32-Hour Work Week (1 Viewer)

[Grahamburn]

Do we work more? I know I don't but that doesn't mean much.

We certainly work more than many European countries. We also work less than many Asian countries

I’d say in a given week I only do about 15 minutes of real actual work.

 

[WVU Alum]

Do we work more? I know I don't but that doesn't mean much.

We certainly work more than many European countries. We also work less than many Asian countries

I’d say in a given week I only do about 15 minutes of real actual work.

Have you met with the Bobs yet?

 

[massraider]

I’d say in a given week I only do about 15 minutes of real actual work.

Maybe that's not a lot, but I celebrate your entire catalog

 

[bigbottom]

I've done 4 10's before and loved it. That being said, not a fan of 32 hour work weeks from a productivity perspective.

I can guarantee that in my role, I would get the exact same amount of work done in a 4/10 situation as in a 4/8 situation

Would you get the exact same amount of work done in a 4/7 situation as a a 4/8 situation?

 

[MAC_32]

32-40 would be straight time.... over 40 OT or is it 44 now? I forget what the reg is.

*This is hourly - I assume salary already work more than 40 - which i don't agree with either but it is what it is

Last week
Mon 7:30-8:30
Tues 8-3
Wed 9-5:30
Thu 9-1
Fri 10-1

This week
Mon 7:30-5
Tues 8-7:30
Wed 12-4
Thu 8:30-2
Fri 12-2

While irratic, looks like I'm already on the 32 hour/week salary schedule

 

[the moops]

I've done 4 10's before and loved it. That being said, not a fan of 32 hour work weeks from a productivity perspective.

I can guarantee that in my role, I would get the exact same amount of work done in a 4/10 situation as in a 4/8 situation

Would you get the exact same amount of work done in a 4/7 situation as a a 4/8 situation?

Probably? I don’t know what the number exactly is but I would guess most weeks I could likely accomplish similar amount of work done in 20-25 hours. There is so much down time in so many jobs I doubt that I am alone in this

 

[Terminalxylem]

Would you support legislation that makes 32 hours full time and hours over that required to be paid at OT rates?

Good lord no.

Is this answer because you don't think the government should be involved at all in defining when OT kicks in, or because you think 40 (or some other number) is the appropriate number?

When I was a kid, the US and EU were in comparable places in terms of wealth. Now there is a fairly massive gulf between us. Let's not jump off that bridge just because our buddies did.

How’s happiness/quality of life and overall health in the EU since they jumped?

 

[bigbottom]

I've done 4 10's before and loved it. That being said, not a fan of 32 hour work weeks from a productivity perspective.

I can guarantee that in my role, I would get the exact same amount of work done in a 4/10 situation as in a 4/8 situation

Would you get the exact same amount of work done in a 4/7 situation as a a 4/8 situation?

Probably? I don’t know what the number exactly is but I would guess most weeks I could likely accomplish similar amount of work done in 20-25 hours. There is so much down time in so many jobs I doubt that I am alone in this

I think there is a distinction between “could” and “would.” Could someone accomplish the same amount of work in 20 hours that the person currently does in 40? I imagine it is possible with laser focus, no outside distractions, elimination of posting on the Internet and minimal bathroom breaks. But “would” they? The downtime in most jobs that you reference doesn’t necessarily go away just because you stop working on Wednesdays. I’m not trying to address you personally so much as the general suggestion that people will make the necessary behavioral changes to generate the same amount of work product in 20% fewer hours (or in your case 50% fewer hours) just because. It may not be a strictly proportional decline, but in many if not most instances there would most certainly be a decline of some sort. And that decline may very well be worth it for companies to improve employee morale, reduce burnout, promote retention, etc.

 

[AAABatteries]

For me the distinction between 32 and 40
is mostly meaningless. I’m much more concerned with working 4 vs. 5 days. If my and other companies say they’re fine with 4 day work weeks then I don’t care too much if that’s 8, 9 or 10 hour days. Just give me the 3rd weekend day to spend more time with family and relax.

 

[culdeus]

It's almost like some people have jobs where they every so often are waiting on people to finish something to continue.

That doesn't mean 32 hours is better for them.

 

[Stoneworker]

When I was a kid, the US and EU were in comparable places in terms of wealth. Now there is a fairly massive gulf between us. Let's not jump off that bridge just because our buddies did.

How’s happiness/quality of life and overall health in the EU since they jumped?

Why does the U.S. get by far the most immigrants in the world (more than then next four countries combined)? Are they coming here to not be happy/improve their quality of life?

 

[MTskibum]

When I was a kid, the US and EU were in comparable places in terms of wealth. Now there is a fairly massive gulf between us. Let's not jump off that bridge just because our buddies did.

How’s happiness/quality of life and overall health in the EU since they jumped?

Why does the U.S. get by far the most immigrants in the world (more than then next four countries combined)? Are they coming here to not be happy/improve their quality of life?

Because we have had an open border policy since the inception of the country, give me your poor, tire, huddled masses since the immigration of early poor irish immigrants during the potato famine. There are more people of irish decent living in Boston than in Ireland. Our history is based on immigration.

The other factor is there are only 2 strong choices for an immigrant in north america if they are on this continent, in europe you have many choices for a country that could be better depending on where you are emigrating from.

This is in addition to many different countries that people want to leave, most of the countries in the america's are terrible, where would you want to live in the america's: Trinidad, Costa Rica, and maybe if you want to stretch it ecuador, panama, or peru, there are 15-20+ other countries that people want to leave ASAP in the america's.


edit: This has nothing to do with the europe/US debate, i think there are many factors that are different and in some case some european countries have done better in last 30 years and in some cases US has done better in last 30 years.

