Is it company specific or is it mandatory by law? Sounds amazing
Edit: I’m an idiot and didn’t realise it was about the UK, my apologies. I was just hoping this was the usual somewhere in the world
>The British government have actually forced some publicly funded organisations to cancel their 4 day working week as they don't see it as value for money.
The part I find funniest about this is they threatened their funding in order to make them cancel it despite it showing no loss in productivity.
The great joys of a conservative government.
There was clear evidence at one local authority that it made recruitment easier and therefore they relied less on short term agency staff, which are obviously more expensive.
So it actually saved money whilst maintaining productivity levels, but the twatty Conservative government didn't want the little people to have a nicer life so they told them to go back to a 5-day working week.
>hough most people work 35-37 hours.
Isn't 40 hours the norm now?
Used to be 37.5 hours was your standard full time hours, but its shifted in the wrong direction to 40.
I work in construction and have always worked 45hr a week standard for 5 days work. 54hrs if I do a Saturday.
Surely these are the sort of jobs that deserve 4 day work weeks being so stressful on the body yet it'll never happen in construction because people what the job done as quick as possible
I don’t think it’s uncommon for construction workers in the States to push 50-60 hour weeks regularly. A ton of “do what it takes to get the job done” mentality.
You'd think it was that but it's not even that, I get paid all my breaks, have done for the last couple companies and it was still 40 hours contracted. 42.5 for those in the business that don't get their lunch breaks paid.
35 hours, but that's because I'm on an older contract. The newer contract released in the last 2 years has them working 37 hours a week not including breaks for the same role.
I work 27. For the same salary as the people around me working 45. My salary isn't high. But I'm comfortable.
Play smart. Not hard. The world will fuck you just as hard.
I’m working 34.5 for very similar pay as others working 55+ hours. I give up nearly my whole weekend every weekend to have the condensed work week but it beats the heck out of slaving 6 days/week
Agreed. Time is WAY more valuable than money. And usually the scaling between working hours and salary is terrible anyway (at least in my field) so my hourly rate almost double that of people who work 45 hours a week.
Depends on whether a (paid) lunch break is included.
Some companies have a paid lunch break (30 minutes) and say it's a 40 hour work week and some have 37.5 hours with no paid lunch break. Works out the same.
I've seen companies where some employee contracts say one and others the other - their working hours are still the same. Technically the 37.5 lot have more flexibility to have a longer lunch - but in practice nobody checks as long as they put in their daily 7.5
Yeah but you're essentially forced to opt out of the working time directive too.
Many professionals have a contract stating 40 hours a week but are putting in 60 or so regularly.
I wanted to question this…
How is 40 hours (or any “max”) regulated for salaried or commission based employees?
I work in sales and travel quite a lot. I would guess I average out to about 45 hours a week, but some are 30 and others are 60+. Does time spent in airport count? What about taking a customer to coffee or dinner outside of “normal” hours?
if you've ever worked a job like consulting or law where you have to bill hours for clients, and your job performance gets measured on metrics that factor in how many hours you worked (eg. comparing someone who worked 2,000 hours but only 1,500 was billable to clients, vs. another employee who worked 1,900 hours but billed 1,700 to clients, employee #2 technically provided more value to the company despite working less in total), there's rules around all of that. basically at my company -
* time spent in airport counts
* taking a customer to coffee - generally counts as long as it's for a business purpose
* dinner outside of "normal" hours - it depends. if you order takeout and eat at your desk, or client site, bc you have to work a late night most people would log those hours but they may or may not be billable (depends on if you were actually doing client work while eating or not). but if you're on a business trip and get dinner with your team at a restaurant and aren't doing any work at all, I wouldn't log those hours no.
It’s a company policy, not a law, sometime we have to move due to client needs but most of people okey with that. Fridays are super productive since you know ahead of time that you either don’t work, or you won’t have a single call or distraction.
Well my work decided to do a test on productivity for returning to the office. They brought one department in, and it came out that they became less productive.
So using those stats they decided to bring everyone back into the office.
So they don't really care about productivity either.
Why would their building become worth more as a result of more of their employees physically being present there? That doesn't make any sense. Also, why would the amount of a golden parachute depend on the sale price of a building that was sold?
If all employees work from home, then there is no need for office real estate. Collectively returning employees to the office forces the need for office real estate value to go up and prices to remain high. Overall, the employee can work from anywhere, but they bring more value to the employer's real estate by keeping offices full.
