Thoughts on 4-Day Working Week [POLL]

Trying2SaveABuck on 23/02/2023 - 21:39
Last edited 24/02/2023 - 10:50 by 1 other user

To clarify you would be working 4-days 7-8 hours a day but getting paid 'as if' you were full time working.

There has been a pilot completed in the UK - which I have titled and linked below-

Dozens of UK companies trialled a four-day working week last year. On average, their revenue went up

I won't lie initially I said this would never fly, and I personally still think this will never fly all that will happen is employers will just pocket the 20 percent saved in wages I can't see them giving an extra 20 percent salary for a 32 hour working week.

I would love to get paid the same amount for working 1 days less a week….but it simply defies common sense - the extreme lefties of reddit seem to think this is a sure thing but common sense seems to dictate if employers have the ability to pocket the extra cash they will….

Poll Options

  • 15
    This will never happen
  • 11
    This will happen
  • 161
    I don't think will happen but I wish it does
Education & Work

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2023 - 22:08

    Inflation would just eat it all up and eventually people would get bored and just work extra like they do now, working more than five days a week.

    • helpme on 23/02/2023 - 23:02

      Exactly, people will try to work 5 days to afford a house and 'get ahead' anyways

    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:30
      +2

      If people get bored because they aren't working, they can consider any number of other things to keep busy.

      • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2023 - 10:07
        -1

        If people feel overworked, they can, and do, work less. The idea that someone on high needs to officially deign a 4 day working week is ridiculous, as is the idea we would get paid 20% more.

        People work overtime now. They also work casually. The entire premise of this is pointless. It's definitely the type of thing ABC would champion though.

        • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 10:12
          +1

          Who is officially deigning a 4 day week?
          The report is about a trial, of multiple work options (not only a 4-day week), across a wide range of industries. The trial produced some findings.
          The trial doesn't talk about getting paid 20% more; it talks about not getting paid less.

          I imagine that, if I worked in a company that wanted to do this, I would probably still have the option of working overtime (if that was required).

          Your statement about people getting bored and choosing to work extra is not related to this discussion.

          • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2023 - 10:18
            -2

            @GG57: ABC is. They also like trans children and changing Turkey's name. It's absolutely relevant. It's either paying people more, or working them less. So their hourly rate goes up. Then they either rotate out who works when, or shut down. If they have 20% fat to cut, then they can also do it while saving 20% of wages. Even if some don't initially pay cut, they will eventually by not giving raises once the initial virtue signal phase wears off.

            • morse on 24/02/2023 - 10:23
              +1

              @[Deactivated]:

              ABC is. They also like trans children and changing Turkey's name.

              Türkiye as a nation changed their name officially last year, not the ABC - yah Turkey 🦃

              • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2023 - 10:29

                @morse: They asked the UN to use their pronunciation, they didn't change their name. The BBC don't use it, and neither do any other news outlets in this country. ABC never let a good virtue signal go to waste.

            • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 10:39

              @[Deactivated]: Wow.
              ABC is reporting on a trial (I've seen a similar report of the same trial in other news organisations). The report seems to be a fair representation of the trial outcomes. If anything, the structure of the report appears to have dumbed it down.
              The report of the trial shows:
              - Business revenue increased by 1.4% on average….
              - Business saw a 57% drop in resignations
              - Employees reported decrease in anxiety levels, fatigue and sleep issues, improvement in mental and physical health

              Could it happen in Australia?
              Possibly…However, of the five countries included in the Achievers Workforce Institute report, Australian companies were the least likely to be considering a four-day week.

              • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2023 - 11:03
                -1

                @GG57: It makes sense to the ABC because they get paid to sit around and do nothing most of the time. So why not get paid without coming in to work? Their bias couldn't possibly affect this totally non biased trial or the interpretation of its results.

                • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 11:08

                  @[Deactivated]: Wow (again).
                  So ABC influenced a trial, in the UK, that was also reported by 9news, Daily Mail, SBS, 7news, The West Australian, Reuters, BBC, etc.

                  • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2023 - 11:14
                    -1

                    @GG57: Look at the results you're reporting. On average, revenue went up, which means it went down for some. Who cares though, right? "On average" it's fine. ABC totally would not misinterpret results, or only report results that fit their narrative, obviously.

                    Let's leave it there. This is pointless. It's never going to happen.

