Four-day Week Made Permanent For Most UK Firms In World's Biggest Trial (theguardian.com) 108
AmiMoJo writes: Most of the UK companies that took part in the world's biggest ever four-day working week trial have made the policy permanent, research shows. Of the 61 organisations that took part in a six-month UK pilot in 2022, 54 (89%) are still operating the policy a year later, and 31 (51%) have made the change permanent. More than half (55%) of project managers and CEOs said a four-day week -- in which staff worked 100% of their output in 80% of their time -- had a positive impact on their organisation, the report found.
For 82% this included positive effects on staff wellbeing, 50% found it reduced staff turnover, while 32% said it improved job recruitment. Nearly half (46%) said working and productivity improved. The report's author, Juliet Schor, professor of sociology at Boston College, said the results showed "real and long lasting" effects. "Physical and mental health, and work-life balance are significantly better than at six months. Burnout and life satisfaction improvements held steady," she said.
For 82% this included positive effects on staff wellbeing, 50% found it reduced staff turnover, while 32% said it improved job recruitment. Nearly half (46%) said working and productivity improved. The report's author, Juliet Schor, professor of sociology at Boston College, said the results showed "real and long lasting" effects. "Physical and mental health, and work-life balance are significantly better than at six months. Burnout and life satisfaction improvements held steady," she said.
Focus on liesure, not grindset (Score:1)
Re:Focus on liesure, not grindset (Score:5, Interesting)
The market will force them. It's hard to attract talent if you don't give them something they want. And younger people in general are more interested in a sensible work/life balance than more money.
If you don't offer sensible conditions, all you get is the dregs of the barrel. And no company can compete with an inferior product, or an inferior staff.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't offer sensible conditions, all you get is the dregs of the barrel
tell that to the third world lol
im just wondering if you can fit 5 days work into 4, were you actually working that hard in the first place? Im as lazy as the next man, but you have to call a spade a spade.
Re:Focus on liesure, not grindset (Score:4, Interesting)
Can you actually work "that" hard? I mean, at all.
Yes, we worked "more" in the past. 48, 54, 60 hours a week. Rather, though, we spent more time working but accomplished less. My grandfather worked 6 days a week, and often close to 10 hours a day. But that work was interrupted quite often with times when he had to stop and rest, get from point A to point B, get his stuff ready, wait for something or someone and so on.
We have gained a lot of efficiency in the past 50ish years. Productivity went up 200 to 2000 percent, depending on what field you're looking at. In that sense, you could put those 60 hours my grandpa worked a week into half a workday today.
And it's not that these people were lazy back then, mind you. It was simply how work was organized and the idle times were simply due to the far slower speed of things. Getting around took way, way more time, getting machines or materials in place took many hours, often days, which can today often be done in a couple minutes.
The downside of this increased productivity is that this downtime is missing. And you cannot tell me that you can work with 100% concentration for 10 hours every day, 6 days a week. You cannot. Your output will suffer. Yes, you could, technically, now work without any idle moment 60+ hours a week.
But you, the human, cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Focus on liesure, not grindset (Score:2)
Re: Focus on liesure, not grindset (Score:5, Funny)
I've got such a slave driver, I go to work to get away from her!
Re: (Score:2)
The market will force them. It's hard to attract talent if you don't give them something they want. And younger people in general are more interested in a sensible work/life balance than more money.
If you don't offer sensible conditions, all you get is the dregs of the barrel. And no company can compete with an inferior product, or an inferior staff.
Well, maybe it depends on the field. My team is embarrassingly called the Elites where I'm at now. We are paid very well, and our work is set by the task, not X number of hours per week. And the performance must be top tier, or else you are given all the time off. That seldom happens, because for some weird reason, we enjoy our work.
Now in support of your thesis, yes - less young people are interested in that than might be expected. But we do have some millennials and younger who are interested and high
Re: (Score:2)
Performance is not a function of time but of output.
One of the people I had (sadly he decided he wanted more money and I didn't have the ability to pay him what he was offered elsewhere) worked here for about 25-30 hours and got paid for full time, i.e. 40. Nobody complained. Because we all knew that he accomplished more than most people do in 40 hours.
And I don't need someone who puts some weight on a chair to keep it from flying off into orbit, I get someone who gets shit done.
