Ask HN: Why a 4-day workweek don't get traction or a major movement?
If people are struggling with mental health (myself included) - I just read about it everywhere - why a 4-day workweek don't get traction?
67 comments
It's because jobs are not about work. Nobody really wants or needs 99.999...% of the the things companies make or do. But everybody needs a job. So we have a ponzi scheme - driven by people who can't really do anything. They have a job with a fancy-sounding title. To make it look like they are doing something, they get a bunch of other people who also can't really do anything to have meetings with. Now they are doing something! Those people do the same - so there needs to be even more people, to have more meetings.
It goes like this all the way down until there actually has to be something tangible. It doesn't have to be good, or useful - just tangible. They give those jobs to some programmers. They are smug and think they are actually doing work, but really a programmer's sole responsibility is to give their managers something to have meetings about.
If we admitted things would work better with less worker time, it would start to undermine the whole system, and everything would fall apart. So 5 days (with as much overtime as possible) it is.
It goes like this all the way down until there actually has to be something tangible. It doesn't have to be good, or useful - just tangible. They give those jobs to some programmers. They are smug and think they are actually doing work, but really a programmer's sole responsibility is to give their managers something to have meetings about.
If we admitted things would work better with less worker time, it would start to undermine the whole system, and everything would fall apart. So 5 days (with as much overtime as possible) it is.
"Nobody really wants or needs 99.999...% of the the things companies make or do."
Heh, you must have built a real business.
There's a lot of things you need to keep an organisation going. Anything from insurance, contract lawyers, wifi routers, offices, kitchens, producers, suppliers, customer service agents, the headphones and computers and keyboards they use (which all had to be transported). You need all this stuff just to run a small company succesfully.
Having said that, many companies could probably make it work in a 4-day workweek, which I'm in favor of.
Heh, you must have built a real business.
There's a lot of things you need to keep an organisation going. Anything from insurance, contract lawyers, wifi routers, offices, kitchens, producers, suppliers, customer service agents, the headphones and computers and keyboards they use (which all had to be transported). You need all this stuff just to run a small company succesfully.
Having said that, many companies could probably make it work in a 4-day workweek, which I'm in favor of.
Yes, all that stuff - wifi routers, offices, customer service agents - are needed to to run an organisation. For every company I've ever worked for, and every company of every computer programmer I've ever known so far - the organisation exists either so managers can have meetings, or to provide products/services that support some other organisation... which exists so managers can have meetings. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it's a ponzi scheme all the way to the top.
Perhaps...you're just not aware of what managers do, or you've never been exposed to good management? 10 years ago, I probably would have agreed with you. After running my own consulting practice for a few years, being the technical lead on a couple of big projects, and generally gaining more experience / wisdom - I definitely don't agree.
It turns out that coordinating people, and getting them to work towards a common goal, is hard. There's all those pesky individual motivations, major life events and crises, and psychological strengths and weaknesses. Add to that a modern work environment in which many of us work on complex systems with many pieces and dependencies, any of which can break down and block forward progress. Plus, like it or not, businesses have hard legal requirements - financial reporting, human resources practices, etc. - to satisfy, along with their usual goal of building products other people (with equally complex motivations and incentives) want enough that they'll pay for them.
A good manager shields individual contributors from as much of this as possible. In other words: the better a manager is at doing their job, the more it looks to ICs like that manager is doing nothing at all - because the ICs experience so little of the behind-the-scenes logistics that they can imagine, to a first approximation, that the business magically runs exclusively on engineering effort. It's sort of a weird spin on the Dunning-Kruger effect, where your worth is inversely proportional to the external perception of that worth (as opposed to internal perception) - which is deepened by the fact that a good manager also takes blame and gives praise.
That's not to say that meetings are good, or even necessary in most cases! They're just one tool for building shared vision, and like any tool they can be (and often are) misused - long, pointless meetings with too many attendees and no agenda. I've been at those meetings. I'll admit to having held a couple of those meetings - though by now I like to think I've learned better; now, I'll always make sure there's a clear agenda with clear desired outcomes, that only truly necessary attendees are invited, and that it's not the sort of thing for which an email or async discussion would be fine. (Plus I invest some of my time in learning how to properly facilitate.)
