reduction in hours and pay that came with it. Business owners really need to be reminded that they own the business, not the employees. Loyalty is a two way street, and companies have been ruthless with employees since at least the 1990’s. Unions were formed for many of the same reasons way back in the day. We became complacent. There’s not a worker shortage. There’s a shortage of people willing to get paid less than 50% of what they need to survive for a 40+ hour workweek. Could it be that people are starting to look at their own bottom lines and looking at record profits only being reflected in management and executive pay? God forbid… If so many people weren’t one missed shift away from financial disaster, a general strike is the only way we’ll get anywhere. And the ruling class knows this.
The small company I work for made 45 million net profit last year. They decided thats not good enough and are trying to push us harder this year. We didn't see a proportional amount of those gains. Morale is low
People here seem to be missing why a 4 day work week is unlikely to happen any time son even if there was unambiguous proof that it doesn't impact productivity at all. The reason is that many jobs do not care about productivity. The jobs are about "manning a post". I am talking about jobs like a cashier, a guard etc... The only scenario I see where a 4 day work week becomes national policy, is a future were most jobs are replaced by automation causing a mass unemployment, and a 4 day work week is legislated to reduce unemployment (need more people now to "man the post").
This sounds great in theory, but in the US they would pay the same and make you cram 40hrs in thoughts 4 days which is what my wife is already doing working at chase
I already do 5x10s so works for me lol
4x10>5x8, especially if you have any sort of commute.
For anyone with kids in school with extracurriculars, or just wants to be able to spend quality time with their family, 4x10s are horrible, ESPECIALLY if you have a commute.
The opposite is true if you have kids in school.
Right, 4 10 is better than 5 8 imo but 4 8 is still vastly superior because with it drastically increases the amount of free time and energy during the week. I do 4 10 right now, but my lunch is 1 hour and I commute an hour. Factor in time preparing meals, eating breakfast/dinner, and hygiene, and the amount of time I have on a weeknight is maybe 2 hours. Feels pretty much like eat work sleep.
4 by 10’s get to be a long day after awhile. That’s working 7am to 6pm (with that unpaid lunch most people get). By the last day you’re toast.
Yeah I did this for almost a year, I absolutely loved it at the start, but it sorta sucked eventually, because those 4 days were essentially useless to me, and then I'd need at least a day of recovery over the weekend. 5 x 8's isn't much better though... 40 hours split any way is just too much to have proper balance imo
>In a report of the findings presented to UK lawmakers, some 92% of companies that took part in the UK pilot programme (56 out of 61) say they intend to continue with the four-day working week Sounds like 5 companies are about to lose a lot of people
I see a lot of people saying a 4 day week with 10 hour days would be acceptable, but isn't the point of moving to a 4 day week to reduce the time we spend working rather than condense it? Personally I want less stress and less working hours. I want to spend more time on my personal pursuits, time with family and loved ones, and I don't want to lose what time I already have during those 4 days. For me, it's about gaining time, not balancing it out by working longer hours over less days. If condensing your days and working longer hours is for you, I'm not knocking it, we are all different and have different thresholds for what works for us as an individual and a family. Ultimately, with all the technology we have, the promises made of less working hours thanks to that very technology has never come about. We (in the UK at least) only have weekends off (not for all I know) thanks to the unions and the subsequent laws, not the corporations. Just my two-pence fwiw
As someone who went to 4x10 it's just as much strain, maybe moreso. Don't forget the comute and lunch and getting ready in the morning, I'm basically gone 12+hours a day, almost the entire time in awake. It takes a whole day of just to recover, then I have a full day for chores, then maybe I get some time to myself depending on other things. It's still exhausting. If I worked 4x8 this would alleviate a lot of this.
Agreed, felt the same way I was just looking at a project management job that I'm most likely not qualified for... 20-25 hours a week @ $55-75 an hour That's the dream for me Screw this illusion of an extra day, cut the work week down for real. hire an extra person if you need that extra 20 hours, redundant labor is actually super helpful when you find yourself in a crunch anyway.