Of course I could have insis
Re: (Score:2)
Performance is not a function of time but of output.
I don't disagree.
Because even though I love my work, there are limits to what I can actually do. It's not a matter of wanting, it's a matter of ability. After 8 hours of concentrated work, I'm drained. Putting in another 2 hours isn't going to improve my output.
My own work at present isa few days of intellectual work and RF design, another of RF Checkout, and one long day that lasts as long as it lasts. Always over 8 hours. Previous to this job my work entailed were several meetings, experiments to run, and reports and papers to write. And then people found out I had a deft touch with computers, and was a lot more amenable than the people who were supposed to work them when there was a problem. And travel as needed.
Ah travel. When you are
Re: (Score:3)
Lol, so does being on the "Elites" team get you a higher salary?
I don't put the time in because the company isn't my friend and neither is my boss.
You know what working hard gets you? More work.
Re: (Score:3)
> and neither is my boss.
People don't leave bad companies, they leave bad managers. Sounds like you are an example of the truth of that :(
Time to move on I think
Re:Focus on liesure, not grindset (Score:5, Insightful)
I like my boss. Calling him a friend, though, would be asking a bit much. We have a lot of mutual respect for each other and we can work well together, we both know that we benefit from having the other one. And yes, we've shared a beer, we've joked at the company BBQ, everything was great and dandy.
But calling someone a friend requires more than that, at least for me. A friend is someone that I call when the shit hits the fan and I have to bury a corpse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Generally the two are linked. Bad managers lead to a bad company. I left my previous job not because my manager was bad, but because the people in the other groups were essentially incompetent and focused on processes rather than results. My manager agreed with the things I said because they could see it and knew I was right, but had no authority to do anything because of the higher ups who were focused on metrics above all.
As a result,
Re: (Score:2)
> and neither is my boss.
People don't leave bad companies, they leave bad managers. Sounds like you are an example of the truth of that :(
Time to move on I think
Well, I can vouch that a part of my decision to retire some years back was due to getting a new manager that was an asshole. The rest of my outfit was pretty upset, including the Director, whom I worked closely with.
Then a different department in a different location snatched me up, paid me a lot, and It's been pretty enjoyable since then.
But I fear that poster just doesn't like working, and believes the man is out to get him.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, so does being on the "Elites" team get you a higher salary?
Yes.
I don't put the time in because the company isn't my friend and neither is my boss.
A pity that. Did you know that your boss is also a human? You've bought a fine narrative, I hope it makes you happy, and sometimes people get what they give.
You know what working hard gets you? More work.
You know what not working hard gets you?
You
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what the pay is....
Personally, I don't see the normal 5 day work week as a radically unfair system...?
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to a 4 day work week with equal compensation? Yes, it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong....if offered, I'd take it.
Hell, I'd be thrilled if they offered me 0 days work for same pay.
I'll happily admit, I've spent a lot of my life studying to be a Powerball jackpot winner....I'd LOVE to not have to work anymore.
I've never quite understood people that said they'd continue to work even if they struck it rich...
Not me...I have fun things (and women) to do....
Re: (Score:2)
It depends heavily on the job.
In my job, I get to pick apart very exclusive hardware. Like, impossible to get (legally) hardware. And it's heaps and heaps of fun to play around with hardware literally costing millions and if I break them, I don't get punished but rewarded.
That they pay me for doing that, and handsomely so, is a bonus. So yes, there may be a reason for people to keep working even if they have enough money not to do it anymore. Imagine being paid to do what you love doing, and if you stopped
Re: Focus on liesure, not grindset (Score:2)
I think quite often that this is a symptom of something else. Itâ(TM)s not that younger people arenâ(TM)t interested in money but more that housing has become so expensive that they often canâ(TM)t afford or realistically afford it. In many cases, it doesnâ(TM)t matter how hard they work because it wonâ(TM)t make a difference, so why would they?
Re: (Score:2)
That's certainly also an important part of it. And of course that there isn't the noose called mortgage around their neck that you can yank to make them swallow, grin and bear anything. My generation had to put up with a lot of BS from employers because being unemployed means that the mortgage cannot be paid and the house is gone.
But for the young generation, the question is rather: What house?
They are also much more flexible when it comes to living arrangements. So I'm out of work and can't afford my apart
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Glad to see businesses are starting to realize people are not corporations and have other shit going on, like a life. The ones who don't come around voluntarily should be forced to by regulation, though.