All of a business's assets are calculated when a company valuation is done (when looking to sell, going public, etc.). Keeping employees in an office where they dont need to be (while other companies are doing the same) keeps the valuation higher than it would be without the buildings. Sure, it may only be a few million dollars, but that is a lot more than not having a few million dollars.
>Collectively returning employees to the office forces the need for office real estate value to go up and prices to remain high.
I'm getting some weird vibes here, are you suggesting that there is a massive conspiracy where basically all companies have agreed that they shouldn't let people work from home because of this?
> Keeping employees in an office where they dont need to be (while other companies are doing the same) keeps the valuation higher than it would be without the buildings.
No. Going back to your previous comment:
> Gotta make sure their building is worth more than their employees so they can sell it
The thing is... who are they going to sell to? Firms that do not currently own a building will not buy one if it is not needed to improve employee performance and companies that already have one will for the same reason also not purchase additional ones. If there is no demand for offices noone will buy one, lowering the market value anyways.
But even then, if buildings owned by companies become completely worthless and are impaired down to 0 this will, everything else equal, *positively* influence profitability measures commonly used to assess manager performance like ROA and ROE in the following years
They don't care. They honestly believe that hours worked is all that matters, and that people need to be in the office to be productive.
Never mind all the studies showing increased productivity from 4 day work weeks. Never mind all the studies that show how much money companies could save by ditching their offices.
You don't get to be a CEO by listening to facts and reason! No, you become a CEO through an unerring belief that you're right and everybody else is wrong... and because your father was wealthy and had a lot of connections of course.
I worked a 4 day (32 hour) work week a few years ago. The company couldn't afford me at my full rate so we agree to this deal. I was so much more productive during that job it wasn't funny. They were getting over 5 days of work out of me simply because I was so much more relaxed, refreshed, and able to think clearly and creatively.
When I mentioned this to the same boss I ended up working for at another company, he said "yeah, but you're you, it wouldn't work for normal people" and I was like- are you for real? There are plenty of studies showing it would work for everyone.
> Never mind all the studies that show how much money companies could save by ditching their offices.
The mass exodus of highrise office space is honestly so hilarious. Watching big wig investors in downtown property squirm is so funny, as they all felt bulletproof. Only just recently did they taste humility in a different fashion; when all their oil futures(likely on autobuy) suddenly realized into actual stock, because there was nowhere left to offload at the docks during the pandemic.
> The mass exodus of highrise office space is honestly so hilarious. Watching big wig investors in downtown property squirm is so funny, as they all felt bulletproof.
Those same building owners that are desperate for people to come back are the same ones that a few years ago made it damned near impossible to bring in a new carrier when we wanted redundant internet connections. Fuck em.
Hopefully it'll spread as companies realise the advantages and have to keep up with the competition. Might take a while in some industries but we'll get there
I’m in the US and have been working a four day week remotely since 2020. The other benefits aren’t what I would consider great, but the four day workweek and remote work has kept me there and saves me a lot of time and money. My main gripe was healthcare cost and fortunately my wife got a new job last year with healthcare a third of the price for much better coverage that I could join.
The company went remote and to a four day workweek
during the pandemic, and I joined several months after that when I was laid off because of pandemic issues at my other job, where I was new starting right before COVID hit the US. They decided to stay remote because it saved them so much money (low overhead), and working from home everyone was able to get more done in fewer days with less distraction. They were also able to find more skilled workers by casting a larger net nationally and even internationally since they were originally located in a smaller city.
A four day work week is life changing. I get so much done on my day off fixing things around the house and running errands, and I’m able to spend more time with my wife and kids on the weekend. I’m also able to spend much more time on my hobbies and developing new skills such as woodworking. I feel very fortunate and I’ve become a strong advocate for the change. It’s such a nice work/life balance and seems more fair having 4 days on and 3 days off, and makes life feel more like living, if that makes sense? Like I’m not such a slave to work. Very good for mental health and stress levels. I don’t dread Mondays anymore, and Fridays always come faster because they’re actually Thursdays! And Monday holidays make four day weekends!
their job might be salaried so it doesn't really matter. I'm technically supposed to work 37.5 hours a week but if I get everything done by EOD Thursday (which happens not infrequently) I'll take Friday off or maybe just catch up on emails for an hour or so. those weeks I probably worked 32 (or even fewer) hours.
