Would you support a 4 day work week? If not, what would make you change your mind? If yes, why? 

Yes. In situations like election day, everyone could have that day off, then work on the next open day of the week.

I have been preaching 3-4 day work weeks forever. Especially in todays economy, it also helps someone have time for a second job.

Yes, 100%. But it would also mean an 11 hour day, minus an hour for lunch for most of us to make the desired 40hrs.

So is it just 4-10's or fantasy land where we get paid for 40 but work 32?

Nov 19, 2024 20:49:48 GMT cheesedude420 said:

So is it just 4-10's or fantasy land where we get paid for 40 but work 32?

Well therin lies the rub.

I think what's being proposed currently is same pay for 32 hours. But I've also seen 4-10's being proposed. 

Yes, absolutely. There are enough studies that show the benefits -

1) More productive workers
2) Companies saving money shutting down an office for a full day (electric, water, heating, air conditioning costs, etc)
3) Infrastructure - roads would theoretically get used at 20% less
4) Pollution/Climate - less driving, fewer emissions
5) Saving money on gas/parking/eating out
6) Having a day to do chores, have appointments, meal prep, general errands would open up your time for family life. I could do yard care, gardening, house projects. All these things I do not have the time to do because I'm with my children

If I was allowed to work 0.8 I'd take that in a heartbeat. Sure, the salary decrease would sting, but every other facet of my life would benefit.

Note - I know some of these benefits wouldn't exist with mandated type jobs. Staff would need to be on rotation to ensure that there were always staff available.

A lot of businesses do offer it, and have for a long time, it's just this entire debate is through the lense of office workers.

Nov 20, 2024 3:34:40 GMT NATH45 said:

A lot of businesses do offer it, and have for a long time, it's just this entire debate is through the lense of office workers.

This is not common in Canada.

Any business that can cut down to 4 days and accomplish the same work output doesn't deserve to be in business and probably won't be for long.

Nov 20, 2024 8:56:37 GMT iNCY said:

Any business that can cut down to 4 days and accomplish the same work output doesn't deserve to be in business and probably won't be for long.

I'm 100% adamant, a business would never drop to a 4 day week unless it was sustainable, the team would however. You would rotate the team to cover the spread of Monday to Thursday, Tuesday to Friday.

As I said before, we're acting like 4 day weeks are something new. Many an industry offer 0.8 or 0.75 including care, nursing, as do a lot of our social services. Bunnings - retail and trade - is offering it full timers 4 day weeks. A lot of people in retail, tourism and hospitality work the same, given the requirements and the benefits of working across weekends here.

This entire conversation, not just here, is seen through the lense of those who working Monday to Friday and 9-5 in an office environment.

But here's the trick - if a team member leaves, and for argument's sake the role could be reduced to 4 days as some of the duties could be delegated out or removed, do it. Take 20% off the previous salary and sell it to the next guy as your company being cool and progressive by offering a 4 day week.

There are some like Foos who would be accepting to take that pay cut for that extra day, but most prefer the offering of same pay for 32 hours (of course) or same pay for 4-12's which I don't think helps with burnout any.

A 4 day work week does not work for me in any capacity. As it is my shift is 'supposed to be' Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (with an unpaid hour for lunch). My sites work 7-12's 6:30am-6:30pm (2 shifts). Now most vendors and transport companies close 4-5pm and are not open weekends, so that 'mostly' works, but I do so much 'tail chasing' (and not in the fun way) during the day that I often don't get much of a lunch (because my sites don't) and my evenings and weekends are spent actually doing the admin part of my work (orders, req backups, transport bills, P card reconciliation, etc) especially since my boss keeps adding 'make work' admin projects for us not realizing how dynamic our position already is. When I come 'in' on Monday there is already a laundry list of issues/orders to take care of and Fridays I am busy making sure my sites have everything they need for the weekend work.

I suppose I could share a shift with someone, but that would mean hiring another 3 people to trade off for the current Purchasers and I don't see that happening because as I said what are they going to do on a weekend unless it's a hybrid role and those rarely work out well.

I can't see a lot of businesses or organisations enjoying the idea of their team working less, and getting paid the same.

Some will, and some have, but these places need to hire some better money men to understand where all their money is going and how to better utilise it and fully optimise their rostering, and thus improve their P&L.

I think the only way to realistically do it, is strip the entire approach back to cost per hour.

CPH ÷ into your overall salary costs for the business = how many labour hours you have.

If you're paying a person $100,000 a year for 5 days / 40hrs, that's $1,923 a week and @ 40hrs = $48 a hour.

If your negotiating a 4 day week or hiring a replacement, refer to the CPH and align it with hours, 32 x $48 = $1538 = $80k annually.

Now, if you've got 4 team members in the same situation, you're saving collectively a further $80k a year, which allows you to hire a 5th team member @ $80k annually.

Now the total labour hours don't change, but the intensity of the work load reduces as a 5th person covers the spread. Which reduces stress and improves engagement, allows for better internal succession planning, mentoring and development, but most importantly it adds depth to the team and in turn increases productivity and if you're customer or client facing, it improves that experience and your accessibility. Or, if you're in a more manual labour intensive environment it allows for more hands on deck and more, importantly, well rested hands on deck.

From:

XXXXX = 40
XXXXX = 40
XXXXX = 40
XXXXX = 40 = 160hrs.

To :

XXXXO = 32
XXXXO = 32
OXXXX = 32
OXXXX = 32
OXXXX = 32 = 160hrs.

There's variable and fixed tasks - variables might include how many customers or clients wander through the door or pick up the phone, the fixed, you need to realign to the heavy days when the labour supports it.