                    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 11:25

                      @[Deactivated]:

                      Let's leave it there. This is pointless. It's never going to happen.

                      I really think you need to get out more, or become more aware. It is already happening in Australia.
                      https://www.unilever.com.au/news/2022/not-just-a-threeday-we…

                      • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2023 - 14:11

                        @GG57: Businesses can and do operate any hours they like. Workers can and do work any time they like.

                        The part that is never going to happen is:

                        1. Decrease hours.
                        2. Increase hourly pay.
                        3. Profit.

                        Even if they somehow managed to decrease hours and make more money, they'd make even more money not increasing hourly pay.

                        You should go out, and just stay there.

                        • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 14:18

                          @[Deactivated]:

                          1. Decrease hours: it is already happening, and has been in multiple countries for years. Did you read the link?
                          2. Increase hourly pay: it is already happening in effect, in that worker's hours have reduced for the same pay
                          3. Profit: No-one has discussed profit as such, but there have been statements around increased productivity, less staff turnover, etc. I imagine most businesses are profit-driven, so those that have made the change could be assumed to have not dropped in profit, at least.

                          Is it just because this was a link to an ABC report that you are against this?

  • barge-in hunter on 23/02/2023 - 22:36
    +1

    I think it largely depends on the industry- and the work itself.

    If the productivity can be compressed into 4 days, I really hope that it works. Unfortunately that’s not likely in manufacturing etc

    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:28

      There were other alternatives as well as the 4-day week.
      Manufacturing was one of the industries in the trial.

  • KaTst3R on 23/02/2023 - 22:37
    +1

    Revenue goes up 1.4% between June and Dec but inflation is up circa 9% for the 12 months to Dec 2022. Just assuming a half year figure, a 5% inflation. Basically, these companies are underperforming. Nothing to be proud off.

    If this is a manufacturing company for example, pricing will adjust for inflation even if not the full inflation, at least 3% increase. So that means volume is actually down.

  • Almost Banned on 23/02/2023 - 22:55
    +10

    I've always thought the 5 to 2 weekly split was bloody unfair.
    4 to 3 is much more like it.

    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:26

      The trial included other alternative models.

  • helpme on 23/02/2023 - 23:04
    -1

    How when you have a shortage in most industries? I bet the trials were white collar bullshit jobs anyways and just demonstrates they never had that high of a workload to begin with. They just condensed it and with WFH you could probably do that already.
    Try this with a real job like nursing and you won't have staff

    • djsweet on 23/02/2023 - 23:27
      +6

      Yes the trials were for companies which hire people for their brains, not for their ability to perform repetitive manual labour.

      • helpme on 24/02/2023 - 07:32

        Exactly, so what difference does it make if they WFH already.

        not for their ability to perform repetitive manual labour.

        Doctors?

    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:25
      +1

      You didn't read the article?
      The industries were widespread.

  • Some Human on 23/02/2023 - 23:20
    +1

    Sometimes my boss thinks 38 hours isn't enough.

    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:24
      +2

      I work 5 days/week, but am probably only effective for 30 hours or so.
      The trial included some alternate work processes.

  • djsweet on 23/02/2023 - 23:26

    Makes sense for product based tech companies. Obviously not going to work for companies with time-and-materials contracts, consulting or service industries. There’s some rule that says work expands to fit the available time. So I guess if you have less time you just do it faster.

    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:22
      +1

      The trial included a wide range of industries.

  • Ghost47 on 23/02/2023 - 23:51
    +2

    I would love a four day work week at the same pay I get now. I used to get RDOs at my old workplace which gave me a day off each month, that was damn good, like getting a public holiday every month.

    Doubt it will happen though.

  • Nillionaire on 24/02/2023 - 02:19
    -1

    vote greens and maybe it'll eventually happen

    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:21

      This is not something that a government or party can have control of (apart from Public Servants).

  • morse on 24/02/2023 - 03:47
    +1

    I work 4 days a week by choice. I get 80% of the full time salary. I find it is difficult to get get everything done that is expected of me and was warned this would be the case when choosing to take the role 4 days a week. I very often find I pick up the 5th day (paid) anyway. My point of sharing this is that some roles do actually require the 5 days. Obviously we could adjust time expectations, but that’s what I don’t see shifting easily for most employers. Job share is also hard for some roles, or at least perceived to be. Whilst I’d preferred to job share there is an element of double handling with this which is obviously not the most efficient. I’d say more so things will shift to part time by choice, contracting and gig economy ie you get paid for the amount you do proportionately. Some people will do very well with this, others will just end up earning less.

