[HN Gopher] 4-day workweek trial
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       4-day workweek trial
        
       Author : paulpauper
       Score  : 84 points
       Date   : 2023-02-24 18:40 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (apnews.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
        
       | PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
       | I would like it if media labelling of this sort of thing always
       | talked about hours as well as days.
       | 
       | A shift from a 40hr, 5 day workweek to a 32hr, 4 day workweek is
       | utterly different than a 40/5 to 40/4 shift.
        
         | ghaff wrote:
         | I'm not sure it is. For a lot of people here, an ostensible
         | 8-hour workday and an ostensible-10 hour workday are probably
         | not a lot different especially if they're working
         | remote/hybrid.
        
       | jjice wrote:
       | I worked at a startup that did a four day work week. It was
       | awesome for the most part. The problem is, they would rely
       | heavily on the four day work week to be able to pay less in
       | salary, which is completely fair and very worth it to a lot of
       | people. The issue came in when they pretty much explicitly told
       | people they were expected to work on Fridays anyway, defeating
       | the benefit of the four day work week, but allowing them to keep
       | salaries lower and put "four day work week" on job listings.
       | 
       | They've threatened to get rid of it multiple times, claiming it's
       | still a trial period (over a year of having it), which is fine,
       | but they don't mention that it's a trial at all to new hires. I
       | know a lot of the company that would leave in a heart beat if
       | they got rid of it since it was a such a big part of why they
       | chose the job.
       | 
       | I left, got a more interesting job that paid a lot more and they
       | kept trying to get my to stay by referencing the unlimited PTO
       | they gave me but I didn't use (less than a week taken in two
       | years) and the four day work week that I hadn't taken advantage
       | of since I joined. Needless to say, I got a big raise and I work
       | the same amount that I did before.
       | 
       | An extra day off is absolutely additional compensation and is
       | worth a significant amount. It's just that in my (small sample
       | size and limited) experience, it's used as a crutch and there
       | were pretty much expectations that you work on that extra day,
       | negating the time off. I hope most other four day work week
       | companies don't do this and I just had a bad draw, but that's my
       | anecdotal experience.
        
         | tehf0x wrote:
         | Sounds like that was simply not actually a 4-day workweek
         | company! My experience working 4-day workweeks (Thursday
         | evening desktop goes off, corp phone gets left at desk) is
         | brilliant, especially mixed with full remote, I would likely
         | give up more than 20% of my salary to have this permanent 3-day
         | weekend! (Shh, don't tell HR)
        
           | jrockway wrote:
           | I would expect to see more than a 20% salary drop, sine the
           | cost of your healthcare and other benefits doesn't decrease
           | when you work one less day.
        
             | pastacacioepepe wrote:
             | What if productivity stays on a similar level?
        
               | t-writescode wrote:
               | To add, that _has_ been the results of studies like this.
        
           | jjice wrote:
           | Well it's good to hear that it's done properly else where! I
           | absolutely agree with the salary difference. I'm early enough
           | in my career (no spouse or children either) that I'm willing
           | to spend more time for more compensation, but I can see
           | myself valuing that extra day off way more in the future as
           | well.
        
         | renjimen wrote:
         | This sounds like a very bad implementation of 4-day work week
         | and is not representative of my 4-day work week arrangements at
         | my current and previous employers. It's a shame this comment is
         | top of the comments because 4-day work weeks are so gosh darn
         | amazing for employees (and probably employers too!)
        
           | jjice wrote:
           | I'm glad to hear other people haven't had the same experience
           | I have had, but I figured I'd share my experience.
        
         | lozenge wrote:
         | This might sound stupid, but why would you take less than a
         | week off in two years? Actually, why not take off something
         | more like eight weeks?
        