It turns out that coordinating people, and getting them to work towards a common goal, is hard. There's all those pesky individual motivations, major life events and crises, and psychological strengths and weaknesses. Add to that a modern work environment in which many of us work on complex systems with many pieces and dependencies, any of which can break down and block forward progress. Plus, like it or not, businesses have hard legal requirements - financial reporting, human resources practices, etc. - to satisfy, along with their usual goal of building products other people (with equally complex motivations and incentives) want enough that they'll pay for them.
A good manager shields individual contributors from as much of this as possible. In other words: the better a manager is at doing their job, the more it looks to ICs like that manager is doing nothing at all - because the ICs experience so little of the behind-the-scenes logistics that they can imagine, to a first approximation, that the business magically runs exclusively on engineering effort. It's sort of a weird spin on the Dunning-Kruger effect, where your worth is inversely proportional to the external perception of that worth (as opposed to internal perception) - which is deepened by the fact that a good manager also takes blame and gives praise.
That's not to say that meetings are good, or even necessary in most cases! They're just one tool for building shared vision, and like any tool they can be (and often are) misused - long, pointless meetings with too many attendees and no agenda. I've been at those meetings. I'll admit to having held a couple of those meetings - though by now I like to think I've learned better; now, I'll always make sure there's a clear agenda with clear desired outcomes, that only truly necessary attendees are invited, and that it's not the sort of thing for which an email or async discussion would be fine. (Plus I invest some of my time in learning how to properly facilitate.)
$20 says you’re a manager
Jobs with real output often have radically different schedules than the typical 5 day office schedule (for better or worse). No one worries that nurses do 3 x 13hrs a week or whatever since there is a very concrete exchange of hourly pay and hours worked. I know a pilot who works like 1 day a week.
Salaried office work may not always be BS but is at least somewhat unclear in terms of output and varies by individual. So if anyone tries to go below our current 5 day 40hr Schelling point there will be all kinds of issues from jealousy, competition etc. Its a social thing not a productivity thing, but that doesn’t make it any less real. We saw how only something like Covid could force attitude changes on full time remote work.
Salaried office work may not always be BS but is at least somewhat unclear in terms of output and varies by individual. So if anyone tries to go below our current 5 day 40hr Schelling point there will be all kinds of issues from jealousy, competition etc. Its a social thing not a productivity thing, but that doesn’t make it any less real. We saw how only something like Covid could force attitude changes on full time remote work.
This is correct. As a salaried employee, I am paid for my loyalty in the way a nurse is not. In exchange for a fixed yearly sum, I promise my employer to basically have their interests at heart and work only for them, which we agree, for reasonableness' sake, means about 40 hours / week. In reality, most salaried employees work much less. My dad was in sales my whole life until he retired, and he never worked an actual 9 - 5 week in his entire sales career. After schmoozing, calling, marketing, etc, he'd come home and take a nap or play with us.
IMO, the 40 hour work week is mainly a problem in a certain subset of high-achieving, highly educated employees, be they engineers, consultants, attorneys, etc. It's their own internal shame mechanisms which make them work 40 hours / week
IMO, the 40 hour work week is mainly a problem in a certain subset of high-achieving, highly educated employees, be they engineers, consultants, attorneys, etc. It's their own internal shame mechanisms which make them work 40 hours / week
Not to mention tying essential benefits like healthcare to workplaces, which drums up the cost of employing more people.
Fundamentally I think it has to do with cultural values.
In the US, we see the ambitious, driven person as the one who wants to work (at least) 5 days a week. We want to believe that outcomes are related to the amount, and not quality, of work put in. This value runs deep to cultural values where idleness is related to sin and “wasted” time[1]. Time spent in economically fruitful endeavors is viewed as important, while other time spent seen as frivolous. Today we see it manifested in startup culture where founders humblebrag about intense number of hours worked, like they’re the true believers in this value system. Larger company execs want to emulate them, hoping their employees show the same “hustle”. Many Americans often don’t even know what to do with their free time!
So in the US there’s a lot of cultural baggage to overcome.
(Of course, this value isn’t held in all cultures, where enjoying the finer things in life has cultural significance.)
1 - https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/idle_hands_are_the_devil%27...
In the US, we see the ambitious, driven person as the one who wants to work (at least) 5 days a week. We want to believe that outcomes are related to the amount, and not quality, of work put in. This value runs deep to cultural values where idleness is related to sin and “wasted” time[1]. Time spent in economically fruitful endeavors is viewed as important, while other time spent seen as frivolous. Today we see it manifested in startup culture where founders humblebrag about intense number of hours worked, like they’re the true believers in this value system. Larger company execs want to emulate them, hoping their employees show the same “hustle”. Many Americans often don’t even know what to do with their free time!
