What Happened When Microsoft Tried A Four-Day Work Week (mspoweruser.com) 253
MS Power User reports on the results of a 2,300-employee experiment by Microsoft with a four-day work week:
In August this year, Microsoft Japan ran an experiment where for one month they had a 3 day weekend, taking Friday off. This was paid leave and did not impact the worker's usual vacation allocation.
Some results were predictable. Workers were happier and took 25.4 percent fewer days off during the month. There were also savings from spending less time at work. 23.1 percent less electricity was used and 58.7 percent fewer pages were printed. More importantly from a bottom-line standpoint, however, productivity went up 39.9%, as fewer and shorter meetings were held, often virtually rather than in person.
Some results were predictable. Workers were happier and took 25.4 percent fewer days off during the month. There were also savings from spending less time at work. 23.1 percent less electricity was used and 58.7 percent fewer pages were printed. More importantly from a bottom-line standpoint, however, productivity went up 39.9%, as fewer and shorter meetings were held, often virtually rather than in person.
Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
It even works in Japan, the country where some workers even die at their desks because they don't even go home anymore, not wanting to look like a slacker?
Holy hell...
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I for one welcome our new four-day-week overlords!
Seriously though, this is what was expected back in the 60s as computers and automation made their first inroads on the workplace. It seemed like a natural result of increasing productivity. Funny how all those benefits went to the capitalists on top [epi.org] and the workers got none of the spoils. Maybe that has something to do with the global rise of anti-establishment populism?
What did people expect to happen? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone lives in a capital, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.grammarly.com/blog... [grammarly.com]
I though he was referring to the politicians in a Capitol. I hereby retract my correction and stand corrected in the interest of sanity
Re: What did people expect to happen? (Score:5, Funny)
So you are apologizing? Are you Canadian? If not, you're on the right path!
That being said, I apologize for correcting your correction.
Re: What did people expect to happen? (Score:4, Funny)
Also, I'm not Canadian but considering the possibility of moving myself and my capital there, but not to their capital or Capitol.
Re:What did people expect to happen? (Score:5, Interesting)
What did people expect to happen? The fact it's called Capitalism and not Labourism should have been everyones first clue...
They believed that future productivity enhancements would increase workers' wages, just like it did from 1950-1980. The problem is it stopped happening for a variety of reasons.
In my opinion the biggest reason is that labor productivity stopped rising at around 1980 because of workers becoming better. It kept increasing instead because machinery became better. At around 1950 the US workforce starting become far better educated. We went from just under 5% of the population having college degrees to over 33% today. This led to individual workers being intrinsically more valuable to employers, so their pay kept increasing.
After about 30 years we started to see diminishing returns to educating most of our population. Everyone who could derive value from a college education already had them*. Productivity kept going up, however, because the technology revolution kept marching along. In this case the people paying for machinery reaped nearly all of the benefits which is why the value of capital went way up and the value of labor stayed constant.
This is only my theory though; I've done no peer reviewed research to prove it.
(* Women entering the workforce was still helping the economy grow significantly, but that mostly led to household income going up and not individual salaries)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that has something to do with the global rise of anti-establishment populism?
Most anti-establishment populism has come from the right and is not anti-capitalist.
Re: Say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Right" & "left" are meaningless and serve only to confuse and stultify public discourse.
_All_ populism is inherently anti-capitalist. Capitalism, as used by Marx and all serious writers for generations, does _not_ mean "fwee murkets". It means domination of the State and of society by the owners of capital.
Re: Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump is a populist and a capitalist. He favours smaller government in order to put more power in the hands of the owners of capital, people like himself.
Same thing in the UK at the moment with Brexit. The owners of capital have convinced people that their enemies are the immigrants and that the wealthy are somehow looking out for them, even as they try their best to take away the very rights and benefits that protect ordinary citizens from people like them.
Populism can be and often is pro-capitalist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not really true either. Capitalism means allocation of capital by a decentralized system (lots of capital owners) who are rewarded with more capital if they're successful. "Private ownership" basically.