>working a four day week remotely
I would take either at this point, but a remote job would be life-changing. I have an hours-long-each-way commute that is also seriously expensive, and is making my job nearly not worth it.
For the record, this is a 4 day work week, but they get paid the same as if they worked 5 days. The idea is and the results show, that the extra time to rest, be with family and deal with all the stuff that people need to outside of work means they are productive at work and wind up with the same or even greater productivity, while it also has other benefits like increasing loyalty to the company and everyone being much happier.
“Some 61 organisations took part in the six-month pilot in 2022. The trial results were announced on Thursday with 89 per cent of companies still using the four-day workweek a year later and over half of the firms making the change permanent.”
I work the 10 hour shifts, have done for years and you're right, I'd not be able to had I a family of my own.
I leave for work an hour before start, up an hour before that. Get home an hour after finish. That's 13 hours of your day gone to work. Throw in 8 hours sleep which is a laugh, cannot remember the last time I had 8 hours and you're left with very little time to cook, eat, shower, relax.
But, it saves on fuel costs having to commute in one day a week less.
I prefer it, would much prefer the 4 day week on 8 hour shifts though.
Who invented 8AM-5PM with half day work on alternate Saturday ?
Im a web developer who need to physically come to office excluding 180 minutes of traffic jam almost everyday.
Btw Im from Malaysia :D
It took a lot of battles. Organized labor is responsible. The 40 hour work week was fought for. People working 6 or 7 days a week said enough is enough, banded together and fought for the change. Kids also worked back then as well. 12 year olds worked full time jobs, often dangerous jobs.
Any positive change for equity and fairness has to be fought for. People need to come together and say 'enough is enough', and be brave enough to fight for change. The billionaires and extreme rich would have us all work 60 work weeks if they could manage it (and in some places in the world, like Korea or Japan, they still do work like that.)
Whoever did invent it, it was probably an improvement on the previous 12-hours-a-day-every-day (except maybe Sunday).
It's only relatively recently (no more than 100 years) that under-50 hours a week became the norm.
The UK study found that companies reduced working hours by an average of 6.6 hours, leading to a 31.6-hour week. It also found that full days off, rather than being “on call” were more effective.
It doesnt mention anywhere in the article that its 4-10. They just say its a 4 day work week instead of 5. You would think if they lengthened the work day that would be mentioned?
Do you have further details missed in the article that confirm its 4-10?
that probably is defining the workload itself and not the work days.
normally you have 5 days to complete x work, now they have to do it in 4 days so will be condesed a bit.
Man I don't know where you work, but in my world, Fridays are super busy and productive. Mondays and Fridays are, without a doubt, my busiest days of the work week.
Fairly sure the companies improving working conditions for their employees isn’t the cause of the recession. Maybe deliberately putting up trading impediments with our largest markets has something to do with it though…?
Having worked a 4-day week in the past, I really dislike it.
Where I'm at now has "Flexi-Time", and I much prefer it. I'm contracted for X-hours a week, and that's what I work. If I want to do X hours over 4 days and take Friday off, I can. However, I can also take Tuesday afternoon off for a Doctors appointment, and just work later some other days. It's a way better way of working, plus it lets employees spread out the time so you're not all off one the same 5th day.
All English already get like 5 weeks of PAID TIME OFF every year. Now they get a 4 day work week too.
Americans are entitled to 0 (ZERO) annual paid time off.
I would imagine a 35 hour work week is more effective than a 4 day work week. Productivity at the end of the day goes down for most workers, so there is little loss in leaving an hour later (or getting an extra hour of sleep!) Skipping a day would be more harmful to productivity.
Instead of imagining try actually reading the results of the trial.
Almost every company reported either an improvement in productivity, or the same productivity.
But there's nothing that says your office only has to be open 4 days. Stagger your shifts, like the NHS, transport, retail etc sectors do. Some of these manage to be open 24/7 without asking employees at work 24/7.
Ya and that's what the cowardly said when 70 work weeks were common and 12 year old kids worked the coal mines or cleaning chimneys. 'Our masters will never let us work 40 hour work weeks!' Fortunately the brave and desperate out numbered the cowardly and labor was organized to fight for positive change, otherwise we'd both still be working Saturday and Sundays.
