Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days(npr.org)
npr.org
Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/11/15/1136039542/these-companies-ran-an-experiment-pay-workers-their-full-salary-to-work-fewer-da
155 comments
I agree we don't put in a full 40 hours. Unless someone is working a 1950's style assembly line (meatpacking plant for example) few will put in those 40 hours even in manual labor ---you're chatting, playing around, etc. for some time.
White collar work, is of course, way worse. There is a lot of slack time in between tasks and meetings and so on.
So during those 40 hours, let's say a person delivers 100 work units. If we were to say, from now on you only have to work 32 hours, some people will still deliver 100 work units, but many will deliver an approximation to 80 work units. Many people will automatically adjust. People have a "pace of work" that is like breathing.
White collar work, is of course, way worse. There is a lot of slack time in between tasks and meetings and so on.
So during those 40 hours, let's say a person delivers 100 work units. If we were to say, from now on you only have to work 32 hours, some people will still deliver 100 work units, but many will deliver an approximation to 80 work units. Many people will automatically adjust. People have a "pace of work" that is like breathing.
My pace of work is burn myself out in the first 1-2 hours of every day and then procrastinate / go to meetings.
I'm so happy to be out of the office. Being able to work whenever works for me (and my ADHD brain) has probably given me at least 50% more output on average. Hours don't mean anything to me and nobody has ever complained about my work pace (rather the opposite).
Pretending to be busy in an office was torture.
I'm so happy to be out of the office. Being able to work whenever works for me (and my ADHD brain) has probably given me at least 50% more output on average. Hours don't mean anything to me and nobody has ever complained about my work pace (rather the opposite).
Pretending to be busy in an office was torture.
Ugh. I do the opposite, as I am VERY much not a morning person, so I spend the first hour or two each day just fighting to appear awake. But then get enough done in my peak couple hours after lunch that I run out of work to do.
Wish the promise of "Salaried means we pay for the job to be done" ideal was more of a reality.
Wish the promise of "Salaried means we pay for the job to be done" ideal was more of a reality.
[deleted]
> So during those 40 hours, let's say a person delivers 100 work units. If we were to say, from now on you only have to work 32 hours, some people will still deliver 100 work units, but many will deliver an approximation to 80 work units. Many people will automatically adjust. People have a "pace of work" that is like breathing.
Perhaps in manual labor, but I don't think this applies to white collar work. The limiting factor in output for this line of work seems to be intellectual exhaustion/burnout, not pacing.
Perhaps in manual labor, but I don't think this applies to white collar work. The limiting factor in output for this line of work seems to be intellectual exhaustion/burnout, not pacing.
Exactly. Setting aside the "metabolic drag" of working in a company (time spent attending mandatory trainings, recurring stand-ups/all-hands, etc), I think everyone working in software has more productivity in their 1st hour than in their 39th. The question is where does the N * f(N) first derivative turn negative. I think it's lower than 32 hours/week for software development myself.
I would agree with that figure.
Personally I assign development to more of a "creative" role than a lot of people tend to. Your productivity can often depend on your inspiration, moreso the more senior/architectural your role is.
I've certainly had moments where I accomplished more at one 3am moment of clarity than an entire week before - and I think most experienced developers can say the same.
Personally I assign development to more of a "creative" role than a lot of people tend to. Your productivity can often depend on your inspiration, moreso the more senior/architectural your role is.
I've certainly had moments where I accomplished more at one 3am moment of clarity than an entire week before - and I think most experienced developers can say the same.
White collar work in the modern era is also very unrestricted. I can slack off during most of the day if I want (and nothing urgent comes up) and my manager will neither check nor care. Because of 24/7 systems, I can completely bunk fridays while pretending to work from home and just staying online from the phone. It is totally irrelevant to my job. I hate fridays and usually work Sunday to Thursday in reality. Many people I know have this level of flexibility in many fields.
My “work hours” in my pay slip say 75.8 for every 2 weeks. I work maybe 50 hours in a busy week. It is irrelevant to my organization. So we are already there in terms of intellectual white collar work.
My “work hours” in my pay slip say 75.8 for every 2 weeks. I work maybe 50 hours in a busy week. It is irrelevant to my organization. So we are already there in terms of intellectual white collar work.
I feel that we are employed above of all to be available when it matters rather than to do a certain amount of work for the hours you are paid for. Compare it to a workshop with some tools, you buy a hammer not because you use it for 8 hours a day, but because when you need it, you can't do without it. If you go a day without needing to use the hammer, it doesn't mean that having the hammer in your shed is a waste of money.
If the company cared only about getting certain amount of work done in the time they paid for, they would hire an external. And continuing the analogy, it's usually more expensive in the long run to rent a tool even if you use it only a couple of times a month, as well as having to get used to unfamiliar equipment, having no records of how well the rental tool performed earlier.
If the company cared only about getting certain amount of work done in the time they paid for, they would hire an external. And continuing the analogy, it's usually more expensive in the long run to rent a tool even if you use it only a couple of times a month, as well as having to get used to unfamiliar equipment, having no records of how well the rental tool performed earlier.
Wife’s a teacher. 40-60 hours at school. 10-30 hours outside of work doing lesson plans, report card comments etc. Always responding to emails from parents.
She Has collapsed before when total was getting above 80 for several weeks.
They want to promote her to VP. They work even more hours then she does.
I make more then triple what she does.
She Has collapsed before when total was getting above 80 for several weeks.
They want to promote her to VP. They work even more hours then she does.
I make more then triple what she does.
> 40-60 hours at school.
This part doesn't make sense to me, can you please explain (I'm genuinely asking). My children are in elementary school, and the day is from 8:45-2:30. I can understand being there at 8am(i definitely have seen teachers showing up later than this though), and when I've driven by the school at 3pm nearly all the cars are gone from the teachers lot (if not all). I can understand that there's a lot of work outside of school, but I don't understand how you could ever get to 60 hours at school.
This part doesn't make sense to me, can you please explain (I'm genuinely asking). My children are in elementary school, and the day is from 8:45-2:30. I can understand being there at 8am(i definitely have seen teachers showing up later than this though), and when I've driven by the school at 3pm nearly all the cars are gone from the teachers lot (if not all). I can understand that there's a lot of work outside of school, but I don't understand how you could ever get to 60 hours at school.
My dad and ex-wife were both teachers.
My dad was up at 6 and at school for 7am. Worked 7am-3pm (8 hours). He did marking for an hour or two most evenings, and a solid chunk on the weekends. Probably 50 hour weeks. And that's after 20 years of teaching the same classes, so he had all the materials.
My ex-wife was brand new to teaching so had to develop curriculum on top of this. She worked 7am-5pm every day plus weekends.
Calling parents, dealing with kids with special needs, developing curriculum, marking, department meetings, making lesson plans, running extra-curricular activities or clubs, private lessons, doing paperwork or photocopying, etc etc, it all mounts up. There's a lot of behind the scenes work.
Now, some teachers simply don't do this. You can easily skate by, work the bare minimum 6 hour days, and not give two shits about the kids. But most teachers care about children and education (I mean, you don't become a teacher for the money).
My dad was up at 6 and at school for 7am. Worked 7am-3pm (8 hours). He did marking for an hour or two most evenings, and a solid chunk on the weekends. Probably 50 hour weeks. And that's after 20 years of teaching the same classes, so he had all the materials.
My ex-wife was brand new to teaching so had to develop curriculum on top of this. She worked 7am-5pm every day plus weekends.
Calling parents, dealing with kids with special needs, developing curriculum, marking, department meetings, making lesson plans, running extra-curricular activities or clubs, private lessons, doing paperwork or photocopying, etc etc, it all mounts up. There's a lot of behind the scenes work.
Now, some teachers simply don't do this. You can easily skate by, work the bare minimum 6 hour days, and not give two shits about the kids. But most teachers care about children and education (I mean, you don't become a teacher for the money).
Is there a consensus among teachers if year-around schooling will help or exacerbate this problem?
I haven't talked to any teachers about this specifically, but based on my impression of the school system and public philosophy around schools and teaching that I've gleaned from my wife and many friends who are teachers, I think it might help in the short term but be worse in the long term. The one thing that seems nearly constant is that expectations of teachers are always increasing. So I think eventually we'd end up back in a similar place except teachers would have to keep the pace year round rather than getting a couple months off in the summer.