           | jjice wrote:
           | Not stupid at all, it sounds wacky. It goes hand in hand with
           | my four day work week really requiring Friday work. At this
           | place, it was frowned upon and straight up said during a
           | company all hands meeting or two that taking time off was
           | heavily discouraged at a time when the company needed as much
           | productivity as possible.
           | 
           | We offered unlimited PTO, which I've found to just be a way
           | to sound really great but in reality they can block PTO if
           | it's over a given amount and look down on you for taking that
           | PTO. It's never an explicit "you will not get a promotion",
           | but you'll get less opportunities, potential for promotion,
           | and such as you're not seen as a "team player" like they
           | bring up during the all hands. It's a crappy thing.
           | 
           | Should I have just taken my time off anyway? Maybe. Working
           | somewhere where you have an actual set amount of PTO has
           | never brought that negative stigma with it. I'm not surprised
           | if this isn't common for unlimited PTO companies, but I've
           | read that the reason companies offer it is because employees
           | take less time off on average.
        
       | graeme wrote:
       | > That was all while companies reported revenue largely stayed
       | the same during the trial period last year and even grew compared
       | with the same six months a year earlier, according to findings
       | released this week.
       | 
       | It's really too soon to tell the results. As long as you don't
       | shut down, most companies' revenue is affected more by what they
       | did in the medium term past than the recent past.
       | 
       | Are there any metrics of productivity that companies could track
       | which would be forward indicators rather than lagging indicators?
        
       | renjimen wrote:
       | It's so strange to me how opposed to 4 day work week most of the
       | comments here on HN are. It seems like the main grievance people
       | have is how businesses will be affected (despite the study
       | showing negligible or positive impact), while downplaying or
       | ignoring the huge quality of life improvements reported. A
       | business is just a lifeless entity with very little meaning,
       | while your time is the single most meaningful thing to you. Why
       | on earth wouldn't you be singing the positives of this study?
        
         | corbulo wrote:
         | Because you can find a study saying almost anything today. We
         | live in an information rich world. It causes people to favor
         | their anecdotes more.
         | 
         | My question is, are a lot of the 'benefits' simply because
         | people are contrasting it to a 5 day work week? Much of the
         | logic i'm seeing about 4 day work weeks could be applied to a 3
         | day work week once people get used to 4 days. I'm not seeing
         | anything unique about 4 days that makes it objectively
         | superior.
         | 
         | The main argument I see is less work=greater morale, so lets
         | work less!
        
           | renjimen wrote:
           | > Because you can find a study saying almost anything today.
           | 
           | That's a strawman argument for this study, which is not
           | anecdotal but a large scale study with a statistically
           | significant cohort.
           | 
           | > Much of the logic i'm seeing about 4 day work weeks could
           | be applied to a 3 day work week once people get used to 4
           | days.
           | 
           | How do you know until you try? What makes 5 days the optimal
           | number? It's just some historical compromise we settled on
           | with no scientific support, which is the aim of studies like
           | the one in the article.
           | 
           | > The main argument I see is less work=greater morale, so
           | lets work less!
           | 
           | The argument is less time at work = (greater morale +
           | similar/better business outcomes)
        
             | corbulo wrote:
             | >That's a strawman argument for this study, which is not
             | anecdotal but a large scale study with a statistically
             | significant cohort.
             | 
             | I never said it was anecdotal. Quite the opposite. Do you
             | know what p hacking is? The number of methods to distort
             | data without detection is too many to count. It's just a
             | fact of life if you're exposed to enough studies on nearly
             | any subject. Appeals to authority are just that.
             | 
             | >How do you know until you try? What makes 5 days the
             | optimal number? It's just some historical compromise we
             | settled on with no scientific support, which is the aim of
             | studies like the one in the article.
             | 
             | Why not 6? Or 8? Or 2? 1? Define scientific support in this
             | context. Going with a blanket approach to say 4 days a week
             | should be the norm for every industry is quite
             | unscientific. 4 day work weeks for any on call industry
             | would be absurd.
             | 
             | >The argument is less time at work = (greater morale +
             | similar/better business outcomes)
             | 
             | Then why aren't the businesses that already employ it
             | outcompeting fortune 500 companies? Why isn't there clear
             | evidence in the business themselves (being more competitive
             | in their fields)? Why is it only the studies that come up
             | with these results?
        
           | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
           | Less work leading to greater morale with negligible impact on
           | productivity highly suggests that the extra workday is
           | bullshit and should be done away with.
           | 
           | Maybe that's also true of three days? I'm all for trying it.
           | If it isn't, fine, that's a good argument not to do it.
        
