A Hundred UK Companies Sign Up For Four-day Week With No Loss of Pay (theguardian.com) 46
AmiMoJo writes: A hundred UK companies have signed up for a permanent four-day working week for all their employees with no loss of pay, a milestone in the campaign to fundamentally change Britain's approach to work. The 100 companies employ 2,600 staff -- a tiny fraction of the UK's working population -- but the 4 Day Week Campaign group is hoping they will be the vanguard of a major shift.
Proponents of the four-day week say that the five-day pattern is a hangover from an earlier economic age. They argue that a four-day week would drive companies to improve their productivity, meaning they can create the same output using fewer hours. For some early adopters the policy has also proven a useful way of attracting and retaining employees. The two biggest companies that have signed up are Atom Bank and global marketing company Awin, who each have about 450 staff in the UK. They have been accredited by the four-day week campaign, meaning they have demonstrated that they have genuinely reduced hours for workers rather than forcing them into longer days.
Proponents of the four-day week say that the five-day pattern is a hangover from an earlier economic age. They argue that a four-day week would drive companies to improve their productivity, meaning they can create the same output using fewer hours. For some early adopters the policy has also proven a useful way of attracting and retaining employees. The two biggest companies that have signed up are Atom Bank and global marketing company Awin, who each have about 450 staff in the UK. They have been accredited by the four-day week campaign, meaning they have demonstrated that they have genuinely reduced hours for workers rather than forcing them into longer days.
Four-day work-week is da bomb (Score:2)
I work four days a week, 8h/day and I love it. I get all my work done and have a three-day weekend every week. That said, I'm a contractor and bill by the hour, so I am effectively taking a 20% pay cut, but at this stage in my life, the tradeoff is worth it. The extra time is worth much more to me than the lost income.
The one irreplaceable resource (Score:4, Insightful)
Is time. You cannot generate more time; you get a certain amount, and the actual number is unknown because none of us know our lifespan. With that time, you can create more income or simply enjoy life. If you spend it all at a job, you may find yourself at age 65 like so many people bitter and suicidal.
I made the same decision years ago. When you can get enough to pay the bills and set aside a small portion for retirement, you are doing well, even if you do not have the trendy house, car, gadgets, and dietary fads. Instead you get to actually live, which relatively few human beings ever experience.
Re:The one irreplaceable resource (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. I have done the same for the last 15 years. Better have time to do something meaningful with than work, work and more work and all you have to show for are some rather meaningless possessions. I do think that a lot of workaholics struggle with making their time off meaningful though, so they start to worship work and desperately preach it as the only path to happiness possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not quite. They are also largely responsible for the stupid "hours worked" metric for productivity and for a lot of efforts that make others work longer. And, on top of that, if they work > 40 h, they also destroy value by making stupid decisions and lots of errors. So no, unless these people are part of a different society than I am, I do not think they have a right to do what they are doing.
Re:The one irreplaceable resource (Score:4, Interesting)
I like going to work. I find that when I have too much time off, I get start to get depressed.
Re: (Score:3)
Opposite for me. I was unemployed for three months back in 2021. I had a blast. Did not miss work one little bit and only went back because I needed the cash flow.
As soon as I can swing it financially, I'm retiring.
Re: Four-day work-week is da bomb (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s a win-win all around. Glad you hit the magic combo that works well and ticks out all the right checkboxes
boost (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It says the "companies signed up" do to 4x day work weeks.
Who is the company signing up with?
Are they some how having to sign up with the government to do a 4x day work week?!?!?
If so, why would a private company have to "sign up" or get some sort of permission from the government on how they want to orient their work weeks?
I don't get it....am I misreading the article?
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to me to see if this boosts other economic activity. Such as home improvement, participation in hobbies and sports etc. given that people will have more time to pursue these activities.
It might certainly boost attendance at the football games in the UK...or at least watching them on the telly down at the local pub with the mates.
Most Premier League games are Saturday & Sunday with 1 on Monday.
Other football leagues play on other days of the week.
