Slashdot Mirror


Analysis of Four-Day Working Week Trial by a New Zealand Financial Services Company Finds Staff Were Happier and 20% More Productive (theguardian.com)

AmiMoJo shares a report: The founder of one of the first big companies to switch to a four-day working week has called on others to follow, claiming it has resulted in a 20% increase in productivity, appeared to have helped increase profits and boosted staff wellbeing. Analysis of one of the biggest trials yet of the four-day working week has revealed no fall in output, reduced stress and increased staff engagement, fuelling hopes that a better work-life-balance for millions could be in sight. Perpetual Guardian, a New Zealand financial services company, switched its 240 staff from a five-day to a four-day week last November and maintained their pay. Productivity increased in the four days they worked so there was no drop in the total amount of work done, a study of the trial released on Tuesday has revealed.

The trial was monitored by academics at the University of Auckland and Auckland University of Technology. Among the Perpetual Guardian staff they found scores given by workers about leadership, stimulation, empowerment and commitment all increased compared with a 2017 survey. Details of an earlier trial showed the biggest increases were in commitment and empowerment. Staff stress levels were down from 45% to 38%. Work-life balance scores increased from 54% to 78%. "This is an idea whose time has come," said Andrew Barnes, Perpetual Guardian's founder and chief executive. "We need to get more companies to give it a go. They will be surprised at the improvement in their company, their staff and in their wider community."

111 comments

  1. So who's lying by Kokuyo · · Score: 0

    Knee-jerk reaction is "That can't be true, somebody is lying"

    So who'd be lying and to what end?

    What is kinda strange is the math... So they say no loss in productivity (as opposed to a gain) and they furthermore talk about a 20% increase in productivity. It can't be both, right? If it was a 20% increase per workday, that would still make the workweek fall short. If it was a 20% increase per workweek, one would assume the title would go something like "Working four days actually gets more shit done!!!!" and you can bet your ass companies all over the place would jump on the idea.

    After all, you need to work 25% more per day to make up for the fifth.

    Soooo.... huh?

    1. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Less time wasted due to boredom / burnout. Not that difficult to comprehend, koko.

    2. Re:So who's lying by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I"m guessing they can't let EVERYONE work only Mon-Thurs.....they have to stagger everyone's week day off, won't they?

      I'm guessing those that are happier would have either Mon or Friday off, so as to always have a 3x day weekend.

      Kinda sucks for those a bit, that they'd have to break their weekends and weekday off to be off Sat-Sun, have to work Mon and Friday and be off Tues or Wed or Thurs.

      How do they pick who gets lucky and gets the perpetual LONG weekend set ups?

      What happens when a holiday occurs on your week day off? Do you get double pay for it?

      While it sounds interesting, I'd like to hear the details on things like this.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any number that is not negative = no loss in productivity.

      20% increase = no loss in productivity.

    4. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhh same thing that happens now when there's a holiday oin your day off .... nothing
      some work mon -thurs some tues -fri, everyone gets a 3day weekend fool, thats how they work in china cuz they have too many people , why would you be off wednesday??? ffs man, use ur head

    5. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'How do they pick who gets lucky and gets the perpetual LONG weekend set ups?"

      That's easy. I used to schedule 30 people to fill all 7 days of the week and keep it fair and give myself wiggle room for sick days and shift swaps. Worked out fine. You just have to pay attention.

    6. Re:So who's lying by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the summary writer meant something along the lines of "even though you'd expect cutting work time by 25% would result in a reduction in productivity, it did not."

      The article states that productivity went up 20% and profits also increased.

      This isn't really surprising. Lots of research shows that 40 hours a week is maximum sustainable effort, when you're building bombs as fast as you can to avoid being invaded by Nazis (seriously). Intellectual work seems to be less than that.

      It's also not surprising that companies aren't "all over this." Management is a highly conservative discipline and people have really weird ideas about work. Yours is currently one of the first listed comments on this story, but I'm sure scrolling down will reveal a lot of people who simply refuse to believe this.

    7. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhh same thing that happens now when there's a holiday oin your day off .... nothing

      Wrong. When Christmas falls on a Saturday or Sunday, companies don't just go "whelp guess you don't get a holiday this year!", they give you either the previous Friday or the following Monday off. Of course this only applies to full-time workers at companies that have holidays, but then that is the topic at hand.

    8. Re:So who's lying by ranton · · Score: 1

      I"m guessing they can't let EVERYONE work only Mon-Thurs.....they have to stagger everyone's week day off, won't they?

      I would think having half of workers work Mon-Thu and the other half Tue-Fri, with more meetings on Tue-Thu, would work best in most office environments. For some roles like customer service where having half the staff take off Mon&Fri wouldn't work, they could implement an every other week 3-day weekend rotation. People may get extra PTO whenever their day off lands on a holiday, but otherwise that should be an easy problem to work out.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    9. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when a holiday occurs on your week day off? Do you get double pay for it?

