Shorter working week

[Cyclone]

From a company perspective they'd want to achieve these improvements and efficiencies without reducing hours and without increasing pay, simply to increase productivity.

It doesn't follow that they will suddenly let everyone have an extra day a week off.

[TJC1]

Phd's, from observation, seem to involve very short periods of concentration and a lot of hair pulling out. At least from what I've observed.

It's just a fact that humans can't maintain the highest level of attention for more than about 20 minutes (I might be getting the exact number of minutes wrong, but it isn't in the period of hours).

You CAN obviously continue to do a task that takes significantly longer, not being able to maintain the highest level of attention doesn't mean you suddenly stop and start playing angry birds.

 

All this is right. The studies Ive seen show a 45 minute max from the best candidate (they might be a STEM PhD or lesser human being - not sure). Average could poss be in 20 min range.

 

Anyone who is saying they can focus longer with no drop off or culmulative effect is talking complete BS in my opinion.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2015 at 11:32 ----------

 

From a company perspective they'd want to achieve these improvements and efficiencies without reducing hours and without increasing pay, simply to increase productivity.

It doesn't follow that they will suddenly let everyone have an extra day a week off.

 

Just on a basic human level. Employees come back refreshed after a 3 day break. Im pretty sure productivity will still be high after 4 days working pattern over a year. Absenteeism rates will probably be lower.

[Olive]

I've shown you the law.

 

They have the right to ask to change their working hours.

 

It's not guaranteed, but very few people even bother to ask.

 

They clearly don't want to.

 

I could work 4 days a week, I don't want to. My wife could, she doesn't want to.

 

Can you point to anyone that actually wants to? But is somehow stopped from doing so?

 

It's based on the evidence of them not even asking to do it. Your opinion is based on what? Speculation or mind reading, not even the visible evidence.

 

 

I reckon it's a mix Cyclone. A lot of people (myself included) would really fancy the thought of working a 4 day week, but prefer (for the time being anyhow) the wages associated with full time.

 

I do know people who wanted or needed to work reduced hours, and have asked to do this but have been refused. So I think in a lot of cases people just don't bother asking as they have a fair idea they'll get knocked back.

[Cyclone]

I don't think that productivity levels would be higher at all. I think you'd get about 80% of the previous amount of work complete.

[TJC1]

You keep saying this as if it's obviously and easily possible. And nobody seems to agree with you that it is

 

Not saying its easy. It requires a large cultural change at organisational and individual level. The mindset of employees is key.

 

Tbh the inflexibility and resistance on this thread highlights the barrier most companies face.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2015 at 11:41 ----------

 

I don't think that productivity levels would be higher at all. I think you'd get about 80% of the previous amount of work complete.

 

By that logic working 48 hours would mean a 20% rise in productivity levels.

Fordism logic...in a knowledge economy.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2015 at 11:42 ----------

 

I reckon it's a mix Cyclone. A lot of people (myself included) would really fancy the thought of working a 4 day week, but prefer (for the time being anyhow) the wages associated with full time.

 

I do know people who wanted or needed to work reduced hours, and have asked to do this but have been refused. So I think in a lot of cases people just don't bother asking as they have a fair idea they'll get knocked back.

 

Would you prefer to work a 4 day week, roughly the same hours?

[L00b]

No you misunderstand me. Im saying concentration diminishes, its not that you just cant concentrate. With a compound effect.

Agreed.

Although I may still be working at same rate due to demands. Its perceived output not actual.

Output is always measurable, even if only subjectively, so if you're still working at the same rate, presumably you're still outputting at the same rate? If not, then you're not really working?

Every business can improve. Im not belittling your 15 years of exp btw.

Not saying you are at all, TJ.

 

From where I'm standing, and considering those guys (and gals ) in the same job who do opt for the lifestyle version of the job and work out of a shed in their back garden, 4 days week is entirely possible: they just choose to have a smaller workload and revenue. I'd have the same choice now, if I didn't want to take an active part in running the firm as well.

 

It's a lifestyle choice, and it scales up or down depending on the job and context. E.g. when I decided to leave Dublin and come back to Sheffield: I didn't fancy (carrying on with-) the hours and pressure of private practice in big/capital cities, and happily forewent doubling or more my wages of the time for the sake of seeing my kid grow up.

 

But that choice only exists because of the nature and context of that job. There will undoubtedly be many more jobs in a knowledge economy hinged mostly on services that provide the same opportunity. But there will equally be many jobs that, objectively, cannot.

 

And, for employed jobs, one non-dissociable aspect of every job will always be what value the market places on it. In the private sector, ultimately it's the market for the service which does that, over which an employer, employee or self-employed has little to no control, and wherein working less necessarily equals earning less.

 

That's how and why workshare came about, and how and why two (or more) employees sharing a single 37.5 FT job get paid pro-rata the hours worked: because the employer cannot earn more in the marketplace from the output associated with that single 37.5 FT job regardless of whether it's done by 1, 2 or more employees.

Edited August 7, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone]

The culture isn't the issue. You've said that everyone can find efficiencies, ways to improve their productivity. I don't think this is the case, and in the cases that it is, I don't think organisations will willingly allow someone to work less hours. They'd like those efficiencies to be implemented and for you to continue working 5 hours a week.

 

You extend my logic to say that more hours means more work. If I extend yours we could all work a 1 hour week at incredible efficiency and productivity wouldn't go down. Neither are true. There will be an optimum number of work hours which achieve the highest level of total production. I suspect that it's on the order of 35 - 40 hrs a week.

