121–130 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, at least in the US, going down to 6 hours a day makes you a part time employee, at which point you lose a lot more than even 25% of your pay. Frequently benefits are pared down to the point of extinction, including health, vacation and holidays.
what's stopping you from being a salaried employee that just happens to work 30 hours a week?
> In a perfect situation this would have led to higher employment numbers and happier employees. What kind of hippie logic is this? Happier employees? I don't know ANYONE who would be happier if they got a 25% pay cut except for, maybe, single hippies who want to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities. The average person, on the other hand, and particularly those with kids, would be devastated by a 25% cut i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd much rather do 5x6h, I suppose the difference might be if you have small children.
I agree. I preferred working 4x10 or even 4x12 before having kids (while working flexible resturant shift work). Now that I have kids and work an office job, I would much prefer a 5x6 to a 4x8.
This pilot was actually not 6-hour workday, but 30 hour workweek. Yes, it is true that the politicians that decided it called it for 6-hour workday, but in reality is was 30 hour workweek and nothing else, because of how the facility works with scheduling and so on (regulations etc). Nurses worked between 5 to 7 hours on day shifts resulting in a 30 hour workweek. Night shifts was 6 to 8 hours. I think it is importan…
OK, we put "30 hour work week" in the title instead. Thanks!
After downloading the aforementioned paper and uploading the to google translate, since I don't speak Swedish:
> Summary 18 months with 6 hours
> 6 hours of trial
> City of Gothenburg decided in 2014 to conduct a trial with 6-hour day with follow-up research. The trial started 2015-02-01 and 2016-12-31 terminated after 23 months. The trial will answer the question about the effects of reduced working hours have for nurses, tenants and the economy / jobs.
> The trial has been shortened working hours to 6 hours per day and 14.9 full-time employees, 17 nurses have been hired to compensate for reduced working hours. Consequential changes have made of schedule at Svartedalen center for the elderly. To provide a high comparability has no other changes made by different senior housing from others. In follow research studies 100 % Of nurses participated.
...
> There are 29 sessions on a six-week period in the new schedule. Three of the six weekends included. Employees at Svartedalen work in the trial between five and seven hours on daily schedule. In practice, between 6 hours and 6.25 hours (6 hours and 15 minutes). That it not exactly six hours per day due to scheduling must answer received business needs.
> Night schedule is at least six and no more than eight hours. Before the experiment was working nine hours on overnight.
So yeah, the resulting full-time hours were 30, but the study was specifically interested in 6-hour work days, according to the report. The only reason it wasn't exactly 6 was for business/logistical reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And truthfully, it is going to depend on the person to at least some extent as well. IMO, anything that doesn't include being at work as part of your actual job duties should have no number of required work hours. You either get enough work done or you don't. If you aren't getting the expected amount of work done, then you'll eventually get fired. If you can out perform everyone else on the team and work 8 hours a we…
So here's a question that I continually ask myself as I work at my remote, salaried 6-hour-a-day developer job that I've been doing for the last year: how do I know how much work is enough? If I gauge by productivity, that's cool... I'll just be really fast and get my stuff done and then go play banjo or whatever. But then when folks hand me a crufty WordPress site that is misbehaving and it could be anything between…
I'm taking this example. This is mine now. Thanks. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, we put "30 hour work week" in the title instead. Thanks!
Wait, hold the phone. That's not really accurate according to the article nor the paper he linked. The trial was 6 hour work days, as the article claims. After downloading the aforementioned paper and uploading the to google translate, since I don't speak Swedish: > Summary 18 months with 6 hours > 6 hours of trial > City of Gothenburg decided in 2014 to conduct a trial with 6-hour day with follow-up research. The tr…
The person you are calling inaccurate said as much in different words.
If it wasn't exactly 6 then you shouldn't call it 6.
Here on HN I always read people saying that you are more productive working 5 to 6 hours a day instead of 8. According to the people claiming that, the people who got a 25% cut in working hours should have performed better thus accomplishing the same amount of work. That obviously did not happen.
> In a perfect situation this would have led to higher employment numbers and happier employees. What kind of hippie logic is this? Happier employees? I don't know ANYONE who would be happier if they got a 25% pay cut except for, maybe, single hippies who want to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities. The average person, on the other hand, and particularly those with kids, would be devastated by a 25% cut i…
> I don't know ANYONE who would be happier if they got a 25% pay cut First of all, relax. Second: Pay was not cut. This was an experiment with a 30h work week with 100% pay. Unions would never agree to anyones pay being cut. The benefits they were looking for in this case would not be higher employment. The main benefit would be reduced people on sick leaves because of work related illness (stress, depression, overwo…
First of all, I am relaxed.
Second of all, please read my comment and the comment I was responding to. It says:
>> the hours that were cut also wouldn't have to be paid to the people not working them.
and then the conclusion is:
>> In a perfect situation this would have led to higher employment numbers and happier employees.
Which, again, is hippie logic. I don't know anyone who would be happy with a 25% cut in pay.
I was not responding to the article. I was responding to a comment with faulty logic.
Regarding your 2008 example. This is irrelevant. Of course people would take a cut in pay under such circumstances. Yet, again, this is irrelevant given the conversation. The proposal here is that utopia exists somewhere around working six hours. Then someone realized you can't do that and still produce the same number of widgets. Then someone said you don't need to pay people 8 hours if they work 6, yet, they should be happy. And, BTW, we can employ more people, because, well, you need 8 hours to do 8 hours of work.
The whole thing reeks of a government program designed to burn cash for who knows what reason. Spend millions researching something that can be demonstrated to be utter nonsense in 15 minutes in front of a white board.
Here on HN I always read people saying that you are more productive working 5 to 6 hours a day instead of 8. According to the people claiming that, the people who got a 25% cut in working hours should have performed better thus accomplishing the same amount of work. That obviously did not happen.