      I don't know, but we can probably look to places like hospitals that need to be staffed 24/7 for ideas.

    10. Re:So who's lying by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      So who'd be lying and to what end?

      "If you tell everyone you are happy, and fudge the numbers to look productive, then you can continue to get an extra day off every week".

      You really can't see an incentive to lie?

      What is kinda strange is the math... So they say no loss in productivity (as opposed to a gain) and they furthermore talk about a 20% increase in productivity.

      The summary says "20% gain in productivity" and "same amount of work gets done". So they are getting 20% more done each day they work, with makes up for the day they don't work.

    11. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill as you've never had a real job, you wouldn't understand the whole "work getting done" thing.

    12. Re: So who's lying by msh104 · · Score: 1

      In the Netherlands here you're just out of luck if a free day falls in the weekend. In many countries it's like that actually. Sometimes the employers get lucky. Sometimes the employees.

    13. Re:So who's lying by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No one needs to be lying. It could just be the Hawthorne effect at play. They'll want to make sure to observe this over a longer period to determine whether the productivity gains are merely a short-lived effect or if they stick around because they really are the result of a shorter work week and employees having more energy or less stress due to having additional free time.

    14. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, as someone who suffers from DSPS, my weekly productivity would literally DOUBLE if I were allowed to sleep late on Wednesdays and work from home the remainder of the day.

      Delayed Sleep Phase Syndrome is an "invisible" handicap that can best be described as living in a perpetual state of 4-hour jet lag. My problem isn't that I can't fall asleep before midnight if I'm sleep-deprived... my problem is that if I *do* fall asleep significantly earlier than approximately 1am (standard time... 2am during DST), my body acts like it's an afternoon nap. I'll sleep for ~3 hours, then wake up and be unable to fall asleep again until shortly before dawn. The net result is that if I'm forced to be somewhere every day at 9am from Monday through Friday, I'm going to be going on around 4-5 hours/night of sleep & be profoundly sleep-deprived by Thursday.

      On a normal week, when I'm fully-rested by Sunday, I'll normally work for a few hours on Sunday night, get lots of work done on Monday, work more on Monday night, get a fair amount done on Tuesday, get some done on Tuesday night... then progressively sleepwalk through the remainder of the week. I'm able to get enough done outside of normal business hours on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday to make up for the fact that my biggest achievement on Friday is showing up and not falling asleep... but it really sucks spending half of every week miserable & knowing that literally half of my potential is being squandered by inflexible HR policy.

      In the past, when I worked for a company that allowed me to work from home on Wednesdays, I ended up getting as much done on Thursdays & Fridays as I got done on Mondays & Tuesdays. Now, by the time Thursday rolls around, I can't even get work done from home at night because I'm too sleep-deprived.

      The worst part is, it's nearly impossible to find out details like schedule-flexibility until you've invested an ENORMOUS amount of time interviewing for a company. Companies rarely advertise it, and mentioning it early in the interview process will get you instantly disqualified. In theory, it's an ADA-recognized disability... but in a state with "at-will" employment, you're in a no-win situation. The only way to negotiate better hours is to be recognized as absolutely indispensable... but BECOMING indispensable when you're forced to work in a state of perpetual sleep deprivation is practically impossible.

    15. Re: So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd likely end up with a similar situation where most professional positions would have Friday, Saturday, Sunday off and the typical service workers schedules wouldn't change, they're already garbage (not that I condone that) and use a staggering system. Healthcare professionals typically have staggered schedules out of a necessity.

      The fact of the matter is, most in a management position today don't understand or can't sell these sort of tradeoffs to those above them and take the situation of paying more money for less time metric as a shitty measure of success. It's from the same group that thinks you need to be physically be in an office chair at an office to be "productive" as well (arguable true for certain roles, not true for a lot of other roles).

      Most of these concepts stem from a different era when manufacturing was king and yes, if you're not physically there at a physical manufacturing position then of course productivity goes down.

    16. Re:So who's lying by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      From you, that is irony.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    17. Re:So who's lying by LostMyAccount · · Score: 2

      Management is a highly conservative discipline and people have really weird ideas about work.

      I really think it comes down to what management gets or think they get out of it.

      I work for a small, owner-managed company who's the typical SMB entrepreneur who thinks that everybody loves the company and gets as much out it as he does. I think this is one part of the explanation.

      Another is people in jobs where they're not specifically entrepreneurs, but where there is a real or perceived benefit from making their subordinates work harder. Bonus, promotion, prestige, fill in the blank.

      After that are people that are just workaholics, who like whatever is they do enough that they can't understand people who don't want to work that hard.

