Labours plan 4 day work week, genius

BobQ

There was a time when people worked six days a week, now five. So why is four so silly? Should we revert to 6 days a week perhaps?

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

So why is four so silly?

Read the thread.

Sapphire

adonis10 wrote: »

Have Labour done the maths with regard to how much extra this will cost employers (hiring and managing more people being a good example of additional cost)? Sounds very much like a nice headline to grab votes from those who don't much like their job and think they'll continue as they are now, but only having to work 4 days rather than 5.

Another lunatic idea from the momentum party.

One could see many small businesses especially (e.g. in northern Britain), which are already struggling financially, going bust if such a policy were ever bought in, thus resulting in loss of jobs (and more people on the dole for taxpayers to subsidise).

Moreover, such a policy should never be enforced – there are many employees who want to work a five-day week. They should not be forced to work fewer days, and nor should any company/organisation be forced to adopt such a system. If it is voluntary, then that's fine. I remember working for a company in which employees could work an hour extra each day (split between mornings and afternoons), then take a half day on Fridays (going home at 12.30 p.m.). That worked well, and also helped with travel since it was less busy on public transport in the times that those who opted for the scheme travelled.

kangoora

Sapphire wrote: »

Another lunatic idea from the momentum party.

One could see many small businesses especially (e.g. in northern Britain), which are already struggling financially, going bust if such a policy were ever bought in, thus resulting in loss of jobs (and more people on the dole for taxpayers to subsidise).

Moreover, such a policy should never be enforced – there are many employees who want to work a five-day week. They should not be forced to work fewer days, and nor should any company/organisation be forced to adopt such a system. If it is voluntary, then that's fine. I remember working for a company in which employees could work an hour extra each day (split between mornings and afternoons), then take a half day on Fridays (going home at 12.30 p.m.). That worked well, and also helped with travel since it was less busy on public transport in the times that those who opted for the scheme travelled.

A bit off-topic but this reminds me of a funny story back in the mid 90s at work. Our firm had a free vote on implementing flexi-time and one of the older programmers was saying he wouldn't vote for it because he liked working 9-5.

We took him aside and said he could still work 9-5 even under flexi-time but then it was his choice. He didn't look particularly convinced but went away to think about it.

A couple of days later he came back saying he would vote for it. He'd worked out that by starting 15 minutes earlier every day and knocking 15 minutes off his lunch hour he could leave early on a Friday at 2:30pm.

I didn't bother pointing out to him that what he was doing was swapping a strict regime 9-5 job for a strict regime 08:45 - 17:00 job (with half a Friday afternoon off). He was happy and was going to vote for flexi-time so I just strolled off shaking my head

Malthusian

kangoora wrote: »

Ridiculous concept, there are literally 10's (if not 100's) of 1,000s of jobs where people cannot do the work of 5 days in 4.

Unless they've emigrated from countries that Corbyn and co idolise, none of your bricklayers or glazers have ever had a gun pointed at them to encourage them to do 5 days' work in 4. So I find your assertion to be lacking in evidence.

Anyway, you've begged the question. Why shouldn't we make people do 4 days work in 4? It's 20% more environmentally friendly. Post-growth economics is all the rage in the watermelon left.

westernpromise

A lot of public sector "workers" do 0 days work in 5.

At the Tube station I use there is someone paid to stand on the platform every morning shouting out what train this is. He reads it off the indicator board like we all can. He then tells us the next one's in two minutes. We know that too. That's on the indicator board as well.

95% of the people on the platform do this commute every day. If we're too far away to read the indicator board we look at the front of the train as it arrives. If we miss that, when the doors open we ask someone on the train where it's going. This stuff isn't hard.

We don't need some RMT herbert reading the indicator board to us through a loudhailer. This guy's productivity is literally nil. He adds nothing and nothing would be lost if he weren't there. His salary increases the cost of my season ticket.

On the TV news in the US years ago, I saw a story about an unemployed bloke who used to stand by the road in the mornings, waving at the passing cars on their way to work. He was a bit simple and that was what he did. He was basically doing what the herbert does at the Tube station.

Some bits of the public sector work. Well, the armed forces. But much of it is RMT herberts sucking a salary for doing a literally worthless skill-free job.

kangoora

Malthusian wrote: »

Unless they've emigrated from countries that Corbyn and co idolise, none of your bricklayers or glazers have ever had a gun pointed at them to encourage them to do 5 days' work in 4. So I find your assertion to be lacking in evidence.

Anyway, you've begged the question. Why shouldn't we make people do 4 days work in 4? It's 20% more environmentally friendly. Post-growth economics is all the rage in the watermelon left.

Your point is facetious, misleading and also unsupported by evidence as in UK no-one will ever have a gun pointed at them to increase productivity and unless you can point to studies showing the differential then pointless also.

Pretty sure you wouldn't be happy being operated on by a surgeon under orders to work 20% faster even without a gun to his head.

Lets take drivers (especially those doing scheduled services) HGV, train, coach, delivery, bus, pilots - how on earth can these sort of jobs do 5 days work in 4 days? Maybe a bus-driver can race through London at 70 mph to make sure they pick up their extra days work or a HGV driver can drive at 120mph on the motorways to increase his productivity?

4 days work in 4 sounds fine, as long as people are only paid for 4 days work - but that's not the point AIUI of the reduction to a 4 day working week, labour want people to work 4 days but still to be paid for 5.

westernpromise

Because employers' and taxpayers' money is free.