 

[Stoneworker]

When I was a kid, the US and EU were in comparable places in terms of wealth. Now there is a fairly massive gulf between us. Let's not jump off that bridge just because our buddies did.

How’s happiness/quality of life and overall health in the EU since they jumped?

Why does the U.S. get by far the most immigrants in the world (more than then next four countries combined)? Are they coming here to not be happy/improve their quality of life?

Because we have had an open border policy since the inception of the country, give me your poor, tire, huddled masses since the immigration of early poor irish immigrants during the potato famine. There are more people of irish decent living in Boston than in Ireland. Our history is based on immigration.

The other factor is there are only 2 strong choices for an immigrant in north america if they are on this continent, in europe you have many choices for a country that could be better depending on where you are emigrating from.

This is in addition to many different countries that people want to leave, most of the countries in the america's are terrible, where would you want to live in the america's: Trinidad, Costa Rica, and maybe if you want to stretch it ecuador, panama, or peru, there are 15-20+ other countries that people want to leave ASAP in the america's.

edit: This has nothing to do with the europe/US debate, i think there are many factors that are different and in some case some european countries have done better in last 30 years and in some cases US has done better in last 30 years.

According to World Economic Forum, 21% of potential migrants worldwide named the U.S. as their preferred emigration destination. Next closest was Germany with 6%.

Migrants prefer to come to the U.S. because it is (rightfully) perceived as the best place to improve their quality of life. Plain and simple.

Which countries do migrants want to move to?

 

[Rich Conway]

Since humans came into existence, until the last 70-ish years, haven't we been progressing towards less time spent on "have to" and more time spent on "want to"?

In a similar vein, to play out a hypothetical yet logical conclusion, if unlimited resources were possible via "molecular transformation" or some other technological magic, why would anyone want/need to work? Shouldn't we be trying to move towards a future where no one has to work?

 

[AAABatteries]

Since humans came into existence, until the last 70-ish years, haven't we been progressing towards less time spent on "have to" and more time spent on "want to"?

In a similar vein, to play out a hypothetical yet logical conclusion, if unlimited resources were possible via "molecular transformation" or some other technological magic, why would anyone want/need to work? Shouldn't we be trying to move towards a future where no one has to work?

Not to turn this into a philosophical discussion but I think for a lot of people work gives them a sense of purpose. The problem is far too many people dread the work they do and don't find their passion. I don't think a society that is all about leisure would be a thriving one. I think we all need to have something to do even beyond our family and friends. Whether that's work, hobby, etc. probably wouldn't matter.

 

[AAABatteries]

If you do some math and say that the standard person sleeps 8 hours a day, you are left with 112 hours in a week. 40 hours is 35.7% and 32 hours is 28.6%. We are talking about basically a 7% difference in work time. That's not insignificant but it's also small enough where I think it kind of doesn't matter if it's 32, 36 or 40. To me the key is not working 50-60+ hours (for sure) and then having 4-day work week. Just make Friday part of the "weekend".

 

[Gally]

I've done 4 10's before and loved it. That being said, not a fan of 32 hour work weeks from a productivity perspective.

I can guarantee that in my role, I would get the exact same amount of work done in a 4/10 situation as in a 4/8 situation

Would you get the exact same amount of work done in a 4/7 situation as a a 4/8 situation?

Probably? I don’t know what the number exactly is but I would guess most weeks I could likely accomplish similar amount of work done in 20-25 hours. There is so much down time in so many jobs I doubt that I am alone in this

I think that is defendant upon what the job actually is. I manage facilities. If I am doing my job well I really don't have a lot of day to day type work to do. However, when something breaks I now have a ton of stuff to do to get back up and going. My facilities need to be up and running 24/7/365 whenever possible.

So in most weeks I am making sure stuff is running smoothly and being maintained so there are no unexpected hiccups. I could probably get away with working 20 ish hrs a week. But there are times that number goes to 50 or 60 hrs because of either planned maintenance activities or unexpected failures.

Not all jobs are this way. Production jobs likely have a widget count per hour/day/week/month/year. That is likely very dependent on actual work hours. Service industries like restaurants need set hours that someone has to cover. So lesser work hours means more people (which are already hard to find).

I don't know the right answer but I don't think it is a one size fits all solution.

 

[Grahamburn]

When I was a kid, the US and EU were in comparable places in terms of wealth. Now there is a fairly massive gulf between us. Let's not jump off that bridge just because our buddies did.

How’s happiness/quality of life and overall health in the EU since they jumped?

Why does the U.S. get by far the most immigrants in the world (more than then next four countries combined)? Are they coming here to not be happy/improve their quality of life?

Because we have had an open border policy since the inception of the country, give me your poor, tire, huddled masses since the immigration of early poor irish immigrants during the potato famine. There are more people of irish decent living in Boston than in Ireland. Our history is based on immigration.

The other factor is there are only 2 strong choices for an immigrant in north america if they are on this continent, in europe you have many choices for a country that could be better depending on where you are emigrating from.

This is in addition to many different countries that people want to leave, most of the countries in the america's are terrible, where would you want to live in the america's: Trinidad, Costa Rica, and maybe if you want to stretch it ecuador, panama, or peru, there are 15-20+ other countries that people want to leave ASAP in the america's.

edit: This has nothing to do with the europe/US debate, i think there are many factors that are different and in some case some european countries have done better in last 30 years and in some cases US has done better in last 30 years.

