Four day week.

TheBegotten · 05-07-2014 11:32PM

I think a ten hour day would be disastrous for efficiency. Think about it: Friday evening, 1500 hours, facing into the weekend, on your third cup of coffee, working all week and those last two hours are spent doing nothing or just doing busywork to kill the time between you and those glorious two days of freedom...now imagine the same scenario, only you've got another 4 hours to work, and there's three days left. As well as that, by the time you've reached in the seventh hour in any shift you're already starting to get tired. Imagine if you had to go for another three after that?

Whatsdastory · 05-07-2014 11:41PM

gctest50
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,926
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasfrozen View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayson View Post
Doctors seem to think we need think we need it.
In Utah of all places, a republican governor decided that all state employees should work 4 days at 10 hours per day. The state makes savings because it's only active four days a week and all the staff get an extra day off.

I'm actually working a 4 day week at the moment. I was working 5 x 8 but I negotiated a change to to 4 x 10. I arrive an hour earlier than everyone and leave an hour later. I can actually attend a fulltime postgrad and work fulltime because of it. I'm dreading going back to 5 days a week after the summer.

So, would you be up for it? I'd be favour of our government shutting down some departments for an extra day.

Nope. If anything we should be working six day weeks to help rebuild our economy. Besides, I don't fancy a 20% pay cut.
At least making some attempt at reading something before jumping in with daft ideas would help a bit more - if you carry on in real life like that post its no wonder its fcked

4 x 10 = 40

5 x 8 = 40

Ive checked on my calculator, Correct.

PizzamanIRL · 05-07-2014 11:56PM

2 x 20 is also 40. I'm a genius.

The Diabolical Monocle · 06-07-2014 12:24AM

Why isn't 30 hours enough per week at this stage.

can 30 hours not provide what society actually needs.

worst case scenario you can't get random tat and sht from argos.

40 hours was the standard for society to function in our parents day.

how much has technology advanced since.

Joe Doe · 06-07-2014 01:34AM

smurfjed wrote: »

I worked a total of 4 days last month for a full salary..... I would recommend it to everyone

I'm reading and hoping to apply 'The 4 hr Work Week' (book/audio: Tim Ferris) in the longer-term.

Say what you like about the French (their English isn't that good), but think they have a liberating legal limit of 35hrs per week!

The UK averages 37.5hrs. And yet the french GDP is currently larger, viva la France! Live is for living.

Ireland averages closer to a 40hrs++ average, boo.

Some forward thinking tech firms actually push for the 4 days with Friday for self-directed study (handy for break throughs in nano-genetic modding, yer olde quantum multiverse dibble dabble, and emmergingwebcloudtech yayada).

shruikan2553 · 06-07-2014 02:06AM

It is annoying that there isnt much of a choice when it comes to the hours you work. Jobs outside of the likes of retail or waiters tend to be a 39 hour week. Sure you would get paid less working 30 hours a week but it would allow people to focus more on life outside of work if they wished.

Joe Doe · 06-07-2014 02:15AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Sure you would get paid less working 30 hours a week but...

Technically you would get paid more (on a p/hr basis) when you factor in tax, deductions and tax credits.

That extra day could even be deployed for home renovations, diy, exercise, or fixing the car which would be a net & indirect monetary gain, so yes indeed a win win.

Iwasfrozen · 06-07-2014 02:27AM

gctest50 wrote: »

I don't understand your post really

- the original post is nice and clear, relavent bit :

It seems odd you couldn't read the original post - maybe a bug in the forum software ??

really odd

You're an odd person. Someone had pointed out something I missed in my first post that's why I told you to look at my second post when you simply said the same thing again in a less amiable manner. Do you understand now?

Iwasfrozen · 06-07-2014 02:33AM

Joe Doe wrote: »

Technically you would get paid more (on a p/hr basis) when you factor in tax, deductions and tax credits.

You still get paid less.

That extra day could even be deployed for home renovations, diy, exercise, or fixing the car which would be a net & indirect monetary gain, so yes indeed a win win.

If I was an employer and someone asked for a four day week so they could catch up on their personal life, unless they were absolutely critical to the business, they would be out the door so fast their feet wouldn't touch the ground.

So many people in this country are frankly bloody lazy. To the point were working more than 40 hours a week over 5 days is total nightmare for them. These people have a terrible attitude problem towards work. Not necessarily pointed at you John Doe.

Degag · 06-07-2014 02:46AM

dodderangler wrote: »

I work six days a week just to keep up with rent, bills and food for 3 of us in the house. 4 days a week would leave me and my family homeless and hungry so no thanks. I'm fine with one day off a week

I'm not quite sure you get this thread...

shruikan2553 · 06-07-2014 02:57AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You still get paid less.

If I was an employer and someone asked for a four day week so they could catch up on their personal life, unless they were absolutely critical, they would be out the door so fast their feet wouldn't touch the ground.

