Shorter working week

[TJC1]

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.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 14:15 ----------

 

 

Well why don't you go and start a poll.

 

Make it fair, don't pretend that people can work less time for the same pay, ask people if they'd like to take a 20% pay cut and work 4 days a week, or continue to work 5... Then if lots of people say they'd like to work less but can't, we can start to examine why not.

 

The poll will be would you prefer to work less hours but be same level productive. Not would you like to take a paycut.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 14:34 ----------

 

I will also ask are you in a position to work 4 days...not 5.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 14:40 ----------

 

Absolutely no idea how to start a poll!

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 14:48 ----------

 

The checkbox is broken!

[Cyclone]

So you've had to immediately take your poll into fantasy land in order to generate the response you'd like.

 

I'd LIKE to be paid the same for working less hours. But that's not an option in the real world.

Like most people, I choose to work 5 days a week in order to be paid what I am.

 

I think it would have to be a new thread, but if you word it as you've suggested then I don't believe it's valid.

[TJC1]

So you've had to immediately take your poll into fantasy land in order to generate the response you'd like.

 

I'd LIKE to be paid the same for working less hours. But that's not an option in the real world.

Like most people, I choose to work 5 days a week in order to be paid what I am.

 

I think it would have to be a new thread, but if you word it as you've suggested then I don't believe it's valid.

 

...its two questions..

 

Do you believe a reduction of the standard working week to 30 hours over 4 days would make you?

 

 

Happier

less happy

about the same happiness

I already do 30 hours or less so no change

 

Now, if you had to take a pro rata pay cut to achieve a 4 day working week of 30 hours would you

 

Be happy to do that

not happy to do that

no preference

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 15:00 ----------

 

I don't have this option. ..to be added

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 15:07 ----------

 

Second question still not valid...We know nothing of the sample and there situation, kids, etc

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 15:08 ----------

 

Are you able to move to a 30 hour 4 day work week?

[sgtkate]

Targets for development are generally pretty vague, as until you do the task you can only ever estimate how long it will take.

It works both ways though. If a task takes longer than expected, nobody stays behind to work extra hours for free to complete it. If it goes quicker than expected, they get it done and then start on the next task.

it's not like there's ever a shortage of development work to be done (except right now, where i am there is, but that's because the project has gone off the rails).

 

Fair enough comment I guess. I work in delivery so the customer says we need X by this date and unless it's clearly ludicrous, that's my target...in innovation/research/development type roles, yeah much harder to track. I'd be surprised if there hadn't been scientific studies down into this though. Similar to attention span being around 20 mins before we drift. Perhaps 6 hours per day is about all we can be efficient for and the rest of the time we waste either on our phones, chatting to colleagues or day dreaming.

[L00b]

Its context related. If you had a pressing personal matter but were forced to work you might be unhappy when previously you were happy with the hours.

Of course it is.

 

But then, the nature of the job itself will have a strong influence on that context, potentially stronger and non-compressible irrespective of what the job incumbent wishes for in terms of worked days/hours.

 

So, to have any measure of validity, the basis for your opinion should also factor the nature of each job. So, that, and still 38 million workers to canvass (you started on that yet? )

 

My job can't compress to less than 37.5, in fact it probably can't compress to less than 45 (with the odd few weeks at 37.5 actual, being indeed statistical anomalies ).

 

If I really wanted to work 4 days only, I would have to job-share (and lose 20% pay so the job sharer can get paid him/her-self). Do-able for certain aspects of the jobs, impossible for most other aspects.

 

Personally, I can afford to surrender 20% pay, and I'd actually do that, if I could find someone I trust enough to do my job, even on a 1/5th basis. Problem is, the only other person capable of doing my job whom I trust enough, is my co-director. And he does even more hours than me!

Edited August 6, 2015 by L00b

[TJC1]

Of course it is.

 

But then, the nature of the job itself will have a strong influence on that context, potentially stronger and non-compressible irrespective of what the job incumbent wishes for in terms of worked days/hours.

 

So, to have any measure of validity, the basis for your opinion should also factor the nature of each job. So, that, and still 38 million workers to canvass (you started on that yet? )

 

My job can't compress to less than 37.5, in fact it probably can't compress to less than 45 (with the odd few weeks at 37.5 actual, being indeed statistical anomalies ).

 

If I really wanted to work 4 days only, I would have to job-share (and lose 20% pay so the job sharer can get paid him/her-self). Do-able for certain aspects of the jobs, impossible for most other aspects.

 

Personally, I can afford to surrender 20% pay, and I'd actually do that, if I could find someone I trust enough to do my job, even on a 1/5th basis. Problem is, the only other person capable of doing my job whom I trust enough, is my co-director. And he does even more hours than me!

 

If you were forced to find efficiencies and economies by the nature of a 4 day work week could you find them? If you really really wanted to?

 

My own experience is that you can't work and dont work flat out for 40 hours per week. And it's always possible to rejig and prioritise if tasks build up.

 

I reckon there's a good 10 hours per week or more simply wasted by presenteeism

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 15:58 ----------

 

I think by the very nature of reduced time at work, focus and efficiencies are found.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 16:00 ----------

 

It's been proven it's impossible to concentrate intensely for more than about 45 mins anyway, the mind simply starts wandering. Certainly long periods of intense concentration over a long time is not healthy.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 16:04 ----------

 

Presumably if there was a 30 hour week directive brought in now, the company would adapt?

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 16:09 ----------

 

The concept of a slash in pay on salaried positions is a nonsense.

The salary stays the same because the output is either same or improved.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 16:10 ----------

 

The new standard working week is 4 days..

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 16:16 ----------

 

 

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

 

 

On same money? With 30 hours as new standard work week. Or even more over 4 days?

 

Or would you prefer an extra day at work?

[bkcin]

The salary stays the same because the output is either same or improved.

 

 

It's this part of your argument that falls over.

 

Working less hours, in general, will result is less output. Therefore the concept of losing pay in exchange for working fewer hours isn't nonsense!

[TJC1]

It's this part of your argument that falls over.

 

Working less hours, in general, will result is less output. Therefore the concept of losing pay in exchange for working fewer hours isn't nonsense!

 

No it wont. Many hours are wasted. Think lean and mean

[bkcin]

No it wont. Many hours are wasted. Think lean and mean

 

Think: The real world that we live in.

[psynuk]

No it wont. Many hours are wasted. Think lean and mean

 

Although I broadly agree with you, as it seems that thing you are asking is 'is work to life balance out of kilter?'

As mentioned it is entirely context related, thinking lean and mean is fine but only applicable in certain industries.

 

You can't compress time.

I've done much work in the past at a faster rate than anticipated purely to facilitate more time off, but many jobs your paid by the hour - for your time 'wasted'- not for your productivity within those hours.

 

A life guard cannot squeeze 40 hours worth of work into 30 unless you get the swimmers to follow suit. A teacher cant really ensure education is learned faster. likewise for many other jobs.

If your asking 'should we as nation/whatever start to compress our activities into less hours so that jobs can follow suit?'

It leaves the quandary of how do you facilitate that for the likes of doctors, police, fishermen and many others.

 

How do you reconcile these two different modes of work?