    18. Re:So who's lying by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "I really think it comes down to what management gets or think they get out of it."

      Yes. Like I said, people, including management, have weird ideas about work.

      Studies have also shown that workaholics are often less productive than more well-balanced people, and are more likely to burn out. Some people need a manager to force them to take a break. Some of those people are managers themselves.

    19. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, ok. I want to work for the same non-existent company you do.

      I've never seen what you're talking about actually happen.

    20. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good God, what a load of bullshit.

    21. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's _WAAAAY_ simpler than "MANAGEMENT IS CONSERVATIVE" in manufacturing the plant runs 24/7.

      12 hour shifts work because you have an A and a B.

      8 works, because you have 1st 2nd and 3rd.

      10 requires splits. Nobody wants to work splits. nobody wants to work rotating shifts.

      I've done 16's (16 on 8 off, 16 on 8 off, 16 on 8 off, 3 days off, start over) but again, nobody WANTS to work those hours.

      So till we do away with human adherence to this clock, thing. we'll be stuck with evenly-divisible-by-24 for viable work shifts.

    22. Re:So who's lying by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Shifts are still 8 hours, but you have four per week instead of five. Neither four nor five goes into seven equally.

    23. Re: So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^-- And that dismissive attitude is PRECISELY the reason why DSPS ends up being a debilitating invisible handicap.

      Imagine how dysfunctional your life would feel if you were expected to go to bed at 6pm & get up for work at 2am Monday through Friday... and passing out at 6pm from sleep-deprivation meant waking up around 9pm, then crashing & burning around midnight.

      The key point about DSPS "insomnia" is that it only exists when you force the person to live according to a schedule that's completely unnatural for them. It's only a problem & handicap because our society MAKES it into one.

      Someone with DSPS doesn't need MORE hours of sleep than someone "normal" -- they just have a daily period that's robustly shifted by a few hours relative to most people.

      Thousands of years ago, people with DSPS were the reason why late-night attacks by other tribes (or hungry animals) were slightly less-deadly. While their neighbors were asleep, they were reading by candlelight & screamed loudly when the attack began to wake the others.

      Two weeks later, those same tribesmen probably bitched about them sleeping until noon, regardless of how much work they quietly accomplished night after night & how many times they saved their neighbors' ungrateful asses.

    24. Re:So who's lying by youngone · · Score: 2

      I've never seen what you're talking about actually happen.

      The law in New Zealand is quite clear. If a holiday falls on the weekend, it moves to Monday or Friday (depending).

    25. Re:So who's lying by jrumney · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be a lucky few with perpetual 3-day weekends. They could cycle the days off so that everyone got three day weekends 40% of the time and a midweek day off the rest of the time. Or they could allocate everyone to have Mondays or Fridays off unless someone had a strong preference for one of the in-between days, and take a bigger productivity hit on those days. Holidays already have law governing how to allocate a different day off when it falls on a non-working day, so that isn't difficult to manage either.

    26. Re:So who's lying by Sir+Lurkalot · · Score: 1

      We work four ten's at our place.

      Forty hours pay.

      Three day weekend...

    27. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in Silicon Valley. The four-day work week is getting more popular out here each year. A number of private companies are already doing it, and here at the County level of government it's already an option for quite a few workers.

      What nobody seems to be pointing out is that you don't reduce the number of hours. You just change the number of hours per day.

      A FOUR DAY WORK WEEK IS TEN HOURS OF WORK EACH DAY, FOR A TOTAL OF 40 HOURS PER WEEK. And you get a three day weekend, every weekend. :)

    28. Re:So who's lying by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1

      You stagger who gets a particular day of the week off, then.... Use that to say, "Oh, the employee that handles that is OFF TODAY, so we'll have to postpone doing anything about that issue. And another person that is key to that project will be off tomorrow, so it could be next week before we can take care of your issue."

    29. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worker must be kept in state of constant stress and disabled from any activities besides work, this way he is docile and dumb so he can be controlled and threatened easier.

    30. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing those that are happier would have either Mon or Friday off, so as to always have a 3x day weekend.

      Dude, try taking a Wednesday off some time. You work two days, get one off, work two, get two off.
      It's like getting two Fridays every week.
      You are also going to get some stuff done around the house on Wednesday so that the weekend is more open.

      Kinda sucks for those a bit, that they'd have to break their weekends and weekday off to be off Sat-Sun, have to work Mon and Friday and be off Tues or Wed or Thurs.

      Either way the week will be short. Worst case is if you have three work days in a row and then this odd workday that is squeezed in between days off.

      How do they pick who gets lucky and gets the perpetual LONG weekend set ups?

      Doesn't really matter but if everyone wants the long weekend, go with a rolling schedule.