  • Jugganautx on 24/02/2023 - 05:14

    Standing around 4 an extra 2 hours on less days is not going to get the job done.

    The only trades I know pushing for 4 day work weekd are sparkies and they do f all already.

  • Nugs on 24/02/2023 - 06:19

    I worked 4x10 hour days for 10 years. I was often working 5x9 beforehand but on salary. The change was an excellent work life balance. Monday was guide children to and from school & kindergarten, do a big food shop and prepare most of the weeks meals. If a Monday was public holiday, I worked 4x8 hours and if another day of the week I would work Monday. Some people would forget my schedule but management were happy enough
    .

  • mbck on 24/02/2023 - 08:21
    -2

    Bit unfair on those who can't do a 4 day work week (train driver, postie). They'd want at least a pay rise.

    Consequences may be that less people go into these similar jobs (GPs? Nurses?)

    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:19

      All the GPs I know work less than 5 days/week.
      A few nurses I know choose their days/hours.

      Why couldn't a train driver work 4 days/week?

      I don't get a home mail delivery every day of the week, only 3 days a week.

      • mbck on 24/02/2023 - 09:30

        Keyword "Those that you know".

        Who's going to driver the other day? Get more drivers? Increased fares? More taxes?

        Do you live everywhere in Australia? If posties are working 5 days a week now and you're only getting mails 3 days a week, what needs to happen to keep that level of service going? Cut services?

        I think there's a lot more issue that need to be hashed out than just using our own selfish needs. Hey it works for me let's do it.

        • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:35

          I didn't say if it would work for me or not.
          I'm not a GP, nurse, train driver or postie.

          The linked article described four different models for achieving flexible hours. It also described the industries involved in the trial.

          The trial involved a few different strategies to achieve the outcomes. Thinking differently.

          • mbck on 24/02/2023 - 09:45

            @GG57: I'm also not limiting jobs to those you mentioned, I said "similar jobs".

            As mentioned in my other comment, it may work in specific jobs (more like a perk for that company), but if you try to legislate for everyone, that's going to cause issues. And that's the danger (maybe the wrong word), in that people will say, hey it works here's it'll work everywhere else. Well not necessarily due to some of the reasons I wrote.

            I suppose I'm just wary of policies and the consequences.

            • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:50

              @mbck: No-one mentions legislating "it"; and there are multiple models that could be implemented to suit various industries / workplaces.
              The trial was just that; a trial. That gave some findings as outcomes from the trial.

              Different models, in different industries, apparently work in a number of countries already.

              I'm old enough to remember getting a RDO every month; that changed to be a reduction in work hours/weekly. Things evolve.

              • mbck on 24/02/2023 - 10:02

                @GG57: In your other post you mentioned you couldn't think of any workers that needs to be there 5 days a week.

                You may not talk about legislating it, but there's an idea that this should be implemented everywhere.

                And I'm just saying, if we're implementing this everywhere, we need to think this through a lot more than just a select few. As I said before, it's easy and common for people to say, hey look the trial worked, let's do it for everyone since no-one needs to work 5 days a week.

                • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 10:15

                  @mbck: Just because I can't think of any worker that needs to be at work 5 days a week, doesn't mean that all businesses will choose to offer this.
                  Some businesses are progressive, some are not. Employees can choose which they want to work for.
                  I, similarly, can't think of any downside for an employee (depending on the model the business chose to offer).

  • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:18

    So many comments here where it is obvious that the commentator hasn't read the linked article (or can't comprehend what they read).
    - There were four types of variations trialled, not only 'work 4, 3 off'
    - The industries participating in the trial were varied (office-based work dominated, but there were also Manufacturing, Construction / Housing, and Engineering
    - The size of the businesses varied; from 1-10 employees through to >101 employees
    - Companies in Australia, Canada, UK, USA, Singapore have already adopted this (and the article missed NZ)

    If people can't imagine how this could work for them, they should probably think outside the square.