Soon, the 4 day workweek will be too much. That sounds sarcastic, but it is not. It's all relative. Once upon a time, many or most people worked 6 days a week. Where I worked (but before I worked there, the 6 day workweek was cut to 5 8 hour days and Saturday 8 to noon. They were happy to get half a day off Saturday - but not for long. Then it became the 5 days, 8 hours. They were happy to have 2 days off. But not for long. Now going to 4 days makes people happy. I'm pretty certain it won't be for long. A
need to cut down free overtime / make salary = no (Score:2)
need to cut down free overtime / make salary = no clock to punch.
their are places that if you work OT they don't pay you more. But come in late / need to levee early they doc your pay / make you take PTO to make up the gap.
Re:need to cut down free overtime / make salary = (Score:4, Interesting)
Best thing I ever did was take a pay cut to move into a non-exempt role.
If I work a minute over 8 hours, I'm now eligible for overtime. Most of the time, I'm not authorized for OT, so at 1630, I'm out the door and not a care in the world until the next morning. If someone comes up and asks me to do something just before I leave, my first question is "Can you authorize me for OT? No? Ok, we'll deal with this tomorrow." It's incredibly freeing.
On the other hand, when I'm on the customer site, OT is basically unlimited and I make bank. Those are very nice paycheques.
Re: (Score:2)
need to cut down free overtime / make salary = no clock to punch.
their are places that if you work OT they don't pay you more. But come in late / need to levee early they doc your pay / make you take PTO to make up the gap.
I don't get paid overtime. And definitely do not punch a clock. I will say that if I work a super long day, no one complains if I go home to take a catnap. Well, actually a couple people did complain a couple times, years ago at my last place - the complainers were asked if they wanted to take on the task that kept me there. Annnd crickets.
There are asshole places to work for certain.
Re:need to cut down free overtime / make salary = (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get paid overtime. And definitely do not punch a clock.
You're being taken advantage of and smiling the entire time.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get paid overtime. And definitely do not punch a clock.
You're being taken advantage of and smiling the entire time.
And laughing all the way to the bank.
I have pride of accomplishment, respect, get top quality clothing gratis and other swag, meals, and an office with ceiling to floor glass and an incredible view.
If that is being taken advantage of, so be it.
Whether it's a different outlook on life and work, or what. Each person is welcome to figure out their outlook for themselves. If the idea that the man is keeping you down, and that work is something to be hated, if that brings you happiness, I'm all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get paid overtime. And definitely do not punch a clock.
You're being taken advantage of and smiling the entire time.
This... "We're not paying overtime" does not mean "you're not doing overtime". Hence, do you pay overtime is one of my standard questions in an interview and if this highlights me as "not a good fit for the company", I'm the one dodging the bullet.
My current employer said just "yes" and I moved onto my next question. A company that does right by it's employees isn't ashamed of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Diminishing returns, which must at some point flip into negative territory.
Re: (Score:2)
Diminishing returns, which must at some point flip into negative territory.
Exactly.
We are near a very interesting time that will be happening. If we do reach a point where most of us do not work, what will we do?
A lot of humanity will be made redundant. Blue Sky predictions speak of humanity shifting toward arts and education and self betterment. I'm a bit skeptical. There is nothing to stop people from doing that now. And previous workweek reductions haven't resulted in anything of the sort.
I think that perhaps a big depopulation is a likely outcome. Be that through a big
Re: Focus on liesure, not grindset (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not seeing the problem here. If machines don't result in greater human leisure, then it's time to smash the machines. We have a moral obligation to ourselves to make the world better to live in.
It is a question of what humans do with that leisure.
Re: (Score:2)
Soon, the 4 day workweek will be too much. That sounds sarcastic, but it is not.
Would that be a bad thing? People having more free time to spend on family and interests? The same threats were made about the 5 day work week.
That assumes that people actually would use their increase in free time wisely. Then again, some people would find sitting on the couch drinking beer as productive.
Regulation is not needed (no one-size-fits-all) (Score:2)
Glad to see businesses are starting to realize people are not corporations and have other shit going on, like a life. The ones who don't come around voluntarily should be forced to by regulation, though.