             | corbulo wrote:
             | Or maybe there are other relationships at play?
             | 
             | Could it be not because its the 5th day, but because its
             | the 'final stretch' to the weekend and would therefore
             | apply to any final day of any workweek? In my experience,
             | i've seen the same behavior before holiday weekends. Should
             | workweeks be 3 days on this evidence? Should workweeks be
             | dictated by productivity on the final day? Why? Is 50%
             | productivity better than 0? Should the only important
             | consideration about a company be morale? Should morale be
             | directly tied to quarterly earnings? Why or why not?
        
               | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
               | Dude, the whole point of this thread is that we literally
               | tested this and reduction to a 4-day from a 5-day was
               | shown to have a negligible impact on productivity!
               | 
               | It's like you're arguing from some other reality, what
               | the actual fuck!?
        
       | debarshri wrote:
       | I know people who are happy working for 80h a week when work has
       | purpose. I know people who work 4 days a week and they hate their
       | job and are unhappy. I think hours don't matter, you should give
       | freedom to your employees and make sure they enjoy and find
       | purpose in work they do.
        
         | yamtaddle wrote:
         | > I think hours don't matter
         | 
         | So you think the article's mistaken that these workers are
         | happier with reduced hours?
        
           | junon wrote:
           | I think both things can be true.
        
             | yamtaddle wrote:
             | ... how? Unless happiness isn't a thing we're regarding as
             | mattering?
        
         | hbrn wrote:
         | Unfortunately there's not enough work in the world that has
         | purpose. Someone has to do the dishes.
        
           | stinkytaco wrote:
           | Doing the dishes has a purpose, but I still don't want to
           | spend 80 hours a week doing them, especially not at the rates
           | it would pay. Lots of meaningful work is also quite hard work
           | that has an upper limit even if it is purposeful.
        
         | PhasmaFelis wrote:
         | That doesn't mean hours don't matter, it just means that hours
         | aren't the only factor, which should be obvious.
         | 
         | I don't doubt that there are people who are happy working 80h
         | at something they love, but _most_ people are not like that.
        
       | bradreaves2 wrote:
       | I worry about publication bias with these studies.
       | 
       | If a researcher finds the counter-intuitive results that working
       | less leads to equivalent or better outcomes, it will be a
       | headline.
       | 
       | If a researcher finds that working less leads to getting less
       | work done, who would publish it? It won't get media headlines,
       | but even scientific journals will not accept the results.
        
         | danaris wrote:
         | > but even scientific journals will not accept the results.
         | 
         | What? What are you talking about? Why would a scientific
         | journal not accept it, if it's a properly done study that
         | _contradicts recent results_?
         | 
         | Furthermore, there are _plenty_ of  "water is wet" studies that
         | get published all the time--some of which are confirming things
         | we "know", but don't have solid scientific data on, others of
         | which are doing replications of existing studies. (I suppose
         | you probably wouldn't get much traction with studies that
         | rehash _very_ old, many-times-replicated results...)
         | 
         | I don't think scientific journals work the way you think they
         | do.
        
         | waboremo wrote:
         | You would have to quantify why less work being done is an
         | inherently bad thing to humanity.
        
           | corbulo wrote:
           | Can you define what that means without using socioeconomic-
           | class terms?
        
             | waboremo wrote:
             | What purpose does that serve when this is a socioeconomic
             | discussion?
        
           | HEmanZ wrote:
           | (Almost) No one would argue that working less for the same
           | exact output is worse than working more. That flies in the
           | face of the most basic ideas in economics.
           | 
           | The question is finding the balance, work that produces
           | productive things people value. And it turns out, free market
           | economic systems are pretty good at democratically converging
           | on answer.
        
           | snapcaster wrote:
           | What? No you don't. Each individual firm uses their own
           | metrics to decide these things. How would one even measure or
           | quantify a "bad thing to humanity"?
        
             | waboremo wrote:
             | Context is important. What's being discussed is general
             | work week trials, and the idea that nobody would publish a
             | paper that demonstrates working less = decline in work
             | done.
             | 
             | Individual firm metrics are useless to even bring up here.
        