    • mbck on 24/02/2023 - 09:36

      I think you'll be creating issues (just with any policies duh), one of which may be that there'll be less demand for work that needs to be there for 5 days a week, creating shortages in specific jobs. You mention in your other posts nurses, if they are working less, and considering we already have understaffing of nurses, that's going to be an issue.

      As you mentioned (and the article), selective and targetted way to implement this can work, but a broad policy will have different set of consequences that needs to be minimised.

      • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:43

        Creating issues or creating options? The various models in the trial (and there were only four trialled) provided flexibility in how to achieve the better outcomes.
        There may be more people attracted to the profession of nursing if they can work reduced or flexible hours.

        TBH I'm struggling to think of a job where an employee needs to be there for 5 days a week; if they are so critically indispensable to the business why aren't they there for 7 days a week? What happens when they are off work sick or take holidays?

        • mbck on 24/02/2023 - 10:00

          I'm not sure if some people would agree that they can finish their work in 4 days instead of 5. There are people out there needing overtime or unpaid overtime to finish their work, even in an office setting.

          Teachers may need to be there 5 days a week? It's quite disruptive if you swap 2 teachers. They'll need to liaise together, causing more admin burden. There are probably other potential issues (I'm not a teacher). Then you'll have parents who have an extra day to look after the kids (depending on the parent they may or may not want this).

          Hypothetically if it became 4 days work, there will be consequences, specifically costs. Take your example with nurses. We'll need more nurses (we need more now, but we'll need a whole lot more). let's also assume there'll be more nurses joining (which also have the consequence of people being taken out from joining other industries). Well where will these expenses be paid out of? Who's paying?

          Ok so that's nurses, what about, please list every job out there.

          Every single item and services will go up in price. Common sense prevail it has to.

          So these people are not getting pay increases, but things are getting more expensive, when inflation is already hot now.

          And our unemployment is already 'low', but we need more people. Let's increase migration? Well some people might not want that.

          Again, I'm not against 4 day work week, but I do think people need to calm down and think through policies (not just this). There are so many flow on effects.

          Anyways I've made my point.

  • cashless on 24/02/2023 - 09:30

    Why stop at 4? I'm all for a 2 day week

  • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:36

    …employers will just pocket the 20 percent saved in wages I cant see them giving an extra 20 percent salary for a 32 hour working week.

    Where in the article did it talk about reducing wages by 20%?

  • onetwothreefour on 24/02/2023 - 09:41

    Would be nice but only if all customers and suppliers also were working the same schedule. The worst thing about having a day off is coming back to a mountain of emails which take half a day to get through.

    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 09:45

      Careful how you phrase that: take a day off and it only takes half a day to get through.

      Taking an extra day off a week is only one of the models trialled.

      • onetwothreefour on 24/02/2023 - 10:28

        Careful how you phrase that: take a day off and it only takes half a day to get through.

        That's only the emails, that doesn't include the "real work" that needs to be done.

        • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 10:31

          If that is your situation, I suggest that there are efficiencies to be found in your workplace. That was part of the trial as well.

          • onetwothreefour on 24/02/2023 - 13:23

            @GG57: Well yes, it's a workplace so there are always efficiencies to be found.

  • Iluvfreebies-freeDel on 24/02/2023 - 10:34

    Even if it happens, there is no way Australian companies are going to pay the same salary.

    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 10:41

      Apparently 27% of Australian companies surveyed were considering it.

      • Iluvfreebies-freeDel on 25/02/2023 - 13:01

        What percentage of the workforce do that 27% companies represent?

  • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2023 - 10:40
    +1

    the extreme lefties of reddit seem to think this is a sure thing

    this has nothing to do with "left" or "right". I'm sure there are many people who align with "the right" who would also prefer a 4 day work week.

    how is it that with the exponential increase in productivity and efficiency in almost every industry, we're still working the same amount of hours as people did 60 years ago?

    people in the 60s probably thought we'd be working 2 days a week by now with the technological advancements made since then. but here we are, working the same amount of hours with our wages being worth less than they were 60 years ago.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/02/2023 - 10:47

      I dont totally disagree with you but ill play devils advocate

      Most business owners im fairly sure would be 'against' paying people 5 days for 4 days work on face value of it - usually they tend to be most capitalist not socialist

      how is it that with the exponential increase in productivity and efficiency in almost every industry, we're still working the same amount of hours as people did 60 years ago?