Office hours, tutoring, mandatory training, meetings, clubs, etc. can really add up.
My wife’s school is big on community, which is great in some ways but leads to long days with staff expected to attend dances, games, etc.
My wife’s school is big on community, which is great in some ways but leads to long days with staff expected to attend dances, games, etc.
Another fascinating thing about teacher claims of working hours is how technology apparently hasn't moved the needle at all. Lots of schools have moved to more and more online assignments that can be in large part automatically graded yet the time spend grading remains constant, or so they claim.
I bet most of the software they use just sucks. I've had some first hand folks tell me some of the bad stories of using various online grade book systems, and years ago I built one myself, and the accommodations people were requiring were... fairly complex. I suspect that at least in some cases I'm aware of, the vendor just lies and says "yes, we support X", gets the contract, and the end users (teachers) have to deal with the lie.
Have you ever worked with education software? I have. It's awful.
Until 2011, my local school district was using a DOS-based attendance and grading system. No GUI.
In 2011 they switched to an internet-connected system that looked like it was built on Windows 3.1. Non-resizable text fields. Inability to tab from one field to the next. A tiny non-resizable window that you had to scroll manually with the scrollbar to enter data in all the fields, so to enter attendance for a whole class you had to scroll left and right with the mouse for each child.
It crashed every morning for months. Teachers would coordinate with each other to ensure they didn't overload the system.
Until 2011, my local school district was using a DOS-based attendance and grading system. No GUI.
In 2011 they switched to an internet-connected system that looked like it was built on Windows 3.1. Non-resizable text fields. Inability to tab from one field to the next. A tiny non-resizable window that you had to scroll manually with the scrollbar to enter data in all the fields, so to enter attendance for a whole class you had to scroll left and right with the mouse for each child.
It crashed every morning for months. Teachers would coordinate with each other to ensure they didn't overload the system.
If that's true, person in charge of purchasing is asleep at the wheel. With the most politically powerful union in the US, teachers could replace them if they wanted too (although the same union likely protects the jobs of the people who can't buy software).
That's probably because IT busywork replaces manual busywork.
Before: you take a stack of papers, and go through each one with a red pen.
Now: you log on a system, wait, click on something, wait, click on something else, wait... the stupid tests are auto-graded, but chances are there is still something you have to grade student-by-student, and that's now slower to do. Plus, obviously, the usual annoyances (got to update this, got to reboot that, my typing is 5WPM, etc etc).
Before: you take a stack of papers, and go through each one with a red pen.
Now: you log on a system, wait, click on something, wait, click on something else, wait... the stupid tests are auto-graded, but chances are there is still something you have to grade student-by-student, and that's now slower to do. Plus, obviously, the usual annoyances (got to update this, got to reboot that, my typing is 5WPM, etc etc).
"you log on a system, wait, click on something, wait, click on something else, wait..."
You know, if someone wants to write The Next Great JS framework, give me one that above all else prioritizes latency and expert-level usage. There's no fundamental reason we can't have most of the nice things from the modern graphical web, and get to the legendary efficiency of those text-based consoles... but it will take some work and thought. (For example, you're going to need to insert yourself in between the user and the browser's concept of events, so you can buffer up commands the user is typing while their target hasn't quite loaded yet. This is one of the fundamental reasons why GUIs are less efficient than TUIs, though by no means the only one.)
This framework won't take over the world, but it sure would save a lot of people a lot of time.
Sooooo tiiiiirrrrreeeeed of programs that take seconds to do every... little... thing!
You know, if someone wants to write The Next Great JS framework, give me one that above all else prioritizes latency and expert-level usage. There's no fundamental reason we can't have most of the nice things from the modern graphical web, and get to the legendary efficiency of those text-based consoles... but it will take some work and thought. (For example, you're going to need to insert yourself in between the user and the browser's concept of events, so you can buffer up commands the user is typing while their target hasn't quite loaded yet. This is one of the fundamental reasons why GUIs are less efficient than TUIs, though by no means the only one.)
This framework won't take over the world, but it sure would save a lot of people a lot of time.
Sooooo tiiiiirrrrreeeeed of programs that take seconds to do every... little... thing!
Also, the UX is usually awful.
I remember having to use educational software in college for a discussion board and it was terrible and sucky. I could only imagine what the teacher end of it looked like.
—-
For a comedic look at how this affects teaching, the new comedy show Abbott Elentary has an episode on this. It’s like Parks and Rec but at an inner city Philadelphia public school.
I remember having to use educational software in college for a discussion board and it was terrible and sucky. I could only imagine what the teacher end of it looked like.
—-
For a comedic look at how this affects teaching, the new comedy show Abbott Elentary has an episode on this. It’s like Parks and Rec but at an inner city Philadelphia public school.
Ugh, should say Elementary.
Musk posted screens of his Elden Ring progress a couple weeks after launch. Given other players had to sink 60-80 hours in to get to the same point Musk was broadcasting, he was working 48 hours a day at his companies and on Elden Ring.
Bezos has given interviews about his habits. He works maybe 10-20 hours a week.
Billing 40 hours every week to run scripts that generate a Github repo structure in minutes has been profitable for me though. Not going to knock Musk and Bezos optimizing for themselves by gaming others agency.
Bezos has given interviews about his habits. He works maybe 10-20 hours a week.
Billing 40 hours every week to run scripts that generate a Github repo structure in minutes has been profitable for me though. Not going to knock Musk and Bezos optimizing for themselves by gaming others agency.
Picasso offered a drawing in a napkin for $1M dollars, even though it took him 1 min to draw it. You know the gist. Bezos might do 20 hours a week of “work” because he scaffolded a giant organization around his brain, so he only needs to provide certain input. Besides, much of the non-work time, such as public speaking and so forth, is actually work.
Also the ultimate test is whether after confessing to your real contribution, people are ok. I don’t think any amazon employee was annoyed after hearing this so called interview, whereas is your company knew what you were charging them for, they would fire you.
Also the ultimate test is whether after confessing to your real contribution, people are ok. I don’t think any amazon employee was annoyed after hearing this so called interview, whereas is your company knew what you were charging them for, they would fire you.
He had 50 people invest tens of thousands each to build that scaffold.
He’s not a genius just well networked.
Idle idolatry of normal human beings with no effort to verify their real outputs creates an unfalsifiable truth Bezos is a lynchpin to reality.
Ooo oo I heard it through the grapevine, Bezos is not what you might call “divine”…
The rich did not invent science, engineering, and economic activity. Human behavior gives rise to those things organically. The rich are merely playing information awareness constraint games; a man named Farmer is a farmer, an engineer is an engineer, and there’s no reason to allow them agency to learn other things.
His value is rooted in traditions of political correctness to buy into that narrative, not immutable laws of nature.
Every worker faces the risk of their livelihood vanishing tomorrow. One slip of the tongue costing their job. Why are these guys insulated from the same?
He’s not a genius just well networked.
Idle idolatry of normal human beings with no effort to verify their real outputs creates an unfalsifiable truth Bezos is a lynchpin to reality.
Ooo oo I heard it through the grapevine, Bezos is not what you might call “divine”…
The rich did not invent science, engineering, and economic activity. Human behavior gives rise to those things organically. The rich are merely playing information awareness constraint games; a man named Farmer is a farmer, an engineer is an engineer, and there’s no reason to allow them agency to learn other things.
His value is rooted in traditions of political correctness to buy into that narrative, not immutable laws of nature.
Every worker faces the risk of their livelihood vanishing tomorrow. One slip of the tongue costing their job. Why are these guys insulated from the same?
Bezos parents were teenagers of no significant means. After they divorced, his mother married an "uneducated" (in the sense he had not attended college) Cuban immigrant, Miguel Bezos, again of no significant means. After Miguel graduated from the elite University of New Mexico, they moved to Houston so he could work for Exxon. During high school Jeff took on an elite internship working the morning shift at McDonalds.