Suckers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
bad news for the PHB that does useless meetings all day
Re: (Score:2)
Without Loss of Pay (Score:3)
Toward the end of TFA: “With many businesses struggling to afford 10% inflation pay rises, we’re starting to see increasing evidence that a four-day week with no loss of pay is being offered as an alternative solution.”
So yeah, no loss of pay. But loss of pay increases to offset inflation. Yay, I guess?
Re: (Score:2)
It could even be a negative for some people. Energy prices are way up, so having a day off when you need to heat your house more will actually cost you money.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought everybody here works from home!
That said, I'm quite happy to go to the office and let my employer pay to heat/cool me during the. But then I've got 3.5km commute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Already on this... (Score:2)
Wouldn't work in the U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your over-achieving brown nosing coworkers would continue to work five days a week and you'd get left behind if you didn't too.
Same with "unlimited" vacation. And sick leave.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your over-achieving brown nosing coworkers would continue to work five days a week and you'd get left behind if you didn't too.
Same with "unlimited" vacation. And sick leave.
My company went to a 9/80 schedule a couple of years ago. Only a small handful of Type A workaholics show up on the off Fridays, and they're not leaving anyone behind.
They also instituted an "unlimited" vacation policy, but offered employees the choice of going with that or staying with the original "time accrued" policy. People with 5 years or more tended to stay with the old policy; newer hires went with the "unlimited" plan. Then the pandemic hit, and travel became difficult. Those on the old policy were
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard anyone on the "unlimited" plan complain that they weren't able to take vacation time, but I've also never heard of anyone abusing the policy.
It's not that you are not able to take the vacation time, it is that you are pressured to feel bad every time you take a week off, so in the end, nobody takes 8 weeks vacation (which would be considered high in the US, but low in Europe).
Re: (Score:2)
nobody takes 8 weeks vacation (which would be considered high in the US, but low in Europe)
Do you have a citation for that? 8 weeks would be 40 days, assuming a 5-day work week. According to this source, [benefitnews.com] "On average, employees in the U.S. take 14 days off per year, while workers in European countries like Spain, France, Germany and even the U.K. take 24 days". By that standard, 8 weeks would not be considered "low in Europe."
I don't know anyone who takes 8-week vacations where I work; however, I have several colleagues who routinely take at least one, and sometimes two, 4-week vacations every yea
Re: (Score:2)
https://snippetsofparis.com/va... [snippetsofparis.com]
The bare minimum legal is 5 weeks in France, and 4 in Germany. Most people with regular, steady jobs get more than that. OK maybe 8 weeks is not "low" but is at least pretty common, at least for those with good jobs. Crappy jobs always end up with the minimum, both wage and paid vacation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The bare minimum legal is 5 weeks in France, and 4 in Germany. Most people with regular, steady jobs get more than that. OK maybe 8 weeks is not "low" but is at least pretty common, at least for those with good jobs. Crappy jobs always end up with the minimum, both wage and paid vacation.
From the snippetsofparis.com article: Cadres who are senior white collar workers get around 44 vacation days while blue collar workers get between 28-33 days. The article also says that although "a majority of employees get anywhere from 8-10 weeks total vacation days", "the standard is to take a minimum 3 weeks in either July or in August". That last seems to jibe with the previously cited "workers in European countries like Spain, France, Germany and even the U.K. take 24 days". It appears that the articl
Re:Wouldn't work in the U.S. (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is what unlimited vacation really means:
In fact, there's research showing that, on average, workers with “unlimited” vacation time actually take fewer days off in a year (13) than workers who are given a specific number of vacation days (15) and twice as many of those with unlimited time off say they “always” work on vacation.
https://www.thecut.com/article... [thecut.com]
Re: (Score:2)
there's research showing
Great, except that TFA doesn't cite the research, just claims that it exists. And the anecdote that starts TFA is very much contradictory to the claim made by that "research".
There will always be workaholics that will work uncompensated hours, whether after normal working hours, on the weekends, or when they're "on vacation". There will also always be workers who are always "on call", and know that going in. There will always be employees who abuse a privilege and ultimately pay the price for it. Anyone w
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who interprets "unlimited" vacation time as meaning "take as much time as you want, whenever you like" deserves the rude awakening they'll eventually be treated to.
