Four day week.

kiffer wrote: »

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.

So what do they do twiddle their thumbs til the boss arrives?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So what do they do twiddle their thumbs til the boss arrives?

Obviously... and chat, and send personal emails.
They might do some work, but then later doss more...
Talking about office workers here.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

No, people provide for their families by selling their time/effort/work to the company.
No one is doing any favours here.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That actually has nothing to do with productivity.

It's relevant as it builds to the point regarding productivity though I would say.

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.

I would dispute that, as he already had new methods of production in place which were factored in to the equation by 1926 when the work week was reduced.

What he was looking at was the 'law diminishing returns' that came about as a result of having his workers in for 6 days a week, and after experimentation, and in line with his belief in welfare capitalism, decided that fewer working hours would serve a twofold purpose. Increasing productivity and additionally creating larger markets for his company while improving the living conditions of his workers.

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.

True, by being accustomed to a shorter work day in general, the extra couple of hours per day would take a period of acclimatisation, you would get used to it though.

Also it's a much less daunting prospect for office workers than for manual workers I would argue, and they are much more frequently expected to do longer shifts of more physically demanding work.

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.

Of course people should be grateful of a job, but that doesn't mean nobody should consider improving things as a result.

Ford took some counter intuitive steps such as paying his workers a minimum wage that was double that of his competitors and cutting working hours, both seen at the time as bizzarre choices, but still increased the productivity and happiness of workers by being progressive enough to consider that what was conventional at the time may not have been the way of doing things.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You think employing someone isn't "doing them a favor"? Providing them with the means to support themselves and their families?

Again that's the sort of attitude that seems to dominate in this country. It's a mindset thing really.

It's not doing them a favour.
anymore than the worker is doing the company a favour.

What do you think a favour is?

The_B_Man wrote: »

I've also seen a 9 day fortnight where you work an extra hour over the course of 2 weeks and then u get every second Friday off.

That would give you plenty of time to build and extension onto your extension.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

Yikes, we'd be each others worst nightmare. I have detested the five day working week since I left school (27 years ago) and have had time of working five days, with optional overtime (in a factory in Netherlands, which was seasonal, so it was a case of make hay while the sun shines) and times of working five days with no overtime (office admin) and I've also had times of working all the variations: five, four, three, two and one day weeks.

The reason for the three and two day week was down to full time hours being cut due to the recession, the one day week was following redundancy and it was better than no days.

The best was three days, but four days was pretty great too. I had time to live my life in the slow lane as is my preference: time to cook healthy food, swim when the swimming pool wasn't packed, time to write (which is something I like, but also need, to do), time to shop around for different foods at different shops rather than needing to get everything in one big shop due to time restraints and time to spend doing things I like to do to make me feel life is worth living (something that I flit in and out of feeling) rather than a fast moving conveyor belt with little time for much more than work, sleep, travel to and from work, prepare food and clean clothes for work and then getting back to work again.

The improvement to my quality of life was far greater than the difference between the hours worked when comparing five days to four days. I've discovered that I'd much rather be cash poor/time rich than the other way round. Cutting my cloth to suit would definitely be my motto; when that's possible, which I understand it isn't always, some jobs demand/expect/need longer hours worked. I try to avoid those type of jobs/employers.

My sister told me a story she'd been told when she spent some time in Papua New Guinea. I can't tell it in the kind of detail my sister told me but the general gist was: An Australian man had spent time there studying the Papa New Guinean's work practices and showed them ways to get more productivity for their time spent working. Seemingly they worked half the day only. After he had helped them implement these new increased-productivity plans he returned to Australia with a view of coming back again to see how they were getting on and noticed they were working even fewer hours per day. After asking them what had happened, why weren't they using the new system they told him they were, but now they were managing to keep life and limb together by doing the same amount of work in half the time and were spending their new-found extra free time enjoying and living their lives instead of staying at work to increase their wealth. It won't be to everyone's taste, some people prefer wealth to free time, but some of us, like me and those Papua New Guineans, would prefer free time to the accumulation of wealth.

That's just me, I despise spending the majority of my life in the same building, sitting at the same desk, doing the same thing day in day out. I work to live, as the saying goes, rather than live to work.

Fizzlesque wrote: »

That's just me, I despise spending the majority of my life in the same building, sitting at the same desk, doing the same thing day in day out. I work to live, as the saying goes, rather than live to work.

Great post!

I think this is what it really boils down to. It's basically two different ideological viewpoints people have about what life means to them / how they wish to spend their life.

