I've actually been working a 4-day week for the past 2.5 years now, working 30 hours a week instead of 37.5.
My employer has got the better end of the deal by far - I'm as productive as I was working a 5-day week, but had to take a 20% pay cut. Still, it works for me, giving me extra time for family and side projects.
I negotiated this with previous employers. I do consulting work now and I've negotiated this with myself as well :)
I think I'm more productive this way, because, after a 3-day weekend I generally have a fresh perspective and feel like I'm looking at the same tasks with new enthusiasm. When I worked 5 day weeks, even interesting tasks became drudgery and I'd stare at the clock continuously even when I wasn't working a strict 'clock-in' style job.
Yeah. I worked a 3-day week for 6-7 years, and overall it worked really well for both my employer (who got a more productive employee) and me.
From my side, the biggest drawback was that it was a sort of golden handcuffs - I almost certainly stayed there longer than I otherwise would have because getting an equivalent setup elsewhere would have such a pain.
My impression was that the biggest drawback on my employer's side (after hashing out the initial bureaucracy/paperwork) was my more limited availability for meetings.
This is pretty interesting. Did you feel overworked working 37.5 hours?
I spend more than 40 hours a week at work, but I actually work less than that whole time, because I have to wait for certain processes, or certain people, filling the gaps with activities like reading HN (as in right now).
The CEO of this company also said that he wished we could move to productivity based pay and that he thought this would be better for women because when they come back to work from having children they work less hours but in his opinion often still contributed the same as someone working full time.
It's somewhat surprising (and not really) that more companies are not competing with each other seriously on real benefits like this to attract and keep talent.
Most jobs provide no real extra benefit. They have a bunch of fake gimmicks like "snack room" or "monthly social event" (read: mandatory team building event but free for the company).
Four-day week for five-day pay is a serious and tangible benefit that a smart company could provide and it would give them a strong hiring/culture advantage for a long time.
That's a 20% reduction in work hours. To me it seems very doable if you build a good high-productivity culture in the company. Meaning everyone kind of knows they have less time to screw around so you save all that for your 3 days off work, and 4 days it's high productivity work.
If this increases productivity by 10%, the cost to the company is the other 10%.
Also consider that 1.5 hours is 18% of the work day. Many companies easily and carelessly waste that much every day.
I know some people who do that in big techs, but I've always wondered how that works. My work doesn't really fit in a well defined bucket of "days". Sometimes we have deadlines and Ill work on Sunday. Sometimes I'll have a meeting with someone in an international office and have to accommodate their schedule (sometimes they do the reverse). Sometimes I just have bad days and say "f it" and just stay home. The job gets done, everyone's happy.
Changing from that fluid "as long as shit gets done" schedule to a specific "you now work for days" gets really weird to me. Do I have to work at least 4 days now? What happens with crunch time? What happens if there's an emergency and I end up working on the 5th day, do I get overtime?
Then what happens during perf review? there's already a 500% difference in output between 2 random engineers, and it's already hard to figure out if they're just better, working longer, or what. Comparing the output of a 4 day/week vs a 5 day/week one to make sure the former doesn't get penalized gets tricky.
I mean, if it works at the likes of Google, so I assume people have the answers to these questions. I'm genuinely curious.
"Four-day week for five-day pay is a serious and tangible benefit that a smart company could provide and it would give them a strong hiring/culture advantage for a long time."
Plus you can rent out the office on Fridays as shared office space. WIN.
It doesn't suprise me - at least in the UK (and I get the impression it's basically the same outside of SV), companies don't seriously compete on benefits other than pay at all.
The wage suppression and funneling of profits back up to the executive level already demonstrates that companies aren't really interested in keeping or attracting talent.
Large corporations have succeeded at crushing working-class unions and convinced most white collar workers that they're not in their interests, even as working conditions and compensation for white collar workers slide downward (either directly, through abuse of things like salaried status to get unpaid overtime, or as they're extracted by various forms of rent-seeking like healthcare or housing costs).
Since there's essentially no check on their power and the American economy is tilting more and more towards favoring corrupt monopolies, why offer anything more than what they absolutely have to?