Marx (and others) pointed out that if you leave that system alone it tends to concentrate capital in the hands of a few, which pushes a capitalist system towards something that looks more centrally planned. Most countries solve this problem with taxes and anti-monopoly laws.
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly what is happening in modern capitalism. There's one company that makes every eyeglass brand you've ever heard of, and most markets are quite similar, presenting the illusion of choice and a free market, but without real competition or oversight. Only strong regulations can prevent capitalism from devolving into hereditary aristocracy, but the capitalists have captured the regulators. Thanks to democracy, we can take them back, but it will take concerted effort, more than just voting, it will
Re: (Score:2)
Semantics. Leftist by whose standards? Besides, both the Demoncrats and Repuke-licans have a taste for authoritarianism depending on the issue. As of late, the Demoncrats have been more-strident in that realm, but rest assured that if the terrorists are involved that the Repukes will do what they can to expand the Surveillance State (among other things).
Re: Say what? (Score:2)
They both seem to be on the surveillance state gravytrain. The minute they realize they could be a tool to watch those that represent every idea that they are against, it becomes a favorite. It doesnâ(TM)t matter whoâ(TM)s side. Unless your side is very much anti-surveillance as a founding principleâ¦.
From what I have seen lately, the demons are hell bent on shredding the 1st and 2nd amendment, the rethugs are hell bent on shredding the 4th and 6th. Both seem to have no issue shredding
Re: Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, maybe. If you regard capitalism as some sort of super-transnational-state which you've pledged allegiance to. Or that dealing with fascists is perfectly acceptable if it's "for capitalism".
But capitalism can be just as nationalistic as anything else, and trade-wars can be good at the moral level. I certainly would applaud the complete economic destruction of China if it led to a revolution there which overthrew the current dictatorship. Maybe you think cheap underpants are more important than slave labour and capital punishment for speaking against the government. I mean, yeah, they are very cheap underpants, but it seems a poor tradeoff even if the slaves are faceless foreigners.
In any case, there's no reason to believe that unrestricted international capitalism is something that anyone should want.
Re: Say what? (Score:2)
Ya know there are plenty of very poor places in Africa that would love to make some cheap underpants. We keep talking about how impoverished they are. We know that starvation, famine, and poor living conditions breed warlords and civil war.
We could solve a couple trade imbalances and reduce war torn violence by having low tech items made on that continent. There are enough countries that they would all want in on some of the action. Especially if playing nice with each other was a necessary part of the proc
Re: Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Name a socialist country in Africa. All the poorest ones are extremely capitalist. The reasons they are poor are one or more of the following:
No one trusts anyone with money because the legal system does not work, and you cannot enforce the law because of corruption - especially if the police are illiterate and the justice department has no money
Also, in many cases, government won't work because years of colonialism convinced people that "the government" is someone else, and obeying the law is selling out to the colonial masters.
In some cases, you may recognize the same issues in America.
Re: Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The USA, for all it's good points, is moving in the opposite direction. People here are falling out of the middle class and winding up in homeless camps. Something like 50% of our population is just one transmission failure or major medical problem away from homelessness.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"we have embraced perverted versions of Socialism"
Socialist organization where maintaining roads, schools, and the military is the shared responsibility of a group of people is causing the middle class to lose? That's where the majority of our tax dollars go.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to estimated 45 MILLION PEOPLE they staved to death along that path and the unending string of victims of since of horrors like involuntary organ harvesting.
It's always a favourable game to blame everything that happens under a government to that government, but that is a fallacy. The Chinese government, especially with the Great Leap Forward, made some major blunders. But large famines had been frequent occurrences throughout Chinese history - there e.g. was a large famine [wikipedia.org] in the late 19th century that killed about 10% of the population in the affected provinces, and further famines, and further significant famines in the late 1920s and the 1940s.
Moreover, a
The Great Leap forward and Famine were Mao's (Score:5, Informative)
Nonsense.