      Actually we are working far less perhaps looks at how much annual leave people got in the 50s-60s, then add in Long service leave, better use of sick leave and ADO/RDOs

      we might work the 'same hours' on paper but annually we do wordless then the older generations

      • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 10:57

        If you were a business owner and you could increase revenue by ~1.4% (by doing this alone) and reduce staff turnover by 57%, and have a happier workforce, why wouldn't you do it?
        Apparently 92% of the companies in the trial are continuing with it, with 18 companies making it a permanent change.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/02/2023 - 11:01
          +1

          If you were a business owner and you could increase revenue by ~1.4% (by doing this alone) and reduce staff turnover by 57%, and have a happier workforce, why wouldn't you do it?

          I think it depends on the industry….

          but ill counter you by saying 'revenue' doesnt mean much it is profit or Net earning after tax and deprecation that is important
          revenue going up by 1.4% when inflation wasl ike 10% in the UK is actually a bad result…

          learn the difference between profit and revenue i find a lot of people seem to think they are the same thing - they certainly are not

          • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 11:03

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Ok, so don't do anything.
            Those resignations are going to hurt, along with the disgruntled workforce.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/02/2023 - 11:09
              +1

              @GG57: Dont put words in my mouth i did not say that

              • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 11:10
                -1

                @Trying2SaveABuck: So, again, if you were a business owner and you could increase revenue by ~1.4% (by doing this alone) and reduce staff turnover by 57%, and have a happier workforce, why wouldn't you do it?

                • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/02/2023 - 12:18

                  @GG57:

                  increase revenue by ~1.4% (by doing this alone)

                  i once against 'stress' you learn the difference between revenue and profit

                  but considering you refuse too ill say this why increase revenue by 1.4% when you can reduce wage expenses by 20% and increase your profit margin…

                  reduce staff turnover by 57%, and have a happier workforce, why wouldn't you do it?

                  depends on the how much you 'value' your work force and how easy it is to recruit and how easy new staff are to train

                  im not saying im against a 4-day week but your arguments for it are completely skewed with agenda, bias and dont really make sense

                  • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 13:44
                    -1

                    @Trying2SaveABuck: I have never mentioned profit. That isn't a measure referred to in the study. But revenue is one driver of profit, so why ignore it? Are we assuming that those 92% of the businesses in the trial that are continuing with it, have it wrong?

                    I imagine that by reducing wage expenses by 20% you will lose a lot of your workforce and may not be able to meet demand, so the profit (assuming a reduced output) may not increase at all. Add to that are the costs related to staff turnover, a probably further reduction in profit.

                    I don't have an Agenda or bias. I'm pointing out elements of the full ABC report, which appears to be reasonably balanced, that others seem to have ignored.

                    • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/02/2023 - 13:51
                      +1

                      @GG57:

                      I imagine that by reducing wage expenses by 20% you will lose a lot of your workforce and may not be able to meet demand, so the profit (assuming a reduced output) may not increase at all. Add to that are the costs related to staff turnover, a probably further reduction in profit.

                      Conventional economic wisdom would suggest inflation would shallow the difference

                      im not saying i 'disagree' with a 4-day working week either i know for a fact i could do my job over 4 day but i hate how people think because they 'have an opinion' they are right - it is the lowest and simplest form of thinking

                      you need to challenge every point it is what i am doing here

                      • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 14:04

                        @Trying2SaveABuck:

                        you need to challenge every point it is what i am doing here

                        Every point of the study outcomes? Are you doubting those outcomes?

                        employers will just pocket the 20 percent saved in wages I can't see them giving an extra 20 percent salary for a 32 hour working week

                        And yet the study showed that they didn't pocket the 'saved' wages, because that wasn't how the trial worked

                        I would love to get paid the same amount for working 1 days less a week….but it simply defies common sense

                        And yet, that is exactly what those companies did, and the vast majority of them chose to continue to do.

      • Ghost47 on 24/02/2023 - 13:30
        +1

        usually they tend to be most capitalist not socialist

        Yet you felt the need to snipe lefties in your OP lol.

        I would say that if anything a left leaning (i.e. progressive) CEO would be way more open to trialling a four day work week than a right leaning (i.e. conservative) CEO.