      What happens when a holiday occurs on your week day off? Do you get double pay for it?

      What happens when a holiday occurs on a weekend? Usually nothing.
      The only reason you think it is unfair is because other people get the day off too while your life had no change whatsoever since you already had the day off.
      That seems like a character flaw you should work on.

      While it sounds interesting, I'd like to hear the details on things like this.....

      I am sure you can find some report of the actual trial if you dig around a bit, but none of your questions so far have been of the nature that justifies looking at an actual report.
      It is more random complaining about things that aren't even issues.

    31. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's also not surprising that companies aren't "all over this."

      Geee, let me think. Race to the bottom anyone?

      "Management is a highly conservative discipline and people have really weird ideas about work."

      How about with simpler words: Management lie cause they can get away with this cause they are not accountable to anyone. And 'weird ideas about work"? Either it is well defined "what you are doing" or you are in "bullshit job"

    32. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knee-jerk reaction is "That can't be true, somebody is lying"

      So who'd be lying and to what end?

      What is kinda strange is the math... So they say no loss in productivity (as opposed to a gain) and they furthermore talk about a 20% increase in productivity. It can't be both, right? If it was a 20% increase per workday, that would still make the workweek fall short. If it was a 20% increase per workweek, one would assume the title would go something like "Working four days actually gets more shit done!!!!" and you can bet your ass companies all over the place would jump on the idea.

      After all, you need to work 25% more per day to make up for the fifth.

      Soooo.... huh?

      They could be working 30% more effective without putting in more hours, assuming they were wasting atleast 30% of their time during a regular work week :)

    33. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few years ago, for various reasons, I gave up a well-paid (£70,000 a year) job for one paying a third of that amount, but which was four days a week. Not only that, but I could walk to work (instead of being stuck in traffic), left the house at 8am, got back home by 5pm, and rarely if ever have to think about work outside of those hours - a huge change to my previous life, when I was often "on call" on Christmas day.

      Although I can't compare the two jobs directly, I can honestly say that not only am I far happier now despite the wage decrease (although I have made up some of the deficit in other ways) but also I'm FAR more productive than I ever was when I was basically turning up to work as a burned-out wreck every day. I definitely get more achieved in 4 days than the longer hours and five days of my previous work. Everyone wins.

      Most of all, I find that you really appreciate the weekend. It's not just "a time to recover from the week", it allows one to develop interests and hobbies, and actually dedicate some pretty decent time to them. A better work/life balance all round.

      As parent says, not that anyone in a decision-making capacity will care about this; so many (stupid) managers equate time worked with work done or results achieved.

    34. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, American?

      You all work the longest but are far from the most productive. The fear of taking even your pitiful 2 week holiday is just bizarre.

      Stockholm syndrome, cuz.

      Being at peak productivity 40 hours a week is just not humanly (physically) possible. Reduce office time to periods of real productivity and stop clock-watching for the sake of it is just common sense.

    35. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same as the UK, yes.

    36. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an excellent point. More research needed.

    37. Re:So who's lying by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      I'm in the U.S. and if a holiday happens on the weekend the day off is moved to Friday or Monday.

      That's almost certainly the standard if any union is involved and for decent companies even without a union.

    38. Re:So who's lying by youngone · · Score: 1

      The difference here is that we don't have to try to negotiate with our employer. We also have 20 days paid annual leave by law.

    39. Re:So who's lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked like that once, on late shift, 10hx4. I liked it, i mean as much as you can like late shift, but a lot better than if it had been 8hx5 late shift.

  2. In the US everything is screwed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've done 4x10's - and loved it. And, for an hourly position it would work.

    However, for Exempt - you would sign up... then some bozo management type would still expect you to work on your 'day off'.

    1. Re:In the US everything is screwed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Note that the article does not mention the employees working 10 hour days. Presumably they went from 5x8 to 4x8. The fact that you assumed a maintained 40+ hour workweek is telling of the US atitude to work.

      If I think about how many hours are wasted in a normal office each day, it's not surprising that the same amount of work or more could be done in 32 hours if employees are motivated to not waste as much time during the day.

    2. Re:In the US everything is screwed up... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      30 hour weeks. They were only working 7.5 hour days (on both sides of the experiment).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  3. Just personal experience by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I'm not a 1000 person study; but back when I worked 4 ten hour days instead of 5 8 hour days I used to get a lot more work done. I can confirm this is true from my study of one.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  4. Free flights by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

    Wasn't New Zealand offering free flights to people interested in working there?

