What Happened When a Washington County Tried a 32-Hour Workweek? (cnn.com) 28
On a small network of islands north of Seattle, Washington, San Juan County just completed its first full year of 32-hour workweeks, reports CNN.
And Tuesday the county released a report touting "a host of positive outcomes — from recruiting to retention to employee happiness — and a cost savings of more than $975,000 compared to what the county would have paid if it met the union's pay increase demands." The county said the 32-hour workweek has attracted a host of new talent: Applications have spiked 85.5% and open positions are being filled 23.75% faster, while more employees are staying in their jobs — separation (employees quitting or retiring) dropped by 48%. And 84% of employees said their work-life balance was better. "This is meeting many of the goals that we set out to do when we implemented it," County Manager Jessica Hudson said. said, noting the county is looking for opportunities to expand the initiative...
Departments across San Juan County have implemented the 32-hour workweek differently, some staggering staffing to maintain their previous availability to the public while others have shortened schedules to be open just four days a week... "I tell people, you're not going to see things change from your perspective," said Joe Ingman, a park manager in the county. "Offices are going to stay open, bathrooms are going to get cleaned, grass is going to get mowed." His department adjusted schedules to stay staffed seven days a week, and while communication across shifts was an initial hurdle, issues were quickly ironed out. "It was probably the smoothest summer I've had, and I've been working in parks for over a decade," he said, crediting the new schedule as a boon for recruiting. While job postings used to languish unfilled for months, last summer the applicant pool was not only bigger but more qualified, and the two staffers he hired both cited coming to the county because of the 32-hour workweek.
"It's no more cost to the public to work 32 hours — but we have better applicants," he said. Ingman also said the four-day workweek has done wonders for his job satisfaction; he'd watched colleagues burn out for years, but now sees a path for his own future in the department... County employees have used their extra time off to spend less money on childcare, volunteer in their kids' schools, and contribute to the community... While San Juan County's motivation in adopting a shortened workweek was financial, the benefits its employees cite speak to a larger trend, as workplaces around the country increasingly explore flexible schedules to combat burnout and attract and retain talent.
A survey of CEOs this spring found nearly one third of large US companies were looking into solutions like four-day or four-and-a-half-day workweeks... Even without a reduction in total hours, a Gallup poll last year found a third day off would be widely embraced: 77% of US workers said a 4-day, 40-hour workweek would have a positive impact on their wellbeing.
One worker shared their thoughts with CNN. "Life shouldn't be about just working yourself into the ground..." And they added that "So far, I feel happy; I feel seen as an employee and as a human, and I feel like it could be a beautiful step forward for other people if we just trust it and try it."
They even had some advice for other employers. "Change happens by somebody actually doing the change. The only way we're going to find out if it works is by doing."
And Tuesday the county released a report touting "a host of positive outcomes — from recruiting to retention to employee happiness — and a cost savings of more than $975,000 compared to what the county would have paid if it met the union's pay increase demands." The county said the 32-hour workweek has attracted a host of new talent: Applications have spiked 85.5% and open positions are being filled 23.75% faster, while more employees are staying in their jobs — separation (employees quitting or retiring) dropped by 48%. And 84% of employees said their work-life balance was better. "This is meeting many of the goals that we set out to do when we implemented it," County Manager Jessica Hudson said. said, noting the county is looking for opportunities to expand the initiative...
Departments across San Juan County have implemented the 32-hour workweek differently, some staggering staffing to maintain their previous availability to the public while others have shortened schedules to be open just four days a week... "I tell people, you're not going to see things change from your perspective," said Joe Ingman, a park manager in the county. "Offices are going to stay open, bathrooms are going to get cleaned, grass is going to get mowed." His department adjusted schedules to stay staffed seven days a week, and while communication across shifts was an initial hurdle, issues were quickly ironed out. "It was probably the smoothest summer I've had, and I've been working in parks for over a decade," he said, crediting the new schedule as a boon for recruiting. While job postings used to languish unfilled for months, last summer the applicant pool was not only bigger but more qualified, and the two staffers he hired both cited coming to the county because of the 32-hour workweek.
"It's no more cost to the public to work 32 hours — but we have better applicants," he said. Ingman also said the four-day workweek has done wonders for his job satisfaction; he'd watched colleagues burn out for years, but now sees a path for his own future in the department... County employees have used their extra time off to spend less money on childcare, volunteer in their kids' schools, and contribute to the community... While San Juan County's motivation in adopting a shortened workweek was financial, the benefits its employees cite speak to a larger trend, as workplaces around the country increasingly explore flexible schedules to combat burnout and attract and retain talent.
A survey of CEOs this spring found nearly one third of large US companies were looking into solutions like four-day or four-and-a-half-day workweeks... Even without a reduction in total hours, a Gallup poll last year found a third day off would be widely embraced: 77% of US workers said a 4-day, 40-hour workweek would have a positive impact on their wellbeing.
One worker shared their thoughts with CNN. "Life shouldn't be about just working yourself into the ground..." And they added that "So far, I feel happy; I feel seen as an employee and as a human, and I feel like it could be a beautiful step forward for other people if we just trust it and try it."
They even had some advice for other employers. "Change happens by somebody actually doing the change. The only way we're going to find out if it works is by doing."
Re: "The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:2)
Cue up (Score:1)
The stories of how elderly slashdotters worked 80 hour weeks and were thankful for it.