         | ghaff wrote:
         | Furthermore, there absolutely are jobs where people will get
         | more work done in five days than in four. Lots of people would
         | _prefer_ to work four days but there is pretty obviously not a
         | universal rule that they 'll get as much work done.
        
         | moduspol wrote:
         | We're in the same boat now with in-office vs. work-from-home
         | studies.
         | 
         | Though I'd argue there's also a bias in that there are likely
         | very few researchers choosing to hypothesize the five day work
         | week is more productive, structuring the study to confirm that,
         | and executing the study.
         | 
         | The incentives are all in the other direction.
        
       | wahnfrieden wrote:
       | seems to somewhat validate graeber's bullshit jobs thesis
        
       | ghaff wrote:
       | What I see from people I know at different companies is that
       | Friday--and especially Friday afternoon--has sort of gotten
       | normalized as a sort of wind down into the weekend day. Minimal
       | number of meetings. People catch up on some reading. Stuff like
       | that. People aren't fully off in general but they're cleaning up
       | from the week, getting organized for the next week, and maybe
       | closing their computer early.
       | 
       | So, while most companies aren't on a 4-day workweek, a fair
       | number have at least some percentage of employees who are on sort
       | of an informal 4+ schedule.
        
         | timmg wrote:
         | > What I see from people I know at different companies is that
         | Friday--and especially Friday afternoon--has sort of gotten
         | normalized as a sort of wind down into the weekend day.
         | 
         | The question is, if you had a 4-day work-week, would
         | _Thursdays_ then become normalized as the day people wind down?
        
           | nawgz wrote:
           | Congrats, you have mastered applying the slippery slope
           | fallacy like a true capitalist. I will now offer you an
           | executive position, where you will mostly schmooz and travel,
           | please continue to question the worker's motivations and
           | incentives relentlessly during your time here.
        
             | senko wrote:
             | That is not a slippery slope fallacy. It would be a fallacy
             | if gp then concluded that 4-day workweek would end up in
             | 0-day workweek.
             | 
             | It is entirely reasonable to expect people might be more
             | lax on the last day of the week, defeating the argument
             | that we might as well have Friday's off because noone's
             | working hard anyway.
        
               | toomuchtodo wrote:
               | The crux of it is that we've gotten so much more
               | productive in the last four decades and most of the gains
               | (at least in the US) are going to the wealthiest who own
               | the vast majority of securities.
               | 
               | Could the 3 day week be next? Maybe! Let's try the 4 day
               | work day first so labor can get some of those gains by
               | way of work life balance. Otherwise, this power balance
               | shift will occur naturally as the developed world ages
               | and the share of productive workers shrinks year after
               | year (slowly some places, faster others).
               | 
               | https://www.statista.com/chart/23410/inequality-in-
               | productiv...
               | 
               | https://www.statista.com/chart/18458/working-age-
               | population-...
               | 
               | https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-
               | of-...
        
           | fpoling wrote:
           | Wednesday off from that perspective may be more productive.
           | It is easier to focus on work for 2 days than for 4.
        
           | johnchristopher wrote:
           | N=1 but that's not my case. Now, not everyone on my team has
           | 4-day workweek.
        
           | ghaff wrote:
           | I don't really think so other than maybe some people would
           | take off early for their 3-day weekend.
        
         | yamtaddle wrote:
         | Monday off makes a lot of sense, as "observed" holidays (ones
         | that fall on a weekend but are given a by-convention weekday
         | off, by some businesses and, usually, schools) are often
         | Mondays.
        
           | johnchristopher wrote:
           | > Monday off makes a lot of sense, as "observed" holidays
           | (ones that fall on a weekend but are given a by-convention
           | weekday off, by some businesses and, usually, schools) are
           | often Mondays.
           | 
           | And this is why this year I chose Friday as my day off.
           | 
           | edit: @yamtaddle: to be clear, I am on a 4-day workweek and I
           | am paid for 4 days. I have to be really disciplined in
           | shutting off work computer on Thursday (still working on
           | that). No children for the moment, but it's clear to me I
           | would choose a Monday off if that was the case.
           | 
           | Totally agree for more time off for parents and children.
        
