Should the UK adopt a 4 day working week ?

lostinrates

PasturesNew wrote: »

You've quoted exceptions to the norm though. I am talking of everyday people, predominantly in offices/shops/similar jobs. People who aren't really paid that well so it all seems one hell of a drudge with no respite.

I can't expand further or I'd write 10 volumes here of explanation

We have a 5+2 week because that's the norm. There's really no need; if the mindshift can be made to 4+3 it can become the norm. In France the norm is to take August off, it's the norm.

But as I say, what about the divde in wealth gap even further, and more arguably justly, between top..by necessity 'constantly in touch'' workers and the regular shop girl? In fact, I think it risks making an almost fuedal division between the four day worker and the not, like the old squire ..which has not quite been replaced by OO versus renter.. sometimes it seems it might have, but it hasn't.

I think AN answer is the ability to flexiwork...to choose to work, four, five, six days...if you can afford to do so without top up.

Re France, and Italy as it happens...you get August off.. sort of. You also have a longer lunch, and longer days..unless you are on 'American hours'. Ypu also, have less flexibilty on your holiday time. By far the majority shut up and ship out, for at least half of August..but then there are those who do not. In fact, while I was living in Milan there was a national scandal in the very hot August as a shortage of medical staff were working and a lot of people died unnecessarily, the old and chronically ill.

SamIAm_3-2

lostinrates wrote: »

LOL, if DH hasn't got his laptop on the blackberry gets him. There is no escape!:eek: :mad:

Easy trap to fall into - when I had one, I got into the habit of turning it off when I left work. Stopped me being on it all evening sending e-mails which was a total waste of my time.

lostinrates

SamIAm wrote: »

Easy trap to fall into - when I had one, I got into the habit of turning it off when I left work. Stopped me being on it all evening sending e-mails which was a total waste of my time.

Wow, turn it off where DH works and you've signed your resignation letter!

SamIAm_3-2

lostinrates wrote: »

Hang on a second....I'm not laughing at anybody, more gently amused at the lack of realism at the idea and the idea that 'non manual workers' could zip through their work load in four days with no change in workload/global expectation.

An alternative to this that I think I read someone suggesting on this thread earlier is to employ more people on less hours that share the same amount of work a similar cost to the company. In doing so this would reduce unemployment and re-distribute the wealth a little bit. I assume they meant that going to a 4 day week meant a proportional reduction in salary.

Interesting idea but it wouldn't work at my company. With an increase in workforce there is a corresponding decrease in the efficiency per person.
Managers where I work seem to think that chucking twice as many people at a project means it will be finished in half the time. They never stop to think about the associated time involved in getting the additional people productive enough to make this worthwhile.

SamIAm_3-2

lostinrates wrote: »

Wow, turn it off where DH works and you've signed your resignation letter!

Really? That's pretty harsh. I wasn't the most popular person when I started turning mine off - people get used to you e-mailing at 11pm at night. I just pointed out that I wasn't obliged to work beyond my contracted hours and they backed down in the end.

lostinrates

SamIAm wrote: »

An alternative to this that I think I read someone suggesting on this thread earlier is to employ more people on less hours that share the same amount of work a similar cost to the company. In doing so this would reduce unemployment and re-distribute the wealth a little bit. I assume they meant that going to a 4 day week meant a proportional reduction in salary..

and, as was pointed out, what about the insurances, subsidies and space, facilities and equipment, and insurances etc etc for the extra staff...wages per hour are not the only cost of staff. Its not just a reduction in hourly rate the staff would take per head, but a reduction in the actual hourly rate!

lostinrates

SamIAm wrote: »

Really? That's pretty harsh. I wasn't the most popular person when I started turning mine off - people get used to you e-mailing at 11pm at night. I just pointed out that I wasn't obliged to work beyond my contracted hours and they backed down in the end.

Ah...no contracted hours for 'our household'. They have him all day every day...till he retires EU work hours directive is opted out of.

SamIAm_3-2

PasturesNew wrote: »

I've worked a couple of jobs where it was a 4-day working week and a 3-day weekend.

Every weekend felt like a holiday.
I had one day/week when I could get things done (places open that were unavailable to me at weekends).
I felt happy and really refreshed all of the time.
My productivity was higher.

I wouldn't mind if it was 4-days of 9 hour days, or a reduction in working hours, but the issue with working is you're either working flat out every day and never getting to sit in the sun (it rains most weekends), or you don't have a job and can't enjoy a thing.

I've thought a 4-day norm would be good for ages. Firms don't have to work 4-day weeks, just people.

That does sound great I have to admit. In some industries (games, and film spring to mind) it's not unusual for some people to be doing 12-16 hours a day 6 or 7 days a week for 6 months at a time. I've always thought that in the 12 or so months between these crunch periods that the companies could be more flexible with working hours by moving to something like a 4 day week without reduced pay.

Funny, the companies normally don't see it that way!

SamIAm_3-2

lostinrates wrote: »

and, as was pointed out, what about the insurances, subsidies and space, facilities and equipment, and insurances etc etc for the extra staff...wages per hour are not the only cost of staff. Its not just a reduction in hourly rate the staff would take per head, but a reduction in the actual hourly rate!

Ah - I didn't see that response. A valid point!