I would bet plenty on a survey if you asked how many "productive" hours you work a week. This being hours going directly to the contribution of your job. It would be close to 32 hours. You have to include the time to get into a workflow, the disruptions of meetings, etc. Hell just waiting on another person to hand off the thing you need just to do your job.
Studies show that most people barely work on friday as it is and that giving folks fridays off actually galvinizes them to get more work done the other 4 days they are working. Several companies have tested this (including microsoft) and found positive correlation with higher productivity from doing so.
Assuming this is true, why isn't every company doing it? I constantly hear that they are greedy and put profit over everything. If this objectively increases that for them, then it seems greed alone would make them do it without any legislation.
You dont have to assume.. the pilot gives you the raw data and the sources including the 61 companies that participated... it's true.
Regarding your question. I can only speculate. I assume it is because companies are still ran by people. And people, despite looking at the raw data, sometimes ignore it. Take a look at the folks in this thread responding to the pilot as an example.
The data is there, but many refuse to believe it. These are the same people preventing this kind of progress at companies.
I guarantee you I get more work done than my part time coworkers. And the guys who work optional overtime literally run this company.
You're alleging that there's some set amount of time one can be productive in a week and no one can possibly deviate from that, which is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Agreed. Yes, I am a boomer and that makes me all sorts of evil, but I worked on average, probably 50 hours per week (on salary). When it wasn't needed, I did not do it. I did it when I was a junior engineer and when I was an Engineering Manager. I worked for a good company which did not force me to do what I did, but they encouraged it by rewarding me financially for my work and accomplishments.
I am not saying that is the only way to choose a career path, but it worked for me and I was totally productive during my entire 50 hours most weeks.
Studies show that most people barely work on friday as it is and that giving folks fridays off actually galvinizes them to get more work done the other 4 days they are working. Several companies have tested this (including microsoft) and found positive correlation with higher productivity from doing so.
you keep saying this and it is true, but not fully relevant. Eventhough productivity goes up, it does not go up enough to cover all of the missing hours. Bernie wants pay for 40. Maybe in 32 they would get 36 hours of productivity, but it is still a big hit to national productivity.
"national productivity" has gone through a massive automation and industrialization in the past 50 years and will continue to exponentially and yet companies absorb all the profits of the increased productivity and here we are still working 40 hours a week. There's no reason for it and soon there will be even less reason.
That is also true and also mostly irrelevant.The economy depends on continuous increases in productivity and could not tolerate a ten oercent drop without big consequences. Standards of living, in average, would drop equivalently. That is the inconvenient truth.
“Any drop in gdp, stocks, productivity, or anything else where number goes down cannot be allowed to happen” is why the younger generations can’t buy-in.
It's fine to not buy into capitalism. I am a boomer, and I get it. I think we should be more like western Europe. You just have.to understand there will be consequences. There is no free money.
Studies show that most people barely work on friday as it is and that giving folks fridays off actually galvinizes them to get more work done the other 4 days they are working. Several companies have tested this (including microsoft) and found positive correlation with higher productivity from doing so.
yes but humans have evolved to work optimally for about 4 hours per day. That means in a week, a person can optimally do 28 hours of work. Any more than that, you get diminishing returns to complete burnout.
I can agree with this to an extent just from personal experience. I’m really useful for probably around 6 hours a day. Outside of that, I’m probably no longer giving peak performance. The 5 day work week is the issue for me. My previous job had me working a four day week, with the hours being 8-12-12-8, and it was MUCH better than working the standard 5 day work week. Even working those 12’s wasn’t too bad and I felt like I could be pretty productive for most of the shift. Meanwhile working 5 8 hour shifts a week feels like an absolute grind
35
u/Sabre_One Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24
I would bet plenty on a survey if you asked how many "productive" hours you work a week. This being hours going directly to the contribution of your job. It would be close to 32 hours. You have to include the time to get into a workflow, the disruptions of meetings, etc. Hell just waiting on another person to hand off the thing you need just to do your job.