    • Offer more free flights to people interested in working in NZ
    • Give them bad airline food so they get sick on the flight
    • Provide them free socialized medicine once they arrive
    • Show them the bill making its way through legislature mandating 3-day weekends
    • Interview them for jobs
    • Profit!
  5. Horstman's corollary to Parkinson's Law by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Horstman's corollary to Parkinson's Law by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Back when my father was working, he used to work long days and then bring home tons of work to do every night. On the weekend, his pile was extra large and he'd work on it all weekend. I once questioned this, since he wasn't getting paid any extra for this "overtime." He said "my boss expects this level of output from me." I countered that his boss only expected it because he provided it free of charge. When my bosses tried implying that I should continue working on projects on my own time, I strongly rejected it. For an emergency, yes, I'll do it, but not for Everyday Routine Project #55 that they want me to work during my own time so that it gets finished faster.

      In short, I'd add another corollary: "A manager's expectation of work that can be performed will expand to fit at least as much as the employees allow."

      NOTE: This doesn't put all the blame on the employee. If an employee is stuck with a horrible manager, they don't always have the choice of just quitting. That might lead to financial ruin so they might be faced with "do what I say or be fired." So the employee is responsible for pushing back to the extent that they can, but the manager is ultimately responsible for tempering their expectations with reality. If your employees are having to take work home and do unpaid work on their own time, chances are your expectations are too high.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Horstman's corollary to Parkinson's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your employees are having to take work home and do unpaid work on their own time, chances are your expectations are too high.

      Or you're running a public school.

    3. Re:Horstman's corollary to Parkinson's Law by AmigaBen · · Score: 1

      Don't do it. How hard is that?

      --
      +5 Insightful, really!
    4. Re:Horstman's corollary to Parkinson's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but the manager is ultimately responsible for tempering their expectations with reality"

      Are you high or something? Who is supervising the manager to make sure he stays responsible? I thought so.

    5. Re:Horstman's corollary to Parkinson's Law by JD-1027 · · Score: 1

      FYI, everyone, they are all like this. Managers at this level can rationalize ANYTHING. I've seen managers rationalize leaving work to put there kids to bed, then returning to work. I've seen managers rationalize when their kids are in college telling them "you always put your job ahead of your kids".

      This kind of sums things up nicely for the middle manager part...
      The Gervais Principle

  6. I'm guessing some of my previous jobs by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    would move to 4 12,5 hour work days ao their expectations of 50 hours a week from salaried workers could continue.

    The place before that I was working 60-80 hours in a 6 day work week, but at least I got overtime.

    1. Re:I'm guessing some of my previous jobs by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'd probably be happy to work 4x12.5 hour days as long as my compensation and PTO make up for it. Three day weekends are great, and I'd rather go full off/full on. So, that would be another 10 weeks PTO a year, so that would be 12+ weeks PTO (in the US). Three months a year and three days a week (4 days when there is a holiday) is better than a few extra hours in the evening. Especially since 12.5 hours have more space in their for breaks than 8 hours do, since so often I have to do nothing while the computer cranks.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:I'm guessing some of my previous jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole story is about shifting the expectations of weekly hours (in this case from 40 to 32). How anyone who "expects" 50+ hours from their employees is able to stay in business is a mystery to me, unless they pay signifficantly more. I wouldn't dream of staying in a place like that, there are too many better options out there.

  7. 20% increase in productivity on their day off by OffTheLip · · Score: 1

    That's how I read this.

  8. Good news, but other ways to do this by bb_matt · · Score: 1

    This is all about treating employees as adults, it's all about trust.

    Shock/Horror - when you entrust employees they respond favourably, who would've thought? /s

    The other ways to accomplish work/home life balance is to allow working from home where feasible, with no limits at all.
    If someone wants to work from home for two weeks straight and they are still accomplishing the tasks they have been assigned, or the tasks they have assigned themselves, then surely this is a positive?

    This is one aspect from science fiction that is now entirely possible and is, in fact, very prevalent in the tech sector - that you can work effectively from anywhere, that physical location should never be a barrier.

    Obviously this isn't going to work for every sector, but 4 day weeks will for pretty much all industry.

    There's so many other hidden benefits from this looser work/home life balance approach - less traffic for instance.

    Bring it on.

    1. Re:Good news, but other ways to do this by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      The other ways to accomplish work/home life balance is to allow working from home where feasible, with no limits at all.
      If someone wants to work from home for two weeks straight and they are still accomplishing the tasks they have been assigned, or the tasks they have assigned themselves, then surely this is a positive?

      I struggle working from home for more than a day, two at the most. Why? Because I run out of shit to do.

      I'm ridiculously more productive working from home. Comfortable, it's quiet or has good background music going, food, drinks, and bathrooms aren't a long walk away, and nobody can interrupt me until I'm ready to be interrupted. I would definitely be more productive with 3 days at work and 1 day at home vs 5 at work. I'm not sure about 4 days at work vs 5 days. It's so unproductive there that I'm not sure I could really get that much more done.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:Good news, but other ways to do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think working from home, perhaps frighteningly, shows us just how much of the shit we do, day to day, that is a flat out waste of time. Sure maybe 1 of those 4 meetings you missed mattered, but the bulk did not.