According to World Economic Forum, 21% of potential migrants worldwide named the U.S. as their preferred emigration destination. Next closest was Germany with 6%.

Migrants prefer to come to the U.S. because it is (rightfully) perceived as the best place to improve their quality of life. Plain and simple.

Which countries do migrants want to move to?

We might be a touch spoiled around these parts. Bunch of entitled twits.

 

[AAABatteries]

When I was a kid, the US and EU were in comparable places in terms of wealth. Now there is a fairly massive gulf between us. Let's not jump off that bridge just because our buddies did.

How’s happiness/quality of life and overall health in the EU since they jumped?

Why does the U.S. get by far the most immigrants in the world (more than then next four countries combined)? Are they coming here to not be happy/improve their quality of life?

Because we have had an open border policy since the inception of the country, give me your poor, tire, huddled masses since the immigration of early poor irish immigrants during the potato famine. There are more people of irish decent living in Boston than in Ireland. Our history is based on immigration.

The other factor is there are only 2 strong choices for an immigrant in north america if they are on this continent, in europe you have many choices for a country that could be better depending on where you are emigrating from.

This is in addition to many different countries that people want to leave, most of the countries in the america's are terrible, where would you want to live in the america's: Trinidad, Costa Rica, and maybe if you want to stretch it ecuador, panama, or peru, there are 15-20+ other countries that people want to leave ASAP in the america's.

edit: This has nothing to do with the europe/US debate, i think there are many factors that are different and in some case some european countries have done better in last 30 years and in some cases US has done better in last 30 years.

According to World Economic Forum, 21% of potential migrants worldwide named the U.S. as their preferred emigration destination. Next closest was Germany with 6%.

Migrants prefer to come to the U.S. because it is (rightfully) perceived as the best place to improve their quality of life. Plain and simple.

Which countries do migrants want to move to?

We might be a touch spoiled around these parts. Bunch of entitled twits.

How does this discussion equate to being entitled? Nobody that I’ve seen is asking for special treatment or privileges- they want this for all workers.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

When I was a kid, the US and EU were in comparable places in terms of wealth. Now there is a fairly massive gulf between us. Let's not jump off that bridge just because our buddies did.

How’s happiness/quality of life and overall health in the EU since they jumped?

Why does the U.S. get by far the most immigrants in the world (more than then next four countries combined)? Are they coming here to not be happy/improve their quality of life?

Because we have had an open border policy since the inception of the country, give me your poor, tire, huddled masses since the immigration of early poor irish immigrants during the potato famine. There are more people of irish decent living in Boston than in Ireland. Our history is based on immigration.

The other factor is there are only 2 strong choices for an immigrant in north america if they are on this continent, in europe you have many choices for a country that could be better depending on where you are emigrating from.

This is in addition to many different countries that people want to leave, most of the countries in the america's are terrible, where would you want to live in the america's: Trinidad, Costa Rica, and maybe if you want to stretch it ecuador, panama, or peru, there are 15-20+ other countries that people want to leave ASAP in the america's.

edit: This has nothing to do with the europe/US debate, i think there are many factors that are different and in some case some european countries have done better in last 30 years and in some cases US has done better in last 30 years.

According to World Economic Forum, 21% of potential migrants worldwide named the U.S. as their preferred emigration destination. Next closest was Germany with 6%.

Migrants prefer to come to the U.S. because it is (rightfully) perceived as the best place to improve their quality of life. Plain and simple.

Which countries do migrants want to move to?

We might be a touch spoiled around these parts. Bunch of entitled twits.

People wanted to immigrate here when we had 80 hour work weeks too. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be grateful that our ancestors didn't just continue to settle for it because it's what they were used to.

 

[Desert_Power]

How’s happiness/quality of life and overall health in the EU since they jumped?

Interesting article on this overall EU/USA work topic: https://www.ft.com/content/4e319ddd-cfbd-447a-b872-3fb66856bb65

 

[Grahamburn]

When I was a kid, the US and EU were in comparable places in terms of wealth. Now there is a fairly massive gulf between us. Let's not jump off that bridge just because our buddies did.

How’s happiness/quality of life and overall health in the EU since they jumped?

Why does the U.S. get by far the most immigrants in the world (more than then next four countries combined)? Are they coming here to not be happy/improve their quality of life?

Because we have had an open border policy since the inception of the country, give me your poor, tire, huddled masses since the immigration of early poor irish immigrants during the potato famine. There are more people of irish decent living in Boston than in Ireland. Our history is based on immigration.

The other factor is there are only 2 strong choices for an immigrant in north america if they are on this continent, in europe you have many choices for a country that could be better depending on where you are emigrating from.

This is in addition to many different countries that people want to leave, most of the countries in the america's are terrible, where would you want to live in the america's: Trinidad, Costa Rica, and maybe if you want to stretch it ecuador, panama, or peru, there are 15-20+ other countries that people want to leave ASAP in the america's.

edit: This has nothing to do with the europe/US debate, i think there are many factors that are different and in some case some european countries have done better in last 30 years and in some cases US has done better in last 30 years.

According to World Economic Forum, 21% of potential migrants worldwide named the U.S. as their preferred emigration destination. Next closest was Germany with 6%.

Migrants prefer to come to the U.S. because it is (rightfully) perceived as the best place to improve their quality of life. Plain and simple.

Which countries do migrants want to move to?

We might be a touch spoiled around these parts. Bunch of entitled twits.

How does this discussion equate to being entitled? Nobody that I’ve seen is asking for special treatment or privileges- they want this for all workers.