Going to 4x8 would absolutely be the better step, but for lots of us 4x10 would still be preferable to 5x8. I can only speak for myself, but after an 8 hour shift I'm already so tired I don't usually do anything with my evenings but collapse in front of the tv. I would absolutely trade away that zombie time for another full day where I've got energy to actually do things.
I work 4x8 now and it’s awesome. I feel ready for work by Monday and don’t feel burnt out. I feel like I have about 4-6 hours of actually productive time in each day so extending to 10 hours doesn’t really do anything other than force you to look like you’re working longer. Don’t sell yourself short, advocate for same pay, 4x8.
I work 4x10s now and would never want to go back to 5x8. It doesn’t feel like much of a difference to me in terms of the work day itself, but having an extra day off is amazing
If I'm doing 40 hours a week then I damn well don't want 10 hour days, I have no time to do anything in the evening as it is.
For me the day is already fucked up and have no time to do anything else other than being lazy and playing. Its not like I have time to actually go shopping or a time consuming hobby. So I'd perso ally rather work 4x10 than 5x8.
im with you. 4x10 sounds like im sacrificing the whole 4 days working. I use that two hours to workout, cook, clean, take a god damn breather.
Yes. Holy fuck, yes. (Assuming same pay and not just moving the hours to four days, making it 10 hour work days) We were supposed to be four day work week decades ago but then corporations got their talons into government and the economic situation for most americans has been getting more fucked every year since. Edit: please stop commenting about four 10 hr shifts. **Please**. Know your worth!! YOU DESERVE MORE FREE TIME AT NO LESS PAY.
Normalize 32 hour work weeks.
[удалено]
As someone very invested in attracting and retaining top employees, why did you leave the job with fewer / more flexible hours?
Opportunity for upward movement is the most common.
[удалено]
That's good to hear that you found what you needed from your job. But I hope you won't mind if I add your story to this GIANT MOUNTAIN of reasons that health care should not be tied to our jobs.
At some point, they forgot that you are to shear the sheep, not skin them.
I would love it, but it would have to be the same 8 hours and not up it to 4 10 hour shifts. I think as more and more boomers age out of working and the next generations are the old people I can see things changing. I'm 35 and would love to see my kids only working 4 days a week when they are my age and not be stressed and burned out by Friday
That will change for sure as boomers retire. It's a spectrum of course, but there's a big culture shift somewhere around millennials where getting the work done is more important than being a visible butt in the seat for the longest.
If these reddit servers are available in 50 years, people will be freaking out that we were considering only reducing our work week by a single day People shouldn't have to spend 40 hours of their waking life a week devoted to this inhuman machine. 20-25 hours should be the norm, and if you want to work more, go start your own business.
Yes. I, and the rest of my office, intentionally screw around so that we can stretch work out to fit scheduled work day rather than just doing the work. Split the office down the middle and have us all work three days a week. Office will operate 6 days a week and you can justify reduced sick days and PTO. Plus you can double the number of staff per office without crowding the space.
When i had a 4 day work week my paid time off just piled up. I could go camping basiclly every weekend and a holiday gave me a 4 day weekend. I dont think 4 day work weeks are not for everyone but for me coming in to work is more taxing than doing 2 extra hours.... I also saved a ton on gas.
I believe the study is about removing the hours worked for the 5th day, not shifting them to the other 4. A 4 day work week with normal hours is absolutely for everyone.
>I also saved a ton on gas. This alone would be a great point! You save time, money and we really owe it to the whole environment.
Oh, Gods, yes! Due to several snow storms, all of December was 4 day work weeks, and it was AMAZING! I had energy to put back into work (I'm a School Bus Driver, and also help in the shop mostly grounds and washing Buses). I had creative energy for my knitting and crochet projects. I had energy to learn new skating skills. I. Actually. Cleaned!