It's not entirely rags to rich because gramps indeed did well for himself and had a nice big ranch out in the middle of Nowhere, Texas. But it's pretty close to it, and overall a pretty cool story.
It's not entirely rags to rich because gramps indeed did well for himself and had a nice big ranch out in the middle of Nowhere, Texas. But it's pretty close to it, and overall a pretty cool story.
You stopped short of detailing the well documented part of 50 people chipping in 25k.
That alone is a testament to how the country has changed. How many McDonalds burger flippers have that social network now?
His childhood and his family greatly benefited from pre-Reagan social programs.
How sad if the mega-mega-billionaires were mega-mega-millionaires. The rich of their childhood got through high taxes ok.
If such taxation is immoral, let’s discuss then the advantages immoral taxation in the past provided them and accept them as less uniquely gifted and successful on their own then.
That alone is a testament to how the country has changed. How many McDonalds burger flippers have that social network now?
His childhood and his family greatly benefited from pre-Reagan social programs.
How sad if the mega-mega-billionaires were mega-mega-millionaires. The rich of their childhood got through high taxes ok.
If such taxation is immoral, let’s discuss then the advantages immoral taxation in the past provided them and accept them as less uniquely gifted and successful on their own then.
He didn't found Amazon in high school. Instead, alongside working at McDonalds, he also graduated valedictorian, a National Merit Scholar, and so on. He then graduated from Princeton (almost certainly on a full ride scholarship), and again graduated near the top of his class (a member of both Phi Kappa Beta and Tau Beta Pi) with degrees in both electrical engineering and computer science. From there he worked for 8 more years until he set upon founding Amazon.
That's a power balance issue far more than a fairness argument.
If my boss is happy to pay this amount for my level of work output, why should it matter whether I'm spending 40 hours or 4 doing it? In fact, to suggest otherwise is downright Marxist, asserting that the value of my labor is the time I spent doing it, rather than the value someone else is willing to pay.
Do you subscribe to the labor theory of value for goods, or just people?
If my boss is happy to pay this amount for my level of work output, why should it matter whether I'm spending 40 hours or 4 doing it? In fact, to suggest otherwise is downright Marxist, asserting that the value of my labor is the time I spent doing it, rather than the value someone else is willing to pay.
Do you subscribe to the labor theory of value for goods, or just people?
If we "actually work" 32 hours out of 40 (80%), what is the likelihood that if we shift to a 32 hour max week, that the average person will only "actually work" ~26 hours (80% of 32) in this hypothetical future?
What if at least part of the 20% is spent doing social activities, water cooler conversations, etc. that enable the remaining 80% to flow more efficiently?
What if at least part of the 20% is spent doing social activities, water cooler conversations, etc. that enable the remaining 80% to flow more efficiently?
Because burn-out is the main driving factor behind the productivity changes, not the hypotheticals you are talking about. In engineering, people are burned out by friday, and even outside of engineering, people tend to phone it in by that point in the week because they are just done. They are operating at less than 50% mental or physical capacity. If you instead just give them that time to recharge, they'll get that much more done early in the week the following week. They'll also be in a better headspace because although you are only decreasing the days they work by 1/5th, you are increasing their uninterrupted weekend/family time by 1/3rd. In a more egalitarian society, you might imagine that ratio to be more like 1:1 to be fair.
At my previous startup we saw an 8% productivity _increase_ from moving to a 4-day work week, and this was across a variety of metrics like issues closed, lines of code, etc. We don't even know if 4 is optimal, it could be 3. Only way to find out is to try it.
At my previous startup we saw an 8% productivity _increase_ from moving to a 4-day work week, and this was across a variety of metrics like issues closed, lines of code, etc. We don't even know if 4 is optimal, it could be 3. Only way to find out is to try it.
My anecdotal experience doesn't support this. I worked in an org that shifted to a 9/80 schedule with a three day weekend every other week. Prior to this, Fridays always seemed to be the days where people coasted...they would come in kinda late, have a coffee break, then have a breakfast break, then an extended bathroom break, maybe get an hour of stuff done before an extended lunch. And of course, Friday afternoon meetings were frowned upon. After the change, this same behavior shifted to Thursdays, which used to be normally productive day.
Maybe they were burned out from the extra hour of the previous days, but considering the Thursdays of the remaining 5 day weeks didn't display this behavior, I doubt it. Now there was the complication that once management saw a dip in productivity, there was a near mutiny at the mere suggestion of going back to a normal workweek.
The implication is no matter how long/short the work week is, people will adjust to make the end a slack day.
Maybe they were burned out from the extra hour of the previous days, but considering the Thursdays of the remaining 5 day weeks didn't display this behavior, I doubt it. Now there was the complication that once management saw a dip in productivity, there was a near mutiny at the mere suggestion of going back to a normal workweek.
The implication is no matter how long/short the work week is, people will adjust to make the end a slack day.
Imagine the flipside though. Imagine you work every day of the week. Surely this would have lower productivity than having one day or two days of weekend unless we are to believe weekends don't have a rejuvinating effect. If you have a problem where a segment of your workforce is slacking off on the last day (whatever that may be), that is its own problem that will exist unless you have no days off (which would obviously be pathological and most likely illegal for other reasons). So I find this argument a bit trite, because it either already applies to your situation regardless, or you work at a company where people simply don't slack off the last day. And I do think this whole "people slack off on the last day" thing is very trumped up. I've seen plenty of examples of people finishing what they were expected to get done and tuning out at the end of the week, but I've seen much more scenarios where people have an unending mountain of work and their efficiency goes way down later in the day on thursday and for all of friday. I think this is the norm in most industries, and it can be solved with a 4-day work week.
>Surely this would have lower productivity than having one day or two days of weekend unless we are to believe weekends don't have a rejuvinating effect.
This seems to land in the area of untested hypothesis. Sure, we can speculate on all kinds of mechanisms. I could speculate that by going to 3 day weekends would lead to a bigger "rejuvination effect" and more productivity. But the data gathered from my org showed the opposite. Productivity went down. And now management had a lot of pushback to just get back to their baseline (more productive) schedule.
Now I'm willing to concede that it's going to be different industry to industry. It may very well work well in SWE and I think we see a lot of that bias in tech-centric circles. I also think it’s an error to assume it holds for most industries. My example was from an R&D area and not strictly software engineering. Do you, for example, think your doctors office would have more patient throughput if they went down to 4 eight-hour days? Or manufacturing? I'd be skeptical until I see the data. And I concede that a lot of work cultural differences also matter. And leadership matters. My original post was not claiming some definitive answer, just giving some pause to the sentiment that reduced hours is a generalizable rule to increase productivity*. I think a lot of people let their cognitive biases get the best of them and run with the idea.
* I also think "productivity" is the wrong way to frame the problem. Some things, like work-life balance, are a net good and worth a hit on productivity. The economy should serve society and not the other way around.
This seems to land in the area of untested hypothesis. Sure, we can speculate on all kinds of mechanisms. I could speculate that by going to 3 day weekends would lead to a bigger "rejuvination effect" and more productivity. But the data gathered from my org showed the opposite. Productivity went down. And now management had a lot of pushback to just get back to their baseline (more productive) schedule.
Now I'm willing to concede that it's going to be different industry to industry. It may very well work well in SWE and I think we see a lot of that bias in tech-centric circles. I also think it’s an error to assume it holds for most industries. My example was from an R&D area and not strictly software engineering. Do you, for example, think your doctors office would have more patient throughput if they went down to 4 eight-hour days? Or manufacturing? I'd be skeptical until I see the data. And I concede that a lot of work cultural differences also matter. And leadership matters. My original post was not claiming some definitive answer, just giving some pause to the sentiment that reduced hours is a generalizable rule to increase productivity*. I think a lot of people let their cognitive biases get the best of them and run with the idea.
* I also think "productivity" is the wrong way to frame the problem. Some things, like work-life balance, are a net good and worth a hit on productivity. The economy should serve society and not the other way around.
> I also think "productivity" is the wrong way to frame the problem. Some things, like work-life balance, are a net good and worth a hit on productivity. The economy should serve society and not the other way around.