So many people in this country are frankly bloody lazy. To the point were working more than 40 hours a week over 5 days is total nightmare for them. These people have a terrible attitude problem towards work. Not necessarily pointed at you John Doe.

But this is the problem, why take someone for 30 hours if you can get someone for 40+. Its the american attitude of work and the company come first, even if they see you as easily replaceable and any longing of doing something for yourself is lazy.

Iwasfrozen · 06-07-2014 02:59AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

But this is the problem, why take someone for 30 hours if you can get someone for 40+. Its the american attitude of work and the company come first, even if they see you as easily replaceable and any longing of doing something for yourself is lazy.

That's exactly the sort of attitude I'd look for. Why take on people who's priorities aren't in the right place?

Tar.Aldarion · 06-07-2014 03:00AM

10x4 might sound good in theory but concentration would wane and we'd get less done. 4 day weeks would be so nice though.

gctest50 · 06-07-2014 03:13AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're an odd person. Someone had pointed out something I missed in my first post that's why I told you to look at my second post when you simply said the same thing again in a less amiable manner. Do you understand now?

how could you miss it ?

i'm genuinely concerned like - you could get so screwed over in the future in real life by not having a good look at something

its not just a one word thing - it should be the first thing you'd ask in such a situation - this is really important for yourself if you go working in the future

when i saw the first post i thought almost immediately

- "do tehy mean drop a day completly and loose the hours or drop a day and work extra hours"

(i've been there n done both)

instead of just rushing to make the second post

shruikan2553 · 06-07-2014 03:17AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's exactly the sort of attitude I'd look for. Why take on people who's priorities aren't in the right place?

Where is the right place?
Why would someone make a company their priority in life? Must have quite empty lives to manage that.

gctest50 · 06-07-2014 03:22AM

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

10x4 might sound good in theory but concentration would wane and we'd get less done. 4 day weeks would be so nice though.

Maybe if ya did 4 x 10 for the months of say

June ( warm days - hopefully )

August ( back to school stuff for parents , last of warm days )

Iwasfrozen · 06-07-2014 03:23AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Where is the right place?
Why would someone make a company their priority in life? Must have quite empty lives to manage that.

To make themselves indispensable and climb the ladder.

If another person just wants to be a grunt to clock in and out five days a week for eight hours a day then that's all they'll ever be.

Assuming they keep their job at all because who doesn't work overtime these days?

shruikan2553 · 06-07-2014 03:28AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

To make themselves indispensable and climb the ladder.

If another person just wants to be a grunt to clock in and out five days a week for eight hours a day then that's all they'll ever be.

Assuming they keep their job at all because who doesn't work overtime these days?

You can only work extra hours for free or you'll never get anywhere at best if ou even keep the job.

I prefer the being good at your job method and not needing extra time to get stuff done. I recommend hiring some people better for the job or better management if people are having to do overtime often.

Iwasfrozen · 06-07-2014 03:36AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You can only work extra hours for free or you'll never get anywhere at best if ou even keep the job.

I prefer the being good at your job method and not needing extra time to get stuff done. I recommend hiring some people better for the job or better management if people are having to do overtime often.

Every (or near enough) entry level job requires you work extra hours. Few complain in my experience because the kind of person who works in these jobs has a good attitude. They put their work first because they want to make something of themselves.

shruikan2553 · 06-07-2014 03:48AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Every (or near enough) entry level job requires you work extra hours. Few complain in my experience because the kind of person who works in these jobs has a good attitude. They put their work first because they want to make something of themselves.

I guess I'm lucky my boss respects my personal life then. Probably depends on the area too. In mine even graduates are in demand so companies have to try and make themselves look attractive to work in.

Joe Doe · 06-07-2014 04:23AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You still get paid less.

If I was an employer and someone asked for a four day week so they could catch up on their personal life, unless they were absolutely critical to the business, they would be out the door so fast their feet wouldn't touch the ground.

i) Well they do get more as a 'net p/hr rate' (if it's less hours overall, simply by calculating the most 'deduction efficient break-point').

ii) I can see your point to an extent (well, depending on industry type), but those 4 days could still be the same 40hrs input by performing longer day shifts.

If you industry is in a 'competitive innovation based sector' then that extra day off, you may find, will benefit the company either through i) a happier employee if that day is used for R&R ii) By gaining an niche competitive advantage over your competitors if that employee is performing R&D in their own time within that industry sector. It benefits their CV and skills base for the longer term + it benefits your company in the current time. For me it would likely it will be a 30:70 deployment of R&R:R&D

If your digging turf or something, none of this may be relevant...

AgileMyth · 06-07-2014 05:33AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So many people in this country are frankly bloody lazy. To the point were working more than 40 hours a week over 5 days is total nightmare for them. These people have a terrible attitude problem towards work. Not necessarily pointed at you John Doe.

Why would anyone work that much? Is your life that empty?