             | yamtaddle wrote:
             | Heh--I mean, a lot of workplaces don't give those observed
             | days off, but schools do, so it'd be convenient for parents
             | if they were also off on those days, and it might make it
             | an easier sell to businesses.
             | 
             | [EDIT] But I do get your point :-)
        
         | readonthegoapp wrote:
         | i created this propaganda site to try to help formalize
         | informal fridays -- with the ultimate goal of making them go
         | away completely -- i.e. a 4-day work week:
         | 
         | https://nomeetingsfriday.com/
        
           | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
           | Be an ally:D Thank you for this chuckle. I personally approve
           | of this propaganda effort.
        
         | HEmanZ wrote:
         | Even 10 years ago, while working at an online marketing agency,
         | we started "happy hour" every Friday around 1pm. Many people
         | unofficially left the office at noon. This was just considered
         | "casual fridays" which sort of translated to "work if you
         | want".
         | 
         | Now I work for a company that doesn't have official 4 day weeks
         | but it's well known you can tell your manager you won't be
         | working most fridays and so long as your productivity is
         | reasonable, managers are happy to oblige. So it's "4 day
         | workweek if you want it"
         | 
         | I think ya, a lot more people work 4 days per week than any
         | data collection would suggest
        
           | reidjs wrote:
           | I work at a full remote company in a similar situation. On
           | the record, yes we work Friday, but it's silently accepted
           | you don't make sweeeping changes to our products and organize
           | intense meetings on Friday. And if you take a half day,
           | nobody will judge you as long as you're Not blocking anything
           | important
        
         | kiernanmcgowan wrote:
         | One thing that I've experienced is making Friday a "non
         | essential work" work day. Its a day to do small tasks that have
         | piled up over the week, do some clean up, and otherwise try and
         | figure out what the next week looks like.
         | 
         | What made this really work IMO is that if someone needed to
         | sync on something or get a context download Fridays became the
         | day to do it because no one would have an excuse to not do some
         | knowledge sharing. Toss in grabbing lunch and coffee with other
         | coworkers and it ends up being a great way to build company
         | cohesion and foster cross-team/org relationships.
         | 
         | And, if you decide to leave after lunch to play tennis no one
         | is going to give you the side eye.
        
         | rubicon33 wrote:
         | IMO, there's a big difference between 4+ and a formal 4 day
         | policy.
         | 
         | In a formal 4 day policy I can be fully offline, fully
         | disconnected, free from guilt or feeling bad about not actually
         | working.
         | 
         | So while it might sound like 4+ and 4 are close, I don't
         | personally think they're all that close. I am the type of
         | person though who generally works through Friday solidly,
         | because I'm expected to, even though other people take that
         | time much more lax.
        
           | ghaff wrote:
           | There is clearly a difference. But it's also the case that
           | informal "wind-down Fridays" at many companies is a much
           | lower bar than a formal 4-day workweek but both companies and
           | people differ.
        
       | ljp_206 wrote:
       | I'm curious if anybody knows of any 'practical guides' to the
       | four day work week, or toolsets that can help traditional
       | organizations make four day work week a reality. We hear about
       | the 4DWW so often now, but I'd love to actually see how it's done
       | - to be able to bring some suggestions to leadership at my
       | company on how we could actually do that without doing a top-down
       | audit of the company. Of course lots of things are going to be
       | unique per org, but are there any "If you do this, do this
       | instead" that can make the transition easier, or indeed even a
       | feasible thing to broach with coworkers and executives?
        
       | alldayeveryday wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | dalmo3 wrote:
       | My cynical view is that those people were happier because they
       | were in a privileged position while the rest of society still
       | functioned regular hours.
       | 
       | Make 4dww universal then ask them again after every service they
       | use start taking 20% longer, being 20% more expensive, their
       | favourite restaurants closing down from the lack of staff, longer
       | lines everywhere from the increased demand for leisure and
       | reduced supply.
       | 
       | It could work but it's far from obvious to me.
        
         | tehf0x wrote:
         | Dude if my restaurant choice being reduced is the cost of
         | everyone having a nicer life I think we've already reached a
         | pretty clear conclusion.
        
           | dalmo3 wrote:
           | > if my restaurant choice being reduced is the cost of
           | everyone having a nicer life
           | 
           | Your words, not mine.
        