        Unilever’s CEO called on Scomo for more climate change action, I would say that kind of thing is what a lefty would do. On the other hand I can’t ever imagine Elon Musk approving a four day work week, can you?

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/02/2023 - 13:31
          -1

          Unilever’s CEO called on Scomo for more climate change action, I would say that kind of thing is what a lefty would do. On the other hand I can’t ever imagine Elon Musk approving a four day work week, can you?

          caring about the 'environment' is not a left leaning thing? if we dont have a planet to live on i dare say that is pretty anti capitalist.

          Left is the gimp mural painted in NSW with a Teddy head to groom children - hiding pedos behind 'pride'

          dont worry ill make it care the right have done crap like that too Pells mates would be an example

          • Ghost47 on 24/02/2023 - 13:36

            @Trying2SaveABuck: It definitely is a left leaning thing. The right wing read the bible and deny that climate change is real.

            If there are a bunch of people chaining themselves to a tree in a park, what political leaning do you think they’d have? They certainly wouldn’t be right wingers.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/02/2023 - 13:39

              @Ghost47:

              If there are a bunch of people chaining themselves to a tree in a park, what political leaning do you think they’d have? They certainly wouldn’t be right wingers.

              i consider myself center-right, i also believe in God and i am 100% in support of actions to protect the environment? no where in the bible does it say not to look after the planet matter of fact it is kind

              Numbers 35:33 "You shall not pollute the land in which you live"

              Im also pretty sure the Quoran say something similar

              i dont know a single religious person that is anti environment? i do know a lot of hypocrits who will scream they are pro-environment protest for days and leave all their plastic and rubbish on the floor instead of recycling or at least putting it in the bin?

              although i admit i would never 'chain myself to a tree' i am more then happy to planet a bunch of them and look after them

              The idea that carbon is the enemy i dont know if i agree with i think Plastic in the ocean turning into microplastics is a MUCH bigger concern but no one seems to want to talk about that? bcuz the US are the biggest polluters of plastic

              Also not a bit fan of deforestation but thats another issue

              • Ghost47 on 24/02/2023 - 13:43

                @Trying2SaveABuck: The political spectrum is exactly that, a spectrum.

                People like you may exist, but people in power e.g. CEOs that are right wing will never approve a four day work week. A left wing CEO will be much more open to it.

                It’s really that simple.

                • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/02/2023 - 13:45

                  @Ghost47:

                  People like you may exist, but people in power e.g. CEOs that are right wing will never approve a four day work week. A left wing CEO will be much more open to it.

                  i do see what you are saying the difference is i dont think left or right matters when it comes to money i think a CEO will look after himself

                  but i would love for someone like mike Canoon brooks etc too lead the way for a 4 day working week

      • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2023 - 13:51

        Most business owners im fairly sure would be 'against' paying people 5 days for 4 days work

        and most business owners im fairly sure would be 'against' paying people a wage they can live off.

        usually they tend to be most capitalist not socialist

        so capitalism is when people work more? i thought it was socialism when people worked non-stop?

        Actually we are working far less perhaps looks at how much annual leave people got in the 50s-60s, then add in Long service leave, better use of sick leave and ADO/RDOs

        and yet, thanks to technological advancements, we are producing much more than they did in the 50-60s. your argument actually helps what I've been saying. we can work less and produce the same (or more) output.

        i hate the argument about pay - that people who work 4 days should be paid less. people are paid an annual salary. if they are producing an output of labour in 4 days a week similar to that of in 5 days, then why should their annual salary be changed?

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/02/2023 - 13:54

          Cultural NeoMarxist

          i stopped reading at this point becuz i dont think you have ever writing a decent well formulated point in the history i have been on Ozbargain

          without reading your post it is some high mis-informed left/socialist point of view in which no matter how i argue with you i will be meant with thick headed entrenched views also thanks for the down-votes perhaps learn to have an adult discussion for once in your life

          • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2023 - 15:33
            +1

            @Trying2SaveABuck: did your brain just shut down when you tried to think for once?

            ahaha my satirical name really triggered you? cultural marxism isn't real snowflake, it can't hurt you. but i knew it would rile up weirdos like you

            i dont think you have ever writing (sic) a decent well formulated point

            ironic coming from you of all people. you literally can never make an argument that proves your point. never forget when you argued that police arresting indigenous australians at high rates is good because it saves them from themselves.

            thick headed entrenched views

            irony alert. irony alert

            perhaps learn to have an adult discussion for once in your life

            i am mate, you're the one refusing to have a discussion because you get dumpstered every time

  • ForkSnorter on 24/02/2023 - 10:56
    +3

    I can't trust the knowledge/intelligence/reasoning ability of anyone that says "this will never happen". Things do happen, and over time the world changes… massively.