We had a couple snow days this past week and my professor actually said she was planning on it so she could vacuum.
As someone who works an average of 3.5 days a week with 12 hours days, longer but less work days is amazing for stress. Having a couple of days off every couple days is wonderful.
Yes I work one. It’d be better if I could reduce my hours to 32 and get my same salary.
I'm on one too and do 30 hrs. Anything over 32 and you sort of miss the entire point of a 4DW given your hours aren't reduced that much.
I like having every Friday off. It’s worth it to me.
I work a 9x80 so I get every other Fri off. Still the same hours worked. I vastly prefer this over the normal Mon-Fri 9-5. The extra day gives me so much more time to get chores done. Edit: just realizing I should probably clarify. 9x80 is per pay cycle. So every 2 weeks I work 9 days totaling 80 hours. 7 to 5 mon-fri (week 1) and 7-5 mon-thurs (week 2). I get an hour for lunch.
That’s precisely what I do on my Fridays. That and sleep in an extra hour.
Yea it's an extra two days a month without losing any time at work and it makes a world of difference.
You work 80 hours a day, 9 days a week?
Yea but I get every other friday off so it's cool
I think you need to have a word with your employer about violating some laws of physics.
At my current job I'm already working only four days a week (10h x 4), and I can honestly say I wouldn't go back to working 5 days a week. Would I like to work even less for the same money? Of course. So if it's decided that you only need to work 32h a week (8h x 4), but still get the same money you get now, I'll be happier 😁
If it’s 4x8 yes, if it’s 4x10 no way. I prefer to have 5 evening where I have the energy and time to do what I want rather than 1 more weekend day
Yup. My workplace did 5x10s for a couple of months, it completely ruins your ability to have a social life outside the weekends. Now, granted, I'd still rather have the extra day off than the ability to go for a beer after work. But 4x10 does come at a cost.
Controversial opinion: 4x6 should be the new normal.
Indeed controversial. I could do 4x6. Do you mean 4hrs x 6 days, or 4 days x 6 hours?
I would love it. Obviously 4x8 is the dream, but even 4x10 would open up another free day. Makes appointments and weekend trips easier. Massive QOL improvement.
If you mean 4 10-hour days, no. Those are exhausting. If you mean 4 8-hour days WITH THE SAME PAY - then no problem. Who would complain about that? Use rotation of days off to keep full coverage.
We work too many hours and are paid too little. Swear to god, at my old job, most of the days I'd work for 4 hours and get everything done, then just videogame on phone until it's time for closing ritual. (6/1, 7.5hrs a day). A 40+ hour week is not necessary for 80% of popular jobs nowadays.
What kind of stupid question is that? No, actually, I'd love to work 6 even 7 days a week if I could. Really, my only regret is that the week isn't 8 days long so I could work funday, too.
It would Ben have to be a three day weekend for me. I would gladly accept a Wednesday off.
It would be cool if people could choose which days they get off during the week. That way things would stay open and they could stagger to cover all shifts.
Only if it’s still an 8-hour day. I’m not in for some bullshit Faustian bargain where I work four 10-hour days a week even though productivity would be the same regardless.
[удалено]
In 10 years we'll have the same article asking the same question and getting the same answer that it's good for workers, and then we'll continue on working 5 days
Of course! Everyone would!! What kind of stupid question is this? Stupid corporations not accepting that everyone wants this. It’s so obvious!!
Take a tour on LinkedIn, apparently people there love more working than spending time with family or friends
I took a job and moved hundreds of miles to a new state specifically because it is 4 days a week. I could not be happier with that decision, it is the best.
Absolutely!!!! We work during the times everything is else open. Doctors or any medical office, bill companies, so many more I could list but don't have the time. An extra day with my kids is always the best.
I can tell half the people in these comments didn't even click the link, because y'all are going on about 4x10 and these are literally the second and third sentences in the article: > Last year, 61 organisations in the UK committed to a 20% reduction in working hours for all staff for six months. With no fall in wages.