I'm fine with it if everyone takes the 20% paycut and all other expenses also follow suit. Mortgage, rent, phones, tech, insurance, taxes, utilities, maintenance, supplies, support, on and on. Then it makes sense. The workforce is only thinking about this from one perspective. Theirs.

Guys in here are openly admitting they can get their job done in 32 hours. Then why is the company paying for 40? If we can get everything accomplished in 32 hours per week then let's do it. I'm all for it. I'm reading "work life balance" multiple times throughout the day being thrown around as gospel now. All good. I'm on board. I'm accommodating. You can work whatever hours you want. Oh, you want me to pay you the same though and keep all your benefits in line with those that can handle 40 hours? Ehh. Not so much.

This makes sense in some industries. I'd like to think the companies that are capable of doing it without losing margin already have. It's not one size fits all though.

 

[the moops]

Guys in here are openly admitting they can get their job done in 32 hours. Then why is the company paying for 40?

Because companies rarely want to make such drastic changes

 

[AAABatteries]

I'm fine with it if everyone takes the 20% paycut and all other expenses also follow suit. Mortgage, rent, phones, tech, insurance, taxes, utilities, maintenance, supplies, support, on and on. Then it makes sense. The workforce is only thinking about this from one perspective. Theirs.

I do agree that is a pipe dream - you will never get everyone to agree to that but I don't think you have to. Salaried employees are already working under the understanding that you get paid to get your work done. For hourly it is trickier but there's options - instead of paying for 40 hours and getting 32 you could either: just pay for 32 (your reduction comment), increase wages (which really should happen and to be fair has happened but not commiserate with inflation) or (and I know this will be wildly unpopular) but we could have our first iteration of a BIG by bridging the gap of those 8 hours for hourly employees. We could get creative.

Guys in here are openly admitting they can get their job done in 32 hours. Then why is the company paying for 40? If we can get everything accomplished in 32 hours per week then let's do it. I'm all for it. I'm reading "work life balance" multiple times throughout the day being thrown around as gospel now. All good. I'm on board. I'm accommodating. You can work whatever hours you want. Oh, you want me to pay you the same though and keep all your benefits in line with those that can handle 40 hours? Ehh. Not so much.

I think most people saying they can get their work done in 32 aren't necessarily getting paid for 40 - they are salaried. I know in some places you can't work OT but I don't think that's what we are talking about here. In a lot of white collar jobs folks can be efficient and get the work done in less than 40 but some have to work 40 or even 50+. I've been through phases in my career where I've worked 60-70 for short durations - just comes with the gig. But as I also pointed out - personally I don't care about 32 vs. 40. I can much more about 4 vs. 5.

This makes sense in some industries. I'd like to think the companies that are capable of doing it without losing margin already have. It's not one size fits all though.

Totally agree that this can't be one size fits all but that works both ways. There's no reason for a lot of jobs to work 5 day weeks just because everyone else does isn't a good reason.

 

[NutterButter]

If you do some math and say that the standard person sleeps 8 hours a day, you are left with 112 hours in a week. 40 hours is 35.7% and 32 hours is 28.6%. We are talking about basically a 7% difference in work time. That's not insignificant but it's also small enough where I think it kind of doesn't matter if it's 32, 36 or 40. To me the key is not working 50-60+ hours (for sure) and then having 4-day work week. Just make Friday part of the "weekend".

I'd love to test out the 4x10 vs 5x8. Part of me doesn't want to give up the 2 hours on those 4 days. I think I'd missed them a lot and it would make those 4 days harder to utilize for leisurely purposes. But 3 day weekends sure are nice.

 

[Grahamburn]

Guys in here are openly admitting they can get their job done in 32 hours. Then why is the company paying for 40?

Because companies rarely want to make such drastic changes

Is there any reason why you don't go in and ask? If I'm you and I can get my job done in 32 as a salaried employee I'd offer take a paycut to "36," while only actually being chained to the desk for 32. I get it though. People want the full salary and maybe don't want to admit they fart around on FBGs for half their week.

I'm in healthcare. You drop 20% of the week you lose 20% of the revenue.

You figure anyone who is remote is already barely working 20 and getting paid for 40. If the job is done the manager shouldn't care.

 

[AAABatteries]

If you do some math and say that the standard person sleeps 8 hours a day, you are left with 112 hours in a week. 40 hours is 35.7% and 32 hours is 28.6%. We are talking about basically a 7% difference in work time. That's not insignificant but it's also small enough where I think it kind of doesn't matter if it's 32, 36 or 40. To me the key is not working 50-60+ hours (for sure) and then having 4-day work week. Just make Friday part of the "weekend".

I'd love to test out the 4x10 vs 5x8. Part of me doesn't want to give up the 2 hours on those 4 days. I think I'd missed them a lot and it would make those 4 days harder to utilize for leisurely purposes. But 3 day weekends sure are nice.

I get this and everybody's situation is a little different - if I have to get up at 5 or 6 every day to have every Friday off then sign me up. I might have felt differently 12-14 years ago when I had 4 young kids.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Is there any reason why you don't go in and ask? If I'm you and I can get my job done in 32 as a salaried employee I'd offer take a paycut to "36," while only actually being chained to the desk for 32. I get it though. People want the full salary and maybe don't want to admit they fart around on FBGs for half their week.

I'm in healthcare. You drop 20% of the week you lose 20% of the revenue.

You figure anyone who is remote is already barely working 20 and getting paid for 40. If the job is done the manager shouldn't care.