Employers and other go-getter types are more inclined toward advancing toward and accumulating what they feel is an appropriately valuable resource in the form of wealth and social standing.

This usually comes hand in hand with an strong work ethic and desire to simply work hard and prosper the more for it, which is fine of course, I don't think anyone would take issue with that.

The other side of the spectrum then are those for whom life, or at least time, is the more valuable resource.

Most who fit into this bracket would probably be happy with a modest income, enough to provide a measure of comfort at least, and to be able to trade in the extra financial rewards attainable through working more for more time to do with as they please.

I wouldn't say that they necessarily want to 'work less' or 'do less' but they just want more of the remainder, and since a week is a fixed amount of time it's a zero sum proposition. What you gain in one, you must by definition lose of the other as regards time.

Of course some really are just lazy but that's not all there is to it!

House of Blaze wrote: »

.... I think this is what it really boils down to. It's basically two different ideological viewpoints people have about what life means to them / how they wish to spend their life.

Employers and other go-getter types are more inclined toward advancing toward and accumulating what they feel is an appropriately valuable resource in the form of wealth and social standing.

This usually comes hand in hand with an strong work ethic and desire to simply work hard and prosper the more for it, which is fine of course, I don't think anyone would take issue with that.

The other side of the spectrum then are those for whom life, or at least time, is the more valuable resource.

Most who fit into this bracket would probably be happy with a modest income, enough to provide a measure of comfort at least, and to be able to trade in the extra financial rewards attainable through working more for more time to do with as they please.

byrned17 wrote: »

^ This. I recently read an article by a hospice worker and the number 1 deathbed regret was having worked too much.

Of course it is down to personal philosophy. I am definitely a 'work to live' rather than a 'live to work' person. Some people absolutely love their jobs which is great for them but I am definitely not one of those people.

.............

Having more time really does improve your quality of life if you have the option.

Absolutely; horses for courses.

Some people know what they want to do with their lives quite early on, and have a career goal that drives them forward. Some people, like me, don't have a clue what they want to do when they leave school and drift in and out of jobs that pay a wage but mean nothing to them beyond providing them with a way to eat and to pay for somewhere to live. In my early twenties I spent a few years living in the Netherlands and work was incredibly tedious (factory jobs, cleaning jobs) but I was partying a lot at the weekends and traveling a bit, so work didn't need to be more than a way to get money to eat, house myself and party the weekends away or save to do a small amount of traveling. As my life trundled along and brought me to middle age (if I live to be 90, that is -which is unlikely) and back to live in Ireland, I found I needed to do more than party and I didn't have the same desire to travel as I'd once had. I didn't go down the route of marriage and having a family, so I only have myself to consider when deciding how much money I can manage to live on - and still had no idea what to do in terms of having a career, so work became just a way to eat and to pay for somewhere to live.

I've always been a bit of soul searcher, trying to find meaning for my life, which is grand, but doesn't help when cycling to a job, that is fine but boring, for the thousandth time knowing I'll be doing the same thing for the foreseeable future if I don't keep looking for meaning outside of work.

Redundancy was a blessing for me - even though I loved my job (not so much the work, which was run of the mill secretarial work, but the people, the location and the loveliest boss I've ever had) because it forced me out of a rut. In the two years since being made redundant I've had a series of temporary contracts and this suits me well. I've finally got my act together and decided to write. I've always dabbled but never gave it 100%. I still have to take temporary contracts (six months, two months, whatever is on offer) and save enough to keep me going during the lean times, but at last I've found (or, more accurately, accepted) that writing is what makes me feel alive and who knows, one day I might even make enough money to be able to spend less time cycling to boring office jobs and more time enjoying early morning spins on my bike while dreaming up new plots and characters.

As I said at the start of this post, horses for courses, and finally I feel like I've ventured onto the right track.

I would definitely prefer 4daysx10hours, even with college.

One of the things I hate the most about work is that it's 5 days, and the weekend is over before you know it.
You don't really feel like you have more free time in the evenings working 2 hours less per day anyway.
And you would have a full day extra free, means you can do more during the day.

Yes, this is definitely something people should have the option for!

I used to work in an industry where the minimum hours were 10 per day and often many put in 12 hour days. When the recession hit, 12 hour days seemed to become the norm (If you were lucky enough to still have a job).

I have changed career and its your standard 8 hours a day now thankfully, hopefully I`ll be able to enjoy some of the youth I have left :pac:

What planet are ye people on? I work the hours needed to get the job done. It's Sunday but I drove three hours so I can be on site tomorrow first thing.