I may have a terrible attitude towards work but you have a terrible attitude towards life.

Iwasfrozen · 06-07-2014 07:20AM

AgileMyth wrote: »

Why would anyone work that much? Is your life that empty?

I may have a terrible attitude towards work but you have a terrible attitude towards life.

What do you meean why would you work that much? Do you mean overtime? Are you saying people who do overtime have no life?

I'm saying people in this country have a terrible attitude towards work. It seems to be a cultural thing. In my experience the Brits and Yanks have a better attitude.

06-07-2014 07:42AM

Did the 9 day fortnight and a 4.5 day week in a previous job, was great.

Qualitymark · 06-07-2014 07:50AM

The American attitude is fine except for one thing: their greed-based model has destroyed their economy, as their boss class outsources all work to China and India!

I've worked in places with a 28-hour week where there was very high productivity - because everyone working there *worked flat out* for every hour they were in work.

Productivity is the thing, and it's not linked to long hours.

The more people Ireland has working, the more consumers it has to buy our products. Now we just need to start supporting SMEs that make products locally and employ people locally, for that to work to its optimum.

Iwasfrozen · 06-07-2014 08:00AM

Seriously? Productivity is not linked to number of hours worked? That's just wrong.

House of Blaze · 06-07-2014 08:42AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Seriously? Productivity is not linked to number of hours worked? That's just wrong.

I don't know.

Back in the day, it was Henry Ford who established the eight hours a day five day working week.

In an interview published in World’s Work magazine in 1926, Ford explains why he switched his workers from a 6-day, 48-hour workweek to a 5-day, 40-hour workweek but still paid employees the same wages:

Leisure is an indispensable ingredient in a growing consumer market because working people need to have enough free time to find uses for consumer products, including automobiles.?’?Henry Ford

So the 8-hour work day, 5-day workweek wasn’t chosen as the way to work for scientific reasons; instead, it was partly driven by the goal of increasing consumption.

Ford said of the decision: "It is high time to rid ourselves of the notion that leisure for workmen is either 'lost time' or a class privilege."

At Ford's own admission, however, the five-day workweek was also instituted in order to increase productivity: Though workers' time on the job had decreased, they were expected to expend more effort while they were there.

Manufacturers all over the country, and the world, soon followed Ford's lead, and the Monday-to-Friday workweek became standard practice.

gctest50 · 06-07-2014 08:54AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Seriously? Productivity is not linked to number of hours worked? That's just wrong.

Its not exactly straightforward n simple that whole area

Another one back in the old days was they wanted to find out why workers in the UK wanted/needed tea breaks

They paid someone to suss it and they put it down the carb-based diet of the UK worker

A fry-up in the morning might have bypassed the need for the 10'oclock tea break, but they might die a bit sooner than expected

If they died before retiring - you lost out on all the valuable experience

Iwasfrozen · 06-07-2014 09:03AM

House of Blaze wrote: »

I don't know.

Back in the day, it was Henry Ford who established the eight hours a day five day working week.

In an interview published in World’s Work magazine in 1926, Ford explains why he switched his workers from a 6-day, 48-hour workweek to a 5-day, 40-hour workweek but still paid employees the same wages:
Leisure is an indispensable ingredient in a growing consumer market because working people need to have enough free time to find uses for consumer products, including automobiles.?’?Henry Ford
So the 8-hour work day, 5-day workweek wasn’t chosen as the way to work for scientific reasons; instead, it was partly driven by the goal of increasing consumption.

Ford said of the decision: "It is high time to rid ourselves of the notion that leisure for workmen is either 'lost time' or a class privilege."

That actually has nothing to do with productivity.

At Ford's own admission, however, the five-day workweek was also instituted in order to increase productivity: Though workers' time on the job had decreased, they were expected to expend more effort while they were there.

Total productivity = productivity per hour * # hours worked.

Henry Ford increased total productivity by increasing the former and decreasing the latter and he was able to increase the former with a new method of production.

Henry Ford isn't really applicable here because no one has suggested a proven way to increase individual worker productivity like Henry Ford had. All we've had on this thread is hand-waving about how longer hours over less days will make everyone happier and therefore more productive.

Which is highly subjective at best I know I for one would be very unproductive for the last two hours of a ten hour shift.

Manufacturers all over the country, and the world, soon followed Ford's lead, and the Monday-to-Friday workweek became standard practice.

It's the attitude that gets me. People who know they can't say no to overtime but bitch and moan about it when they think no one is listening. These people should be grateful to have a job.

People want to spend time with their families I get that but don't forget the company is providing for their families.

kiffer · 06-07-2014 09:05AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Seriously? Productivity is not linked to number of hours worked? That's just wrong.

Hours in the work place aren't the same thing as hours worked...
Many of the "in before the boss, out only after he leaves" people don't spend any more time working than the "in at 9, out at 5" people.

Four day week.

Comments