On one hand, this is true. On the other hand, it kind of misses the point of job design. If I'm writing a job description for a salaried employee, one of the very first things I do after the first draft is ask myself "Does this position actually involve ~40 hours of work each week?" If the answer is no, we go back and add more responsibilities until we get up to 40. Nobody around here ever intentionally designs a 32-hour job that we're going to pay as if it were full-time. Frankly, our HR office exists for the express purpose of preventing us from doing so, and that's logical. We have an obligation to taxpayers not to waste their money.

Now obviously it often happens that somebody gets hired into one of these positions, gets good at it, and they can do their job in less than 40 hours. If a person is looking to move up, or position themselves for some other role, that freed-up time gives them chance to take on additional duties. Or they can coast. Either way is fine. But we really do want our full-time positions to be full-time, with the caveat that of course folks gradually improve their skills.

If an employee came to me an said that he could do his job in 32 hours so is it okay if he just works Monday through Thursday, my response would probably be something like "Shut up and don't tell me that." Benefits represent a significant fixed cost associated with each position, which is why we offer less-than-half-time positions (which don't come with benefits) or 100% positions (which do) but nothing in between. If we're providing benefits, the state expects 40 hours. Theoretically I should be finding more stuff for this person to do. I'm certainly not going to put them on a four-day schedule. That would be a great way for me to dramatically reduce my own hours worked.

(This is just my perspective working for the public sector. I get that it's different in other industries, which is a good reason for not having a blanket rule that applies to everyone).

 

[Gally]

If you do some math and say that the standard person sleeps 8 hours a day, you are left with 112 hours in a week. 40 hours is 35.7% and 32 hours is 28.6%. We are talking about basically a 7% difference in work time. That's not insignificant but it's also small enough where I think it kind of doesn't matter if it's 32, 36 or 40. To me the key is not working 50-60+ hours (for sure) and then having 4-day work week. Just make Friday part of the "weekend".

I'd love to test out the 4x10 vs 5x8. Part of me doesn't want to give up the 2 hours on those 4 days. I think I'd missed them a lot and it would make those 4 days harder to utilize for leisurely purposes. But 3 day weekends sure are nice.

I have found that 9 hour days are much "easier" to stomach than 10 hour days. I had the option awhile back to do either 4x10 or 9-80 schedule. I went with the 9-80 as it was easier day to day and still gave me the 3 day weekend every other weekend. I found with the 10 hour days it just seemed to take more out of me per day and seemed extra long. Might be based on my work load where some of the responsibility is waiting for something to break so those days drag on a bit. Where is there is something broken and we are fixing it then the day goes quicker and the 10 hrs isn't as bad.

 

[NutterButter]

If you do some math and say that the standard person sleeps 8 hours a day, you are left with 112 hours in a week. 40 hours is 35.7% and 32 hours is 28.6%. We are talking about basically a 7% difference in work time. That's not insignificant but it's also small enough where I think it kind of doesn't matter if it's 32, 36 or 40. To me the key is not working 50-60+ hours (for sure) and then having 4-day work week. Just make Friday part of the "weekend".

I'd love to test out the 4x10 vs 5x8. Part of me doesn't want to give up the 2 hours on those 4 days. I think I'd missed them a lot and it would make those 4 days harder to utilize for leisurely purposes. But 3 day weekends sure are nice.

I get this and everybody's situation is a little different - if I have to get up at 5 or 6 every day to have every Friday off then sign me up. I might have felt differently 12-14 years ago when I had 4 young kids.

I was actually thinking that having older kids and being mostly free on the weekends makes having that 3rd day off less of a priority. I guess I kind of like the whole work for a bit/leisure for a bit repeat rhythm that a typical 8 hour workday provides. Now if I had a noticeable work commute, that might push me into the 4 day camp.

 

[the moops]

Guys in here are openly admitting they can get their job done in 32 hours. Then why is the company paying for 40?

Because companies rarely want to make such drastic changes

Is there any reason why you don't go in and ask? If I'm you and I can get my job done in 32 as a salaried employee I'd offer take a paycut to "36," while only actually being chained to the desk for 32. I get it though. People want the full salary and maybe don't want to admit they fart around on FBGs for half their week.

I'm in healthcare. You drop 20% of the week you lose 20% of the revenue.

You figure anyone who is remote is already barely working 20 and getting paid for 40. If the job is done the manager shouldn't care.

You are taking an extremely adversarial tone in this thread friend, FYI

I think like most places if I asked to only work 32 but still get my full salary they would tell me to go pound sand. This can't be a 1 person in the organization thing, it needs to be organization wide. I am not that important to push that change forward

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think like most places if I asked to only work 32 but still get my full salary they would tell me to go pound sand.

That's going to be the discussion.

And I don't know what most places will do. My gut says most of the discussion will be employees thinking: "Work 32 hours and get the exact same pay and benefits as if I'd worked 40 hours". But I don't know.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I get this and everybody's situation is a little different - if I have to get up at 5 or 6 every day to have every Friday off then sign me up. I might have felt differently 12-14 years ago when I had 4 young kids.

I think this is a different thing than what most are thinking as I said above, I think the discussion will move to "work less hours for the same pay/benefits".

But to what you're saying, we did this at Bryant Boats where the people in the plant worked 4 days a week, 10 hours per day. With Fridays off. It was a huge perk for them and super popular. We'd have had a riot if I tried to move back to 5 - 8 hour days.

The office and customer service and warehouse and such all worked 5 days week as they needed to be available to the public, But for jobs that can do it, it's a huge perk to the person.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another big benefit to 4 - 10 hour days is it allows Friday for overtime / catchup work if needed. Without getting into the weekend. Which nobody in a manufacturing situation wants.