Mao was a brutal dictator who destroyed China. Arrogance, incompetence, a total disrespect for the truth, and of the people in the country side is what caused the great famine. No natural process.
Then, finally Mao died. And Deng Xiaoping opened up the economy and society. The race horse was allowed to run, and it did.
And finally we have Xi. Not nearly as nasty as Mao, but would like to be as controlling. The future will tell whether we need to wait until Xi dies.
That is the trouble with dictatorships. No way to get rid of bad dictators.
Incidentally, it is Mao's picture that hangs on walls, not Deng's. Mao was great, not for the people of China, but for the communist party which all the elite belong. Incidentally, most of Stalin's pictures have been removed.
Re: Say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you economically destroy China somehow (in practice I think MAD is much more likely) the people there won't rise up against their government, they will blame you.
What does make people demand more democracy and freedom is access to education and information, both of which come with wealth. For the moment the new middle class are just happy to have come so far so quickly. My wife lived in a stone house with no windows when she was a child, now her family has a brand new 5 story McMansion and so do many others in the town.
Give it a decade or two and they will want more, they will see that other countries have more and that their government isn't all good. I think the government actually understands that and is working towards some kind of endgame that doesn't involve them with nooses round their necks, but it's hard to imagine what it actually is.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the government actually understands that and is working towards some kind of endgame that doesn't involve them with nooses round their necks, but it's hard to imagine what it actually is.
It's not at all hard to imagine what it actually will be. It's hard to imagine what fancy name and bright coat of paint it will have, but we know it will be exactly what it has been for 3000 years: a monarchy, complete with an Emperor with absolute power. The names change but game is always the same. Chinese people are traditionalists, and expect it.
Re: (Score:2)
Trade wars are anti capitalist,
Its one of the only things Trump has done that I actually disagree with.
Free trade benefits those that engage in it. Full stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Free trade benefits those that engage in it. Full stop.
That seems to indicate that the only people who take part in free trade are governments, business owners and shareholders. Therefore, we need more worker/shareholders. Perhaps that is why Germany is doing so well.
Re: Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep - except for the way it guts economies, environmental protections, and worker protections and benefits in the more established countries as everyone engages in an economic race to the bottom. I'm no Trump fan, but free trade has been a handout to the mega-corporations at everyone else's expense from the beginning.
China's done great with Free Trade - the huge cash-flow from wealthy nations politically held at arm's length has been allowing them to fast-track an industrial revolution. South America... not so much - they've become in many ways vassal states to the interests of international corporations that have exploited them ruthlessly (the fact that those corporate interests have often been supported by foreign militaries hasn't hurt either. Does the phrase Banana Republic ring any bells?)
The U.S.? We benefit in the short-term from cheaper goods either way. In the long term though, we've lost much of our industrial base, wages have stagnated for almost 50 years, and we get a constant refrain of "lower our taxes/no unions/everyone gets pay cuts, or else we'll outsource" from the corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
Free trade on a level playing field is a great benefit. It's the level playing field part that is critical.
The EU us a good example. Free trade has been a huge benefit to member states, but it came with rules to ensure a level playing field between all of them.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Maybe"? Did you seriously just use that word? :D
I think it wouldn't be half as bad if they didn't also foster this need in entertainment and the media to always have the newest gadgets. Let's be frank here, most of us would be plenty affluent if it wasn't for this need to replace our gadgets every two years at the latest.
It's the fact that they work us to death AND try to drain our pockets dry at the same time that gets us.
I mean this other article about porch thiefs is a good example. A lot of them are not poor. I'd go as far as saying the poor more often than not don't stoop that low. And I believe that's due to the poor kinda having settled into their lot in life whereas lower middle class gets all these ideas about what constitutes a non-failure and that usually entails having a new car, a big house and the latest electronics.