         | baal80spam wrote:
         | It's not a cynical view, it's a realistic one. People
         | (obviously) don't want to see negatives of a shorter work week.
        
         | drewcoo wrote:
         | The article said that productivity increased. How did this "20%
         | tax" appear?
         | 
         | Or are you saying that shorter work weeks will be an excuse to
         | price gouge? That's valid. Any change seems to be an excuse to
         | price gouge.
        
       | f1yght wrote:
       | I'd be interested in a study that looked at 5x6 or something
       | similar. Sure there's 1 less day to the weekend but those shorter
       | work days allow you to do more after work.
        
         | benji-york wrote:
         | I don't have a study, but an anecdote: for the last 18 months
         | or so, I've worked 32 hours a week. Originally, I thought I
         | would work 4x8, but as time went on, I really enjoy working 5
         | or 6 or 7 hours a day, depending on my desire and the work
         | needing to be done.
         | 
         | It's really nice to be able to not set an alarm and just wake
         | up and work whenever you're ready or be able to take an
         | afternoon off and take the kids to the park if you feel like
         | it.
        
         | ghaff wrote:
         | That sounds like a recipe for working more hours and severely
         | curtailing being able to do activities with other people.
         | 
         | My main objection to the 4-day workweek is it optimizes for
         | people who want a shorter workweek with a possible tradeoff of
         | curtailing the ability to take big chunks of time.
        
           | aetherson wrote:
           | Working a 30 hour workweek constitutes "a recipe for working
           | more hours and severely curtailing being able to do
           | activities with other people"?
        
             | [deleted]
        
             | ghaff wrote:
             | Yes. Because people end up working extra hours on the days
             | they're working, especially if they have a commute, and
             | they just have the overhead of getting settled in the now
             | 6-day workday. Furthermore, weekends are the time a lot of
             | people get together for activities.
        
               | vineyardmike wrote:
               | > in the now 6-day workday
               | 
               | I think its 6 hours for 5 days a day not 5 hours for 6
               | days a week. I agree with your point that when people do
               | work on a day its easy coerces them work longer hours
               | that day.
        
               | ScoobleDoodle wrote:
               | I read it as 5 workdays for 6 hours each. I think this is
               | what they meant.
               | 
               | It appears you read it as 6 workdays for 5 hours each.
        
               | ghaff wrote:
               | I think you are correct. I was thrown off by the one less
               | weekend day but I think that was relative to a 4-day work
               | week--not the status quo. I'd still rather than the 4-day
               | week and/or just more vacation days in general.
        
               | danaris wrote:
               | That contradicts f1yght's note that "there's 1 day less
               | to the weekend".
               | 
               | It's possible _they 're_ misunderstanding how 5x6 is
               | intended to work, but they _are_ the ones who introduced
               | it to the thread.
        
               | aetherson wrote:
               | I think they were contrasting the number of days in the
               | weekend to the other possible reduced hours proposal: 4
               | days, 8 hours (so 3 day weekends), and suggesting 5 days,
               | 6 hours (2 day weekends, one less than the alternative).
        
         | rootusrootus wrote:
         | That sounds awful. I'd rather have 3x10.
        
           | f1yght wrote:
           | Different priorities for different people, I don't mind doing
           | a few hours but really value having time to exercise, cook,
           | and have general free time. I don't think 10 hour days would
           | leave me with much time to do the things I want every day.
        
             | rootusrootus wrote:
             | I agree, everyone will have different priorities. A ten
             | hour day still leaves me around six hours of awake time, so
             | I could fit everything else I wanted into that time and
             | then enjoy the heck out of the four completely open days I
             | had left.
        
       | hackernewds wrote:
       | Unfortunately the goal for most companies in a capitalist
       | structure is not "employee happiness". It's "revenue growth" or
       | "shareholder returns".
       | 
       | It's romantic to think they coexist, but in a practical sense
       | they don't intersect at the optimal solution
        
         | whiplash451 wrote:
         | True. But there are infinite ways of working out this tradeoff.
         | Some companies are examples while some really aren't.
         | 
         | If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a
         | terrible warning.
        