  9. Depends on the job and company I guess by guruevi · · Score: 1

    If you need to staff a phone 5 days a week, going to 4 days makes no financial sense, you're just a warm body we want to keep in the seat as long as possible for the least amount of money.

    For people that have a career, where work-life is important this may be of benefit, but then again, you're already salaried and the job market (at least right now) is wide open. I understand the stress, but people have to get more used to asking what THEY want out of a job.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Depends on the job and company I guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half the staff mon-thur and the other half tues-fri.

    2. Re:Depends on the job and company I guess by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      If you need to staff a phone 5 days a week, going to 4 days makes no financial sense, you're just a warm body we want to keep in the seat as long as possible for the least amount of money.

      In staffing requirements like this, not everybody has the same 4 work days.

      With my luck, I'd have off Wednesdays. /s

  10. So: does a 3 day week ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    result in another 30% more productivity ? :-)

    1. Re:So: does a 3 day week ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      No, my guess is that each day you shave off gives you a 20% boost.

      I'm going to go to a zero day work week and get a 100% boost in productivity!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:So: does a 3 day week ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have worked with people who would easily give 100% boost in productivity if they had done zero day weeks.

    3. Re:So: does a 3 day week ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. That's why very rich people have 0.00000001 day weeks, resulting in 1000000000000000000 productivity.

  11. Misread the study... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

    back when I worked 4 ten hour days instead of 5 8 hour days

    But this study wasn't about moving around the 40-hour-week (actually 37.5 hour week in NZ due to lunch). It was literally just dropping one day from the schedule, and moving to a 30-hour-week (4x7.5).

    And weekly productivity went up 20%. Which, given the 20% reduction in hours, means hourly productivity went up ~50%.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:Misread the study... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      didn't RTFA, but sure if gross output still went up 20% then that's 50 on the net

      yet even if we described the 20% gains as per-hour after the 40->30, that's still ~36h of output when you pay for 30

    2. Re:Misread the study... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      You should at least RTFA when responding to someone who makes a big deal about it in their username! And in response to your bolded statement, the people were salaried - their pay remained the same even though they only worked 80% as long.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Misread the study... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      And weekly productivity went up 20%. Which, given the 20% reduction in hours, means hourly productivity went up ~50%.

      No, this is wrong. TFA clearly says that the amount of work done per week stayed the same. Productivity (work/time) went up by 20%. So they got 20% more done during each of the 4 days they worked, which made up for the day off.

      The phrase "hourly productivity" makes as little sense as saying "hourly velocity". Productivity is not a lump of production, it is a rate of production.

    4. Re:Misread the study... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Yes, I replied to the wrong spot elsewhere on the thread, but my brain mangled it. And productivity seems to have gone up 25% (the amount required to cancel out a 20% decrease in hours), since the article says the total output remained flat (on a weekly basis).

      That said, I maintain there is a difference between weekly and and hourly productivity, just as hourly velocity and weekly velocity makes sense as well. It has to do with duty cycle. If you're going on a long car ride, I imagine your average velocity would decrease dramatically (because you are not driving while sleeping, eating, refueling, etc.) However, your velocity, when driving, is probably higher because you're exclusively on highways. It makes sense to talk about these as different numbers.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re: Misread the study... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still doesn't add up. If they did 100 units of work each day previously they would do 500 units in a five day week. Productivity went up 20%, to 120 units per day, which is only 480 units in four days. So nett productivity was down by 20 / 500 = 4%

    6. Re: Misread the study... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Still doesn't add up.

      This is economic journalism, not precision science. Productivity is not something that can be measured accurately anyway. This is all handwavy stuff.

  12. Gee, we've only understood this for ninety years by Average · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ninety years ago, companies were figuring this out.

    Nixon ran with it 65 years ago.

    But, what a CRAAZY idea, am I right?

  13. How about a 9 day week instead? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Still work 5 days a week. But extend the week, by executive order, to 9 days. Make the weekend 4 days.

    Monday
    Tuesday
    Wednesday
    Thursday
    Friday
    Saturday
    Partyday
    Funday
    Sunday

    Then go back to work again.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:How about a 9 day week instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than inconveniently requiring a new calendar, it also would probably not give the 20% productivity boost that the 4 day week gets since I'm assuming that the boost is directly related to how tired/mentally exhausted workers are by the 5th day.

    2. Re:How about a 9 day week instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than inconveniently requiring a new calendar, it also would probably not give the 20% productivity boost that the 4 day week gets since I'm assuming that the boost is directly related to how tired/mentally exhausted workers are by the 5th day.