I mean take a few examples from the 90s: The Cosby Show, I shit you not, tried to tell you that an obstetrician and a very successful lawyer could have 5 kids and be there enough for each single one. The irony is their kids had a tendency to do really dumb shit and everyone chalked it up to kids being kids when in fact it was pointing at the underyling problem: Their parents didn't have enough time and attention for them by a LONG shot.
Similarly Home Improvement. Can you imagine how much money this man must have spent through the series?
You may counter with the fact that these examples where not middle class at all but high earners. Their salaries, though, have never once been mentioned and I think that leads the people consuming that programming to start identifying with them. Oh look Cliff Huxtable could buy a ugly painting made by a relative for ten grand just like that. Or he could easily spend hundreds on an old LP for his jazz collection.
How many hot rods did Tim Taylor build while having to pay exorbitant sums for his insurance?
Yeah, people watch that and start to want to be able to do those things as well on a 60k salary. And that just isn't going to work. Why do they feel that these people are in the same social bracket? Because they are displayed having the same everyday issues.
Someone living in the ghetto watches these things more like sci-fi. Wishful thinking and dreams may get them there but they are under no illusion that such a life is in immediate reach.
So we let ourselves be worked to death under the illusion that we could have the things these financially much more successful people have. In the meantime, we make other people rich buy comfort buying the things we produce, trashing the planet in the process.
The consumerism is a coping mechanism like any drug. Like overeating, nicotine or other drug use... Internet addiction, you take your pick.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be frank here, most of us would be plenty affluent if it wasn't for this need to replace our gadgets every two years at the latest.
While I don't disagree that a lot of disposable income is spent on gadgets (especially for this crowd) it's hardly electronics that are costing Americans huge portions of their budget. Charts like this [twitter.com] help explain it somewhat. Things like healthcare, housing, and education ("things you need") are exploding in terms of cost vs. inflation, whereas the cost of electronics and cars are under inflation ("things you want").
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I sprained my knee last year, I was charged $400 just for my knee brace and the MRI was $3900 I believe. No overnight stay.
So are spot on when it comes to healthcare. Every politician that ignores this should be thrown in jail for neglect of duty.
Re: (Score:3)
The way it worked when I was there was that the hospitals in Japan don't know how to bill foreign insurance companies directly. I'd have to pay the full bill upfront, then request reimbursement from insurance. I had an "international" plan from my employer, but I never exceeded the deductible, so I ended up paying full price for everything, which was still really reasonable compared to US prices. (Doctor's visit was about $40 for first visit, and $30 for subsequent visits for the same issue.)
Re: Say what? (Score:2)
"most of us would be plenty affluent if it wasn't for this need to live indoors"
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be frank here, most of us would be plenty affluent if it wasn't for this need to replace our gadgets every two years at the latest.
There difference between affluent and not is $400/year?
How much is a month's rent on a decent apartment?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that, under the conditions set by the economic system, the existence of money (money with purchasing power, that is) to go around depends on "consumerism". On one hand it is a "drug" for those not-wealthy people who are forced to market their labor to be exploited and spend roughly half of their awake lifetime working to increase others' wealth, on the other hand it is a necessary precondition that the money people earn is good enough to buy their food, and, moreover, enough for financing soc
Re: (Score:2)
I think it wouldn't be half as bad if they didn't also foster this need in entertainment and the media to always have the newest gadgets. Let's be frank here, most of us would be plenty affluent if it wasn't for this need to replace our gadgets every two years at the latest.
Yes, the compulsive need to squander $1000 every two years is all that stands between most of us and lifelong financial securuty.
Re: (Score:2)
This effect is predictable. Workers demand capital for their work rather than risk taking equity (and let's face it, most employers don't want to offer meaningful equity to workers anyway). So what workers get is capital that declines in value at the rate of inflation while the employer gets the spoils of increased efficiency from automation assisting their workers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, it's a shame the way people today don't even own computers yet. Or portable phones. Or cars that get more than 20 mpg. Or the ability to communicate casually with people halfway around the word...
What's that you say? We DO have all those things? But how can this be???