 

[Scoresman]

Because the point everyone seems to be stuck on is the idea that having a better work/life balance means we have to make less money and sacrifice individual wealth. But it doesn't. It simply means our tippy top would have to make less money, money that they've taken on the backs on uncompensated worker productivity increases over the last 85 years since the modern work week was put into place

This ties in with the noncompetes going away. There are places that don't have them already like Cali, and the lack of noncompetes has made software startups much easier to do.

What the corporations tell us would make it harder for them to compete is a very long list, and many of those things have proven not to be true.

I feel like most people have worked in jobs where they didn't need 40 hours to get their work done. I assume this is why there are plenty of message board posts during the workday.

"Yes boss, I can certainly have that top 200 horror countdown done by the end of the month"

 

[AAABatteries]

I get this and everybody's situation is a little different - if I have to get up at 5 or 6 every day to have every Friday off then sign me up. I might have felt differently 12-14 years ago when I had 4 young kids.

I think this is a different thing than what most are thinking as I said above, I think the discussion will move to "work less hours for the same pay/benefits".

But to what you're saying, we did this at Bryant Boats where the people in the plant worked 4 days a week, 10 hours per day. With Fridays off. It was a huge perk for them and super popular. We'd have had a riot if I tried to move back to 5 - 8 hour days.

The office and customer service and warehouse and such all worked 5 days week as they needed to be available to the public, But for jobs that can do it, it's a huge perk to the person.

It's hard for me to answer except for myself on the reduction in pay. I'm a Footballguy (or whatever we are going to call ourselves ) so 20% pay reduction is a decent chunk of money.

If my only two options are 4x8 with 20% pay reduction or keep things as-is I would probably keep it as-is for now. For me, I'd go:

4x10 > 5x8 > 4x8 (with 20% pay cut).

 

[culdeus]

From my perspective, I think the majority of people think it works best with 3 day weekends, but really our operations would probably benefit if we had more of a rotation since other regions rely on us to be at least somewhat responsive.

I wouldn't mind getting Wednesday's honestly.

 

[the moops]

From my perspective, I think the majority of people think it works best with 3 day weekends, but really our operations would probably benefit if we had more of a rotation since other regions rely on us to be at least somewhat responsive.

I wouldn't mind getting Wednesday's honestly.

I think you could get creative with schedules which would be a hassle to figure out, but could meet many people's desires (such as having a Wednesday off, or someone working a Sunday but having Thu/Fri/Sat off, etc)

 

[Grahamburn]

Guys in here are openly admitting they can get their job done in 32 hours. Then why is the company paying for 40?

Because companies rarely want to make such drastic changes

Is there any reason why you don't go in and ask? If I'm you and I can get my job done in 32 as a salaried employee I'd offer take a paycut to "36," while only actually being chained to the desk for 32. I get it though. People want the full salary and maybe don't want to admit they fart around on FBGs for half their week.

I'm in healthcare. You drop 20% of the week you lose 20% of the revenue.

You figure anyone who is remote is already barely working 20 and getting paid for 40. If the job is done the manager shouldn't care.

You are taking an extremely adversarial tone in this thread friend, FYI

I think like most places if I asked to only work 32 but still get my full salary they would tell me to go pound sand. This can't be a 1 person in the organization thing, it needs to be organization wide. I am not that important to push that change forward

I know. I'm on the other side of the table.

 

[Grahamburn]

I think like most places if I asked to only work 32 but still get my full salary they would tell me to go pound sand.

That's going to be the discussion.

And I don't know what most places will do. My gut says most of the discussion will be employees thinking: "Work 32 hours and get the exact same pay and benefits as if I'd worked 40 hours". But I don't know.

It's becoming increasing difficult to find good people, and when you do find them trying to keep them is even harder. I would certainly accommodate this request if the production were expected to be equal. I understand how important it is for people now to get this balance in their lives.

 

[NutterButter]

From my perspective, I think the majority of people think it works best with 3 day weekends, but really our operations would probably benefit if we had more of a rotation since other regions rely on us to be at least somewhat responsive.

I wouldn't mind getting Wednesday's honestly.

That would be real nice. Whenever I have a day to blow b/c we're on a bank system with a cap, I do mid week just to break it up. Its nice b/c Mondays and Thursday, you're still riding that previous day off and Tues and Friday, you're looking forward to having the next day off. Its all psychological baby.

 

[belljr]

If you do some math and say that the standard person sleeps 8 hours a day, you are left with 112 hours in a week. 40 hours is 35.7% and 32 hours is 28.6%. We are talking about basically a 7% difference in work time. That's not insignificant but it's also small enough where I think it kind of doesn't matter if it's 32, 36 or 40. To me the key is not working 50-60+ hours (for sure) and then having 4-day work week. Just make Friday part of the "weekend".

I'd love to test out the 4x10 vs 5x8. Part of me doesn't want to give up the 2 hours on those 4 days. I think I'd missed them a lot and it would make those 4 days harder to utilize for leisurely purposes. But 3 day weekends sure are nice.

I get this and everybody's situation is a little different - if I have to get up at 5 or 6 every day to have every Friday off then sign me up. I might have felt differently 12-14 years ago when I had 4 young kids.

I was actually thinking that having older kids and being mostly free on the weekends makes having that 3rd day off less of a priority. I guess I kind of like the whole work for a bit/leisure for a bit repeat rhythm that a typical 8 hour workday provides. Now if I had a noticeable work commute, that might push me into the 4 day camp.