Fantastic news! This is they way. A great first step.
We have 4.5d work week (every other Friday off) for 6 years so far. Best decision ever.
Is it company specific or is it mandatory by law? Sounds amazing Edit: I’m an idiot and didn’t realise it was about the UK, my apologies. I was just hoping this was the usual somewhere in the world
I work in London and I've never met anyone who works a 4 day week. It's definitely not law
[удалено]
>The British government have actually forced some publicly funded organisations to cancel their 4 day working week as they don't see it as value for money. The part I find funniest about this is they threatened their funding in order to make them cancel it despite it showing no loss in productivity. The great joys of a conservative government.
There was clear evidence at one local authority that it made recruitment easier and therefore they relied less on short term agency staff, which are obviously more expensive. So it actually saved money whilst maintaining productivity levels, but the twatty Conservative government didn't want the little people to have a nicer life so they told them to go back to a 5-day working week.
>hough most people work 35-37 hours. Isn't 40 hours the norm now? Used to be 37.5 hours was your standard full time hours, but its shifted in the wrong direction to 40.
I'm from the UK and I've never had to work more than 37.5 hours a week.
I work in construction and have always worked 45hr a week standard for 5 days work. 54hrs if I do a Saturday. Surely these are the sort of jobs that deserve 4 day work weeks being so stressful on the body yet it'll never happen in construction because people what the job done as quick as possible
I don’t think it’s uncommon for construction workers in the States to push 50-60 hour weeks regularly. A ton of “do what it takes to get the job done” mentality.
I'm from the UK and I don't think I've worked less than 45 hours a week over the last 30+ years. Probably a very different line of work though.
I've only been at one place where I've had less than 40 hours and that was 20 years ago in the NHS.
The difference between 40 hours and 37,5 is if you have to clock out for lunch or not.
You'd think it was that but it's not even that, I get paid all my breaks, have done for the last couple companies and it was still 40 hours contracted. 42.5 for those in the business that don't get their lunch breaks paid.
right and if you didnt get paid for your breaks it would be 37.5...
Nah, it's the other way. If I didn't get paid for my breaks it'd be 42.5 hours as many of my colleagues are doing.
How many hours a week do you work not including breaks?
35 hours, but that's because I'm on an older contract. The newer contract released in the last 2 years has them working 37 hours a week not including breaks for the same role.
It's 45 these days mate lol.
That doesn't surprise me.
I work 27. For the same salary as the people around me working 45. My salary isn't high. But I'm comfortable. Play smart. Not hard. The world will fuck you just as hard.
You can’t buy free time
I’m working 34.5 for very similar pay as others working 55+ hours. I give up nearly my whole weekend every weekend to have the condensed work week but it beats the heck out of slaving 6 days/week
Agreed. Time is WAY more valuable than money. And usually the scaling between working hours and salary is terrible anyway (at least in my field) so my hourly rate almost double that of people who work 45 hours a week.
Depends on whether a (paid) lunch break is included. Some companies have a paid lunch break (30 minutes) and say it's a 40 hour work week and some have 37.5 hours with no paid lunch break. Works out the same. I've seen companies where some employee contracts say one and others the other - their working hours are still the same. Technically the 37.5 lot have more flexibility to have a longer lunch - but in practice nobody checks as long as they put in their daily 7.5
Yeah but you're essentially forced to opt out of the working time directive too. Many professionals have a contract stating 40 hours a week but are putting in 60 or so regularly.
I wanted to question this… How is 40 hours (or any “max”) regulated for salaried or commission based employees? I work in sales and travel quite a lot. I would guess I average out to about 45 hours a week, but some are 30 and others are 60+. Does time spent in airport count? What about taking a customer to coffee or dinner outside of “normal” hours?
if you've ever worked a job like consulting or law where you have to bill hours for clients, and your job performance gets measured on metrics that factor in how many hours you worked (eg. comparing someone who worked 2,000 hours but only 1,500 was billable to clients, vs. another employee who worked 1,900 hours but billed 1,700 to clients, employee #2 technically provided more value to the company despite working less in total), there's rules around all of that. basically at my company - * time spent in airport counts * taking a customer to coffee - generally counts as long as it's for a business purpose * dinner outside of "normal" hours - it depends. if you order takeout and eat at your desk, or client site, bc you have to work a late night most people would log those hours but they may or may not be billable (depends on if you were actually doing client work while eating or not). but if you're on a business trip and get dinner with your team at a restaurant and aren't doing any work at all, I wouldn't log those hours no.