Seriously, the workers got most of the spoils of computers and automation. It's not like the capitalists got anything muc
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's a shame the way people today don't even own computers yet. Or portable phones. Or cars that get more than 20 mpg. Or the ability to communicate casually with people halfway around the word...
What's that you say? We DO have all those things? But how can this be???
Seriously, the workers got most of the spoils of computers and automation. It's not like the capitalists got anything much beyond a bigger number recorded in a bank somewhere.
.
The workers got a lot of stuff, yes. The people at the top got a lot more of something better than stuff: money.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely the best employees will flock to your company.
One reason you might not do that is the ridiculous regulation government demands you comply with.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is, a shorter work week is fine when you do nothing but sit in an office, shuffling papers around and having meetings about what the next meeting should be about. But for the rest of the world who is doing things that are actually useful, productive, and provide important services to people, having a facility sit idle for 3 days a week is just wasteful and stupid.
Sure, there are companies who treat their employees terribly, but that is an entirely different matter.
Or you just have multiple shifts, some of whose working days cover Friday-Sunday. So, you end up hiring more people which means more people are earning money. The extra days off that everyone gets means more people are spending money or consuming, so economic activity picks up(and this is on top of the effect you already get from having more people employed).
You end up with people individually working less (but are more productive when they do work because they are happier, better rested, and aren't just wasting time) but with the economy as a whole getting stronger.
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it's not everywhere and omi-present. But you cannot deny that Asia as a whole has a much higher degree of social pressure to submit to work than the west has.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have absolutely no incentive to retire. The
Predictable result (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Top management is there to ensure the company is still running in ten years.
Middle management is there is to ensure it does not run too well.
Re:Predictable result (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, deprived of the sweet sweet nectar of human suffering, the executive suite, after 18 holes of quadruple bogeys, simply could not find the strength to hoist that all important 5th martini, so the program had to be scrapped.
How are they to make all those important business decisions when they're all parched like that?
Re: (Score:2)
TFA says they are considering doing it again next summer.
Maybe it's an energy saving thing. After the 2011 Fukushima meltdown they ramped up energy saving efforts with things like the government advocating relaxed dress code to reduce the use of air conditioning. Having a 4 day week in the hottest, stickiest month of the summer would certainly help reduce the electricity bill.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of evidence that for clerical workers 4 days instead of 5 a week results in increased productivity for the longer term.
The main issue is that customers want support 5 days a week. That's not impossible to overcome though, for example a lot of companies around here finish at 1 PM on Friday and the customers have accepted it.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who pay for "support", the "product" and "service" might also "want" what they pay for... given the money they spent...
Re: (Score:2)
The main issue is that customers want support 5 days a week. That's not impossible to overcome though, for example a lot of companies around here finish at 1 PM on Friday and the customers have accepted it.
Just have up to half of your employees work Mon-Thur and the other half Tues-Fri. Offer people the option to have a mid-week day off instead and you can end up so that you always have at least half your staff there on any given work day.
Re: (Score:2)
The main issue is that customers want support 5 days a week. That's not impossible to overcome though, for example a lot of companies around here finish at 1 PM on Friday and the customers have accepted it.
Customer support is a relatively small part of most organizations, they could either stay on 5 days or just have half of the teams working Monday-Thursday and the other Tuesday-Friday or something like that.
TFA a little lacking in detail (Score:5, Interesting)
What did these employees do at work?
Were the other days longer?
Was it artificially successful because everyone wanted it to succeed in order to have a shorter working week in the future?
Re: (Score:2)
What did these employees do at work?
Were the other days longer?
Was it artificially successful because everyone wanted it to succeed in order to have a shorter working week in the future?
Not sure about MS but places wehre I've done it replaces 5 8's with 4 10's. I've done shifts of 12's with 3 shifts and then 4 days off and an occasional 4 12's to add up to 40 hours every 4 weeks or so. Downside of 12's is you have so much time off that you rarely need vacation time so it piles up until yo hit use or lose...