I mostly agree with what you're saying, especially about going across industries, but I do believe it is quite easy to lower productivity, regardless of the industry, by dramatically imbalancing work-life balance. Put another way, having good work-life balance is a net good, partially _because_ people with good work-life balance are more productive than people who are burned out.
Your medical doctor isn't going to be very good at diagnosing patients when he's in his 140th working hour of the week, if he were to attempt such a thing (with ~3 hours of sleep per night and no time off other than that)
I mostly agree with what you're saying, especially about going across industries, but I do believe it is quite easy to lower productivity, regardless of the industry, by dramatically imbalancing work-life balance. Put another way, having good work-life balance is a net good, partially _because_ people with good work-life balance are more productive than people who are burned out.
Your medical doctor isn't going to be very good at diagnosing patients when he's in his 140th working hour of the week, if he were to attempt such a thing (with ~3 hours of sleep per night and no time off other than that)
>having good work-life balance is a net good, partially _because_ people with good work-life balance are more productive
This is actually what I'm pushing against. I don't like productivity being a primary principle. I'm saying it's worthwhile irrespective of the impact on productivity. (the use of 'net good' was a bad choice on my part because it implies a balancing act).
It's quite common for healthcare workers (particularly surgeons) to work extremely long hours, but that's being re-thought in some areas (esp. in regards to residents). To your point, though, I think a lot of the rethinking is driven by trying to reduce medical errors. It's more related to quality than productivity, but I don't think they can be easily parsed.
This is actually what I'm pushing against. I don't like productivity being a primary principle. I'm saying it's worthwhile irrespective of the impact on productivity. (the use of 'net good' was a bad choice on my part because it implies a balancing act).
It's quite common for healthcare workers (particularly surgeons) to work extremely long hours, but that's being re-thought in some areas (esp. in regards to residents). To your point, though, I think a lot of the rethinking is driven by trying to reduce medical errors. It's more related to quality than productivity, but I don't think they can be easily parsed.
Given that 32 hours is still far too long for someone to be doing active mental work in a week, what you're likely seeing is not the same number of slack hours, but the remaining slack hours being shifted around
Does this change if it’s not SWE work? The example in my anecdote is from R&D work that involves a lot of wrenching on hardware.
[deleted]
Reduce the hours in the day.
Most people structure their days based on what they want to accomplish (goal driven), rather than how to spread out work evenly across a fixed number of hours (time driven). So if someone knows that they are expected to deliver task A + B in one day then they will do it. If they have a 4 hour work day they'll do it in 4 hours and then happily clock off. If they have to do it in an 8 hour work day they'll do it in 4 hours and then waste time for the remaining 4 hours.
Most people structure their days based on what they want to accomplish (goal driven), rather than how to spread out work evenly across a fixed number of hours (time driven). So if someone knows that they are expected to deliver task A + B in one day then they will do it. If they have a 4 hour work day they'll do it in 4 hours and then happily clock off. If they have to do it in an 8 hour work day they'll do it in 4 hours and then waste time for the remaining 4 hours.
Given what I've seen during the pandemic, I'd think that part of the reason people feel overwhelmed is related to commutes. Getting an extra hour back in my day made me feel better. I'm not sure if working 5 days a week, but only 6.333... hours would have the same effect as working 8 hours a day for 4 days a week where you also have one less hour of commute time per day. On the 5th day, if you don't go into work, you don't just have 8 fewer hours of work, you also have 1 fewer hour of commuting.
How does this align with the near-ubiquitous feelings that people generally feel overwhelmed? I.e., they have more goals then they have time
I feel like this should be the norm.
Also, when we consider capacity to focus instead of just time spent at work, I think normal rate is 2 focus bouts of 1.5h each per day. You can get to 3 if you train, but not much more. (I got this from Hubberman's lab podcast, not sure what's the underlying research)
So if you decrease work time to 5h, you give 2x bouts of focus + 1h break between bouts and have 1h left for marginal stuff/meeting.
Maybe going up to 6h would allow for the extended stuff (email, meeting, discussion, lunch) But I feel like 8h just create a world where you need to waste time in the end, just because of physiological concerns.
Also, when we consider capacity to focus instead of just time spent at work, I think normal rate is 2 focus bouts of 1.5h each per day. You can get to 3 if you train, but not much more. (I got this from Hubberman's lab podcast, not sure what's the underlying research)
So if you decrease work time to 5h, you give 2x bouts of focus + 1h break between bouts and have 1h left for marginal stuff/meeting.
Maybe going up to 6h would allow for the extended stuff (email, meeting, discussion, lunch) But I feel like 8h just create a world where you need to waste time in the end, just because of physiological concerns.
I’m all for a shorter workweek, but I definitely expect that the social aspect of a job is good for overall productivity. Maybe I’m weird, but I enjoy asking my coworkers how their weekend was prior to a meeting starting or (back when I was in the office) as we ran into each other in the hallway.
> I enjoy asking my coworkers how their weekend was prior to a meeting starting
It's foreplay but for work. Forework?
It's foreplay but for work. Forework?
You're not weird. I am not like you, but as a manager it's been important for me to recognize that this isn't at all uncommon.
Same! You're definitely not alone, even if I do feel like a rare species these days. I really wish we were all going in two or three days a week. This constant wfh is driving me crazy.
People will tell you only lonely people think that way, but I think office socialization is a different kind of thing. At the office you meet and chat with people of all ages and different types. When you're with friends, you're probably hanging with a bunch of people more like yourself.
About 0% probability.
They will work more than 80%, less than 100%, say 87%. And that is what you want: keep some off time for conversation, recovery, etc..
You don't want 100% (very short hours) and you don't want too low a percentage (long hours). There is some balance in between and no slippery slope.
They will work more than 80%, less than 100%, say 87%. And that is what you want: keep some off time for conversation, recovery, etc..
You don't want 100% (very short hours) and you don't want too low a percentage (long hours). There is some balance in between and no slippery slope.
Because I’ll have a week day to do everything I need to do. Also I would push back or not attend meetings where I’m not needed. Team meetings and collaboration would still happen. A lot of people have to do late or weekend deployments and it would take the stress off of a lot of IT workers in all areas.
I mean someone could gather this info, the average working hours in China are ~10 more than the US and some European countries average lower.
Given humans are highly adaptable I imagine we will adjust to the new normal and keep finding time to mess around at work.
Given humans are highly adaptable I imagine we will adjust to the new normal and keep finding time to mess around at work.
I don’t think that would happen if there is actually a job to be done.
Exactly. The whole modern trend of working less hours will somehow equate to more work being done is ridiculous.
The only thing that's ridiculous is a simplistic sweeping statement like that. For one thing, no one even said "more work" necessarily, although that is absolutely perfectly possible and valid, but better work, and better overall performance as in morale, loyalty, effectiveness (better imagination and problem solving), longevity (less turnover, more return on training investment, better institutional knowledge retention), etc.
I don't think anyone is necessarily saying more work will get done although that's possible I guess, my understanding is that in a humanitarian sense cutting down expected working hours would increase employee satisfaction/happiness without affecting productivity much if at all and that's the main draw of the movement.
Most remote jobs I've worked at, I can't reach anyone on Friday. Probably not a coincidence.
Even years ago when I was in the office, everyone would go on insanely long lunch breaks on Friday instead. If you work an office job, I can assure you that the number of people actually working on Friday is statistically irrelevant.
Even years ago when I was in the office, everyone would go on insanely long lunch breaks on Friday instead. If you work an office job, I can assure you that the number of people actually working on Friday is statistically irrelevant.
"Never buy a car built on a Friday or a Monday."
People don't work for 40 hours but they are available for 40 hours, being available is also "work".
My most recent job is billable and time is tracked in tight increments. Because I now pay much more attention to when I am and am not 100% engaged, it's been eye opening how much 40 hours really is. I've found that I'm about 2/3 efficient. So if I designate 6 hours for "work", I'm really working (and thus billing) for about 4 hours.
I would bet those 2 hours you aren't billing for are still actual work. You are available, you are probably thinking about the company/the job/the work. That is all WORK, and should be billed.
I used to do a lot of walks (before I moved from Upstate NY to Houston) where I would escape the code and think about the product. That was all billed time, and understood by my clients. Just because my fingers are not furiously typing, doesn't mean I'm not actively engaged in my work.