Not to be that guy, but we all knew that "Less stress" and "better work life balance" would result from working one day less a week, but it doesn't talk about productivity or revenue or any of that. I don't think you can realistically call this a "success" if it's not something most businesses could afford to do, and if there was a productivity loss on par with the 20% of work missed then...they're just paying more for less? Am I missing something here?
I've been doing a four day week since starting at a place that was willing to put up with my shit. You'd have to talk to my boss for actual numbers, but I feel much more productive:
* I usually have one or two major goals for the week, and four days to get there. I find it easier to reason about what I'm going to get done and how when there are fewer, longer days to work with, and I feel less interest in wasting time.
* I'm more comfortable focusing on days when I'm at work, and I'm more comfortable working a bit longer to get my stuff done, because I don't have to try to do my laundry and sweep the floors and get the groceries when I get home. (Although I realize it helps not having kids to look after, yet, so ymmv).
* I can do my dentist appointments and haircuts on my weekday off, so I rarely have to mess with my schedule or take off early.
* My weekends feel long enough. I always get back to work with a clear head. Mondays feel nice.
* I have not once told someone at work "nope, I can't do that, I don't have enough time." Will update if that changes :)
* I get to spend Friday hacking on personal projects when I feel like it. I haven't been able to do this in years, and sometimes it even benefits my employer. Free training!
I once worked at a place where everyone did a four day work week, and it was awesome. The big meetings were always on Tuesday, and we worked lengthy days (8:30-ish am to 5:30 pm), but that meant there was always room to do stuff right, without rushing. That includes taking time for tea.
They've apparently reported no drop in overall productivity, i.e. Four days' work is equal to the old five days work, an increase in productivity per day.
It's probably not a full 20% loss, but I think your point still stands. To expand a bit:
It seems to me that the only way they could work a day less and not affect the companies productivity is if those employees did nothing during that day anyway. Say that in a work week an employee produced 100 units of work (feel free to substitute this with your favorite productivity microbenchmark). Thus, with the 5 day work-week each day the employee must produce around 20 units of work. Say you reduce that to 4 days, so now each day the worker must produce 25 units of work to be as productive. It follows that in order to work one less day per week the worker must work 25% more per day or overall productivity will suffer.
Imagine that your company implements something like this, suddenly per-day expectations go way up. Can you complete that meeting at 125% speed? Will your builds finish 25% faster? Can you increase your typing speed by 25%? Can you dig that ditch in 3 hours instead of 4? Can you clear tables 25% faster? I don't think anyone wants the consequences of this.
The only way I can remotely see this working out is for the employers of salaried info-workers in high profit-margin industries. For someone employed in a manual or skilled labor position it may be impossible or outright dangerous to attempt to complete tasks at 125% speed. I could however see this being a neat benefit that employers like the Silicon Valley types offer to outbid the competition, but I don't think this is practical for the economy in general.
“Employees designed a number of innovations and initiatives to work in a more productive and efficient manner, from automating manual processes to reducing or eliminating non-work-related internet usage,”
I’d be more interested in studies showing that you get more productivity by leaving at 4pm than 5pm since that’s when everyone stereotypically starts to slack and goof around on until 5pm anyway.
"Staff stress levels decreased by 7% across the board as a result of the trial, while stimulation, commitment and a sense of empowerment at work all improved significantly, with overall life satisfaction increasing by 5%."
or
"Employees designed a number of innovations and initiatives to work in a more productive and efficient manner, from automating manual processes to reducing or eliminating non-work-related internet usage,"
tl;dr: (Sometimes, maybe, for some time) decrease of work time is compensated by increase in productivity,
> Academics studied the trial before, during and after its implementation, collecting qualitative and quantitative data
All the quantitative measurements given in the article are about the employees' happiness. Of course they felt they had a better work/life balance! Of course they felt less stressed! Of course they said they had more time to spend with their family!
They'd probably feel even better getting paid for five days and working three - and why stop there? Why not two, or one, or zero?
I don't doubt that most people in white collar jobs can be just as productive in four days, with the right incentives, as they currently are in five. But it would be nice, if only to justify the headline, to see metrics from the company's side rather than the parenthetical mention of "employees performing better in their jobs". Did they set up more trusts? Did they draft more legally rigorous wills? Did their customers report higher satisfaction and bring more repeat or referral business? If the "studies" aren't complete nonsense, the numbers were measured for these things. But then why aren't they reported with the same breathlessness as "overall life satisfaction increased by 5%"?