Re: (Score:3)
40 hours a week is too much. The standard 37.5 is borderline.
Re: (Score:2)
"Happier" is also something work related..
Re:TFA a little lacking in detail (Score:5, Insightful)
What did these employees do at work?
work
Was it artificially successful because everyone wanted it to succeed in order to have a shorter working week in the future?
Here's a quick experiment: Set yourself the task of doing the laundry. Sometime this week.
It will probably happen. Somehow. Probably not today. Probably with a bit of a "oh yeah. damn. don't want."
Now imagine you're leaving and you need your clothes ready tomorrow. Your only chance of them drying is if you do the laundry within the next hour. Most likely, you will find time to do so. Most likely, with a minimum of fuss and complaining.
The answer is that as your schedule tightens, you eliminate waste. Waste that otherwise expands to fill your time. You know, surfing on /. or going to a meeting that you could have skipped, but there might be useful information. Or going over that e-mail or this document one more time, just to be sure.
Efficiency takes pressure. If we have a lot of time, our work will expand to fill it. If we have too little time, stress and failures occur. But if we have just the right amount of time, we will efficiently use it to accomplish the necessary task.
That is why good managers are so incredibly valuable - if they can time and schedule the work properly for their staff, they can dramatically increase productivity.
Sadly, very few good managers exist in the world, and most of the existing ones don't know the first thing about what their job actually is (spoiler: To enable everyone else to work at peak efficiency).
Re:TFA a little lacking in detail (Score:5, Interesting)
A Microsoft spokesperson said:
"We switched to 4 days, everyone worked 4 ordinary days, no extra hours and got paid for 5 days. They were encouraged to try to schedule all their package deliveries, doctors appointments and whatever on their off day wherever possible. We cut meetings and ditched the quarterly objectives.
The results were astounding. In just a few short weeks, we noticed our developers code bug rate was dropping, even though the testers were finding more bugs (mostly in older code - some going back years). Our teams were able to close more tickets than ever before, even though more tickets were getting raised - both inside the team and out of it. That's right - other teams were raising more requests to the dev teams, and when we looked into it, we found that the sales and account management, pre-sales and support teams were asking for, and getting more really great, constructive feedback from customers, so were able to request really great improvements to our products. Our management strategy day ended up looking at what we'd achieved and realised that Windows could be entirely bug free, and do exactly what the customer wanted within 5 years. Once we realised that, we cancelled the experiment and went back to a 5 day week."
Back on topic: this has happened at load of places - making people actually work for 4 days, or fluff about and deal with distractions for 5 turns out to be a real productivity boost. What hasn't been explored is that if we all did it, then we'd use up our weekends just as we do now, so would need our work week to get packages delivered, get a haircut and visit the doctor. By then though, it would all have been forgotten, and so we'd propose a 3 day work week instead.
The fact there are 7 days in a week and that we (used to) work 6, and now for many of us, 5 days of them is essentially arbitrary. Sure, religion might have codified that certain days had to be "rest days", but the week existed before that. If whomever had decided we should have a 10 day week, then we'd be looking at moving from an 8 day working week to 7.
Re: (Score:3)
Business decisions aren't as rational as you might think. Sometimes win-win propositions are rejected because it feels wrong to let the other side have a win.
Re: (Score:3)
"Was it artificially successful because everyone wanted it to succeed in order to have a shorter working week in the future?"
Yes, instead of making the owners richer, they can do something for themselves.
the most significant words ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"..as fewer and shorter meetings were held..."
I've been doing that for a couple of years now. (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point, after asking for a raise, HR told me that they don't have enough work for me to justify paying me more, but I could work one day fewer for the same pay.
That was a couple of years ago, and my skills are in more demand, but I'm maintaining the status quo, and I get an overtime rate when they need me to come in on my day off.
I prefer the setup where the extra day off is in the middle of the week.
Knowing that at any point I'm at most two days away form taking a break really makes handling things easier.