Jobs vary drastically and what works well for a software firm or a bank could work poorly for a fireman, salesperson, pharmacist, or someone in another industry. Some people have jobs where they're expected to actually work every minute...for them, this is a blessing. Many others are basically "on-call." If you enforce 4 day workweeks small-businesses will just cut service rather than hire more people.
Oh, you want to see a dermatologist? Well, ours is only in Tues through Friday, so the wait will
Re: (Score:2)
Of the 61 organisations that took part in a six-month UK pilot in 2022, 54 (89%) are still operating the policy a year later, and 31 (51%) have made the change permanent.
Stop, businesses are NOT realising ANYTHING - thirty-one (31) companies made the change permanent, with 23 more still operating under the pilot program that ended six months ago.
The headline on this story is wildly off - "31 (or 54) UK companies does not register as "most UK firms."
Great, for rest of world (Score:4, Insightful)
This is great, but would never work in the US. With the US work culture, most companies already expect people to get 6 days work done in 5 days. Overtime is expected in many jobs so the idea of working less would be great for employees, but companies would never get on board with it. Hell, they are already walking back WFH, which has been shown to not decrease, and in many cases increase, productivity. Unfortunately, work culture in the US is entirely defined by the companies, who just want more work from everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. That is a slaveholder mindset, not an employer mindset. No surprise it works rather badly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I have worked in the US. The main reason you need people to work an insane number of hours is that they can't get shit done in any time.
Work discipline in the US is appalling to someone who is used to how things run in Central Europe. Everything is half-assed, nobody really wants to pull his weight and you get the feeling that the joke about the Japanese exchange worker who apologizes profusely with his coworkers that he couldn't participate in their month-long strike is true.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Obviously, more hours will never really compensate for bad quality.
Re: (Score:2)
I have worked in the US. The main reason you need people to work an insane number of hours is that they can't get shit done in any time.
Yes but the question is one of causality. Literature on the topic is quite heavily leaning to the conclusion that working longer makes you inefficient, and part of that drives this push to a 4 day work week - you can still get 5 days worth of work done when you come to work well rested after a 3 day long weekend.
The issue is not that people need to work long hours because they are inefficient, but rather they are inefficient because they work long hours. And doing so becomes culturally engrained. I remember
Re: (Score:1)
To add insult to injury I was complemented on my efficient work with "well, gotta hire a German if you want efficiency".
You could as well have called a Scot an Englishman, yank!
Let's flip those statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
For 82% this included positive effects on staff wellbeing, 50% found it reduced staff turnover, while 32% said it improved job recruitment. Nearly half (46%) said working and productivity improved.
Or, if you want to be biased in the other direction, you could have written the same as,
For 18% this included neutral or negative effects on staff wellbeing, 50% found it did not reduce staff turnover, while 68% said it did not improve job recruitment. More than half (54%) said working and productivity did not improve.
Which would be a pessemistic interpretation suggestive of a broadly failed experiment, rather than the pollyanna view quoted in the summary. Be aware of bias, and take any sociological study with extra helpings of salt.
Re: (Score:1)
For 82% this included positive effects on staff wellbeing, 50% found it reduced staff turnover, while 32% said it improved job recruitment. Nearly half (46%) said working and productivity improved.
Or, if you want to be biased in the other direction, you could have written the same as,
For 18% this included neutral or negative effects on staff wellbeing, 50% found it did not reduce staff turnover, while 68% said it did not improve job recruitment. More than half (54%) said working and productivity did not improve.
Which would be a pessemistic interpretation suggestive of a broadly failed experiment, rather than the pollyanna view quoted in the summary. Be aware of bias, and take any sociological study with extra helpings of salt.
And remember, there is bias in many in here, who are looking to work as little as possible, and point to these studies as vindication.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody is looking to work as little as possible, and for many that is a virtue. I'd vastly prefer someone who can get what I need done in a shorter time.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody is looking to work as little as possible, and for many that is a virtue. I'd vastly prefer someone who can get what I need done in a shorter time.
Except that you might be assuming it takes me longer to do something.
When the millennials came into my previous workplace, many were upset that the olde farte know more about the work than they did, and worked about twice as fast, and put out higher quality work.