[TJC1]

Agreed.

Output is always measurable, even if only subjectively, so if you're still working at the same rate, presumably you're still outputting at the same rate? If not, then you're not really working?

Not saying you are at all, TJ.

 

From where I'm standing, and considering those guys (and gals ) in the same job who do opt for the lifestyle version of the job and work out of a shed in their back garden, 4 days week is entirely possible: they just choose to have a smaller workload and revenue.

 

It's a lifestyle choice, and it scales up or down depending on the job and context. E.g. when I decided to leave Dublin and come back to Sheffield: I didn't fancy (carrying on with-) the hours and pressure of private practice in big/capital cities, and happily forewent doubling or more my wages of the time for the sake of seeing my kid grow up.

 

But that choice only exists because of the nature and context of that job. There will undoubtedly be many more jobs in a knowledge economy hinged mostly on services that provide the same opportunity. But there will equally be many jobs that, objectively, cannot. And, for employed jobs, one non-dissociable aspect of every job will always be what value the market places on it. In the private sector, ultimately it's the market for the service which does that, over which an employer, employee or self-employed has no control whatsoever, and wherein work less necessarily equals earn less.

 

I havent got time to argue details right now, neither have you by sounds of things...speak in a bit.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2015 at 16:07 ----------

 

The culture isn't the issue. You've said that everyone can find efficiencies, ways to improve their productivity. I don't think this is the case, and in the cases that it is, I don't think organisations will willingly allow someone to work less hours. They'd like those efficiencies to be implemented and for you to continue working 5 hours a week.

 

You extend my logic to say that more hours means more work. If I extend yours we could all work a 1 hour week at incredible efficiency and productivity wouldn't go down. Neither are true. There will be an optimum number of work hours which achieve the highest level of total production. I suspect that it's on the order of 35 - 40 hrs a week.

 

I believe culture is exactly the issue. from school to company.We are told to work harder not smarter from an early age.

 

I believe every individual and organisation can find ways to boost productivity.

I just dont think its a priority for a lot of businesses and not high on importance for many workers, even though it should be.

 

I believe that the total optimal hours is more like 30 hours across all ranges with some notable exceptions. economists more or less agree with that, employees also would be happier and better paid!

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/12/working-hours

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/working-hours

 

quote:

 

And it seems that more productive—and, consequently, better-paid—workers put in less time at the office.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2015 at 16:10 ----------

 

The Greeks are some of the most hardworking in the OECD, putting in over 2,000 hours a year on average. Germans, on the other hand, are comparative slackers, working about 1,400 hours each year. But German productivity is about 70% higher.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2015 at 16:19 ----------

 

 

And, for employed jobs, one non-dissociable aspect of every job will always be what value the market places on it. In the private sector, ultimately it's the market for the service which does that, over which an employer, employee or self-employed has little to no control, and wherein working less necessarily equals earning less.

 

As another private sector worker I can see your point entirely - demands are thrust upon the worker or service provider, we meet those demands.

 

I just want to distinguish between WORK HOURS and PRODUCTIVITY.

 

Two different things. More work does not equal greater productivity as highlighted by the economist graphs in the above link.

 

Futhermore the market does not control productivity in it's entirity - unless you can provide a concrete example?

 

those 5 clients can be dealt with and delivered on, in a variety of ways! either by offering same or greater output but reducing hours. If you set the rates.

 

Or if the hours and deliverable is set by the client, internal processes can be altered.

Edited August 7, 2015 by TJC1
......

[WiseOwl182]

In my experience plenty of people who work loads of overtime/extra hours for free spend half that time boasting about it and the rest taking extra/longer breaks to compensate.

 

Yep, and yet they're the ones managers choose to "get on".

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2015 at 21:04 ----------

 

I agree with TJC to some extent on this.

 

I once worked somewhere where I was clearly the most productive and efficient member of the team, by a distance. I worked my 37.5 hours and got through more and more. Consequently I got given more and more work, and never any financial recognition, or promotion. I had no incentive, so eventually eased the foot off the pedal and got through less work, chilled out a bit more. I had spare capacity because I still got through the work quickly, but pretended to take longer. I still got through more than anyone else, but could easily have worked a 4 day week.

 

The problem with that scenario and in a lot of other firms is that productivity, efficiency, etc, is not rewarded by either more money or time off. It just gets you more of the same, and too useful to promote. Only hours worked are recognised. I bet a lot of people could do the same amount of work in 4 days if appropriately incentivised.

Edited August 7, 2015 by WiseOwl182

[Cyclone]

I havent got time to argue details right now, neither have you by sounds of things...speak in a bit.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2015 at 16:07 ----------

 

 

I believe culture is exactly the issue. from school to company.We are told to work harder not smarter from an early age.

 

I believe every individual and organisation can find ways to boost productivity.

Clearly this is nonsense. I expect that a lot can. But not all.

And if they can, I expect that they'd like productivity boosted for 5 days a week, not 4.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2015 at 23:47 ----------

 

Your first link gives us the answer.

 

Below 49 weekly hours, variations in output are proportional to variations in hours. But when people worked more than about 50 hours, output rose at a decreasing rate. In other words, output per hour started to fall (in the jargon, “the marginal product of hours is a constant until the knot at [about 50] hours after which it declines”).

 

So 37.5 hrs is not less productive per hour than 30.