    E.g. agricultural revolution—> scientific revolution —> industrial revolution—> digital revolution(information revolution), social media/social data revolution, decolonisation, racial equality, sexual equality, climate change, electric cars, ….etc. etc.

    We may be living through a working conditions revolution.

    Many companies (including in Australia) have already moved from 40 to a 38 or even 35-hour working week in the last decade. Denmark has had a 37-hour week for decades, and in 2019 part of Denmark moved to a 4-day 35-hour week.

    A few years ago, "large proportion of population working from home" was not on many people's radar, but it happened, and it happened really fast.

  • cookie2 on 24/02/2023 - 13:59

    Id be happy to do the 38 hrs over 4 days…if mostly WFH.

    • GG57 on 24/02/2023 - 14:07
      +1

      That wasn't one of the types of change in the study. The various models appear to equate to a 32 hour week.
      Imagine combining that with WFH.

  • peteru on 26/02/2023 - 02:08
    +1

    Unilever Australia are doing a 4 day week now. It was in the media last year. Staff get paid for a 5 day week and they are expected to maintain the same levels of productivity as if they were still working 5 days a week. However, they only have to be available (either in the office or online, working from home) the equivalent of 4 days a week. It's up to employees to use this flexibility and work out suitable arrangements between themselves. For example, some may choose to work Mon-Fri and start late/leave early to do school drop off and pick up. Others may choose to have Fridays off and do full days Mon-Thu. Teams have to organise themselves and work out their "timetable" collaboratively. Some blurbs were made about "working smarter", not wasting time in pointless meetings that drag on, less red tape, etc. That's apparently how they expect to get 5 days worth of work done in 4 days. Clearly such arrangements are easier to make for office/desk bound employees rather than factory line workers.

    In practice, many good employers already offer flexible working hours to staff that have the right work ethic. It's about getting things done, rather than just putting in the hours because you have to.

  • freefall101 on 26/02/2023 - 12:39

    During the great recession I was in Canada, where they have mandatory employment insurance (it's paid like a tax off salary and you get 50% of your wage based on how much had been paid in). The government setup a program where that so long as there were no redundancies, all employes of a business could be "unemployed" for 1 day a week and get 50% pay. Essentially 4.5 days pay for a 4 day week.

    It was fantastic. Workload didn't change, no one was worried about getting fired due to the slowdown, 3 day weekends every week gave me tonnes more energy and I was loads happier.

    Sadly it didn't last. Not because of productivity, simply because the partners (professional services firm) didn't like not having their staff at beck and call for them. Because they didn't actually do much work, just socialised with clients and farmed out the work, so if I wasn't there on a Friday and they had a question only I could answer they looked dumb. And that's the hard part to work around, the current corporate structure of businesses. It's not about productivity and happiness, it's making the more senior people look good and fill their whims.

  • Euphemistic on 03/03/2023 - 11:34
    +2

    Flexibility in work is good if you can get it. 4 days sounds good in theory, not sure about it in practice.

    I had a job that was roster day every 3 weeks. Quite enjoyed that, then it went to 9 day fortnight. Even better. RDO was good for doing chores and running errands and not interrupting weekend with the family. Great for unpacking and washing after a weekend away etc while the kids go off to school. Four day week would work well from that aspect too.

    However, one of the things that needs to be considered is that having an extra day off each week can mean more $ leaving your pocket. Generally if you aren’t working, you are spending so it’ll take some discipline to make sure you aren’t going out for extra lunches, taking extra trips etc and blowing your budget.

    • GG57 on 03/03/2023 - 11:47

      Good point, depending obviously on how people choose to spend their (extra) non-work time.
      My personal observation is that a lot of people I know are spending more time at home than pre-COVID, and the 'habits' of going shopping, to cafes, to restaurants, etc., have reduced.

      The other side to this is that the study had multiple options, not only a 4-day week, so different ways that this could be achieved to suit individual priorities.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join