      The Summer could be expanded by a month to fit all the Partdays and Fundays. Nestle it in between the the months named after ceasars:
      July
      Trump
      August

      Let's see. Two exrtra days, with four weeks per month. That's 96 extra days in need of a new home.
      Trump could be a 96 day month. That would take care of it. And every Wednesday in the month of Trump is officially renamed to Humpday.

  14. Calvinism by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, it might be all & well for the staff at that company to be happier, less stressed, healthier, & more productive but what about their souls? If those workers are denied the opportunity & support they need in order to toil relentlessly & arduously so that they can be better people, aren't they being condemned to an afterlife of eternal damnation? God will surely smite this evil company!

    P.S. I'm reliably informed (Poe's Law) that humour must be accompanied by a smiley face in case someone thinks I'm an extremist nut-job :)

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  15. Re:So where's the NO WORK analysis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine how happy people would be if everyone had a pony! Free ponies FOR ALL!

  16. Yeah, um... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    20% of 40 is 8 so basically, the company gets nothing out of this for salaried employees. For hourly employees, the company gets 8 hours of work for free.

  17. Off-topic, but those ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I'm too used to browsing with an ad blocker. But I'd completely forgotten that newspapers were similarly infested with in-line ads.

  18. Not lying, bad reporter math by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    The reporter (or a non-technical person) said 20%. They wanted to say it came out to a wash, and they knew it was a 20% reduction, so they thought 20% improvement. (And the wash probably had some fairly large error bars)

    Note, I messed up elsewhere in the comments and thought it was a 20% weekly improvement.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  19. Too much competition by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    In America cheap work visas mean you have an unlimited access to fresh employees. No need to worry about burnout, long term health or well being.

    Also, a certain percentage of the populace _is_ able to be productive for extended hours. 40, 50, 60 even 80. Yeah, there aren't a lot of them, but when you're drawing from a pool of over a billion workers you've got plenty.

    More than anything else this is why us tech folk can't compete with India. Their middle class is as large as our entire country. It's just a numbers game at that point.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Too much competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America cheap work visas mean you have an unlimited access to fresh employees. No need to worry about burnout, long term health or well being.

      Instead, you have to worry about constant training, poor work quality, and potential industrial espionage due to extreme turnover. All things which would occur in high turnover positions no matter who the employees are.

    2. Re:Too much competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America cheap work visas mean you have an unlimited access to fresh employees. No need to worry about burnout, long term health or well being.

      Also, a certain percentage of the populace _is_ able to be productive for extended hours. 40, 50, 60 even 80. Yeah, there aren't a lot of them, but when you're drawing from a pool of over a billion workers you've got plenty.

      More than anything else this is why us tech folk can't compete with India. Their middle class is as large as our entire country. It's just a numbers game at that point.

      In China you have an unlimited access to fresh employees. No need to worry about burnout, long term health or well being.

      FTFY

  20. Why stop there? by petes_PoV · · Score: 0
    So if people are more productive and happier working 4 days instead of 5, just think how much better it would be if they only worked for 3 days. And if three, why not 2.

    And if they get the same amount of work done in 2 days, then it sounds like the best move would be to fire the 60% of staff who apparently weren't doing anything worthwhile and get the rest working 5 (or maybe 6) days.

    It seems to me that you can re-work these statistics any way you like. Draw whatever conclusions suits the current fashion and find an example of pretty much any working practice if you scour the world. There's bound to be 1 example of anything.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Why stop there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me like you only need to do 39 breaths per minute instead of 40. Why stop at 39? Why not 0 breaths?

    2. Re:Why stop there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty stupid argument. Things can be tweaked, that doesn't mean 1 is same as 5. There are other variables at play, otherwise you are just asking like if someone can run a mile in 9:30, then why couldn't they run it at 5:00. Same thing, ignoring the rest of the variables.

  21. Not much of a trial by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful
    FTFA:

    The eight-week experiment...

    Smaller companies experimenting with the four-day week have found performance has been better in the first few weeks as excitement about the project took hold, before falling slightly.

    A 240 person staff is pretty small, and eight weeks (over Christmas no less) isn't enough time to draw any conclusions.

    The productivity increase isn't any surprise though. The employees are offered the day off *if* they could get the same amount of work done in a shorter time. Of course people will respond to a reward like that...for a while. Makes you wonder what would happen if people were offered a 20% pay increase for working five days per week but getting 20% more work done.

    1. Re:Not much of a trial by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder what would happen if people were offered a 20% pay increase for working five days per week but getting 20% more work done.

      It would fail miserably. Pay increases have been generally shown to be a terrible work motivator above some bare minimum.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  22. Alternate proposal - do what you want day by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    This idea is of course really similar to Google's 10% do what you want idea - except it's specific to a day. One day a week, you can work on whatever you want.