As soon as my kid finished high school I switched to 4-10s. I didn't do it sooner because she had games, practices, school events etc. Now that I don't need to rush anywhere for anything I play golf on Fridays or mow the lawn. Run errands or just f off. Id play every Friday if I could but I don't always have a spot. If the wife and I go somewhere we can get an early start if need be. Tack on Monday holidays and I have like 6 4day weekends built in. Yeah getting home at six sometimes sucks

 

[belljr]

From my perspective, I think the majority of people think it works best with 3 day weekends, but really our operations would probably benefit if we had more of a rotation since other regions rely on us to be at least somewhat responsive.

I wouldn't mind getting Wednesday's honestly.

That would be real nice. Whenever I have a day to blow b/c we're on a bank system with a cap, I do mid week just to break it up. Its nice b/c Mondays and Thursday, you're still riding that previous day off and Tues and Friday, you're looking forward to having the next day off. Its all psychological baby.

My first job I had off every Wednesday, it was kind of nice. I don't do it now because I don't want a super late Friday

 

[NutterButter]

If you do some math and say that the standard person sleeps 8 hours a day, you are left with 112 hours in a week. 40 hours is 35.7% and 32 hours is 28.6%. We are talking about basically a 7% difference in work time. That's not insignificant but it's also small enough where I think it kind of doesn't matter if it's 32, 36 or 40. To me the key is not working 50-60+ hours (for sure) and then having 4-day work week. Just make Friday part of the "weekend".

I'd love to test out the 4x10 vs 5x8. Part of me doesn't want to give up the 2 hours on those 4 days. I think I'd missed them a lot and it would make those 4 days harder to utilize for leisurely purposes. But 3 day weekends sure are nice.

I get this and everybody's situation is a little different - if I have to get up at 5 or 6 every day to have every Friday off then sign me up. I might have felt differently 12-14 years ago when I had 4 young kids.

I was actually thinking that having older kids and being mostly free on the weekends makes having that 3rd day off less of a priority. I guess I kind of like the whole work for a bit/leisure for a bit repeat rhythm that a typical 8 hour workday provides. Now if I had a noticeable work commute, that might push me into the 4 day camp.

Now that I don't need to rush anywhere for anything I play golf on Fridays or mow the lawn. Run errands or just f off.

You need to get a remote gig. You can do all of that on the clock. Lol. That would be a tough choice between remote work or 32 hours and same pay. Would depend on the commute I suppose.

 

[belljr]

If you do some math and say that the standard person sleeps 8 hours a day, you are left with 112 hours in a week. 40 hours is 35.7% and 32 hours is 28.6%. We are talking about basically a 7% difference in work time. That's not insignificant but it's also small enough where I think it kind of doesn't matter if it's 32, 36 or 40. To me the key is not working 50-60+ hours (for sure) and then having 4-day work week. Just make Friday part of the "weekend".

I'd love to test out the 4x10 vs 5x8. Part of me doesn't want to give up the 2 hours on those 4 days. I think I'd missed them a lot and it would make those 4 days harder to utilize for leisurely purposes. But 3 day weekends sure are nice.

I get this and everybody's situation is a little different - if I have to get up at 5 or 6 every day to have every Friday off then sign me up. I might have felt differently 12-14 years ago when I had 4 young kids.

I was actually thinking that having older kids and being mostly free on the weekends makes having that 3rd day off less of a priority. I guess I kind of like the whole work for a bit/leisure for a bit repeat rhythm that a typical 8 hour workday provides. Now if I had a noticeable work commute, that might push me into the 4 day camp.

Now that I don't need to rush anywhere for anything I play golf on Fridays or mow the lawn. Run errands or just f off.

You need to get a remote gig. You can do all of that on the clock. Lol. That would be a tough choice between remote work or 32 hours and same pay. Would depend on the commute I suppose.

Wfh 2 days a week

 

[massraider]

This makes sense in some industries. I'd like to think the companies that are capable of doing it without losing margin already have. It's not one size fits all though.

I would love to think that companies would think this way.

But if your manager has a manager, and that manager has a boss, and that boss has a CEO, and that CEO has shareholders, someone along the way is going to be unhappy that someone is 'getting over', and they aren't going to care if the work was done or not. Then a manager gets yelled at for sending everyone home early, and that's the last time that happens.

I knew a Florida contractor, and he had some sloooow moving laborers. He could never get a day's work done in a day. So he started telling them, If we get xyz done, you get paid for a full day, whenever we finish. They would finish two hours early, he actually got more work done, and the laborers loved him. I thought that was brilliant, and marveled at how I really never saw that anywhere else.

I don't wonder why I don't see that anymore. People are petty, and resent when someone else has/had it easier than them. It's human nature, it's the same nature that makes a person not quite as happy as they should be when their family/friends come into a windfall.

I ran a restaurant where the kitchen manager was on salary, and he was expected to work 50 hours (this is standard in any kitchen I have been around). Well, when he was hourly, he would work 51-54 hours a week. When he went to salary, he would never work more than 51 hours. This bothered my owner to no end. He would check payroll every week, and beeyotch that his kitchen manager was only working what was required. Complete and total ****head.

My company, 40 hours in 4 days is common, and the worker bees really like it. 3 day weekend every week. If that 4th day, they have accomplished everything I wanted, I'll cut them an hour or two early. Same amount of work done, and you cannot put a price on that kind of employee goodwill. People making $20-$25/hour are not used to being treated as anything other than disposable.

 

[Terminalxylem]

When I was a kid, the US and EU were in comparable places in terms of wealth. Now there is a fairly massive gulf between us. Let's not jump off that bridge just because our buddies did.