Society should definitely have a debate about working less. Right now we are very productively warming up the planet 40 hours a week. Just working less is a big part of the solution.
As I was writing this comment I opened [0]. Fascinating read.
"The front runners for lowest average weekly work hours are the Netherlands with 27 hours,..."
"The New Economics Foundation has recommended moving to a 21-hour standard work week to address problems with unemployment, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, overworking, family care, and the general lack of free time."
Let's get away from the notion that 40 hours is the norm.
On average, each year I use some of my PTO to be able to take some 3 day weekends which I really enjoy for going outdoor.
This means that I have had some ground to compare 4 day weeks and 5 day weeks.
Based on my observation, my output is almost exactly the same. I feel like in a 5 day week, there is at least one day where I feel unproductive, or just wait to coordinate with other people. Since I'm officially paid on that day, it feels like an unproductive day at work.
In a 4 day week, I usually feel like each day has been productive. I sometimes agree to connect on the 5th day, for very specific events, but with no guarantees or expectations on my side. As such, the 5th day feels like I'm 100% off.
This sounds awesome but it only works for time-insensitive service provision. Where there's a relatively fixed amount of work to do, but you don't have to constantly be in contact with your customer.
I'm a contractor. I have to pick up the phone any time of day or night or I lose a client. Most of my friends and family work at varying levels of healthcare provision. They can't just send everybody home on Friday. They can't even do that at the weekend. And retail faces similar issues. Plus they're still fighting online sales.
Estate planners are basically the slowest possible service. They could probably work a two day week and let the answerphone and inboxes pick up the grunt work. It's neat that this works for them, but —and this isn't just jealousy— I don't expect this to become widespread any time soon.
Not everyone would be off the same days. In one position I worked we did 12 hour shifts that included a paid lunch. The schedule was 3 days work 4 days off, then 4 days work 3 days off. In a two week period you actually worked 84 hours instead of the normal 80 hours in two week. The difference though was we accomplished a lot in the 3 or 4 days of work because there wasn't enough time in the week to procrastinate too much. Keep in mind this was a 24/7 team environment and it was organized so that your alternates (people on opposite schedule) would take over anything you didn't finish and vice versa.
I feel 3 days, minimum, makes the most sense. You have a day for personal errands, a day dedicated to family activities, and a day for rest and relaxation. As it is, time is hyper squished on the weekends, at least for me it is.
> Two-hundred-and-forty staff at Perpetual Guardian, a company which manages trusts, wills and estate planning, trialled a four-day working week over March and April, working four, eight-hour days but getting paid for five.
Similar trails were conducted in the eldercare in Sweden or Finland, I have forgot exactly where. The conclusion was that a shorter work week meant that less work got done, resulting in worse service for the citizens. Which seems intuitive. This exercise can't be replicated in other sectors, like construction, teaching, social work or garbage collection, without resulting in worse service or product.
However I do believe that there vast amount of worthless work being done. If you ever worked at a large cooperation you properly shuck your head on multiple occasions when reports, evaluations, surveys and such were being carried out involving multiple departments and requiring multiple approvals only to end unused in the trashcan. I have heard a number as high as 40% of work being done is essentially worthless, it serves no meaningful purpose and the people who made it could as well go home. Perhaps the example in the article is exactly this, the company were simply doing too much worthless work and the real success is realising this, stopping the madness and branding it as a success.
The problem is that this extra day will allow them to think of/execute their own plan... but I need them to be part of my plan and have the weekends JUST be for rest.
Same reason why there's plenty fud about universal basic income: it gives the workers leverage. When the people who do the worst jobs in terms of pay / working conditions / satisfaction could walk out any day and not be bankrupt you can't treat them like shit anymore.
I've been working part-time for the past 6-7 years. I cannot even begin to imagine going back to full-time. 4-5 hours a day is maximum for intellectually-heavy job. Anything else is pure waste of time playing pretend. I could have been rich by working full-time all this time, but it's simply not worth to me. Even if I have nothing to do, it beats slaving away my time for someone else.
The place I'm working at right now doesn't calculate work hours by the week, but by the month. So you have a lot of freedom in moving your hours around. You could do 4x10h and take a day off each week, work on weekends and take another day off instead and so on.