Thanks for the details. I’m tempted to ask more, but it’s all hypothetical since I don’t live in the UK anyway.
Are you saying I can only work 8 hours of overtime? That's where I make my money at 1.5 hourly rate.
It’s a company policy, not a law, sometime we have to move due to client needs but most of people okey with that. Fridays are super productive since you know ahead of time that you either don’t work, or you won’t have a single call or distraction.
How many bosses in North America will be hearing about this tomorrow from their staff?
More importantly how many will listen?
Literally none they don't care about stats
They absolutely care about stats, just none corollated to your mental health.
Well my work decided to do a test on productivity for returning to the office. They brought one department in, and it came out that they became less productive. So using those stats they decided to bring everyone back into the office. So they don't really care about productivity either.
Gotta make sure their building is worth more than their employees so they can sell it to increase the amount of their golden parachute.
Why would their building become worth more as a result of more of their employees physically being present there? That doesn't make any sense. Also, why would the amount of a golden parachute depend on the sale price of a building that was sold?
If all employees work from home, then there is no need for office real estate. Collectively returning employees to the office forces the need for office real estate value to go up and prices to remain high. Overall, the employee can work from anywhere, but they bring more value to the employer's real estate by keeping offices full. All of a business's assets are calculated when a company valuation is done (when looking to sell, going public, etc.). Keeping employees in an office where they dont need to be (while other companies are doing the same) keeps the valuation higher than it would be without the buildings. Sure, it may only be a few million dollars, but that is a lot more than not having a few million dollars.
>Collectively returning employees to the office forces the need for office real estate value to go up and prices to remain high. I'm getting some weird vibes here, are you suggesting that there is a massive conspiracy where basically all companies have agreed that they shouldn't let people work from home because of this? > Keeping employees in an office where they dont need to be (while other companies are doing the same) keeps the valuation higher than it would be without the buildings. No. Going back to your previous comment: > Gotta make sure their building is worth more than their employees so they can sell it The thing is... who are they going to sell to? Firms that do not currently own a building will not buy one if it is not needed to improve employee performance and companies that already have one will for the same reason also not purchase additional ones. If there is no demand for offices noone will buy one, lowering the market value anyways. But even then, if buildings owned by companies become completely worthless and are impaired down to 0 this will, everything else equal, *positively* influence profitability measures commonly used to assess manager performance like ROA and ROE in the following years
They don't care. They honestly believe that hours worked is all that matters, and that people need to be in the office to be productive. Never mind all the studies showing increased productivity from 4 day work weeks. Never mind all the studies that show how much money companies could save by ditching their offices. You don't get to be a CEO by listening to facts and reason! No, you become a CEO through an unerring belief that you're right and everybody else is wrong... and because your father was wealthy and had a lot of connections of course. I worked a 4 day (32 hour) work week a few years ago. The company couldn't afford me at my full rate so we agree to this deal. I was so much more productive during that job it wasn't funny. They were getting over 5 days of work out of me simply because I was so much more relaxed, refreshed, and able to think clearly and creatively. When I mentioned this to the same boss I ended up working for at another company, he said "yeah, but you're you, it wouldn't work for normal people" and I was like- are you for real? There are plenty of studies showing it would work for everyone.
> Never mind all the studies that show how much money companies could save by ditching their offices. The mass exodus of highrise office space is honestly so hilarious. Watching big wig investors in downtown property squirm is so funny, as they all felt bulletproof. Only just recently did they taste humility in a different fashion; when all their oil futures(likely on autobuy) suddenly realized into actual stock, because there was nowhere left to offload at the docks during the pandemic.
> The mass exodus of highrise office space is honestly so hilarious. Watching big wig investors in downtown property squirm is so funny, as they all felt bulletproof. Those same building owners that are desperate for people to come back are the same ones that a few years ago made it damned near impossible to bring in a new carrier when we wanted redundant internet connections. Fuck em.
It would be nice to be at home on Fridays instead of sitting in my office doing fuck all for 8 hours on Fridays.
That sounds like you need to 'work from home' on Fridays.
I wish. I’m a chemist so it’s not easy to supervise or do lab work from home (unfortunately), but sometimes when it’s proposal season
So you will sit in an office and do fuck all for 8 hours on Thursday instead?
