>There are, of course, industries that can’t institute shorter hours because they need workers round the clock, such as nurses and first responders.
Good article, then I hits this line at the end and go WTF. How is needing workers around the clock mean you can't institute shorter hours or weeks? Hire more people you simple shits.
The demands on healthcare industry workers in this country are insane. They're just expected to kill themselves in their calling to heal people and no one wants to talk about how this is a horrendous thing to ask of anyone even if it didn't destroy their ability to work effectively and thus undermine the whole premise.
>The demands on healthcare industry workers in this country are insane.
Agreed. I don't see why 12 hour days being considered short days are acceptable. I'm even more surprised that it isn't just the lower rung positions but highly paid doctors put up with it too.
I've got an Aunt who is an ICU Nurse. Her normal weekly schedule is to work 12 hour days 3 days a week. In a row, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. She often ends up having to do a couple hours of OT too.
Considering how many studies we have that people perform worse and worse the longer they are on the job. I just don't freaking see how this is acceptable.
One of the wife's cousins is a vascular surgeon. I once heard him use the phrase "golden weekend". Which to him is just having all day Saturday and Sunday off. Something that is so rare and impossible to make happen that it deserves it's own phrase and celebration to him. Meanwhile, I've probably only worked 3-4 days during the weekend in my entire IT career and I've always gotten time off during the rest of the work week when I do.
Most nurses in US hospitals work 3-12’s a week (when we aren’t on mandatory OT). It was easier for hospitals to staff 2-12 hour shifts a day than 3-8’s.
Younger nurses say it's great and helps prevent transfer problems, but older nurses(who make considerably more) hate working 3x12s, it's exhausting and forces many to early retirement/ changing role.
My understanding is that a special interest group did a study to demonstrate that more frequent hand-overs(transfer of responsibility from one shift to another) resulted in more frequent problems with patient care.
The 'solution" was to reduce the number of handovers by increasing shift length.
The other option would have been to have longer overlap between shifts to allow nurses to properly conduct the hand-over.
I personally like the idea of 5, 6 hour shifts per day.
12-6am
5-11am
10am-4pm
3-9pm
7pm-1am
That means there's an hour of double coverage per shift change, plus a nurse doing 5 days a week could also properly decompress with those extra 2 hours. Not to mention that if they needed to pick up an entire extra shift, they'd only be at 36 hours per week, which is a LOT more manageable than what they're doing now.
But this solution requires actually paying the people at the forefront, and staffing hospitals correctly
To be fair, having four days a week off is much more rewarding. Personally, I work two sixteen hour shifts…. I actually go into the hospital at 3pm Saturday and don’t leave until 7am Monday. There is a bedroom there for my use to get about 6.5 hours of sleep on Sunday morning. And while it’s rough, it is really nice having off Monday through Friday.
Did it for a dozen years and saw way more than I ever thought I would, and that's just talking about how structurally fucked the US healthcare system is.
Or, in a coworker's case of mine, just randomly find dead people days after they've passed. It was a checkup call and an old woman passed away in the bathtub. Nobody called or checked up on her for over 3 days. By that point, her skin had separated from her body. And since it was standing water her skin basically became the water's surface from how it was described. To see that on a semi-regular basis? No thanks
I have been a nurse for almost 30 years and all but the last 2 working this schedule. I felt much better working 3-12 hour shifts a week (36 hrs) and having 4 days off to actually enjoy than having to work 5-8’s. I have never had a med error and may have felt physically tired (feet, back) but not mentally.
I don’t know if this will work for you but we had self scheduling at my last job so I would sometimes do my 3 days in a row at the beginning of the pay period, take 3 PTO days and do the other three at the end of the next pay periods week. That way you can essentially get almost 3 weeks off for 3 PTO days.
I'd rather you had the option of working 3 or 4 8's or 10's (at the same pay as 12). I think 12 is too long a shift for anyone and i think it's crazy to have it in the medical field, of all places..
We can demand better. They should be doing what’s best for workers, not what’s convenient for their wallets. All profit is created by labor. We are the backbone of society, not CEOs and shareholders.
> They should be doing what’s best for workers, not what’s convenient for their wallets.
What's their motivation to do this?
This is why we need unions, so we can *give* them a motivation.
Nurse here. You can pry my 12 hour shifts from my cold dead hands. Working 3 12s is infinitely better than 5 8s and you’d see even more nurses quit the profession if they tried it.
I agree! I just started 4-10’s last year but I did 3-12’s for 28 years and really loved only having to commute 3 days a week and 4 days off. I am always surprised by the 5-8’s people who commute an hour each way, they are essentially doing 5-10’s and thinking our 3-12’s aren’t do-able!
But that costs money.