Re: (Score:3)
I prefer the setup where the extra day off is in the middle of the week. Knowing that at any point I'm at most two days away form taking a break really makes handling things easier.
Back when I was working (I am retired now), I had a few weeks of unused vacation to burn, so I took off alternating Mondays and Fridays. This gave me a normal 2-day weekend one week, and a four-day weekend the following week. This was nice for scheduling mini-vacations on the longer weekends.
Re: I've been doing that for a couple of years now (Score:2)
I am on 4 day week as got option. Often using home day on Python projects for Blender for fun not exactly wasted.
I treat it as my fun projects day.
4 day weeks only work for some jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Ie office based working on long term projects, not day to day issues that need to be sorted there and then.
If you're a manufacturing industry, food preparation, legal, emergency service or any other industry that is time critical and/or shift based then its a non starter.
Re: (Score:2)
How so? You just carry more workers and rotate the shifts. It can be done. There are manufacturing plants that run 4 10s a week instead of 5 8s, for example. If they wanted to run 4 8s they could do that, too . . . they would just need to hire more people.
Of course, the real issue is that the people working 4 8s would make 20% less income, since they're all hourly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:4 day weeks only work for some jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
This idea that physicians are special snowflakes kills a lot of people. In every other life-critical job, people are made as interchangeable as possible through training and SOPs. Rockstar programmers are fine because when they come down from their speed high you can evaluate their code and turn it into something sane while they're off surfing in Costa Rica. You don't have that luxury when a patient needs care and you just woke up the resident, who's been on for the last 34 hours, from a sound sleep, and expect them to make life-changing decisions.
We limit the working hours of truckers and forklift drivers, but not physicians.
Re:4 day weeks only work for some jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of medicine's problems stem from the fact that it's run as a guild. Medical schools restrict the supply of physicians, which keeps salaries high. Currently it's difficult to get into medical school, but very few students fail out. It should be the other way around: fairly easy to get in, sufficiently hard to graduate that graduation means something. Opening up med schools like most other university programs would increase the supply of physicians and allow their cost to drop to the market optimum.
Second, hospitals and clinics should be subject to the same workplace regulations as other similar vocations. There isn't any other job, never mind a life critical one, where 36 hour shifts are acceptable. Hospitals need to staff appropriately, and physicians need to drop the toxic bravado that ridiculous working hours are good for you.
The senior people actually tend to put in reasonable work hours. The residents and other underlings are the ones who are run ragged.
Re:4 day weeks only work for some jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
My brother manages the local water plant they work 4 10hr. days and schedule people in to cover 24 hours a day 7 days a week with some overlap. It's not really a non-starter.
Not disputing the results but... (Score:2)
...the test case was MS JAPAN.
I'm not sure that the results in the US would track identically, as Japan is pretty different culturally.
I'd like to see it tested here on a large scale before we decide that this is something that should be widely adopted.
Re: (Score:2)
Google: Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of weekends in this country. The two-days weekends was the standard. Then the other guy came out with a three-days weekends. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the three-days turbo weekends. That's three days off and free snacks. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to four days weekends. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our
I hate the commute (Score:2)
I hate the shower (kinda)
I hate the uniform (I do legal IT)
I hate the inefficiency of it all, I'd do so much prefer 4x10 hour days, big time.
Re: (Score:2)
I would as well. However the real goal is to work 7x0.
Interesting (Score:2)
The best 4 day work week. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how far can this be taken? (Score:2)
Interesting results, now i wonder how far can this go on before the productivity gets worse again.
Would a 3-day work week also have a positive effect compared to a 5-day work week, what about 2 days?
Re: (Score:2)
Last year, we did a lots of tests where I work. We tested a variety of work days, lots of different starting and ending hours, so that while we still worked five days a week we only did the equivalent of four days, etc. While I can't divulge all the statistics we were able to gather, I can tell you that productivity dropped to zero with a zero-day work week.