I used to do a lot of walks (before I moved from Upstate NY to Houston) where I would escape the code and think about the product. That was all billed time, and understood by my clients. Just because my fingers are not furiously typing, doesn't mean I'm not actively engaged in my work.
Sometimes. And in past jobs that's how I justified myself, sure I'm not hands on keyboard all the time but I'm "on" 95+% of my awake time.
This company's policy is the clock is only running if you're 100% engaged. I try to stick with that. As time has gone on I've gotten better about mentally turning the switch more all the way on/all the way off. There's some grey area on both sides that I figure comes out in the wash. And if I have a serendipitous moment, it's not hard to turn the clock back on and have at it.
It'd also look more different if the billing increment was wider. In a very past life I billed at 15 minute intervals. So if I was "on" for 12 minutes but stepped away to clear my head, the full 15 was billed.
This company's policy is the clock is only running if you're 100% engaged. I try to stick with that. As time has gone on I've gotten better about mentally turning the switch more all the way on/all the way off. There's some grey area on both sides that I figure comes out in the wash. And if I have a serendipitous moment, it's not hard to turn the clock back on and have at it.
It'd also look more different if the billing increment was wider. In a very past life I billed at 15 minute intervals. So if I was "on" for 12 minutes but stepped away to clear my head, the full 15 was billed.
I disagree based on personal (anecdotal) data.
When I get into a “flow” on a project I can work 12+ hour days. My productivity dwindles as the day gets old for sure, but I don’t think it ever gets to zero or close. I dream/think about the project and the first thing on my mind in the morning is the next step on the project.
Last time I was in flow, I single handedly built the next generation of a tool in 2 months. It’s currently taking the other team about 6 months to do the same but for another platform. The complexity is roughly the same and I think the engineers are as smart, if not smarter than me. I think the difference was that I did 12-16 hours for 2 month (including weekends).
This is not sustainable of course. I developed my back and wrist pain at the end of the 2 months. This is something I consciously stop myself from doing ever again because health is all you got at the end of the day.
When I get into a “flow” on a project I can work 12+ hour days. My productivity dwindles as the day gets old for sure, but I don’t think it ever gets to zero or close. I dream/think about the project and the first thing on my mind in the morning is the next step on the project.
Last time I was in flow, I single handedly built the next generation of a tool in 2 months. It’s currently taking the other team about 6 months to do the same but for another platform. The complexity is roughly the same and I think the engineers are as smart, if not smarter than me. I think the difference was that I did 12-16 hours for 2 month (including weekends).
This is not sustainable of course. I developed my back and wrist pain at the end of the 2 months. This is something I consciously stop myself from doing ever again because health is all you got at the end of the day.
Very realistic, I one had a different idea of how we would build a retool-like tool for a company I worked at. I spent 4 days to reimplement our app from scratch, I didn't include even 10% of what we had, but the framework was much more powerful.
I typically code for like 3-4 hours a day, maybe 6-7 when I'm super into what I'm doing. BUT, I very frequently think about my work when I'm not working.
I typically code for like 3-4 hours a day, maybe 6-7 when I'm super into what I'm doing. BUT, I very frequently think about my work when I'm not working.
I've also done this before. After I was done, I couldn't focus properly for several weeks. Turns out I was largely just pushing back rest that I desperately needed, and I had to pay that back in the end.
The more your work is in creative output, the more likely you are to be working 100% of the time you're on the clock. Cognition is complex and most of it happens under the covers. Once you wake up, you load up your brains with concerns and don't stop thinking about it just because you aren't in meetings or actively coding. Your conscious thoughts are only one layer in a dense system.
Arguably, you can't turn it off when you clock out either. It's why I argue for a retainer model on intellectual workers.
Arguably, you can't turn it off when you clock out either. It's why I argue for a retainer model on intellectual workers.
Spot on.
Do you have any books you'd received recommend that have any additional tricks?
Do you have any books you'd received recommend that have any additional tricks?
You're probably not wrong. The data supports it.
> In October, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was 34.5 hours for the fifth month in a row.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm
> In October, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was 34.5 hours for the fifth month in a row.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm
The pessimist in me has to wonder how much of this is employers manipulating schedules to keep employees from classifying as full time?
I see the report calls out part time workers at 3.7m yet still I wonder.
I see the report calls out part time workers at 3.7m yet still I wonder.
That's a great point. I interpret that there's a difference of "assigned 40 hours" and "works 40 hours" that is being called out in this data.
That doesn't mean they actually work for 34.5 hours, that's just how long they get paid for.
A UK company did a study which showed the average office worker, who is in the office 40 hours a week, is only productive for less than 3 hours a day.
https://www.vouchercloud.com/resources/office-worker-product...
I would guess the average workweek, only counting the time people are actually productive, is 10-15 hours a week. The rest of the time people waste procrastinating, posting on social media etc.
A UK company did a study which showed the average office worker, who is in the office 40 hours a week, is only productive for less than 3 hours a day.
https://www.vouchercloud.com/resources/office-worker-product...
I would guess the average workweek, only counting the time people are actually productive, is 10-15 hours a week. The rest of the time people waste procrastinating, posting on social media etc.
And this is the time they at least pretend to be working. The amount of hours they actually do something productive is going to be much less.
I'm at least online 40 hours. Actively doing effort is harder but it's easier if I'm doing something interesting. I try to not beat myself up if I'm having trouble focusing some days. Some days it just ain't happening. Get a coffee read a magazine and try again a little later.
> It just feels to me like some sort of secret we all share
Yeah this is a pretty interesting phenomenon. I feel like as a kid I had no idea it would be this way, but every job I've worked, blue and white collar, has involved a lot of "time wasting." It's very surprising at first.
Yeah this is a pretty interesting phenomenon. I feel like as a kid I had no idea it would be this way, but every job I've worked, blue and white collar, has involved a lot of "time wasting." It's very surprising at first.
This is why Remote is great. You have the flexibility, and as long as you get the work you say you'll get done done, who cares if you're literally sitting in a chair from 9-5?
Which is exactly how salaried work was supposed to work, not “40 hours is the minimum and we won’t pay you if we pile so much work on that you need to work 60 hours instead.”
Cruft will build back up in the 32 hours though. In 10 years people will be saying "does anyone else feel like they don't work the full 32? We should cut it down to 24!" There is always going to be some percentage of working time that isn't fully productive.
I'm not sure what the problem with this is. It sounds like utopia.
Eh, diminishing percentages.
40 -> 32 -> 30 -> 29.5 -> 29.3 -> 29.2 -> really, we are talking about minutes(?). Just keep 29-ish and check again in a century.
40 -> 32 -> 30 -> 29.5 -> 29.3 -> 29.2 -> really, we are talking about minutes(?). Just keep 29-ish and check again in a century.
Over 200 companies have now made the switch to a 32hr work week: https://4dayweek.io/companies
The benefits for the employee are pretty obvious, but there are also many benefits for the company:
- Staff are more productive (for previous pilots: output almost always hits 100%)
- Job listings get (way) more applications
- Staff are happier
- Staff are healthier i.e. off sick less
- It's better for the environment
- Staff turnover reduces
- It attracts experienced candidates
- Costs reduce
- It's better for gender equality
Most of these companies on the site offer 100% salary, some offer 80% (but I hope to remove these in the future)
The benefits for the employee are pretty obvious, but there are also many benefits for the company:
- Staff are more productive (for previous pilots: output almost always hits 100%)
- Job listings get (way) more applications
- Staff are happier
- Staff are healthier i.e. off sick less
- It's better for the environment
- Staff turnover reduces
- It attracts experienced candidates
- Costs reduce
- It's better for gender equality
Most of these companies on the site offer 100% salary, some offer 80% (but I hope to remove these in the future)
This is one of those situations where it's a clear documented (via study and real world experiment) benefit to both workers and employers, so you wonder why it's taking so long to spread.
One problem is I genuinely believe it has to be mandated. Every company has people who will take any action purely to make themselves look attractive for the next promotion cycle. And if even just one person is actually putting in 50/wk at a company that's supposed to be 32/wk, everyone else is going to feel pressured to work 50.