So in the US there’s a lot of cultural baggage to overcome.
(Of course, this value isn’t held in all cultures, where enjoying the finer things in life has cultural significance.)
1 - https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/idle_hands_are_the_devil%27...
> we see the ambitious, driven person as the one who wants to work (at least) 5 days a week. We want to believe that outcomes are related to the amount, and not quality, of work put in.
I think this is one of those "my subculture is not the nation" issues.
> Time spent in economically fruitful endeavors is viewed as important, while other time spent seen as frivolous.
I don't know if "frivolous" is the right word, but I know a contractor doesn't have PTO. His hourly rate is high enough he could take 4-6 weeks vacation and still make more than he would as an full-time employee (although that depends on the value of other benefits). Yet he still cannot bring himself to take a single day off because he "needs" the money.
People seeking a second job, or working crushing hours, are doing so hoping to get paid enough to escape the rat race and/or because they need that money to survive.
I think this is one of those "my subculture is not the nation" issues.
> Time spent in economically fruitful endeavors is viewed as important, while other time spent seen as frivolous.
I don't know if "frivolous" is the right word, but I know a contractor doesn't have PTO. His hourly rate is high enough he could take 4-6 weeks vacation and still make more than he would as an full-time employee (although that depends on the value of other benefits). Yet he still cannot bring himself to take a single day off because he "needs" the money.
People seeking a second job, or working crushing hours, are doing so hoping to get paid enough to escape the rat race and/or because they need that money to survive.
> We want to believe that outcomes are related to the amount, and not quality, of work put in.
Actually, I don't think anyone believes that. People want to believe that outcomes are related to the utility of the work you do, which by and large they are.
Few people believe that those who jump and down over and over again in the hopes of flight will achieve success, but most people believe that if you get a pilot's license, you stand a chance to earn some money from it.
Actually, I don't think anyone believes that. People want to believe that outcomes are related to the utility of the work you do, which by and large they are.
Few people believe that those who jump and down over and over again in the hopes of flight will achieve success, but most people believe that if you get a pilot's license, you stand a chance to earn some money from it.
> idleness is related to sin
This is definitely the main driver. We must rid ourselves of the Xtian ethos, for it is a system that seeks to maximize human suffering.
This is definitely the main driver. We must rid ourselves of the Xtian ethos, for it is a system that seeks to maximize human suffering.
Oh yeah, all us Christians are really suffering. Truly we have maximized human suffering. It's just sad when you visit historically Christian countries to witness the maximal human suffering one could ever see in the world. Truly grotesque.
Look up Mother Theresa. Look up the flagellants. Look up self-crucifixion. Look up penance in the Catholic Church (start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilice)
[deleted]
I'm well aware. The penitential practices are voluntary.
Mother Theresa did not try to run a hospital, but a hospice. Having visited India and seeing street conditions, letting people die with dignity providing them basic necessities is preferable to the deaths I saw on the street.
Perfect should not be the enemy of better.
Mother Theresa did not try to run a hospital, but a hospice. Having visited India and seeing street conditions, letting people die with dignity providing them basic necessities is preferable to the deaths I saw on the street.
Perfect should not be the enemy of better.
”In 2013, in a comprehensive review covering 96% of the literature on Mother Teresa, a group of Université de Montréal academics reinforced the foregoing criticism, detailing, among other issues, the missionary's practice of "caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it, ... her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce". Questioning the Vatican's motivations for ignoring the mass of criticism, the study concluded that Mother Teresa's "hallowed image – which does not stand up to analysis of the facts – was constructed, and that her beatification was orchestrated by an effective media relations campaign" engineered by the Catholic convert and anti-abortion BBC journalist Malcolm Muggeridge.”
I agree with Mother Theresa on abortion, contraception and divorce, so I don't see why that's off-putting. Abortion, contraception and divorce increase the net suffering in the world (especially divorce should be obvious to everyone).
> caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it
Not all suffering is fixable. For many, this fact of life leads to depression and despair, Catholics have other views on it. Namely, that while suffering sucks, it has redemptive qualities.