         | vineyardmike wrote:
         | Yea, thats why proving that a 4 day week doesn't impact
         | "revenue growth" is important. It removes an argument companies
         | can have against legislature to push it, or employee demands.
         | 
         | Even something simple like google giving out free food
         | increased employee happiness which translated to revenue growth
         | from better workers. So it's not obvious that a 4 day week
         | can't work, and at some companies a 4 day week could probably.
        
       | atleastoptimal wrote:
       | All this 4 day workweek hullabaloo really cements the entitlement
       | of modern capitalist grievance discourse. Of course this won't
       | affect restaurant workers, nurses, retail employees,
       | deliverypeople, sanitation workers, migrant farmers, or any blue
       | collar work that can just shut off 3 days a week and not cause
       | any issues. Before you decide whether you deserve a 4 day work
       | week, think about whether the people who wait on you daily
       | deserve a 6 day work week.
        
         | yamtaddle wrote:
         | This is what shifts were invented for. It has nothing to do
         | with being able to shut something off--factories run 24/7
         | without working anyone 168 hours a week.
        
         | drewcoo wrote:
         | Sure. I've known nurses that worked 3-day weeks and nurses that
         | worked one week on and one week off.
         | 
         | I don't feel they're especially "entitled."
         | 
         | The argument that one group should suffer because other groups
         | do is a strange one to me. I don't see software engineers
         | asking that we guarantee that other professions work worse
         | hours than we do.
        
         | eat wrote:
         | It seems silly to make this argument specifically regarding
         | time when we've structured our society in such a way that
         | certain people's time and labor is more valuable than other
         | peoples'. Why not apply this logic to say restaurant workers,
         | nurses, retail employees etc. deserve to make as much money as
         | software engineers?
         | 
         | Not that I'd disagree with that. Personally, I think it's
         | absurd that someone writing JavaScript for an advertising
         | company for a few hours a day should make more money than a
         | nurse.
        
           | pc86 wrote:
           | Nurses make a lot of money, especially the more specialized
           | and senior ones. CRNAs make more than most software
           | developers. Just about any NP will make over $100k/yr. It's
           | kind of weird to group them together with the retail employee
           | making $9/hr folding shirts or the server making $3.75/hr
           | plus tips at some dive in the middle of nowhere.
           | 
           | We do this weird thing in the US where you are tied so
           | intrinsically to what you do for a living that it's become
           | taboo to say the objectively true (and I would argue, very
           | obvious) thing that some jobs are worth more than others.
           | It's not a bad thing that one person gets paid $200k/yr to
           | type JS into a computer and someone else gets paid $9/hr to
           | fold clothes at Boscov's. It's because anyone can walk in off
           | the street and start folding clothes with no training. That
           | isn't making any comment on the people behind those jobs,
           | just the jobs themselves.
        
         | ScoobleDoodle wrote:
         | How about they hire more people at the new "full time" and it
         | applies to everyone. Happier employees and happier customers.
        
       | parpfish wrote:
       | I think that overall these are good numbers, but I have to push
       | back on the claims about the 4-day workweek improving employee
       | retention. I'd guess that the benefit is due to the fact that the
       | competing offers would force you to go back to 5-day-weeks.
       | 
       | i.e., in a world where _everybody_ had 4-day work weeks, we
       | wouldn 't necessarily see less job-hopping.
        
       | nunez wrote:
       | Between this and the major push to work from home, it's almost as
       | if people in tech and similar industries are willingly sprinting
       | into replaceability and driving salaries down.
       | 
       | While remote work and four-day work weeks are awesome, these will
       | absolutely incentivize leaders of big companies to find cheaper
       | labor in other countries that are plenty fine with working a full
       | five-day work week. This is great for lifting a lot of people and
       | countries out of poverty but doesn't help the family of four
       | paying down a huge mortgage.
       | 
       | Some leaders will (smartly) realize that it makes no sense to pay
       | employees less just because they are available remotely for fewer
       | hours of the week, but big companies run everything and crush
       | views like this eventually.
       | 
       | Interestingly, I think this will nullify the remote work movement
       | while permanently decreasing average compensation.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-02-24 23:01 UTC)