Maybe, but companies offering unlimited vacation time should expect employees to take more, not less vacation on average.
Just like people tend to eat more in "all you can eat" buffet compared to average restaurant, and users with no data cap tend to use more compared to those with a monthly cap on their Internet connection.
If the norm is to take 3 weeks vacation, then I don't think you can blame an employee who takes 5-7 weeks, especially when you got him on board with an unlimited vacation promise. It is d
Re: (Score:2)
If the norm is to take 3 weeks vacation, then I don't think you can blame an employee who takes 5-7 weeks, especially when you got him on board with an unlimited vacation promise. It is definitely not abusing, just like eating 3 plates instead of one in a buffet is abusing the restaurant.
First, I doubt if anyone is literally promised unlimited vacation time, with no terms and conditions; for example, "as long as it doesn't interfere with getting your job done" or "with the approval of your supervisor".
Second, comparing unlimited vacation time with an all-you-can-eat buffet is a false equivalence, and "3 plates instead of one" is a long way from unlimited. There is a limit to how much a human being can consume in a limited time span, and a restaurant is not going to tolerate someone occupyin
Re: (Score:2)
First, I doubt if anyone is literally promised unlimited vacation time, with no terms and conditions; for example, "as long as it doesn't interfere with getting your job done" or "with the approval of your supervisor".
The problem is that with many jobs, there is always more job to do. So by that definition, the job is never done, and you can never take any vacation.
And then, if the manager can't agree to find 5-7 weeks out of 52, he's free not to offer the job posting as "unlimited vacation".
My point was that "unlimited vacations" should be understood as better than the next door's company offering "4 weeks vacation" for a similar position.
Vacation time, like salary, is one way to attract talents.
Second, comparing unlimited vacation time with an all-you-can-eat buffet is a false equivalence, and "3 plates instead of one" is a long way from unlimited. There is a limit to how much a human being can consume in a limited time span, and a restaurant is not going to tolerate someone occupying a table for more than a few hours. I can cite personal experience for this one, having been ejected from a restaurant advertising "all you can eat" with a group of voracious high school buddies long ago after a marathon session of gluttony, the purpose of which was to determine just how much "all you can eat" might be. We didn't get a definitive answer, but I can say that it's more than 3 plates. The manager was polite, but quite firm with his admonition to leave and not come back.
I think the comparison s
Re: (Score:2)
I think the comparison [to all-you-can-eat] stands. Just like someone taking 6 months off out of 12 in an unlimited vacation job will be kicked out.
In other words, you agree that "unlimited" does not mean "as much as you want". It always means "reasonable", and the definition of that has to be negotiated between employee and supervisor.
TBH, I think it's an evolutionary process, like 9/80 schedules and remote work. Employees and employers need to try new things and get comfortable that productivity doesn't tank. Some companies are better at this than others, but if a company really embraces a more liberal time off plan as opposed to just hoping to impr
Re: Wouldn't work in the U.S. (Score:2)
I have never seen any workaholics who are on hourly pay doing a manual job, but always see workaholics in office jobs with salaried pay eating meals, chatting, tidying their desks and making personal calls during their hectic workday.
Re: (Score:1)
But if you ask for a rise... (Score:3)
Let me guess⦠(Score:2)
Still find it implausible (Score:2)
They argue that a four-day week would drive companies to improve their productivity, meaning they can create the same output using fewer hours.
I'm puzzled. Wouldn't profit-hungry managers and heartless fat cat CEOs have already done this? Why not make people work smarter, keep a 40 hour week, and get 25% more done? They can even give the plebes a 15% raise, keep a 10% profit boost, and everyone goes home happy.
Alternatively, all the other schmucks can work harder for 32 hours, I'll work harder for 40 hours, and I'll take the 25% raise, thank you very much. Why is that not on the table?
I'll tell you why: because it's very unlikely there's an easy 2
Mainstreaming a woman's work week (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
holiday (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)