Look... I know all suffering is not fixable. When your child dies, there's nothing you can do about it. It sucks. You can choose to hate life, despair, and wallow in self pity (which I've had ample amounts of), or you can choose to go with whatever it is has happened to you. I eventually chose the later, with the guidance of religion, and it is a much better path.
> caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it
Not all suffering is fixable. For many, this fact of life leads to depression and despair, Catholics have other views on it. Namely, that while suffering sucks, it has redemptive qualities.
Look... I know all suffering is not fixable. When your child dies, there's nothing you can do about it. It sucks. You can choose to hate life, despair, and wallow in self pity (which I've had ample amounts of), or you can choose to go with whatever it is has happened to you. I eventually chose the later, with the guidance of religion, and it is a much better path.
Holy macaroni.
> Abortion, contraception and divorce increase the net suffering in the world (especially divorce should be obvious to everyone).
What the oblivious shipping duck.
Do you really think abortion increases suffering? Think about the girl who got pregnant from rape. You’re forcing them to have that child, a permanent reminder of being raped. I assume you would also force the victim to marry their attacker?
Contraception. Do you really think suffering is lessened when teenagers don’t have access to condoms and get their girlfriend pregnant outside marriage and are forced to choose the child instead of education and vocation?
And divorce—you actually think it lessens suffering if two people who hate each other are forced to stay together and raise their children in a hostile, conflicted environment.
Take all that together and you have a family that’s based on sexual violence and men having absolute control over women and children.
Your stance makes it seem like you want kids to get in trouble so you can bash them with your good book because you get a kick out of it.
> Abortion, contraception and divorce increase the net suffering in the world (especially divorce should be obvious to everyone).
What the oblivious shipping duck.
Do you really think abortion increases suffering? Think about the girl who got pregnant from rape. You’re forcing them to have that child, a permanent reminder of being raped. I assume you would also force the victim to marry their attacker?
Contraception. Do you really think suffering is lessened when teenagers don’t have access to condoms and get their girlfriend pregnant outside marriage and are forced to choose the child instead of education and vocation?
And divorce—you actually think it lessens suffering if two people who hate each other are forced to stay together and raise their children in a hostile, conflicted environment.
Take all that together and you have a family that’s based on sexual violence and men having absolute control over women and children.
Your stance makes it seem like you want kids to get in trouble so you can bash them with your good book because you get a kick out of it.
Only because modern Christianity has chosen to interpret the Bible in a more secular and liberal way. Stoning? No mixed fibers? Women’s place in the world? The Bible is completely savage. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you’re not following the Bible literally, but you’re a good person in spite of Christianity, not because of it.
This is nonsense, if you look even to the beginnings of Christianity, both the catholic and orthodox churches rejected stoning and the Jewish law very early on. The documentation of the rejection is written about in the bible.
If you want to argue that Jewish law is restrictive fine... Christians agree. It's written in the new testament. I'll leave it to a Jew to defend their laws.
The fact that anyone thinks Christians believe in following Jewish law speaks more to lack of education, not anything to do with Christianity.
Edit: i will point out these forms of Christianity also reject the authority of the bible in the way most protestants see it.
If you want to argue that Jewish law is restrictive fine... Christians agree. It's written in the new testament. I'll leave it to a Jew to defend their laws.
The fact that anyone thinks Christians believe in following Jewish law speaks more to lack of education, not anything to do with Christianity.
Edit: i will point out these forms of Christianity also reject the authority of the bible in the way most protestants see it.
Well, Matthew 5:18 would tend to suggest that the Old Testament very much applies. But even if it doesn't, plenty of Christians continue to believe parts of the Old Testament, particularly when it comes to bashing gay people. So it's not my interpretation here that matters, I'm simply calling out what I see from Christians. But sure, I'll entertain a no true scotsman fallacy. Here's some verses from the New Testament only.
> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5
> Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse. 1 Peter 2:18
> The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak. 1st Corinthians 14:34
> You should not use outward aids to make yourselves beautiful, such as the way you fix your hair, or the jewelry you put on, or the dresses you wear. 1st Peter 3:3
> So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. Matthew 5:29
> Don’t store up treasures here on earth, where moths eat them and rust destroys them, and where thieves break in and steal. Matthew 6:19
> Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:32
> So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. Luke 14:33
> A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1st Timothy 2:11-15
> Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11:14-16
These are every single one from the New Testament, and I don't know a single Christian who actually really follows any of these verses. And good thing, too. I don't want them to. If they did, then, again, the world would be worse off.
> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5
> Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse. 1 Peter 2:18
> The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak. 1st Corinthians 14:34
> You should not use outward aids to make yourselves beautiful, such as the way you fix your hair, or the jewelry you put on, or the dresses you wear. 1st Peter 3:3
> So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. Matthew 5:29
> Don’t store up treasures here on earth, where moths eat them and rust destroys them, and where thieves break in and steal. Matthew 6:19
> Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:32
> So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. Luke 14:33
> A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1st Timothy 2:11-15
> Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11:14-16
These are every single one from the New Testament, and I don't know a single Christian who actually really follows any of these verses. And good thing, too. I don't want them to. If they did, then, again, the world would be worse off.
I think it's for a few reasons:
Stigma: Much like the phrase "remote work" had 5 years ago, there is a stigma around the 4 day work week e.g. for many, it's a synonym for "laziness"
Fear: if a company switches to a 4 day week, most believe the customer output will suffer. This has been shown not to be the case however [1, 2, 3]
Culture: Although it's improving, I believe there is still a culture of "work-hard / play hard" in many companies (especially those which are VC backed) - a 4 day work week is the antithesis of this
[1] https://www.4dayweek.com/case-studies-more/mrl-consulting
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/04/microsoft...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/feb/19/four-day-week-...
p.s. I run https://4dayweek.io - I've now sourced around 50 Tech companies which have a 4 day work week and it's increasing every week. I believe it will become major movement
Stigma: Much like the phrase "remote work" had 5 years ago, there is a stigma around the 4 day work week e.g. for many, it's a synonym for "laziness"
Fear: if a company switches to a 4 day week, most believe the customer output will suffer. This has been shown not to be the case however [1, 2, 3]
Culture: Although it's improving, I believe there is still a culture of "work-hard / play hard" in many companies (especially those which are VC backed) - a 4 day work week is the antithesis of this
[1] https://www.4dayweek.com/case-studies-more/mrl-consulting
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/04/microsoft...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/feb/19/four-day-week-...
p.s. I run https://4dayweek.io - I've now sourced around 50 Tech companies which have a 4 day work week and it's increasing every week. I believe it will become major movement
> for many, it's a synonym for "laziness"
which is weird because most people doing 4 days are taking a pay cut to do it - and thus, earning the exact same per hour as before!
Those who say 4 days is lazy somehow don't also say that not working weekends (without pay) is not lazy...
which is weird because most people doing 4 days are taking a pay cut to do it - and thus, earning the exact same per hour as before!
Those who say 4 days is lazy somehow don't also say that not working weekends (without pay) is not lazy...
You just have to ask and be upfront about it. I made the switch to working max 30 hours a week 2 years ago and I’ll never go back to full time. Most recruiters will ghost you as soon as you mention it, but a few will go for it. Most reliable way is to work through your existing professional network. People you’ve worked with before are much more likely to go for it.
I find pitching it as a “self funded 20% time project” also helps with the negative perception of laziness. I’ve been using the extra day off to learn VR game development and rock climb.
With the way the market is desperate for senior engineers right now you have a lot of negotiating leverage, and salary above a certain amount is pointless. Can’t take your money with you when you die.
I find pitching it as a “self funded 20% time project” also helps with the negative perception of laziness. I’ve been using the extra day off to learn VR game development and rock climb.
With the way the market is desperate for senior engineers right now you have a lot of negotiating leverage, and salary above a certain amount is pointless. Can’t take your money with you when you die.
As someone who's managed to negotiate 4 day weeks in my current and last 2 jobs, I see some issues: You take a pay hit of 10-20% (depending what hours you work over those 4 days) so need to be reasonably frugal and if you've a partner they need to be too, especially if you got kids. It may stand in the way of getting more seniority, which compounds the pay hit (however, I personally am happy as a mid-range, and feel like this may prolong my career life as I'm still coding all the time not doing less techy stuff). You need to keep your employer believing you're committed to your job. In my experience this isn't difficult because in practice you get pretty much the same work done in 4 days as 5, but some people are scared this won't appear the case. In terms of the pay hit, the other side is that with a weekday off you can do some cooking, shop around for cheaper things etc which reduces costs. If you have kids, both parents working 3 or 4 days a week may be tax advantageous over 1 working 5 days and the other 2, for example. To be honest, looking around, my colleagues could easily have asked for 4-day weeks too, and I don't think they would have been refused. A few did ask, and they were allowed too. People like to blame employers for being inflexible but actually I suspect this is cover for their own fear of the unknown. My advice = be bold, just try it. BTW just for the record I do have some above the normal caring responsibilities, so that's why I do a 4 day week and it also gives me an "excuse" to ask.
