I don’t see why companies wouldn’t want people to work fewer days a week. Paying at least 20% less compared to a full week seems great for them, given they won’t get 20% less value. Since some days are already largely spent twiddling thumbs waiting for things to happen.
What you’re describing is “part time” and companies LOVE part timers. Lower pay, no benefits. What people actually want is full time, but full time means 4 day work weeks. Around Europe there have been tests where everyone maintains their salary but works 4 days instead of 5. The workers are better rested and more productive so even despite less time worked per week, the net work output does not decrease.
Why not have different options for full time? Or is that what is being advocated for? But my original question was why would companies be opposed to 4 day full time?
The perception of lost productivity, whether true or false, would be the opposition. I’m sure with a lot of specific jobs, productivity is highly maximized even at 40 hours. And in customer service positions, you might still need coverage 16 hours a day 7 days a week. So ultimately if your whole team of 12 works 8 fewer hours a week each, they’ll need to hire 3 more people to cover the lost time. If nobody’s weekly pay amount changed, now suddenly your labor costs have risen 25%.
I’d assume they’d pay less so the hourly rate would be the same. Maybe it’s the training and getting up to speed the has a longer payback time? Or just communicating between more people to do the same work is difficult?
The tests I’ve read about in recent times have not netted a loss in pay - simply a reduction in hours but an increase in productivity because workers are well rested and happier with their work life balance.
Again - what you’re describing already exists, it’s called a part time job. If it comes with a loss in pay, then how improved is your work life balance when you have to go get a second job to supplement your income as a result of transitioning to a 32 hour work week? And how much more productive are you going to be if it means you’re now working a 6 or 7 day work week?
I was thinking moreso in terms of higher paying jobs. Programmers often complain about how draining their jobs are, but it pays so well they stay with it. I think a lot of them would be happy for 20% less time for 20% less pay. I’m in engineering, and I would think hard about it as well. I could live off 20% less, and I would be happier with more free time.
Part time doesn’t have benefits does it? Or as many protections against getting fired? So I don’t think that’s exactly equivalent.
I don’t see why companies wouldn’t want people to work fewer days a week. Paying at least 20% less compared to a full week seems great for them, given they won’t get 20% less value. Since some days are already largely spent twiddling thumbs waiting for things to happen.
What you’re describing is “part time” and companies LOVE part timers. Lower pay, no benefits. What people actually want is full time, but full time means 4 day work weeks. Around Europe there have been tests where everyone maintains their salary but works 4 days instead of 5. The workers are better rested and more productive so even despite less time worked per week, the net work output does not decrease.
Why not have different options for full time? Or is that what is being advocated for? But my original question was why would companies be opposed to 4 day full time?
The perception of lost productivity, whether true or false, would be the opposition. I’m sure with a lot of specific jobs, productivity is highly maximized even at 40 hours. And in customer service positions, you might still need coverage 16 hours a day 7 days a week. So ultimately if your whole team of 12 works 8 fewer hours a week each, they’ll need to hire 3 more people to cover the lost time. If nobody’s weekly pay amount changed, now suddenly your labor costs have risen 25%.
I’d assume they’d pay less so the hourly rate would be the same. Maybe it’s the training and getting up to speed the has a longer payback time? Or just communicating between more people to do the same work is difficult?
The tests I’ve read about in recent times have not netted a loss in pay - simply a reduction in hours but an increase in productivity because workers are well rested and happier with their work life balance.
Again - what you’re describing already exists, it’s called a part time job. If it comes with a loss in pay, then how improved is your work life balance when you have to go get a second job to supplement your income as a result of transitioning to a 32 hour work week? And how much more productive are you going to be if it means you’re now working a 6 or 7 day work week?
I was thinking moreso in terms of higher paying jobs. Programmers often complain about how draining their jobs are, but it pays so well they stay with it. I think a lot of them would be happy for 20% less time for 20% less pay. I’m in engineering, and I would think hard about it as well. I could live off 20% less, and I would be happier with more free time.
Part time doesn’t have benefits does it? Or as many protections against getting fired? So I don’t think that’s exactly equivalent.