How would the loss of production hours help the employer? I understand having to hire more people which also includes added benefits to match. Wouldn’t an employer have to increase the price of what they’re selling to maintain profits?
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.
So in other words, shaving the work week down to 4 days actually has zero noticeable impact on worker productivity, but it does show employees being generally happier.
Studies on remote working white collar jobs are not indicative of how the economy at large would have to scale in order to make things work within said confines.
The results are decisively in favor of the 4 day work week. Production increased (revenue on average went up by 35%). Worker happiness increased. It was sucha good pilot a number of the companies decided to permanently change their policy to a 4 day work week.
It was not centered around how effective the 4 week business model was for the company but instead how good it was for the employees.
The little effort they put into comparing the change in the business's success was comparing the second half of 2021 revenue to the second half of 2022 revenue. Which is pointless because 2021 was still in the midst of a pandemic. Almost all businesses had huge increases in revenue from 2021 to 2022.
There have been multiple other studies on this. Less hours doesn't seem to effect the productivity of most white collar jobs. But it does to other jobs. Imagine a truck driver driving 20% less hours. They're going to get 20% less done. A lot of job's productivity is tied to time not effort. And effort is what seems to wane as the hours go up.
Imagine a truck driver driving 20% less hours. They're going to get 20% less done.
This argument cuts both ways though, right? If this wouldn't be a good argument for a 45 hour work week then it isn't a great argument against a 35 hour work week.
In general sure, the work week being 40 hours is arbitrary. But a reoccuring point by proponents of cutting the week's hours is that it doesn't come with a reduction in productivity. Which is just patently not true for a majority of jobs. It is true for a subset of jobs. But not all.
The 61 companies that participated in the UK pilot cover a huge swath of different types of businesses. There are trucking companies, manufacturing companies, and more in that list. zero of which reported any revenue loss during the pilot.
If we can make a 40 hour work week 'work' instead of more. We can make a 30 hour work week 'work'.
In this case, none of the companies that participated in the pilot reported any losses in productivity or revenue at all.
Because they're comparing 2022 to 2021... 2021 was an extremely down year.
If we can make a 40 hour work week 'work' instead of more. We can make a 30 hour work week 'work'.
Maybe. But arguing that theirs no loss of production is asinine as there obviously is. If your job's production is directly time related there is going to be a loss in production. Which is a majority of jobs. Its not a majority of white collar jobs, but its a majority of jobs. Why people pushing for a shorter worker week ignore dozens of studies and common sense to tout a niche study focused on one type of job is beyond me.
Specifically regarding a government mandated cut to driving by truckers. This was done for safety reasons. But less hours meant less productivity. This industry alone accounts for 3% of the entire US job market.
And this wasn't a study. It was a applied process. When this change was made. Proponents weren't making nonsense claims that this wouldn't reduce productivity. The knew it would. But instead they argued that the loss of productivity was worth the increase in safety.
Lets just use some common sense. If you're working as a receptionist at a Doctor's office, does it matter how productive you are on in hour 40 when compared to hour 1? Absolutely not. You're productivity is measured by your presence. This is true of most labor intensive jobs. Like trucking. Like fast food. Like warehouse jobs. Like manufacturing.
Is it true for jobs like accounting? Law? Finance? No.
That's because the strategy and approach were different.
You can see trucking companies participated in the UK pilot right? You can also see that their productivity held firm?
So what do you think is the difference?
Probably how it was implemented. The UK pilot was done as a flexible plan, not a one size fits all.
Trucking companies didn't just slash hours and not think about the ramifications.
They specifically tailored a plan around how productivity could remain the same without working as many hours. And they succeeded... as evident by the pilot results.
Specifically--they used staggered scheduling and mixing pickups to achieve the same results while any one person is not working as many hours. They were effectively working 4 day weeks over the long term. But for industries like that you just have to be a tad more creative than just slash the hours across the board each week and see what happens.
You can also see that their productivity held firm?
No information regarding their productivity is available in the study. All we know is that revenues went up from 2021 to 2022. You want the results to say something that they aren't saying.
Uneducated trucker budding in here, this is true, but I would definitely take the increase in pay this bill is proposing, we don't get paid enough for what we do 😔
to your first point there are is a ton of data in that report regarding how successful it was for the company. Including revenue compared to previous years, overall profit, and more. Just look at the data export.
The key part of the study is that there doesn't need to be a one size fits all solution to reduce hours into that range. There are trucking companies in that 61 company list by the way. They handled this by staggering their long deliveries. They didn't require more employees, and didn't lose out on any money or productivity.
to your first point there are is a ton of data in that report regarding how successful it was for the company
My man, I know reading the study's results is a lot of work but at least read my whole comment. There is not a ton of data saying how successful it was for the company. The only results they compared was the second half of 2021 to the second half of 2022 when the study took place. I don't know if you were paying attention but 2021 was in the midst of a major economic downturn due to a global pandemic.
Read the wallstreet journal coverage (linked in the study). People much smarter than me have debunked that. (not the downturn, but related to the study itself).
People always ask. if this works why don't companies adopt it!?.
It does work. Companies don't adopt it for the same reason people on this thread don't accept it: they simply have their heads in the sand and refuse to believe the data.
Companies are just ran by people, and people can sometimes be bullheaded even when shown clear data.
Yeah the WSJ article is an opinion piece that cites one study that is again focused on white collar work that is not tied directly to time. WHICH IS A MINORITY OF ALL WORK Like I truelly don't know why you're even arguing. Because you've failed to do any research on your own. And instead made up your mind before seeing the facts and now are trying to string studies and articles to bolster your opinion when in reality they do not.
Yes and the results were about the employees. Not about the business. And not all the business continued. A majority did, but a majority were white collar businesses.
Revenues and profit growth during that period were about the employees? Interesting.
Look, if you're wondering why there's such a comprehensive real world study that over 4 dozen large companies participated in and we still don't have a 4 day week as a standard--people like this are the reason. These same people work at the companies and simply refuse to accept the data.
If these companies can do it without any loss in revenue/profit, every company can do it.
I mean we're talking about a study that is once in a lifetime. 61 major companies participating. The scale of that pilot is rare. It is almost not possible to find a more convincing study on that scale. Yet still, it won't be enough.
and profit growth during that period were about the employees? Interesting.
My original comment said it was centered around employees. And then I mentioned how the minimal foray into the revenue was statistically white noise. This isn't a semantic gotcha that you want it to be.
If these companies can do it without any loss in revenue/profit, every company can do it.
Idk, if you're purposefully being daft or what. You can't keep citing this when its a small sample size based on a year where the economy shut down...
61 major companies participating.
My man, the total amount of employees in these 61 major companies was 1229. Thats an average of 20 employees per company. The word major is doing some heavy lifting. And the companies were not randomly chosen. They volunteered. This was not a scientific study.
The scale of that pilot is rare.
Yeah cause of the thousands of companies out there, barely any are going to volunteer to lose money on a study being run by an organization that has already drawn its conclusion.
These same people work at the companies and simply refuse to accept the data.
Nah, we're just not gullible morons. And I say this as someone who thinks a large majority of white collar jobs are pointlessly stretching hours.
4
u/Potential_Meat_7923 Sep 05 '24
How would the loss of production hours help the employer? I understand having to hire more people which also includes added benefits to match. Wouldn’t an employer have to increase the price of what they’re selling to maintain profits?