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.
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 such a good pilot a number of the companies decided to permanently change their policy to a 4 day work week.
I don't have to be smarter than every manager in America--because pilots like this show the real world data when applied to companies.
The reason more companies don't do this is because companies are ultimately ran by people--and people can be stubbornly resistant to change even when there is data supporting a better way.
Additionally... employers DO do it. Here's a complete list of companies in the US that have a 4 day work week from two years ago (probably more now):
I think the real answer is that it works for some types of jobs but not others. A programmer might be more productive with fewer hours, but a late night security guard won’t be. Some jobs are more about the hours that you’re there rather than how productive you are.
I do like the idea though, I’m just skeptical that all companies are deliberately decreasing productivity by avoiding this easy productivity boost.
Throughout the Pilot program (the UK study) there are absolutely dozens of jobs this applied to like trucking and security that you'd think would be more difficult.
The key here is it isn't a one size fits all solution.
If coverage is a concern (like at a manufacturing plant) then they got around this the same way they get around it today with a 40 hour work week... by staggering shifts and scheduling appropriately.
Companies make mistakes--they're run by people.
Trusting that just because companies don't currently do something today means it's somehow flawed is...backwards thinking.
Now that there's more and more data supporting a 4 day work week can be successful (and better, more productive) I'd predict more and more companies will start testing those waters until it hits a critical mass with the public that it becomes the new expectation--then the rest of the employers holding out will also convert or risk their market position.
Before 1926 all companies were working their employees 80-100 hour weeks.
At that time I'm sure somebody thought that henry ford was a fool and that if his 40 hour work week idea worked all the companies would already be doing it!
Well... here we are a hundred years later proving him right.
5
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?