Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 156 posts

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#41

Post by jghn »

MEMORYC_RRUPTED wrote: post #7

This won't be valid for everyone, but I'm getting more and more convinced that most (a lot of?) people don't "work" work 40 hours anyway. I'm not even mentally capable of doing 40 intense hours of focussed work. Not saying I don't have other tasks besides coding/thinking in that time, but honestly not for the full slot of time. It just feels to me like some sort of secret we all share and pretend like it's fine, but…

My most recent job is billable and time is tracked in tight increments. Because I now pay much more attention to when I am and am not 100% engaged, it's been eye opening how much 40 hours really is. I've found that I'm about 2/3 efficient. So if I designate 6 hours for "work", I'm really working (and thus billing) for about 4 hours.

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#42

Post by _8j50 »

MEMORYC_RRUPTED wrote: post #7

This won't be valid for everyone, but I'm getting more and more convinced that most (a lot of?) people don't "work" work 40 hours anyway. I'm not even mentally capable of doing 40 intense hours of focussed work. Not saying I don't have other tasks besides coding/thinking in that time, but honestly not for the full slot of time. It just feels to me like some sort of secret we all share and pretend like it's fine, but…

People don't work for 40 hours but they are available for 40 hours, being available is also "work".

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#43

Post by Gene_Parmesan »

tnel77 wrote: post #27
Tyrek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we "actually work" 32 hours out of 40 (80%), what is the likelihood that if we shift to a 32 hour max week, that the average person will only "actually work" ~26 hours (80% of 32) in this hypothetical future? What if at least part of the 20% is spent doing social activities, water cooler conversations, etc. that enable the remaining 80% to flow more efficiently?

I’m all for a shorter workweek, but I definitely expect that the social aspect of a job is good for overall productivity. Maybe I’m weird, but I enjoy asking my coworkers how their weekend was prior to a meeting starting or (back when I was in the office) as we ran into each other in the hallway.

Same! You're definitely not alone, even if I do feel like a rare species these days. I really wish we were all going in two or three days a week. This constant wfh is driving me crazy.

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#45

Post by sam0x17 »

Tyrek wrote: post #18
MEMORYC_RRUPTED wrote: post #7

This won't be valid for everyone, but I'm getting more and more convinced that most (a lot of?) people don't "work" work 40 hours anyway. I'm not even mentally capable of doing 40 intense hours of focussed work. Not saying I don't have other tasks besides coding/thinking in that time, but honestly not for the full slot of time. It just feels to me like some sort of secret we all share and pretend like it's fine, but…

If we "actually work" 32 hours out of 40 (80%), what is the likelihood that if we shift to a 32 hour max week, that the average person will only "actually work" ~26 hours (80% of 32) in this hypothetical future? What if at least part of the 20% is spent doing social activities, water cooler conversations, etc. that enable the remaining 80% to flow more efficiently?

Because burn-out is the main driving factor behind the productivity changes, not the hypotheticals you are talking about. In engineering, people are burned out by friday, and even outside of engineering, people tend to phone it in by that point in the week because they are just done. They are operating at less than 50% mental or physical capacity. If you instead just give them that time to recharge, they'll get that much more done early in the week the following week. They'll also be in a better headspace because although you are only decreasing the days they work by 1/5th, you are increasing their uninterrupted weekend/family time by 1/3rd. In a more egalitarian society, you might imagine that ratio to be more like 1:1 to be fair.

At my previous startup we saw an 8% productivity _increase_ from moving to a 4-day work week, and this was across a variety of metrics like issues closed, lines of code, etc. We don't even know if 4 is optimal, it could be 3. Only way to find out is to try it.

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#47

Post by Gene_Parmesan »

philmcp wrote: post #19

Over 200 companies have now made the switch to a 32hr work week: https://4dayweek.io/companies The benefits for the employee are pretty obvious, but there are also many benefits for the company: - Staff are more productive (for previous pilots: output almost always hits 100%) - Job listings get (way) more applications - Staff are happier - Staff are healthier i.e. off sick less - It's better for the environment - Sta…

This is one of those situations where it's a clear documented (via study and real world experiment) benefit to both workers and employers, so you wonder why it's taking so long to spread.

One problem is I genuinely believe it has to be mandated. Every company has people who will take any action purely to make themselves look attractive for the next promotion cycle. And if even just one person is actually putting in 50/wk at a company that's supposed to be 32/wk, everyone else is going to feel pressured to work 50.

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#48

Post by BryantD »

tnel77 wrote: post #27
Tyrek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we "actually work" 32 hours out of 40 (80%), what is the likelihood that if we shift to a 32 hour max week, that the average person will only "actually work" ~26 hours (80% of 32) in this hypothetical future? What if at least part of the 20% is spent doing social activities, water cooler conversations, etc. that enable the remaining 80% to flow more efficiently?

I’m all for a shorter workweek, but I definitely expect that the social aspect of a job is good for overall productivity. Maybe I’m weird, but I enjoy asking my coworkers how their weekend was prior to a meeting starting or (back when I was in the office) as we ran into each other in the hallway.

You're not weird. I am not like you, but as a manager it's been important for me to recognize that this isn't at all uncommon.

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#49

Post by vonseel »

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #43
tnel77 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m all for a shorter workweek, but I definitely expect that the social aspect of a job is good for overall productivity. Maybe I’m weird, but I enjoy asking my coworkers how their weekend was prior to a meeting starting or (back when I was in the office) as we ran into each other in the hallway.

Same! You're definitely not alone, even if I do feel like a rare species these days. I really wish we were all going in two or three days a week. This constant wfh is driving me crazy.

People will tell you only lonely people think that way, but I think office socialization is a different kind of thing. At the office you meet and chat with people of all ages and different types. When you're with friends, you're probably hanging with a bunch of people more like yourself.

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#50

Post by devmor »

mc32 wrote: post #20
MEMORYC_RRUPTED wrote: post #7

This won't be valid for everyone, but I'm getting more and more convinced that most (a lot of?) people don't "work" work 40 hours anyway. I'm not even mentally capable of doing 40 intense hours of focussed work. Not saying I don't have other tasks besides coding/thinking in that time, but honestly not for the full slot of time. It just feels to me like some sort of secret we all share and pretend like it's fine, but…

I agree we don't put in a full 40 hours. Unless someone is working a 1950's style assembly line (meatpacking plant for example) few will put in those 40 hours even in manual labor ---you're chatting, playing around, etc. for some time. White collar work, is of course, way worse. There is a lot of slack time in between tasks and meetings and so on. So during those 40 hours, let's say a person delivers 100 work units.…

> So during those 40 hours, let's say a person delivers 100 work units. If we were to say, from now on you only have to work 32 hours, some people will still deliver 100 work units, but many will deliver an approximation to 80 work units. Many people will automatically adjust. People have a "pace of work" that is like breathing.

Perhaps in manual labor, but I don't think this applies to white collar work. The limiting factor in output for this line of work seems to be intellectual exhaustion/burnout, not pacing.

Post reply on HN