I would be much happier if I could do 4x8h and have a 3-day weekend, but 4x10h works for now as well.
For maximum flexibility, and hopefully also some productivity gains, I'd implement a four-day work week by giving the employee ongoing discretion to use Monday, Wednesday, or Friday as their third "weekend" day, and encourage limiting meetings to Tuesdays and Thursdays, as much as possible.
Four tens is a pretty great schedule. Those two extra hours somewhere in the day when there's usually not anybody working are almost as good for productivity as the other eight. And a day off during the week is worth its weight in gold for getting errands and all the other nagging little things that are a huge drag working the whole week.
If you want to reduce the work week, support political candidates who advocate for that or run yourself. Progress is a function of effort put forth, not time.
From TFA I could see that work-life balance is now considered good by 74% of employees, 24% up from the 5-day week. Still pretty far from 100%.
The article does not seem to mention the resulting performance of the company as a whole. I think that should be as front and center as the work-life balance satisfaction figure.
> Employees designed a number of innovations and initiatives to work in a more productive and efficient manner, from automating manual processes to reducing or eliminating non-work-related internet usage,” said Delaney.
Employees eliminating non-work Internet usage on their own accord sound a bit implausible, adding to the general feeling of not listing all the salient points that the article invokes in me.
Most comments seem to focus on productivity. I have been working 3-4 days a week for the last 5 years. Not sure about productivity but I am definitely happier this way.
Ignored this when it first showed up, but Hacker Newsletter resurfaced it for me.
Given a sub-40 hour week, and my own penchant to follow the path of least resistance, I think a happy medium between employer/employee would be making sure the employees are using the time help them help themselves. E.g., use the extra time for a massage, yoga, hiking, cooking class, or whatever usually gets ignored because of work/life interference.
[+] [-] GordonS|7 years ago|reply
My employer has got the better end of the deal by far - I'm as productive as I was working a 5-day week, but had to take a 20% pay cut. Still, it works for me, giving me extra time for family and side projects.
[+] [-] i_dont_know_|7 years ago|reply
I think I'm more productive this way, because, after a 3-day weekend I generally have a fresh perspective and feel like I'm looking at the same tasks with new enthusiasm. When I worked 5 day weeks, even interesting tasks became drudgery and I'd stare at the clock continuously even when I wasn't working a strict 'clock-in' style job.
[+] [-] mindways|7 years ago|reply
From my side, the biggest drawback was that it was a sort of golden handcuffs - I almost certainly stayed there longer than I otherwise would have because getting an equivalent setup elsewhere would have such a pain.
My impression was that the biggest drawback on my employer's side (after hashing out the initial bureaucracy/paperwork) was my more limited availability for meetings.
[+] [-] nine_k|7 years ago|reply
I spend more than 40 hours a week at work, but I actually work less than that whole time, because I have to wait for certain processes, or certain people, filling the gaps with activities like reading HN (as in right now).
[+] [-] rosege|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yodsanklai|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] borplk|7 years ago|reply
Most jobs provide no real extra benefit. They have a bunch of fake gimmicks like "snack room" or "monthly social event" (read: mandatory team building event but free for the company).
Four-day week for five-day pay is a serious and tangible benefit that a smart company could provide and it would give them a strong hiring/culture advantage for a long time.
That's a 20% reduction in work hours. To me it seems very doable if you build a good high-productivity culture in the company. Meaning everyone kind of knows they have less time to screw around so you save all that for your 3 days off work, and 4 days it's high productivity work.
If this increases productivity by 10%, the cost to the company is the other 10%.
Also consider that 1.5 hours is 18% of the work day. Many companies easily and carelessly waste that much every day.
[+] [-] shados|7 years ago|reply
Changing from that fluid "as long as shit gets done" schedule to a specific "you now work for days" gets really weird to me. Do I have to work at least 4 days now? What happens with crunch time? What happens if there's an emergency and I end up working on the 5th day, do I get overtime?
Then what happens during perf review? there's already a 500% difference in output between 2 random engineers, and it's already hard to figure out if they're just better, working longer, or what. Comparing the output of a 4 day/week vs a 5 day/week one to make sure the former doesn't get penalized gets tricky.
I mean, if it works at the likes of Google, so I assume people have the answers to these questions. I'm genuinely curious.