And quite often I had to finish their work. They got booboo feelings if they had to work a minute extra. So if there is an 8 AM meeting the next morning, and when they leave at 5, the work is only half done, you want to make a presentation of
Re: (Score:3)
Did you go back to the original statistics to do that? Or did you just assume that 'did not answer' could be a category?
An 82% of firms experiencing an increase in staff wellbeing with no effect on turnover, no effect on job recruitment, and no (significant) effect on productivity is another way to interpret your flipped statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about 31 (or 54) companies, not "most UK firms" - this may be the biggest trial in history, but it involved fewer than 100 companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we assume there was no option to not answer, a company would be pretty unlucky to find that there was no improvement in all four categories. And hey, they could always abandon it. The odds seem pretty good that it will either have no effect, or some positive effect.
There is also the social good aspect. 82% improvement in staff wellbeing is a pretty massive win for the individuals, and society in general. The UK has social healthcare, so this will reduce costs for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
The odds seem pretty good that it will either have no effect, or some positive effect.
You have revealed your bias, which is what I was warning against.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are cherry-picking the results and ignoring the other three metrics which were not positive. If you are going to give unequal weight to your metrics, then that needs to well-justified, otherwise it's bias, plain and simple. Ignoring outcomes that don't agree with your expectations is prima facia evidence of flawed scientific inquiry.
Pay? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's unclear from the article how this actually works. Are hourly workers taking a 20% cut in pay (by working 20% fewer hours) or was their pay increased by 20% so that their take-home stays the same while reducing the hours worked?
Re: (Score:2)
If given the choice to do 4x10 hour, how many U.S. workers would choose it?
Thats ~50 more days off per year at the expense of a longer work day.
Re: (Score:2)
My current job is 4x 10hrs and I would have a hard time going back to 5x 8hrs. The days are long but that extra day off is worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
If given the choice to do 4x10 hour, how many U.S. workers would choose it? Thats ~50 more days off per year at the expense of a longer work day.
In the early 70's, I worked for a place that tried the 4 day work week. It worked well during the day shift, and the second shift was not too bad.
But the third shift was a nightmare existence for many of us. Third shift is always a bit of an issue, but the 10 hour day put us getting home at weird times, and very difficult to work a decent sleep schedule
And with three shifts, it's hard to fit a 24/7 workweek into it. They abandoned it. The third shift people complained, it was turned into swing shift
Re:Pay? (Score:5, Informative)
No, in these programs they earn what they did for 5 days a week.
Re: (Score:2)
No, in these programs they earn what they did for 5 days a week.
I am unsure why you received a +5 Informative here as you didn't inform us of anything other than your belief that they will earn what they did with a 5 day week. The person you were responding to wanted to know the MECHANISM which allows the person to be paid as if they were working a 5 day week, not seeking words that repeat the idea proposed in the summary.
But thank you for your affirmation. It doesn't do anyone any good, but I guess we can all 'feel' a little better now?
Re: (Score:2)
What? I answered their question and at least 3 other people recognized this as such. Not even the original author felt the need to reply again. I'm sorry you cant wrap your head around a simple answer like this but dont bother me with your limitations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this sounds like "pay less and work more" to me. No wonder it didn't increase job recruitment.
Re: (Score:3)
Pay didn't change.
Re: (Score:2)
20% cut in pay is a correct calculation but it would be a 25% increase in rate of pay if they get paid the same per week.
i.e. say pay per day was X then for 1 week with 5 working days pay was 5X
So for same weekly pay but only 4 days of work then pay per day=5X/4=1.25X
Re: (Score:1)
20% cut in pay is a correct calculation but it would be a 25% increase in rate of pay
I was really hoping somebody would point this out. As an hourly employee, every time someone brings up the 4 day work week I cringe a little. Most people are assuming salaried workers. Nobody really mentions *exactly* how it works for hourly employees, but it seems like there's room for deception here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's unclear from the article how this actually works. Are hourly workers taking a 20% cut in pay (by working 20% fewer hours) or was their pay increased by 20% so that their take-home stays the same while reducing the hours worked?
Uh, math check - either the workers get a 20% cut in pay, or their hourly pay was increased 25% to make up for the lost hours but keep weekly pay the same.