    Maybe that means you just catch up on professional reading or courses. Maybe it means you work on a side project. Maybe it even means you do regular work that you just really want to move along more.

    I feel like having this option or break, would have nearly as much of a benefit for happiness and productivity as just a day off , and additionally give the company a huge unexpected and unquantifiable return. It would also build company loyalty a little more than just a mere day off.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  23. Re:Gee, we've only understood this for ninety year by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Pay attention to what Nixon actually said: Vote Republican in the upcoming election and the economy will be so good you'll soon be working 4 day weeks.

  24. Well the gop plan is an 3.9 day 3 10 hour + 1 3.9 by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Well the gop plan is an 3.9 day 3 10 hour + 1 3.9 day. So we get an full week but don't have give out any of the Full time worker perks.

  25. Re:So where's the NO WORK analysis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free ponies FOR ALL!

    Why not? We can easily afford it, Wall Street has plenty of money.

  26. Re:So where's the NO WORK analysis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yellow pony is best pony. (warning: MLP)

  27. Hmm by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

    Hold on they 20% more productive while working 20% less sorhey where 50% more productive the tine rhey actuslly where at work,if this is true (I mght have missed somrhing), this is a rather imoressive result give the emploies a15 percent pay increae ( compared tonwat they got working 5 day week and have a nice boost to your net result. And ohe ea an emploee that just got a 15% income increese and an aditional day off (or 5 shorter work days) ar less lightly to quit so reducesd cost in reqruring + retraining replacements later.

  28. 20% less time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So.. they were 20% more productive with 20% less time to do their work?
    Same amount of work, less time to do it.

  29. They did 20% more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In only 80% of the time. Hmmm...

  30. Re:Gee, we've only understood this for ninety year by lorinc · · Score: 2

    Well, the economy is much better now than in the 50s. The GDP is about 60 times higher now than it was in 1950. So where is the 4 days week?

  31. Re:So where's the NO WORK analysis? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Vote Vermin Supreme. Vote pony party.

    Don't worry, everybody will get a pony. There are 200,000 ponies in the USA. A Little genocide might be required to make the numbers work. Brush after every meal. Brush your ponies teeth too. Beware the secret dental police.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  32. Re:So where's the NO WORK analysis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want Fluttershy then if we are going that route.

  33. 20% More Productive working 4 days instead of 5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, if they're 20% more productive just working 4 days a week, let's put them back up to 5 days a week as now we know what they're really capable of! /s

  34. Sacred cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are so conditioned in the USA we need other county's to lead for a while. After spending some time in Europe proper (France, Norway.) Its downright shocking how unhappy and unproductive Americans are right now.

    Other country's are going to have to slaughter these sacred cows, incredibly sadly as Americans we are just unable at present.

    (Also there's many, many studies pointing to the same result. But you know if you don't agree with the science, attack and discredit. If Americans get to much time off what will they ask for next? Healthcare?)

  35. I actually work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...about 15 minutes a day.

  36. This sounds dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds dumb, I have no life and I like going to work, who wants a 3 day weekend anyway.

  37. More companies? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "We need to get more companies to give it a go."

    I'm sure every manufacturing plant would love a 20% reduction in weekly output. True to most financial/economic 'genius' they fail to see how this simply cannot apply to other industries.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:More companies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its really simple. For example, take a manager in manufacturing plant spewing forth buzzword bullshit. If he produces 20% less of bullshit workers will get 20% more free time to do the actual work, so in the end productivity will increase by 20%. Consequently, you can increase managers pay by 20%, cause he is clearly more productive as well. See, it all works out - don't forget to check out the history 1960's - today:

      https://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-pay

  38. And on the fifth day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Known as Friday, the local feminazi gestapos invade the workplaces to review the covert surveillance footage for potential suspects (males). If any are discovered, they're terminated from their employment, and thoroughly investigated (gaslighted) while denied any future employment. The USA is a terrible & nasty place. Hey Putin, send a few nukes this way, why don't ya?

  39. stop lying Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I.) "If you tell everyone you are happy, and fudge the numbers to look productive," -- nice projecting Bill, is that what you do?
    And what is your incentive to lie Bill? More pay while doing more bullshit?

    II.) 'The summary says "20% gain in productivity" and "same amount of work gets done". So they are getting 20% more done each day they work, with makes up for the day they don't work.'

    The reason is simply this: concentrated work without all the bullshit stress caused by overloading and interruptions caused by people like Bill is more productive

  40. Re:Gee, we've only understood this for ninety year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes it is CRAAZY - Dirty commie rat spreading his poisonous lies again, trying to destroy America!

    How about you all stop pretending and tell it how it is? Oh wait, you can't, you could be fired cause of 'freedom' and 'democracy' :)