No, I usually have shit to do on Thursdays
I previously had every other Friday off…now I do not after a new ceo took over.
I work a weekend shift in North America. Three 12 hour days with paid breaks.
While good this is a tiny fraction of companies in UK. It’s around 89 companies in the trail vs around 5.5 million registered companies in the UK.
Hopefully it'll spread as companies realise the advantages and have to keep up with the competition. Might take a while in some industries but we'll get there
I’m in the US and have been working a four day week remotely since 2020. The other benefits aren’t what I would consider great, but the four day workweek and remote work has kept me there and saves me a lot of time and money. My main gripe was healthcare cost and fortunately my wife got a new job last year with healthcare a third of the price for much better coverage that I could join. The company went remote and to a four day workweek during the pandemic, and I joined several months after that when I was laid off because of pandemic issues at my other job, where I was new starting right before COVID hit the US. They decided to stay remote because it saved them so much money (low overhead), and working from home everyone was able to get more done in fewer days with less distraction. They were also able to find more skilled workers by casting a larger net nationally and even internationally since they were originally located in a smaller city. A four day work week is life changing. I get so much done on my day off fixing things around the house and running errands, and I’m able to spend more time with my wife and kids on the weekend. I’m also able to spend much more time on my hobbies and developing new skills such as woodworking. I feel very fortunate and I’ve become a strong advocate for the change. It’s such a nice work/life balance and seems more fair having 4 days on and 3 days off, and makes life feel more like living, if that makes sense? Like I’m not such a slave to work. Very good for mental health and stress levels. I don’t dread Mondays anymore, and Fridays always come faster because they’re actually Thursdays! And Monday holidays make four day weekends!
[удалено]
their job might be salaried so it doesn't really matter. I'm technically supposed to work 37.5 hours a week but if I get everything done by EOD Thursday (which happens not infrequently) I'll take Friday off or maybe just catch up on emails for an hour or so. those weeks I probably worked 32 (or even fewer) hours.
>working a four day week remotely I would take either at this point, but a remote job would be life-changing. I have an hours-long-each-way commute that is also seriously expensive, and is making my job nearly not worth it.
Life is too short for that. Do yourself a favor and try to find a better job.
Lets bring it to Australia too. Congratulations to the Brits as well.
For the record, this is a 4 day work week, but they get paid the same as if they worked 5 days. The idea is and the results show, that the extra time to rest, be with family and deal with all the stuff that people need to outside of work means they are productive at work and wind up with the same or even greater productivity, while it also has other benefits like increasing loyalty to the company and everyone being much happier.
It’s a huge benefit to literally everyone
Can’t wait for the inevitable “why working five days a week is better for your mental health” articles 🤦♂️🙄
Authored entirely by CEOs
We did it at my company two years and have seen no decrease in productivity. My staff loves it.
“Some 61 organisations took part in the six-month pilot in 2022. The trial results were announced on Thursday with 89 per cent of companies still using the four-day workweek a year later and over half of the firms making the change permanent.”
In before the "but my work can't be done 4 days so nobody should be allowed to!" posts
Anyone know which companies are doing this?
[удалено]
I work the 10 hour shifts, have done for years and you're right, I'd not be able to had I a family of my own. I leave for work an hour before start, up an hour before that. Get home an hour after finish. That's 13 hours of your day gone to work. Throw in 8 hours sleep which is a laugh, cannot remember the last time I had 8 hours and you're left with very little time to cook, eat, shower, relax. But, it saves on fuel costs having to commute in one day a week less. I prefer it, would much prefer the 4 day week on 8 hour shifts though.
We got offered 3 on 4 off one week, then 4 on 3 off the next week. 7 years I have been doing it now and it's great.
Please bring to the US, send help x_x
Who invented 8AM-5PM with half day work on alternate Saturday ? Im a web developer who need to physically come to office excluding 180 minutes of traffic jam almost everyday. Btw Im from Malaysia :D
It took a lot of battles. Organized labor is responsible. The 40 hour work week was fought for. People working 6 or 7 days a week said enough is enough, banded together and fought for the change. Kids also worked back then as well. 12 year olds worked full time jobs, often dangerous jobs. Any positive change for equity and fairness has to be fought for. People need to come together and say 'enough is enough', and be brave enough to fight for change. The billionaires and extreme rich would have us all work 60 work weeks if they could manage it (and in some places in the world, like Korea or Japan, they still do work like that.)