[+] [-] jonhendry18|7 years ago|reply
Plus you can rent out the office on Fridays as shared office space. WIN.
[+] [-] GordonS|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knuththetruth|7 years ago|reply
Large corporations have succeeded at crushing working-class unions and convinced most white collar workers that they're not in their interests, even as working conditions and compensation for white collar workers slide downward (either directly, through abuse of things like salaried status to get unpaid overtime, or as they're extracted by various forms of rent-seeking like healthcare or housing costs).
Since there's essentially no check on their power and the American economy is tilting more and more towards favoring corrupt monopolies, why offer anything more than what they absolutely have to?
[+] [-] jackconnor|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dylan-m|7 years ago|reply
* I usually have one or two major goals for the week, and four days to get there. I find it easier to reason about what I'm going to get done and how when there are fewer, longer days to work with, and I feel less interest in wasting time.
* I'm more comfortable focusing on days when I'm at work, and I'm more comfortable working a bit longer to get my stuff done, because I don't have to try to do my laundry and sweep the floors and get the groceries when I get home. (Although I realize it helps not having kids to look after, yet, so ymmv).
* I can do my dentist appointments and haircuts on my weekday off, so I rarely have to mess with my schedule or take off early.
* My weekends feel long enough. I always get back to work with a clear head. Mondays feel nice.
* I have not once told someone at work "nope, I can't do that, I don't have enough time." Will update if that changes :)
* I get to spend Friday hacking on personal projects when I feel like it. I haven't been able to do this in years, and sometimes it even benefits my employer. Free training!
I once worked at a place where everyone did a four day work week, and it was awesome. The big meetings were always on Tuesday, and we worked lengthy days (8:30-ish am to 5:30 pm), but that meant there was always room to do stuff right, without rushing. That includes taking time for tea.
[+] [-] Nition|7 years ago|reply
They've apparently reported no drop in overall productivity, i.e. Four days' work is equal to the old five days work, an increase in productivity per day.
[+] [-] booleandilemma|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colemannugent|7 years ago|reply
It seems to me that the only way they could work a day less and not affect the companies productivity is if those employees did nothing during that day anyway. Say that in a work week an employee produced 100 units of work (feel free to substitute this with your favorite productivity microbenchmark). Thus, with the 5 day work-week each day the employee must produce around 20 units of work. Say you reduce that to 4 days, so now each day the worker must produce 25 units of work to be as productive. It follows that in order to work one less day per week the worker must work 25% more per day or overall productivity will suffer.
Imagine that your company implements something like this, suddenly per-day expectations go way up. Can you complete that meeting at 125% speed? Will your builds finish 25% faster? Can you increase your typing speed by 25%? Can you dig that ditch in 3 hours instead of 4? Can you clear tables 25% faster? I don't think anyone wants the consequences of this.
The only way I can remotely see this working out is for the employers of salaried info-workers in high profit-margin industries. For someone employed in a manual or skilled labor position it may be impossible or outright dangerous to attempt to complete tasks at 125% speed. I could however see this being a neat benefit that employers like the Silicon Valley types offer to outbid the competition, but I don't think this is practical for the economy in general.
[+] [-] perfunctory|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbjs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tobltobs|7 years ago|reply
You missed:
"Staff stress levels decreased by 7% across the board as a result of the trial, while stimulation, commitment and a sense of empowerment at work all improved significantly, with overall life satisfaction increasing by 5%."
or
"Employees designed a number of innovations and initiatives to work in a more productive and efficient manner, from automating manual processes to reducing or eliminating non-work-related internet usage,"
tl;dr: (Sometimes, maybe, for some time) decrease of work time is compensated by increase in productivity,
[+] [-] dmurray|7 years ago|reply
All the quantitative measurements given in the article are about the employees' happiness. Of course they felt they had a better work/life balance! Of course they felt less stressed! Of course they said they had more time to spend with their family!
They'd probably feel even better getting paid for five days and working three - and why stop there? Why not two, or one, or zero?
I don't doubt that most people in white collar jobs can be just as productive in four days, with the right incentives, as they currently are in five. But it would be nice, if only to justify the headline, to see metrics from the company's side rather than the parenthetical mention of "employees performing better in their jobs". Did they set up more trusts? Did they draft more legally rigorous wills? Did their customers report higher satisfaction and bring more repeat or referral business? If the "studies" aren't complete nonsense, the numbers were measured for these things. But then why aren't they reported with the same breathlessness as "overall life satisfaction increased by 5%"?