Certain "practical utopias" in sci-fi. (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously that will be very difficult to rationalize as a policy, but it certainly seems like the best North Star to have in building a better economy. This shit where everyone is treated like a soulless automaton to be wrung dry for the benefit of a hereditary wealthy class is clearly bad for everyone, including even the wealthy. And these piecemeal concessions where people are taught to be idle and unapplied when they're not being wrung dry is a false dilemma created by the people who prefer the current system.
Re: (Score:2)
The ideal is not that people should become idle, effete hedonists, but that work is personalized to produce direct humane contribution to both worker and consumer in the act of productivity
no its not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Western Productivity Increasing for Decades (Score:5, Insightful)
Western productivity has been increasing for decades and at least in the US all we have to show for it is a declining middle class and absurdly wealthy elites. We're long past due in seeing something like this. Good for the Brits benefitting from this.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in 1975, my country went from the 48 hour week to the 40 hour week. A reduction by 20% in work time.
Since 1975, productivity increased twofold in some areas, in others, mostly those that benefited the most from automation and computerization, productivity is up by 2000%.
And for those 200 to 2000% increase in productivity, we cannot afford another 20% decrease in labor time. Sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in 1975, my country went from the 48 hour week to the 40 hour week. A reduction by 20% in work time.
Uh, you may want to check your math - reducing work hours from 48 hrs/wk to 40 hrs/wk is a 1/6th reduction, or 16.7%. a 20% reduction of a 48 hr work week would mean a reduction of 9.6 hours.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on what you consider the 100%. But whatever, make it 16.something percent, that's not the point. The elephant in the room isn't getting smaller by pointing out that it's an Indian and not an African one.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't letting workers have a more equitable share of the products of their labor though, it's just reallocating the same number of hours in a normal week from 5 days to 4. This will do nothing to alter the trend toward a declining middle class and more absurdly wealthy elites.
So no, not good on the Brits, try harder to get an actual increased share of the last half-century of productivity improvements, Brits.
In the first world we could be working about 24 hours a week now for the same pay if the wealth
Re: (Score:2)
No, the people in these programs are working 32 hours a week but getting the same pay they were for 40, it says it right in the summary. :... in which staff worked 100% of their output in 80% of their time..."
An extra day off with no reduction in pay is a hell of a gain for any working person.
A bit of a misleading post title (Score:2)
"Four-day Week Made Permanent For Most UK Firms In World's Biggest Trial" makes it sound as if most Brit companies are onboard with this. "For Some Firms" would have been a better description. 31 firms is barely a majority in the study, let alone in total Brit firms.
As for the actual program, focus for a moment on this aspect:
Nearly half (46%) said working and productivity improved
This is what's going to kill it. That number needed to be a lot higher to convince firms to work people less at the same pay.
Remember, what ever you're being paid, you have to be makin
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, what ever you're being paid, you have to be making your employer more in order to justify your job.
like a receptionist?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, what ever you're being paid, you have to be making your employer more in order to justify your job.
like a receptionist?
Yes. A receptionist does the tasks that allows her boss to not spend valuable time doing things like making copies. Her time has a monetary value because her work allows her much-higher money producing boss to use his time for maximum effect.
Re: A bit of a misleading post title (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, what ever you're being paid, you have to be making your employer more in order to justify your job.
Looking at the productivity increase in the past couple decades and the record-breaking profits year after year, I dare say we do.
time and motion studies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice! (Score:2)
They have about 1 million unfillable jobs, let's let the ones with a job work less.
Re: (Score:3)
You better. Or the people you employ right now will move towards those that offer this, because they have unfilled jobs and offer a better work environment than you do.
Well then... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise the incredibly small sample size of this trial, right?
Of the 61 organisations that took part in a six-month UK pilot in 2022, 54 (89%) are still operating the policy a year later, and 31 (51%) have made the change permanent.
SIXTY-ONE companies participated, and only half (51%) made the change permanent - the other 49% either rejected the change or are still considering it but haven't decided about making permanent or not six months after the six month trial.
Recession? (Score:2)
Employee retention would be good too.
What Types of Jobs? (Score:1)
Next up... (Score:2)
If 4 days are better than 5, surely 3 days are better than 4!
Quote from article (Score:2)
how people work (Score:2)
80? (Score:2)
>"in which staff worked 100% of their output in 80% of their time"
I guess I have been doing it "wrong" all along, working 100% for 100% of my [on-clock] time. No wonder I am stressing out continuously.