There's already plenty of people working only 4 days per week, lots of times they do keep a low profile though.
The more workers who do start performing the shorter weeks, the more of the remaining workers will have to work more days per week than they are doing now.
As it stands your odds of pulling it off individually are probably better than waiting to see if it becomes adopted by the mainstream.
So there is probably widespread inertia in favor of the status quo.
The more workers who do start performing the shorter weeks, the more of the remaining workers will have to work more days per week than they are doing now.
As it stands your odds of pulling it off individually are probably better than waiting to see if it becomes adopted by the mainstream.
So there is probably widespread inertia in favor of the status quo.
I don't think 4 day workweek is the solution. I used to freelance, experimenting with 2-6 days/week. If you're working alone, sure, 4 days is just right.
My last job had me working 10 to 7, 5 days/week. That was too much and I thought 4 days was ideal.
My current job is much more relaxed. Everyone is done by 6 and we sometimes do game night. Management and HR actively lowers pressure, encourages us to take more breaks, and informs us that they've never turned down any request for a day off. Now I'm tempted to work 5.5 days/week, especially when they let me take a day off whenever I feel like it.
The problem seems to be that things aren't in sync. We're not getting enough rest or enough work done; I suspect 4 days is stressful when you have a lot of meetings. Socialising is a huge factor too - I had none of it in my last job, but I'd like more in my current job. I had no time for errands in my last job, but now that they're cool with me running errands on weekdays, I don't need extra time off.
My last job had me working 10 to 7, 5 days/week. That was too much and I thought 4 days was ideal.
My current job is much more relaxed. Everyone is done by 6 and we sometimes do game night. Management and HR actively lowers pressure, encourages us to take more breaks, and informs us that they've never turned down any request for a day off. Now I'm tempted to work 5.5 days/week, especially when they let me take a day off whenever I feel like it.
The problem seems to be that things aren't in sync. We're not getting enough rest or enough work done; I suspect 4 days is stressful when you have a lot of meetings. Socialising is a huge factor too - I had none of it in my last job, but I'd like more in my current job. I had no time for errands in my last job, but now that they're cool with me running errands on weekdays, I don't need extra time off.
Work remote (if you aren’t already). I’ve been doing it at various companies for the better part of a decade and rarely work a full 5 days per week. There are probably 4-6 days/month there just isn’t much on my plate that day so I take care of errands or spend time with my family, or just do nothing.
I also work just as hard as I did when I commuted and have never been reprimanded for not getting enough done, quite they opposite in fact.
I also work just as hard as I did when I commuted and have never been reprimanded for not getting enough done, quite they opposite in fact.
Personally, on my team at work, I encourage this behavior. I see no reason to keep my employees at their desk when there's nothing immediate to do. I tell them to please go for a walk or take a nap if there's something they're waiting on. You'd have to be truly evil to want your guys to sit there staring at a screen.
[deleted]
What advice would you have in regards to getting a fully remote job?
Be good at engineering or product management or normal engineering management or marketing or ... anything and get hired by one of the 1000s of companies with remote jobs at the moment.
E.g. Amazon has 500 open remote jobs in the US on their site https://www.amazon.jobs/en/search?base_query=&loc_query=Remo...
E.g. Amazon has 500 open remote jobs in the US on their site https://www.amazon.jobs/en/search?base_query=&loc_query=Remo...
apply to every remote only job you see and only to remote only jobs
if you're a competent engineer it's just a standard job search
if you're a competent engineer it's just a standard job search
Get an office job and tell everyone you have a contagious disease you could spread to them I guess.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There are fixed costs to employees that are the same regardless of 4 vs 5 day week
Recruiting, HR, training, etc…
Recruiting, HR, training, etc…
[deleted]
My company switched to a four day work week for most people, 4x10 though.
The longer hours take more of a toll on mental health, rather than less.
It's a pain for childcare, trying to socialize with folks on a normal schedule, making up hours etc. Everyone else is working the fifth day, so can't really socialize then. My doctor and dentist don't work that day though, which means can't use it for appointments.