One problem is I genuinely believe it has to be mandated. Every company has people who will take any action purely to make themselves look attractive for the next promotion cycle. And if even just one person is actually putting in 50/wk at a company that's supposed to be 32/wk, everyone else is going to feel pressured to work 50.
I think to some degree the people making these decisions to some extent are more likely to be those who enjoy the external approval aspects of work - the "clueless middle management" in the Gervais Principle framework, who enjoy doing more work and want to see those below them do the same.
The farther people are from the front lines, the more they seem to prefer the stick to the carrot. Government officials, upper management, etc. are typically far more worried about enforcement than encouragement.
Shorter workweeks are an encouragement tool. Longer ones are an enforcement tool.
Shorter workweeks are an encouragement tool. Longer ones are an enforcement tool.
> This is one of those situations where it's a clear documented (via study and real world experiment) benefit to both workers and employers, so you wonder why it's taking so long to spread.
Since open floorplans became universal a while ago, and are only getting partially replaced by work from home because the rent is cheaper, what I wonder is if that is the rule, instead of the exception.
Since open floorplans became universal a while ago, and are only getting partially replaced by work from home because the rent is cheaper, what I wonder is if that is the rule, instead of the exception.
I already work (remotely) much less than my contract says. I simply can't stay engaged to cognitively demanding tasks for a full day. The rest of the time I just feel kinda bad for slacking, which increases my stress levels for no good reason. If I got the permission to actually work less, I wouldn't feel so bad about it, which would probably lead to less stress and higher productivity.
I work in finance and I can attest that 90% of the work people do in my office could simply be left undone and no harm would come to the world or even the company. The industry just has a culture of "being very productive" which leads to people doing something all of the time, even when they don't have a clue what should be done.
I work in finance and I can attest that 90% of the work people do in my office could simply be left undone and no harm would come to the world or even the company. The industry just has a culture of "being very productive" which leads to people doing something all of the time, even when they don't have a clue what should be done.
>I already work (remotely) much less than my contract says. I simply can't stay engaged to cognitively demanding tasks for a full day. The rest of the time I just feel kinda bad for slacking, which increases my stress levels for no good reason. If I got the permission to actually work less, I wouldn't feel so bad about it, which would probably lead to less stress and higher productivity.
How do you know it wouldn't just allow you to slack down to working 24 hours a week and feeling the same degree of guilt you are accustomed to now?
I have no idea. It just reminds me of the saying about lottery winners "If you weren't happy before you won, you won't be happy afterwards".
How do you know it wouldn't just allow you to slack down to working 24 hours a week and feeling the same degree of guilt you are accustomed to now?
I have no idea. It just reminds me of the saying about lottery winners "If you weren't happy before you won, you won't be happy afterwards".
I’m a bit skeptical of the study, however I’ve long suspected that a lot of what happens at work is simply part of a set of special social expectations, and actually pretty disconnected from productivity.
What’s interesting to me is that I’ve seen many colleagues and general sentiment towards using your own time off to make work sustainable in this fashion of 4 day work weeks. They sacrifice the ability to disconnect from work with regular 1-2 week vacations however.
Also the increase of sabbatical years tends to show just how unsustainable this can be over a long period. Especially in a stressful position.
I don’t think productivity is the right word to use. I would say efficiency is better. Output vs outcome is important in knowledge work.
Also the increase of sabbatical years tends to show just how unsustainable this can be over a long period. Especially in a stressful position.
I don’t think productivity is the right word to use. I would say efficiency is better. Output vs outcome is important in knowledge work.
The arguments against 4-day work weeks are slowly eroding, and I'm here for it.
I genuinely think it will be met by the same kind of resistance as remote work. People simply wouldn't know what to do with the new freedom. Some will miss spending more time “socialising at work” while others will complain they feel “useless”. Just watch it happen.
I'm reminded of Parkinsons Law: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law
At my previous startup we tried this with engineering and actually saw a productivity _increase_ from 4-day work-week.
I will say the morale improvement on my team when we switched to 4/10s was worth it alone. We couldn't swing the reduction in hours unfortunately.
This is a bit different from a 32 hour week.
But yes you will see productivity go UP with 4 10s. That's a full days worth of break and lunch interruptions that isn't there.
I switched to 4 10s a couple years back and it's nice, but the days are quite long so anything else you plan to do probably isn't happening. Like gym time, which is going to cost long term.
But yes you will see productivity go UP with 4 10s. That's a full days worth of break and lunch interruptions that isn't there.
I switched to 4 10s a couple years back and it's nice, but the days are quite long so anything else you plan to do probably isn't happening. Like gym time, which is going to cost long term.
To be fair this was heavy construction, so a baseline of physical activity was there. Out-of-town work as well, so longer days were a bonus since off-duty time would be sent sitting in your trailer or at the bar. An extra day to travel and spend with the family at home was huge for the guys.
> That's a full days worth of break and lunch interruptions that isn't there.
A constant battle I've seen between superintendents and schedulers/penny pincher types. "oh no we can't pay any over time!" without realizing the productivity gains the superintendent is chasing from the extra working time unencumbered by extra breaks.
> That's a full days worth of break and lunch interruptions that isn't there.
A constant battle I've seen between superintendents and schedulers/penny pincher types. "oh no we can't pay any over time!" without realizing the productivity gains the superintendent is chasing from the extra working time unencumbered by extra breaks.
I'm also in a construction related trade and we get compensated for travel time to/from work sites. Eliminating a day of travel time alone is a big deal for the employer.
When things get busy having a additional 10 hour day in the week can really get things moving too. They do pay overtime for that though.
When things get busy having a additional 10 hour day in the week can really get things moving too. They do pay overtime for that though.
Curious, was this increased productivity sustained? If so, for how long?
How did you measure this? I'm convinced that I will be a multi-millionaire if I could just measure end productivity across a wide range of contexts.
Did everybody take the same day off or could everybody choose?
Compensation should be based on output. If hours translates to more output (like an assembly line worker or something) - great. Simply pay hourly and require minimum amount of hours (like 40) with options for "go-getters" to work more if they want.
Plenty of jobs (like a lot of tech) should be based on "if you're producing what we need from you (or more if you want) we're happy" regardless of the hours.
Plenty of jobs (like a lot of tech) should be based on "if you're producing what we need from you (or more if you want) we're happy" regardless of the hours.
How would you measure output? How do you measure "what we need from you"? As a software engineer a fair percent of my time was spent in collaboration that sometimes manifested itself in someone else's "output". Not advocating that hours are the best measure, but there does need to be an accounting of my time being available for others and not focused on my "output"
You need to negotiate and agree upon output metrics as a team.
Story points can easily be translated to dollars. If an engineer and a product manager can agree that a story is worth 3 points, they can agree that it's worth, say, $1,500. Whether the work ends up taking 30 minutes or 30 days, neither party can complain because they both agreed on a price.
Story points can easily be translated to dollars. If an engineer and a product manager can agree that a story is worth 3 points, they can agree that it's worth, say, $1,500. Whether the work ends up taking 30 minutes or 30 days, neither party can complain because they both agreed on a price.
I am always fascinated by people who want to earn less, pay more in tax, have less rights, etc.
Curious, why would want to be paid by the hour instead of getting the same pay for less hours as this experiment would want to do? Technically thats a pay raise and better for your quality of life.
Curious, why would want to be paid by the hour instead of getting the same pay for less hours as this experiment would want to do? Technically thats a pay raise and better for your quality of life.
It's the cult of the entrepreneur, with a splash of anarcho-capitalism. Worker exploitation is impossible because employment is a mutual agreement, and individuals should be empowered to agree to work in arbitrarily bad conditions for arbitrarily long hours, because that preserves the meritocracy for those who work the hardest for the longest.
Except in tech you get metrics like lines of code instead then ;)
Although it would be nice to be paid by line of code. Except in python or any other language where line ends are significant.
Although it would be nice to be paid by line of code. Except in python or any other language where line ends are significant.
As an SWE I know that my brain works on problems 24/7, and not only 9 to 5 Mon-Fri. Lots of times when I stuck with some debugging or corner case or architecture problem - I just put it away and next morning the answer is just there in my head, ready to be typed down.