How’s happiness/quality of life and overall health in the EU since they jumped?

Why does the U.S. get by far the most immigrants in the world (more than then next four countries combined)? Are they coming here to not be happy/improve their quality of life?

Economic opportunity <> happiness.

Sure, you need some wealth for decent quality of life. But there’s a threshold above which extra money doesn’t equate to extra happiness. Or better productivity, for that matter.

 

[Gally]

I knew a Florida contractor, and he had some sloooow moving laborers. He could never get a day's work done in a day. So he started telling them, If we get xyz done, you get paid for a full day, whenever we finish. They would finish two hours early, he actually got more work done, and the laborers loved him. I thought that was brilliant, and marveled at how I really never saw that anywhere else.

I don't wonder why I don't see that anymore. People are petty, and resent when someone else has/had it easier than them. It's human nature, it's the same nature that makes a person not quite as happy as they should be when their family/friends come into a windfall.

The bolded is the biggest detriment to these nice perks that manager/bosses can provide. Not every job can allow for a flex schedule or have people willing/able to bust their buts to get xyz done. If they can't (or won't) they would rather complain that Bob gets to leave an hour early and they can't. Well Bob is better than you that's why he can leave early. Get your work done like Bob and you too can have that benefit. But rather than work hard to do that they ***** and complain and ruin it for Bob. Eventually the manager will either be threatened with lawsuits or just doesn't want to deal with the complaining and take it away from others.

At my previous job I managed a group of about 10 people. We were a manufacturing/engineering company that supplied equipment all over the world. I had people that wanted to take long lunches, come in early, come in late, etc. I had some on salary and some hourly (stupid company based this on job title rather than actual work being accomplished). I gave all the salaried people the option of flex schedules but by CA law I couldn't do the same for the hourly people due to OT rules. The hourly people did get a benefit because we had enough work (serving our customers with equipment that had to stay on line so there were deadlines on things) that they could work OT and get more pay out of it. I had one hourly guy complain that he wasn't salary and I explained to him the difference and that he was getting paid OT where the salaried guy wasn't. So he was actually making more money. He didn't see it that way and really wanted to be reclassified. So I went to bat for him (I wanted to help my guys get what they wanted) to reclassify him. The GM was baffled but agreed because I requested it (and it reality the two people were doing essentially the same work so they should have been classified the same). A few months after the reclassification the guy started complaining that he wasn't making as much money anymore. I just shook my head.

But there were also hourly guys that complained that the salaried guys had a more flexible schedule where they could take a half day off here and there and they couldn't (again due to labor laws/OT they couldn't work more than 10 hrs a day where the salary guy could). They made enough of a squawk that I had to take away the 9-80 schedule for the salary guys. So people worrying more about others than just their situation. It was terrible.

 

[massraider]

I knew a Florida contractor, and he had some sloooow moving laborers. He could never get a day's work done in a day. So he started telling them, If we get xyz done, you get paid for a full day, whenever we finish. They would finish two hours early, he actually got more work done, and the laborers loved him. I thought that was brilliant, and marveled at how I really never saw that anywhere else.

I don't wonder why I don't see that anymore. People are petty, and resent when someone else has/had it easier than them. It's human nature, it's the same nature that makes a person not quite as happy as they should be when their family/friends come into a windfall.

The bolded is the biggest detriment to these nice perks that manager/bosses can provide. Not every job can allow for a flex schedule or have people willing/able to bust their buts to get xyz done. If they can't (or won't) they would rather complain that Bob gets to leave an hour early and they can't. Well Bob is better than you that's why he can leave early. Get your work done like Bob and you too can have that benefit. But rather than work hard to do that they ***** and complain and ruin it for Bob. Eventually the manager will either be threatened with lawsuits or just doesn't want to deal with the complaining and take it away from others.

At my previous job I managed a group of about 10 people. We were a manufacturing/engineering company that supplied equipment all over the world. I had people that wanted to take long lunches, come in early, come in late, etc. I had some on salary and some hourly (stupid company based this on job title rather than actual work being accomplished). I gave all the salaried people the option of flex schedules but by CA law I couldn't do the same for the hourly people due to OT rules. The hourly people did get a benefit because we had enough work (serving our customers with equipment that had to stay on line so there were deadlines on things) that they could work OT and get more pay out of it. I had one hourly guy complain that he wasn't salary and I explained to him the difference and that he was getting paid OT where the salaried guy wasn't. So he was actually making more money. He didn't see it that way and really wanted to be reclassified. So I went to bat for him (I wanted to help my guys get what they wanted) to reclassify him. The GM was baffled but agreed because I requested it (and it reality the two people were doing essentially the same work so they should have been classified the same). A few months after the reclassification the guy started complaining that he wasn't making as much money anymore. I just shook my head.

But there were also hourly guys that complained that the salaried guys had a more flexible schedule where they could take a half day off here and there and they couldn't (again due to labor laws/OT they couldn't work more than 10 hrs a day where the salary guy could). They made enough of a squawk that I had to take away the 9-80 schedule for the salary guys. So people worrying more about others than just their situation. It was terrible.

kids who burst into tears when it's their siblings birthday, because they aren't getting anything. Just decades later. It's the same thing. And people don't outgrow that.

When you meet people who really never behave that way, it's like finding a 5 leaf clover

 

[Courtjester]

I honestly think this is sort of a pie in the sky kind of idea. Employees would love to have to work less, but they are not going to agree to the corresponding 20% pay cut. Employers are not going to give them a 20% raise and lose the corresponding production. So other than a few outliers, this will probably never be realistic .