It makes a lot of sense in office jobs that have bankers hours because that's basically a dental practice, but what about industries that work round the clock and aren't cushy m-f weekends off? Feels like you're asking companies to spend more on labor when the benefit is either non-existent or minimal in their eyes (it ain't drawing dimes in the short term). I just can't see why they'd pad that missed day into a higher wage or hire more people to fill the holes when they're always looking to get more with less. I do wonder if something like this is an advertised benefit from a hip upstart that has a twitch policy. I do get the appeal of changing what society sees as the traditional work week.

Nov 20, 2024 8:56:37 GMT iNCY said:

Any business that can cut down to 4 days and accomplish the same work output doesn't deserve to be in business and probably won't be for long.

The way I usually see it proposed is four 10-hour days rather than five 8's, which adds up to the same number of days per week.

I'd be for it, as (1) I'm already at work, what's another couple of hours here and there if it means I get another whole-ass day off and (2) due to the nature of my job, it needs coverage so I'd probably end up working a 5th and 6th day anyway so my bank account would love me

It does strike me, though, like WFH as a division between blue collar and white collar people, where some are able to get the benefit and others are told 'welp, sucks to be you'

Nov 21, 2024 1:32:52 GMT Michinokudriver said:

Nov 20, 2024 8:56:37 GMT iNCY said:

Any business that can cut down to 4 days and accomplish the same work output doesn't deserve to be in business and probably won't be for long.

The way I usually see it proposed is four 10-hour days rather than five 8's, which adds up to the same number of days per week.

I'd be for it, as (1) I'm already at work, what's another couple of hours here and there if it means I get another whole-ass day off and (2) due to the nature of my job, it needs coverage so I'd probably end up working a 5th and 6th day anyway so my bank account would love me

It does strike me, though, like WFH as a division between blue collar and white collar people, where some are able to get the benefit and others are told 'welp, sucks to be you'

So something like get in at eight, go home at six.  That’d work.

Nov 21, 2024 1:32:52 GMT Michinokudriver said:

Nov 20, 2024 8:56:37 GMT iNCY said:

Any business that can cut down to 4 days and accomplish the same work output doesn't deserve to be in business and probably won't be for long.

The way I usually see it proposed is four 10-hour days rather than five 8's, which adds up to the same number of days per week.

I'd be for it, as (1) I'm already at work, what's another couple of hours here and there if it means I get another whole-ass day off and (2) due to the nature of my job, it needs coverage so I'd probably end up working a 5th and 6th day anyway so my bank account would love me

It does strike me, though, like WFH as a division between blue collar and white collar people, where some are able to get the benefit and others are told 'welp, sucks to be you'

I have no issue with the same number of hours being worked in less days.
That has been around for a long time, when I was doing trade school there were some guys who did 3x 12hr shifts on sequential days per week which sounded amazing, the only large downside would have been it was a different 3 days and different times each week...
When I was on the tools if I could have worked 3 fixed day shift 12hr shifts a week I would have loved it.

Nov 21, 2024 1:32:52 GMT Michinokudriver said:

source="/post/382584/thread"]It does strike me, though, like WFH as a division between blue collar and white collar people, where some are able to get the benefit and others are told 'welp, sucks to be you'

[/div][/quote]

Let's be honest, it is part of that Gen Z circle jerk, no maybe not all of them, but people working particular jobs in particular fields. Admin, payroll, HR, all those types of roles.. sure, they can be easily done 4 days a week.

Any business in sales ( and that could mean retail, real estate, brokering, motor vehicles, etc ) or any business that makes things happen in a big way isn't going to shut shop or reduce it's team numbers given the competition in the market. The customer will simply go somewhere else if they can't get what they want. And I'm sure everyone understands we live in a very " I want it now " society in 2024.

Nov 21, 2024 3:12:03 GMT iNCY said:

Nov 21, 2024 1:32:52 GMT Michinokudriver said:

The way I usually see it proposed is four 10-hour days rather than five 8's, which adds up to the same number of days per week.

I'd be for it, as (1) I'm already at work, what's another couple of hours here and there if it means I get another whole-ass day off and (2) due to the nature of my job, it needs coverage so I'd probably end up working a 5th and 6th day anyway so my bank account would love me

It does strike me, though, like WFH as a division between blue collar and white collar people, where some are able to get the benefit and others are told 'welp, sucks to be you'

I have no issue with the same number of hours being worked in less days.
That has been around for a long time, when I was doing trade school there were some guys who did 3x 12hr shifts on sequential days per week which sounded amazing, the only large downside would have been it was a different 3 days and different times each week...
When I was on the tools if I could have worked 3 fixed day shift 12hr shifts a week I would have loved it.

I hate to shit in the younger generation, but I doubt I even get a solid 40 hours over five days from my employees (they work “hybrid,” but that’s like 1 day in office and 4 days out).

I would have a real hard time trusting people to put 10 hours (11 with a lunch break) in a corporate job.

You'd struggle trusting anyone in any industry.

When I was managing supermarkets, I'd push my department managers to roster their teams with short, sharp shifts. I'd rather get two guys in for 4 hours each rather than 8, as when you're doing any labour intensive job, at some point your performance is going to decline.

My last role, I'd spend most of the day staring at spreadsheets and reports and it was largely one meeting after another ( ask me what my week used to look like, please.. I could have had 20 meetings a week - I'll list them ) and after 3pm most days, my brain just wouldn't brain anymore. It was mush. I could have easily worked 9am - 3pm and achieved the same results instead of staying to 5pm.

We're currently in the process of changing our rotas at work to accommodate longer hours but less days worked. A 4 day on/3 day off & then 3 days on/4 days off to accomodate this change.

12 hour shifts so 7-7 and 7-7 which is good, some pushback from some but it's positive for a lot of others.