As an engineering manager I can regulary see the same in my reports. Moreover, best ones are doing it on the vacation: coming back they just start typing and don't stop for 2-3 days. Normally typing/thinking cycle is at most 50/50, usually 40/60.
There's one exclusion. All said things are not working if an engineer is working for two employers. When COVID mandatory WFH started, I initially thought that some of my direct or indirect reports just can't adapt to it, but it always turned out to be a second job or a personal project.
I am 100% sure that 4 day workweek will lead to a lot of people in IT taking second jobs/side gigs, and it will severely impact their performance.
As an engineering manager I can regulary see the same in my reports. Moreover, best ones are doing it on the vacation: coming back they just start typing and don't stop for 2-3 days. Normally typing/thinking cycle is at most 50/50, usually 40/60.
There's one exclusion. All said things are not working if an engineer is working for two employers. When COVID mandatory WFH started, I initially thought that some of my direct or indirect reports just can't adapt to it, but it always turned out to be a second job or a personal project.
I am 100% sure that 4 day workweek will lead to a lot of people in IT taking second jobs/side gigs, and it will severely impact their performance.
From my personal experience
Stress free 5 days > Fire fighting for 4 days
Yeah, but Fire fighting for 4 days > Fire fighting for 5 days.
Also stress free for 4 days > stress free for 5 days.
I work at a startup that has mostly unstructured time requirements. The attitude is "as long as you get your work done, work the hours you want in the office or at home"
When I get tired and unable to focus, I go home and rest. That might be 2:00 or 7:00. If I go home early, chances are that I'll end up doing more work in the evening.
I work as much as I want and am able to, which turns out to be an order of magnitude more work than when I was trapped in 10-12 hour shifts 6 days a week.
I find that I'm very rarely "killing time" at work. I'll pop open mastodon for a few minutes now and then, but I've never had to waste multiple hours waiting for my shift to end. If I'm done working, I just leave. If I have a doctor's appointment, I just throw a note in the group chat.
At this point, I don't think I could ever go back to a traditional workplace. You'd have to be some kind of idiot to pay people per hour to waste time on their phone just to tick off the requirement of being in a chair for 8 hours in a row. This is just clearly the wrong model for many industries.
When I get tired and unable to focus, I go home and rest. That might be 2:00 or 7:00. If I go home early, chances are that I'll end up doing more work in the evening.
I work as much as I want and am able to, which turns out to be an order of magnitude more work than when I was trapped in 10-12 hour shifts 6 days a week.
I find that I'm very rarely "killing time" at work. I'll pop open mastodon for a few minutes now and then, but I've never had to waste multiple hours waiting for my shift to end. If I'm done working, I just leave. If I have a doctor's appointment, I just throw a note in the group chat.
At this point, I don't think I could ever go back to a traditional workplace. You'd have to be some kind of idiot to pay people per hour to waste time on their phone just to tick off the requirement of being in a chair for 8 hours in a row. This is just clearly the wrong model for many industries.
For me the real productivity benefit would be the 5th day when nobody is “working” but I log in and have an entire full day to focus without interruption.
Only works if everybody agrees on which day is the '5th' day. My wife has chose to work 4 days a week (80%) and she has to constantly fight to keep her free day actually free, since people keep trying contact her or book stuff with her on that day.
We tried this several times, specifically banning meetings on Friday, and it never sticks. Some manager or executive always winds up ignoring the rule and setting a meeting anyway, which throws the whole thing out.
We try to nudge towards making this possible by having a "soft rule" discouraging scheduling any standing or cross-team meetings on Fridays.
A lot of people have a goal to minimize work and maximize income, and for those people, no matter what flexibility they are given, they will continue to minimize productive work. It’s sad in my opinion, and it leads to hedonic pursuits instead of the intrinsic satisfaction that comes from doing good work. But for too many people work is about man vs “the man”, instead of our individual quest to do something interesting.
“Darling I told you several times before. I have no dream job, I do not dream of labor." — James Baldwin
Not everyone wants interesting work. That’s just a hobby you get paid for.
Not everyone wants interesting work. That’s just a hobby you get paid for.
A lot of businesses have a goal to maximize work and minimize wages, and for those businesses…
Why does it inherently lead to hedonistic pursuits, that's a bit of an oversimplification.
Minimizing work and maximizing income (aka minmaxing) is what you should do as the employee in the equation, just as the employer will try their best to set up a contract where and they maximize your work while minimizing your income, to do otherwise is just blind naïveté.
And for some of us less hours spent on the job means more hours we can spend on the cultivation of hobbies, physical health and overall improving ourselves. Working as a software engineer is but a small facet of who I am.
Minimizing work and maximizing income (aka minmaxing) is what you should do as the employee in the equation, just as the employer will try their best to set up a contract where and they maximize your work while minimizing your income, to do otherwise is just blind naïveté.
And for some of us less hours spent on the job means more hours we can spend on the cultivation of hobbies, physical health and overall improving ourselves. Working as a software engineer is but a small facet of who I am.
It's hard for a stoic mindset to pave over the fact that you're only working a job because you have to. You'd see less of that if we have a society that gives a decent standard of living without having to work (ever), but even then, there will always be people looking to game any system for the thrill of it. That's the intrinsic satisfaction they get.
If you keep people stressed, they become useless. Stressed people get no intrinsic satisfaction from working, or almost anything really.
I think I personally know many people that will simply use the extra time to work another job, thus erasing the intended benefit to the generous company.
They work you less so that you will have better morale and energy and loyalty while you are there. But you use the time to collect a 2nd paycheck, and the gets the same tired employee they would have had if they just worked you fully the old way.
I don't know what could practically be done about that.
It also seems like a 6 month trial where the participants are still the exception not the rule, doesn't really predict what would happen if it became the rule. If most companies adopted this as a norm, surely simply the average salery would just inch down over time until it became essentially necessary and the norm to work 2 jobs, since the 4-day job won't actually be enough by itself except in theory, like how minimun wage is supposed to be enough in theory.
There will always be huslters aggressively trying to maximize every minute, and they will always set, or at least perturb, the going rates for things. I think this experiment can only really exist as a special bubble experiment where the ceos just wanted to do it, and all employees were convinced to voluntarily play along and not just fill the gap with a side job. Maybe there can always be some few companies that can do it as their particular distinctive policy just like there already are different companies with different cultures and norms. But across the board? I think the hustlers and hungry scrappers will just set the going rates.
They work you less so that you will have better morale and energy and loyalty while you are there. But you use the time to collect a 2nd paycheck, and the gets the same tired employee they would have had if they just worked you fully the old way.
I don't know what could practically be done about that.
It also seems like a 6 month trial where the participants are still the exception not the rule, doesn't really predict what would happen if it became the rule. If most companies adopted this as a norm, surely simply the average salery would just inch down over time until it became essentially necessary and the norm to work 2 jobs, since the 4-day job won't actually be enough by itself except in theory, like how minimun wage is supposed to be enough in theory.
There will always be huslters aggressively trying to maximize every minute, and they will always set, or at least perturb, the going rates for things. I think this experiment can only really exist as a special bubble experiment where the ceos just wanted to do it, and all employees were convinced to voluntarily play along and not just fill the gap with a side job. Maybe there can always be some few companies that can do it as their particular distinctive policy just like there already are different companies with different cultures and norms. But across the board? I think the hustlers and hungry scrappers will just set the going rates.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted. I thought your reply was at least a lot more thoughtful than the average one here. It seems like in this topic:
<personal anecdote or opinion> pro 4-day workweek = upvote
<personal anecdote or opinion> skeptical of 4-day workweek = downvote
I guess it is human nature to dismiss skepticism of an outcome when the outcome is strongly desired
<personal anecdote or opinion> pro 4-day workweek = upvote
<personal anecdote or opinion> skeptical of 4-day workweek = downvote
I guess it is human nature to dismiss skepticism of an outcome when the outcome is strongly desired
This mentality is less prevela t in Europe so that might be a factor to keep in mind.
why would a company agree to pay the same salary for fewer hours of custody?
it reminds me of the macchiavelli quote:
> “How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.”
productivity study is interesting but that's not how the real world incentives are aligned.
it reminds me of the macchiavelli quote:
> “How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.”
productivity study is interesting but that's not how the real world incentives are aligned.