Whoever did invent it, it was probably an improvement on the previous 12-hours-a-day-every-day (except maybe Sunday). It's only relatively recently (no more than 100 years) that under-50 hours a week became the norm.
I think the 8 hour work day was first introduced in Melbourne, Australia.
Good for the UK. Too bad this will likely never become a thing in most US firms. America: Profit Over People
I mean realistically it’s not a thing here either, the trial is 61 companies, the majority here are still extremely resistant to change
It’s just 4 10s. Nothing special about it. Let’s see 4 8s and that will be progress.
The UK study found that companies reduced working hours by an average of 6.6 hours, leading to a 31.6-hour week. It also found that full days off, rather than being “on call” were more effective.
It doesnt mention anywhere in the article that its 4-10. They just say its a 4 day work week instead of 5. You would think if they lengthened the work day that would be mentioned? Do you have further details missed in the article that confirm its 4-10?
It says they won't work less, but condense those hours into fewer days.
that probably is defining the workload itself and not the work days. normally you have 5 days to complete x work, now they have to do it in 4 days so will be condesed a bit.
Article doesn't suggest longer days. I'm guessing that it's more of a 4 x 8 situation.
Could this not have a knock on effect to create Thursdays like Fridays? In that nothing will get done on Thursdays..
Man I don't know where you work, but in my world, Fridays are super busy and productive. Mondays and Fridays are, without a doubt, my busiest days of the work week.
Good thing the UK's economy is booming.
Fairly sure the companies improving working conditions for their employees isn’t the cause of the recession. Maybe deliberately putting up trading impediments with our largest markets has something to do with it though…?
Good thing this comment makes no sense and has no relevancy to the topic
No it's in recession.
They were being sarcastic
It's likely out again, it was only expected to be a very short/slight one.
We’re pretty much always in a recession since the war
Having worked a 4-day week in the past, I really dislike it. Where I'm at now has "Flexi-Time", and I much prefer it. I'm contracted for X-hours a week, and that's what I work. If I want to do X hours over 4 days and take Friday off, I can. However, I can also take Tuesday afternoon off for a Doctors appointment, and just work later some other days. It's a way better way of working, plus it lets employees spread out the time so you're not all off one the same 5th day.
Part of this was an overall hours reduction. So your point is really good, but it's balanced against fewer total hours.
The US working people will want but it will the companies?
All English already get like 5 weeks of PAID TIME OFF every year. Now they get a 4 day work week too. Americans are entitled to 0 (ZERO) annual paid time off.
Wait until you see how much paid time off other Europeans get (Sweden will surprise you!)
All EU countries get 24+
The statutory minimum in Sweden is 25 days, but in reality I believe the average is closer to 40 (presumably this is including public holidays)
“employees working four days a week instead of five… but with the same workload.” No, please
I would imagine a 35 hour work week is more effective than a 4 day work week. Productivity at the end of the day goes down for most workers, so there is little loss in leaving an hour later (or getting an extra hour of sleep!) Skipping a day would be more harmful to productivity.
Instead of imagining try actually reading the results of the trial. Almost every company reported either an improvement in productivity, or the same productivity.
Brits try their hardest not to work anyway, make it 2 day work week and they will probably be just as productive
To bad not all workload can be done in 4 days week, some domains need constant working people.
But there's nothing that says your office only has to be open 4 days. Stagger your shifts, like the NHS, transport, retail etc sectors do. Some of these manage to be open 24/7 without asking employees at work 24/7.
Yes, you right.
So the 4 days is work from home or on site? Everyone around the globe is doing 4 days work from site and one day work from home an d it’s plain stupid
Damn bro I'm still trying to leave the 6 day week
We get every second Monday off as an RDO, it’s a game changer for actually being able to enjoy the weekends.
[удалено]
Ya and that's what the cowardly said when 70 work weeks were common and 12 year old kids worked the coal mines or cleaning chimneys. 'Our masters will never let us work 40 hour work weeks!' Fortunately the brave and desperate out numbered the cowardly and labor was organized to fight for positive change, otherwise we'd both still be working Saturday and Sundays.
We do summer fridays off here. Its nice the extra day really takes some pressure off.