The longer hours take more of a toll on mental health, rather than less.
It's a pain for childcare, trying to socialize with folks on a normal schedule, making up hours etc. Everyone else is working the fifth day, so can't really socialize then. My doctor and dentist don't work that day though, which means can't use it for appointments.
[deleted]
Are people struggling with mental health because of 5 day workweeks or WFH + pandemic. Seems like the latter.
Personally, I was struggling with mental health because I wasn't allowed to see friends or socialize by government fiat. Now that those inhuman orders have been removed, it's much easier to feel like a human being. But politicians and interest groups are going to milk this for all its worth, so get ready for your mental health to be someone else's campaign platform.
It's the culture of the workplace. If it was a good culture, 5 days a week would be enjoyable. Most work places are shit holes though.
Disagree,
A version of it keeps the same weekly hours - that means 25% more time on an already busy day, which complicates life when e.g. having kids that finish school early.
Another important aspect is that if retirement looks into days worked, you need to work 25% more hours to unlock benefits.
Another important aspect is that if retirement looks into days worked, you need to work 25% more hours to unlock benefits.
I blame exploitative hustle culture that benefits VCs and hurts everyone else: https://mobile.twitter.com/JesseMavi/status/9430126578456780...
For me it's an easy no because I don't want to take a pay cut.
[deleted]
most ppl don't want another extra day of childcare at home. They don't want 4 day school.
I do. I work 4 days a week and would love to spend Fridays with my kid. That would mean three full days a week spending time with my family. Now, I just do errands and 'home admin' on Fridays and take weekend trips with the family. Still better than 5 days work a week.
I don't want a four day work week. That sounds awful. If they made a four day work week, I'd either get another job, or if that was banned, I'd take on a hobby for pay (And likely get my children involved too). It is not normal to not work. That way leads to anarchy, destabilized civilizations, and reversion to animalistic behaviors.
Not sure if you're joking by trying to mimic the average American's (?) mindset.
I am not joking. Even on the weekends, I'm doing something useful, like cleaning the house (which is actual work), fixing the house, taking care of the car, taking care of the children, etc. All these things are real jobs that would otherwise have to be hired out. In the few times I've been unemployed and had nothing to do, I made something to do. For example during one stretch of unemployment I learned to do woodworking, and sold several pieces. If I didn't work one more day a week, I think I may spend more time on house repair, which again is the same as increasing my income, because it'd be a job I didn't hire out. In fact, on the rare occasion I actually have nothing to do on a weekend, I typically start a new home improvement project, or start looking for more real estate to buy so I can acquire a new home improvement project.
My mother is the same way. She's been retired for many years, but she still works. She sews everyday. Sells some, or gives them away, but it's actual work to do what she does.
My father also has been retired, but keeps doing actual jobs for people. For example, he helped old people with taxes for a while (got paid). Then he became some finance thing in his parish, which is an actual job as well, even if he doesn't accept payment.
My grandmother was the same way too, which explains why she lived til a ripe old age. She never stopped working. Sewing, cleaning, cooking, etc. She was on a strict schedule.
My grandfather was the same way. The month before he died, he was still doing my aunt's yardwork on a strict schedule. The man had the strictest regimen imaginable.
My wife is like I am. If there's nothing to do, she'll start doing art projects (many of which end up getting sold, gifted, or used in lieu of bought decorations).
My brother and SIL are the same way. Constantly working on random things. Often income producing.
Broadly speaking, we are a successful family, because we rarely stop working. That's not to say we don't relax, but even relaxing takes work. For example, orchestrating a vacation with two children is actual work. But work is nothing to be upset by. Ideally, most of your life is spent working.
The main problem with work in American society today is not the work part. It's the fact that you're doing someone else's work, and that most work is not manual, tactile, or creative. It'd be better if more people did their own work, instead of hiring it out in some grand ponzi scheme. I'd recommend reading the rule of St Benedict. This is an ancient idea. It's really terrible, and boring, to do nothing all the time. It's more fun to do stuff.
Again, I literally mean this. As a child, I'd often sit around and complain about being bored (parents didn't buy us video games or movies, and computers were for working). My dad would solve this by giving me manual labor tasks. That is how I solved my boredom as a child. One day my dad decided he wanted a sprinkler system, so that became my brother's and my job when we said we were bored. I don't understand why this should be seen as sad or as working too much. We were happy to do it, and it beat being bored.