Re: Cue up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An officially 32 hour workweek is beneficial even to workers who enjoy working more. A 32 hour workweek means 1 extra day off, e.g. Fridays are off at the company. Not only you can work if you wish (from home), but as most others won't be working, you don't have to suffer interruptions (whether it's emails, support tickets, or remote meetings). When working on paperwork or coding, holidays are a blessing. Finally time to do some actual work.
Re: (Score:2)
DO EET (Score:2, Flamebait)
With improvements in productivity over the last 50 years, we should be down to a 24-hour work week right now. The time we've been working beyond that has contributed to nothing but worsening inequality. Facts.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
True, I didn't say we should have both at the same time though.
Housing costs (Score:2)
Sadly the actual cost of building a new house has rise so much - for reasons possibly to do with the Baumol effect, but also due to the failure to achieve significant improvements in productivity in the construction sector - that 'obvious' logic doesn't apply.
Wikipedia on the baumol effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We have had 45 years of non-stop automation (Score:2)
If you stop and think about it even for a moment it makes sense. We've all watched a video about a modern factory and how little human interaction there is at most of them. There's an applesauce factory where you literally pour apples in one end and packaged applesauce comes out the other. And I remember a sleepi
Re: (Score:3)
We can't automate everything, and the cheap labour people are crying about are not the ones that are automated away.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet everyone is crying that we're about to deport all of our cheap labor. smh
When the crops aren't being picked, when homes and other buildings can't be built, when golf courses don't get groomed, lawns aren't mowed, sheets aren't changed at hotels, and restaurants don't have enough people to run their business, you'll really hear people whining. Of course in Texas, the biggest whiners, have said it's legal hire illegals to keep your house clean because that keeps the economic engine running [texastribune.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Awhile back here in Florida there were some MAGA folks flipping their shit over migrant workers who were here legally to harvest crops. The farm owners literally went on the news and explained that they tried posting the job openings for Americans to fill, but got few takers. They also said that the few American workers they could hire were soon to quit or get fired because harvesting crops by hand is neither pleasant nor well-paid.
Now you might get the wrong impression that some of us "leftists" are cond
Re: (Score:2)
>"few American workers they could hire were soon to quit or get fired because harvesting crops by hand is neither pleasant nor well-paid."
The cost/price of the labor will increase based on the supply. If they can't recruit with what they can afford to pay, and/or can't survive due to the necessary price increases to pay more to satisfy their need for the labor, that business will go out of business.
>"they tried posting the job openings for Americans to fill, but got few takers."
And when the total cos
Compared to what (Score:3)
>"the county released a report touting "a host of positive outcomes"
And almost everything listed is just supply and demand effects. Of course it is a boon to recruitment, retention, competition for spots, etc. But if ALL employment everywhere was also doing 32 hours, then none of those "positive outcomes" would apply.
The main question would be if productivity were the same before as after. And in many jobs that is hard to measure. Plus, one could equally conclude that if most people were as productive, then it isn't necessarily because they are less stressed/etc, but maybe because they were just goofing off before.
>"It's no more cost to the public to work 32 hours"
But it also doesn't cost LESS either. So why not 24 hours? 16 hours? At what point should you keep paying the same for fewer worked hours?
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of my job is demand-based, and that demand is usually at the front half of my day. Afternoons are variable. Not quite enough work to go around, but a bit too much to just work mornings only and too much to switch to projects due to likely interruptions.
Me? I'm crazy. I'd let half the staff take short Fridays, and split the afternoons for the other four work days so half the people are pure project Mon/Tue and the other half are pure project Wed/Thu.
And I'd definitely have far more WfH. In my opin
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about a 32 hour week is that it enables more people to work. It allows more time for other activities, eg childcare, salsa lessons, exercise classes, caring for elderly relatives, etc. This would actually expand the economy.
It's true of course that if everyone offered this, it would not be a competitive advantage. But it would create a slightly wider pool of possible workers.
And, I must say, a race to the bottom for least hours in the workweek sounds quite appealing!
Re: (Score:2)
>"The thing about a 32 hour week is that it enables more people to work."
You are not really thinking this through. Of course it could allow more people to work. But only because not as much work is getting done. If you pay people 40 hours and then require them to work only an hour, you could employ 39 more people each working an hour? Oh wait.... that would cost 39 times more. Well, guess it doesn't matter because it is tax money paying it?
Hmm...
Again, those who are not productive beyond 32 hours sh
Rather than read CNN's paywalled rehash... (Score:2)
Why not just read San Juan County's report directly [sanjuancountywa.gov]?
Apples, Oranges, and the civil service (Score:1)
We're talking government workers in the smallest county in the state. Yeah, they do clean bathrooms and mow the lawn. Some of them even do essential work, like first responders. We need them. Somebody has to collect the taxes! But one thing they NEVER worry about is making a profit. They don't have to because if you don't pay your taxes, you lose your house. If they work 32 hours a week, you still owe your full taxes. If they work 24 hours a week, you still pay your full taxes. And if they do this for 30 y
Lazy editor (Score:2)
One worker shared their thoughts with CNN
No, one worker shared her thoughts with CNN. The person is a woman, as clearly mentioned in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I noticed that as well. This distracting and confusing obsession with singular "they/their" is very annoying, doubly-so when it is completely unneeded.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing grammatically wrong with that sentence.
Government bureaucrats are not a good standard (Score:2)
Considering how malleable bureaucrats' work load is in every company, and how much more so in government, I don't think I'll put much credence in government bureaucrats bragging about their own analysis of their own experiment.
On the other hand, everyone would probably be better off if more government workers worked less, even if they got paid for 40 hours.
Seems like they were over staffed (Score:2)
20% less hours getting the same work done.