41–50 of 211 posts
If you did the study in the IT-industry. What would the result be if you would measure code commits and code quality for a large sample of programmers with [4,6,8] working hours?
They're abandoning it because of an obvious requirement? Did someone not realize that in a 24 hour operation that consists of physical activities, cutting hours would require more people to carry the same workload?
Then again, the hours that were cut also wouldn't have to be paid to the people not working them. In a perfect situation this would have led to higher employment numbers and happier employees. However, the Bloomberg source[1] also mentions that pay was not cut, which led to the overhead costs. You are right that this consequence could've been seen from miles away. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/sw…
Which is why this is very close to just propaganda against a 6h work day.
If you did the study in the IT-industry. What would the result be if you would measure code commits and code quality for a large sample of programmers with [4,6,8] working hours?
In short: http://nesma.org/2015/01/programmer-productivity-is-waste-of...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory, it is 7 hours a day (for 35 hours a week contracts). In reality, most office workers are pulling unpaid extra hours. It's also possible to get 38.5 or 40 hours contracts, where you would get extra holidays to compensate (over a year). I've worked as a programmer in France, Canada and England. In my experience France and England are pretty much the same in terms of work-time (8 hours/day, 5 week holiday), C…
For the holiday length mentioned, out of curiosity, which length is it? 5 weeks x (5 days / per work week) = 25 days off or 5 weeks x (7 days / per week) = 35 days off
Contracts always state the period in days, or hours for part-time workers, but it's normal to divide by five and say "weeks" in conversation.
They're abandoning it because of an obvious requirement? Did someone not realize that in a 24 hour operation that consists of physical activities, cutting hours would require more people to carry the same workload?
"Preliminary results concluded that it achieved all of these aims, but the city had to employ an extra 17 staff, costing 12m kroner (£1.4m), Bloomberg reported."
Am I missing something because that seems painfully obvious without even having to to undertake the experiment no?
That being said I absolutely love that the Swedish government was willing to entertain such an idea and undertake such an experiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory, it is 7 hours a day (for 35 hours a week contracts). In reality, most office workers are pulling unpaid extra hours. It's also possible to get 38.5 or 40 hours contracts, where you would get extra holidays to compensate (over a year). I've worked as a programmer in France, Canada and England. In my experience France and England are pretty much the same in terms of work-time (8 hours/day, 5 week holiday), C…
For the holiday length mentioned, out of curiosity, which length is it? 5 weeks x (5 days / per work week) = 25 days off or 5 weeks x (7 days / per week) = 35 days off
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive_2003
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea is that costs ballooned more than expected. That shouldn't be shocking either - each shift change requires people to scrub in, pass on information from the previous shift, and so on - but it's a deeper question than adding new staff to cover the missing hours.
The numbers suggest this is not the case. They needed 17 extra employees for 68 existing staff members. Naively, one would expect that for 68 x 8 = 544 man hours per week, one would need 544/6 = 91 (rounded up) employees. Yet 68+17 = 85, which is six employees less !
They're abandoning it because of an obvious requirement? Did someone not realize that in a 24 hour operation that consists of physical activities, cutting hours would require more people to carry the same workload?
Yeah this sentence was a bit of an anticlimax: "Preliminary results concluded that it achieved all of these aims, but the city had to employ an extra 17 staff, costing 12m kroner (£1.4m), Bloomberg reported." Am I missing something because that seems painfully obvious without even having to to undertake the experiment no? That being said I absolutely love that the Swedish government was willing to entertain such an i…
They're abandoning it because of an obvious requirement? Did someone not realize that in a 24 hour operation that consists of physical activities, cutting hours would require more people to carry the same workload?
In the US the 8 hour work day was established by FDR with one feature being that it would tighten the labor market (and reduce unemployment) by forcing employers to hire more people.
1: The Rise and Fall of American Growth, by Robert Gordon.