I'll quickly point out that while I am American, my parents are immigrants, and my grandparents and they were born and raised in another culture. My grandparents lived the majority of their life in another non-Western country.
My mother is the same way. She's been retired for many years, but she still works. She sews everyday. Sells some, or gives them away, but it's actual work to do what she does.
My father also has been retired, but keeps doing actual jobs for people. For example, he helped old people with taxes for a while (got paid). Then he became some finance thing in his parish, which is an actual job as well, even if he doesn't accept payment.
My grandmother was the same way too, which explains why she lived til a ripe old age. She never stopped working. Sewing, cleaning, cooking, etc. She was on a strict schedule.
My grandfather was the same way. The month before he died, he was still doing my aunt's yardwork on a strict schedule. The man had the strictest regimen imaginable.
My wife is like I am. If there's nothing to do, she'll start doing art projects (many of which end up getting sold, gifted, or used in lieu of bought decorations).
My brother and SIL are the same way. Constantly working on random things. Often income producing.
Broadly speaking, we are a successful family, because we rarely stop working. That's not to say we don't relax, but even relaxing takes work. For example, orchestrating a vacation with two children is actual work. But work is nothing to be upset by. Ideally, most of your life is spent working.
The main problem with work in American society today is not the work part. It's the fact that you're doing someone else's work, and that most work is not manual, tactile, or creative. It'd be better if more people did their own work, instead of hiring it out in some grand ponzi scheme. I'd recommend reading the rule of St Benedict. This is an ancient idea. It's really terrible, and boring, to do nothing all the time. It's more fun to do stuff.
Again, I literally mean this. As a child, I'd often sit around and complain about being bored (parents didn't buy us video games or movies, and computers were for working). My dad would solve this by giving me manual labor tasks. That is how I solved my boredom as a child. One day my dad decided he wanted a sprinkler system, so that became my brother's and my job when we said we were bored. I don't understand why this should be seen as sad or as working too much. We were happy to do it, and it beat being bored.
I'll quickly point out that while I am American, my parents are immigrants, and my grandparents and they were born and raised in another culture. My grandparents lived the majority of their life in another non-Western country.
That's fine. You can still work if you want (for yourself or someone else) on the fifth day. Just allow others to have the possibility to "not work" (although, in my case, I would spend the fifth day writing, reading, coding, running... it's not like I will lay on bed all day).
And exactly when do you and your family expect to finally live and not just slave yourselves fighting against entropy?
You’re not going to live forever man.
I am not preaching you to become an hedonistic YOLO type, but did it never occurred to you that some balance is needed?
We have parties, large gatherings all the time. Those take a lot of work.
Frankly the people who typically tell me this also tend to have less fun than we do. We're constantly drinking partying and having fun with each other. I'm not against taking breaks. But even the word 'break' implies that it is a departure from the norm
Frankly the people who typically tell me this also tend to have less fun than we do. We're constantly drinking partying and having fun with each other. I'm not against taking breaks. But even the word 'break' implies that it is a departure from the norm
Can we at least agree that 40 hours / 5 days a week is an arbitrary amount of work? Not so long ago the norm in many countries was 6 days. So why do you think the current amount is the optimal?
Yep. That's exactly the point I think.
It seems that all that and other arbitrarities lead to a big chain of unhapiness and its derivatives (anxiety (panic attacks, depression, burnout)), uncontrolled consumption, unemployment, etc.
Anxiety and depression is caused by children being allowed to relax and consume too much rather than engaging in productive, achievement based labor.
what
Children today rarely see the results of their labor. School grades are so inflated there is little correlation with the quality of work and the mark. This causes anxiety because children rarely feel competent and frankly many are not.
It's not optimal. We should normalize doing work on Saturday. I'm fine with not having paid work or making it so that employment is four days a week, but most suggestions I've seen imply that the purpose of the new day is to relax.
I think if we pursue this policy the newly available days need to be normalized so that the day is set aside for personal work.
Personally I'd like to see us slowly ease out of employment and demand that more people work for themselves. By most proposals of a four day week are simply against working.
I think if we pursue this policy the newly available days need to be normalized so that the day is set aside for personal work.
Personally I'd like to see us slowly ease out of employment and demand that more people work for themselves. By most proposals of a four day week are simply against working.