[+] [-] perfunctory|7 years ago|reply
As I was writing this comment I opened [0]. Fascinating read.
"The front runners for lowest average weekly work hours are the Netherlands with 27 hours,..."
"The New Economics Foundation has recommended moving to a 21-hour standard work week to address problems with unemployment, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, overworking, family care, and the general lack of free time."
Let's get away from the notion that 40 hours is the norm.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time
[+] [-] ironjunkie|7 years ago|reply
On average, each year I use some of my PTO to be able to take some 3 day weekends which I really enjoy for going outdoor.
This means that I have had some ground to compare 4 day weeks and 5 day weeks. Based on my observation, my output is almost exactly the same. I feel like in a 5 day week, there is at least one day where I feel unproductive, or just wait to coordinate with other people. Since I'm officially paid on that day, it feels like an unproductive day at work.
In a 4 day week, I usually feel like each day has been productive. I sometimes agree to connect on the 5th day, for very specific events, but with no guarantees or expectations on my side. As such, the 5th day feels like I'm 100% off.
[+] [-] oliwarner|7 years ago|reply
I'm a contractor. I have to pick up the phone any time of day or night or I lose a client. Most of my friends and family work at varying levels of healthcare provision. They can't just send everybody home on Friday. They can't even do that at the weekend. And retail faces similar issues. Plus they're still fighting online sales.
Estate planners are basically the slowest possible service. They could probably work a two day week and let the answerphone and inboxes pick up the grunt work. It's neat that this works for them, but —and this isn't just jealousy— I don't expect this to become widespread any time soon.
[+] [-] observer12|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sethammons|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NeedMoreTea|7 years ago|reply
With a 40% reduction in working hours, UK productivity dropped just 4%. (Government's own figures)
I'm not in the least surprised this experiment is a success. I am surprised such things haven't become more common.
[+] [-] yalph|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] l5870uoo9y|7 years ago|reply
Similar trails were conducted in the eldercare in Sweden or Finland, I have forgot exactly where. The conclusion was that a shorter work week meant that less work got done, resulting in worse service for the citizens. Which seems intuitive. This exercise can't be replicated in other sectors, like construction, teaching, social work or garbage collection, without resulting in worse service or product.
However I do believe that there vast amount of worthless work being done. If you ever worked at a large cooperation you properly shuck your head on multiple occasions when reports, evaluations, surveys and such were being carried out involving multiple departments and requiring multiple approvals only to end unused in the trashcan. I have heard a number as high as 40% of work being done is essentially worthless, it serves no meaningful purpose and the people who made it could as well go home. Perhaps the example in the article is exactly this, the company were simply doing too much worthless work and the real success is realising this, stopping the madness and branding it as a success.
[+] [-] octygen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dantheman0207|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nugga|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] overcast|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonhendry18|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivanjaros|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dvcrn|7 years ago|reply
I would be much happier if I could do 4x8h and have a 3-day weekend, but 4x10h works for now as well.
[+] [-] rosser|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] overcast|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] megaman22|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterburkimsher|7 years ago|reply
In some countries that rule is 35 hours/week. So there is a difference between 4x8=32 or 4x10=40.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nine_k|7 years ago|reply
The article does not seem to mention the resulting performance of the company as a whole. I think that should be as front and center as the work-life balance satisfaction figure.
> Employees designed a number of innovations and initiatives to work in a more productive and efficient manner, from automating manual processes to reducing or eliminating non-work-related internet usage,” said Delaney.
Employees eliminating non-work Internet usage on their own accord sound a bit implausible, adding to the general feeling of not listing all the salient points that the article invokes in me.
[+] [-] nicoburns|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linuxlizard|7 years ago|reply
Source: salaried American software engineer.
[+] [-] perfunctory|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkmcf|7 years ago|reply
Given a sub-40 hour week, and my own penchant to follow the path of least resistance, I think a happy medium between employer/employee would be making sure the employees are using the time help them help themselves. E.g., use the extra time for a massage, yoga, hiking, cooking class, or whatever usually gets ignored because of work/life interference.