Hawthorne effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also: hey guys we are doing a pilot program where you get an extra day off a week lets see how it goes. The experiment sample will be greatly incentivized to stay focused and make the project a success so maybe it'll be kept.
true (Score:5, Insightful)
Years ago, I had an opportunity to move to a similar schedule, though in my case only every 2nd Friday was free.
It was a wonderful time, more free time, more energy, more productivity - despite being in a leadership / management role, my regular absence wasn't felt at all except in emergencies, most of which my second in command could handle. It's been a few years, but I believe there was one(!) case where I really was needed in person on my otherwise free day.
Work destroys the soul, at least the kind of work that is typical today, the useless, disconnected, fractured kind where you rarely if ever feel the effect of what you're doing. That fact is so well known that some people run around claiming it's a conspiracy theory and that's the actual purpose of work.
I am a huge supporter of reducing the work week to 4 if not 3 days. If someone offered me to work a day less instead of a raise, I would accept instantly before he can change his mind. If our society moved to a 4-day work-week for everyone, we would eliminate a large part of unemployment and raise happiness and health dramatically.
What we would need, however, is a change in society and economics that directs a share of the profits from automation away from the shareholders and into a concentrated effort to make this transition.
And I'm not holding my breath, because these ideas have been around since the 70s.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, but with more free time, spending would also raise to fill that extra days. Entertainment, shopping, etc. I know I'd buy more hardware, electronic components and 3D printer filament, for example, since I would have a whole extra day to work on my personal projects.
This is news? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been doing this for years.
My main problem is that I don't have the budget to pay more money to those people that I need to keep desperately. So my only option is to throw about "job perks". One such perk being that quite a few of my key people work about 25-30 hours a week instead of 40. At first my worry was that I wouldn't get the job done anymore, only to find out that productivity actually goes up that way. And they're happier and gladly stay for WAY less money than they could probably make next door, but for 45+ hours a week.
Who's have known, people stop caring about money when they make more than they need to live and start caring more about having time to spend it...
Next Steps? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The end goal isn't to get workers to work 4 10s, it's to work 4 8s.
39.9% increase in what? (Score:2)
How did they measure productivity? Its an eternal problem in the software industry. Not sure if these workers were devs, sales, support etc.
Also find it interesting about the power and printing changes. 20% reduction of days of work but a 23.whatever% reduction in power usage? Cool. The printing changes was insane though why would what you need to print change so drastically because of the work week? Did everyone wait till Friday to print out directions to the night clubs and their resumes for better jobs?
This works fine for non-service type (Score:3)
But has there been any studies regarding it being effective for service sector types, read: medical, IT support, food service, maintenance/janitorial, bus drivers... I'm afraid that this will not work out as effective in those areas because of the utility of those jobs. There will have to be other ways of compensation to them so there will be equality across the board, or there might be sparks flying sooner or later.
Here's why the results are meaningless: (Score:3)
They didn't test a four-day work week (Score:4, Interesting)
They tested a shortER work week.
It's no shock that taking a person whose life is set-up to work five days, and giving them an additional day off, would work wonders for everyone. Employees still try to get their work done, they don't feel entitled to the test day-off, they do feel entitled to the five-day pay, and they've got 50% more time to do non-work things.
Metabolisms normalize. People grow accustomed, and feel entitled. If four days becomes the norm, then the same test to three days will have the same result. Only the four days would lose all of its benefits.
The test proves short term, not long term.
It also proves something else -- that work is detrimental to life. Also not a shock.
58.7% fewer pages printed? (Score:3)
This isn't even on the same order of magnitude as the days saved. Do people only print things on Fridays? Or is this tied to the fewer meetings?
The reason why these reduced work weeks fail (Score:3)
They make management increasingly look irrelevant. With a shorter week, workers are on task more of the time, which alleviates the need for supervisors to monitor downtime. Departments are more focused on end goals which reduces the need for middle management. Employees in general feel more empowered to make decisions because there is less time to go through channels which reduces the need for input from upper management.
This is why management always calls these experiments failures.