Why do companies pay for people to work "only" five days each week? Or "only" 40 hours? Why not seven days, and 84 hours each week? Surely there are people willing to work those hours for even less than companies are paying now, eliminating the deadweight loss.
Once you have the answer to that question, the answer to your question seems very straightforward.
Once you have the answer to that question, the answer to your question seems very straightforward.
The answer is that both parties have agreed that 40 hours of work a week is worth that much money. And if there are people already willing to work 84 hours for less money then they would be employed already for less at 40 hours.
> 40 hours of work a week
The concept of hours per week is shaped by it's origin in production manufacturing.
Most people who are in a position to discuss 4 day weeks are in the Service Sector or otherwise 'creative roles'.
This is analogue to the argument of why do we not pay developers by lines of code. Both time and LOCs are not necessarily linear with productivity and delivery of function.
Arguing for pay to be linked to time is in my view an artefact of the production & manufacturing origins of modern work.
So to come back to your point. Previously both parties agreed that 40 hour week was worth this much money. Now both parties agree that this link with time is a bad metric and that pay is provided for the realization of certain function or deliverable.
The concept of hours per week is shaped by it's origin in production manufacturing.
Most people who are in a position to discuss 4 day weeks are in the Service Sector or otherwise 'creative roles'.
This is analogue to the argument of why do we not pay developers by lines of code. Both time and LOCs are not necessarily linear with productivity and delivery of function.
Arguing for pay to be linked to time is in my view an artefact of the production & manufacturing origins of modern work.
So to come back to your point. Previously both parties agreed that 40 hour week was worth this much money. Now both parties agree that this link with time is a bad metric and that pay is provided for the realization of certain function or deliverable.
It's not a bad metric. It's just not a perfect metric. And, more importantly, paying for time isn't a metric at all. It's just one of the legal ways to employ people. Paying for deliverables, which you describe, is another legal way to employ people.
Here are some downsides to paying for deliverables:
Any job that requires talking to other people will suffer, as they won't work at the same time. Some jobs this is okay (e.g. open source development is very asynchronous) but many are not.
If you move to deliverables, what happens if you don't deliver on time? Do you not get paid?
Who sets the deliverables? How are they paid, if they are the ones creating a nice deliverable structure for others to get paid for delivering bits of?
How do we measure the value of each deliverable, to pay accordingly?
How do we measure if you really delivered?
If the company decides the deliverable is no longer valuable and stops it halfway, do you not get paid? Do you get paid based on the estimated value (at the time the work was agreed) of the bits you did do? Do you have to negotiate that?
If you go on leave, should you not get paid?
If you deliver twice as fast, do you get paid faster?
How does "realisation of a function" work except based on time? If I'm at a service desk, should I be paid nothing if no tickets come in? Or should I be paid for... my time?
What I'm driving at is you've invented something that already exists: the fixed-price contract. Scope is agreed, lawyers get involved to approve it, and finance for its budget, you do the work, the scope slips in a way that the customer believes was implied all along, you bring in lawyers to fight, and you get paid at the end, or not, and the work at the end probably suffers quality-wise because you had a fixed-price deliverable, and the faster you do it the more money you get. I don't think many people are up for that; nor are many companies going to go through that pain per-employee.
Here are some downsides to paying for deliverables:
Any job that requires talking to other people will suffer, as they won't work at the same time. Some jobs this is okay (e.g. open source development is very asynchronous) but many are not.
If you move to deliverables, what happens if you don't deliver on time? Do you not get paid?
Who sets the deliverables? How are they paid, if they are the ones creating a nice deliverable structure for others to get paid for delivering bits of?
How do we measure the value of each deliverable, to pay accordingly?
How do we measure if you really delivered?
If the company decides the deliverable is no longer valuable and stops it halfway, do you not get paid? Do you get paid based on the estimated value (at the time the work was agreed) of the bits you did do? Do you have to negotiate that?
If you go on leave, should you not get paid?
If you deliver twice as fast, do you get paid faster?
How does "realisation of a function" work except based on time? If I'm at a service desk, should I be paid nothing if no tickets come in? Or should I be paid for... my time?
What I'm driving at is you've invented something that already exists: the fixed-price contract. Scope is agreed, lawyers get involved to approve it, and finance for its budget, you do the work, the scope slips in a way that the customer believes was implied all along, you bring in lawyers to fight, and you get paid at the end, or not, and the work at the end probably suffers quality-wise because you had a fixed-price deliverable, and the faster you do it the more money you get. I don't think many people are up for that; nor are many companies going to go through that pain per-employee.
Because the workers produce as much (or more) in that arrangement.
more is never enough in the capitalist system
If you have two equivalent competing companies, both paying the same salaries to the same number of employees, and one company accomplishes more by asking their workers to 4 day weeks, then that company will be more successful and can put the other one out of business.
Thus the key measure that this study would need to demonstrate would be not that the productivity/worker-hour ratio goes up but that also the productivity/worker-dollar goes up. If the latter is true, a lot of companies are going to take a close look at this because more is more.
Thus the key measure that this study would need to demonstrate would be not that the productivity/worker-hour ratio goes up but that also the productivity/worker-dollar goes up. If the latter is true, a lot of companies are going to take a close look at this because more is more.
but more is still, well, more. So, it's still a better deal for the company. Maybe we haven't found the optimal point, but it definitely doesn't appear to be 40hours (or at least, not 8 * 5).
This makes the assumption that capitalism exists in a vacuum: It doesn't. Companies aren't *always* trying to simply optimise for financial growth at all times. They're made of humans, some of whom aren't necessarily megacapitalists.
I get it is a strange idea. But putting a quote that doesn't really have any substance isn't really an argument nor adding value against it.
I think the idea of 4 days work week is asking to work outside the box for a moment on what benefits this could entail for different industry.
> To work all week is to surrender your will, working less is the core of motivating man
(see this quote disagrees!)
I think the idea of 4 days work week is asking to work outside the box for a moment on what benefits this could entail for different industry.
> To work all week is to surrender your will, working less is the core of motivating man
(see this quote disagrees!)
Most companies in my country pays developers by days and not hours and this contract situation means that by law you have no fixed schedule and can do the hours you want as long as you deliver.
Of course, it means that you are actually working more hours than what hourly workers do but on the flip side no one can tell you anything if you disconnect for an hour in the middle.
Of course, it means that you are actually working more hours than what hourly workers do but on the flip side no one can tell you anything if you disconnect for an hour in the middle.
^^ here they come. just like the anti remote crowd, they actually want less rights and freedoms. i am fascinated by this. i really am.
MSFT_Edging(1)
There is nothing magical about 40 hours. It just happens to be the number of hours that most companies (in the west) happens to choose for historical reasons:
https://www.okta.com/au/identity-101/40-hour-work-week/
https://www.okta.com/au/identity-101/40-hour-work-week/
That’s not an experiment, that’s a rise in pay-rate… it’s very much past due in a lot of countries for a lot of job categories.
I've been working four-day weeks for almost a decade now, and it's been amazing. I briefly switched back to a five-day week at some point, but I had enough of that after a few months. The weekends felt way too short and the workweek way too long.
Four-day weeks are just the right balance, though I wonder if I'll like three-day weeks even more.
Four-day weeks are just the right balance, though I wonder if I'll like three-day weeks even more.
[deleted]
Even with 5-day weeks lots of colleagues were running side projects. Honestly a 4-day a week job WFH I'd probably try to run two jobs at a time. I'm here to work and get paid, not have a good balance.
It just feels to me like some sort of secret we all share and pretend like it's fine, but being honest and just doing the same stuff in say 32 hours and cutting out the cruft in between would be great.
Or maybe it's just my add that likes a bit more pressure, I don't know. But what I do know is that, even with a very relaxed employer that allows you to take your time and chill, go workout or play a game for an hour, I can't fully relax or disconnect knowing that I'm expected to do those 40 hours, regardless of how often they say it's fine.