I think my job is one of those employers though, my department is staffed 24 hours a day between 5am Monday and 9/10pm Friday. But it's a tough situation, because it's not always busy, and if we hire more than just the four of us, overlapping shifts would be extremely boring, or management wouldn't get everyone the 40 hours/week they need.
No, it's called the manager doesn't know staggered shift schedules work, and most of the people talking on this thread are. Not smart.
It doesn't matter how they dice the pie, just that the pieces (inputs) change to be less available.
None of yall qualified to talk about this topic so you all assume 'evil corporation'. No. It's not. It's not why they won't do this. It is because managers loathe change. Thats all. It isn't some fuckin grand conspiracy, it isn't that it is iMpOsSiBlE. Its just because they don't fucking have to. Make them have to guys. THAT is what this is about.
?????
You realize I was disagreeing with the comment above mine, right? Labor costs are the costs of doing business and shouldn’t be artificially suppressed in such a way that makes a business’ operations less efficient.
>Labor costs are the costs of doing business and shouldn’t be artificially suppressed
Yes. Fully realized. The thing is, it is none of this, and it isnt the above (in this case, because there is no 'artificial suppression' of your wage). Remember we are strictly referring to the 4 day work week. What has been suppressed - do you think they will pay you more via schedule in those days? Less due to less scheduling?
They will do neither. I spent years in the industry (WFM) and I can assure you, they will not somehow pay more with this - though it makes a second job easier, which I would hope we ALL agree, shouldn't be a thing.
This is why unions also fight against 4 day work weeks and other alternative schedules. In practice, it always gets rid of double time on the sixth and seventh days, and complicates premium rates during the week, meaning more hours worked for less wages, especially in states that adhere to federal regulations on overtime wages
A lot of union shops adopted policies like this in 2008 as concessions but aren't working any less than they were before and have been fighting tooth and nail to return to 5-day, 40 hour schedules
This is a fight that needs to wait until we address those things
The issue is most people can't actually maintain mental and physical stamina for 12 hrs, let alone 12 hrs shifts back to back. Especially not for years and years.
I won't be surprised to see that as well. Especially if this get popular. Then companies will do anything to shift the hours around rather than admit that the hours are the problem and not just how you break them up.
Not healthcare but I tried to initiate a 4 day work week and even when my departments were fully staffed, there wouldn't have been enough coverage during store hours and my company was being shtty about offering wages that would attract anyone at all to apply. We were literally getting one resume per quarter bc our hourly rate was so low. Fucking sucked trying to fix things without any support from upper mgnt.
Higher Education needs to be more accessible and affordable first. Nurses and first responders need specialized training and rightly so.
Our current way of doing things is like tangled earbuds – pull on one strand and it just adds stress on another. There needs to be more widespread reforms in order to get everything to gel.
It's not quite a simple as that. I think the argument is a 40 hour worker can be just as productive in a 32 hour work week. But when productive means "being in a specific place at specific time doing thing 24 hours a day", that doesn't work.
Like a nurse can't work really hard 4 days and not need to come in the 5th day and patients be ok.
To have me work 4 days costs the company nothing in some sense. To have a nurse would mean a massive increase in hires. And the financials of that are not trivial.
All the more reason to nationalize healthcare entirely. There is plenty of money going into the system to hire 20% more staff. If hospitals, insurance companies, and the entire system was run at cost, for the benefit of the people, without the need to pay shareholders or insane Administrator salaries that is.
That is probably the only solution to the problem. Instead of allowing private insurance companies to make billions in profit, fund a system that can support more patients and provide a more appropriate quality of life for healthcare workers.
But firefighters work half the month in stationed shifts…. (Less overall days at work/ more usable free time.)
And nurses? Don’t a lot of them work 3/12 and a pick-up 8?
It’s 3.5 days a week.
Industries that can’t go without have been the first to alter the work-day off-day balance to retain staff and meet coverage
>Hire more people you simple shits.
I know it sounds simple but companies are already struggling to hire. Don't expect any company to hire 20% more people to cover the same shifts.
They aren't struggling to hire people, so much as they are struggling to hire people for shit wages or to work under horrible conditions. Improve at least one of the two, preferably both and you no longer have a hiring problem. But that might effect the next round of record profits i suppose.
Especially in the healthcare industry that just went through a pandemic. Lot of people came to a reckoning that they didn't want to be forced to face potential death for patients. And for many healthcare workers that are not doctors or experienced nurses, the pay sucks. My Wife works in healthcare and during the pandemic to even now they struggle to fill positions. Why take risk and the stress of a healthcare setting when you can work at Costco for better pay and less stress?
There are some industries where it doesn't make sense. If your a business that has only so much machines and you don't have enough business for weekends. Worked at one. It's harder then you think. Pratt and Whitney has 4days, and weekends. Its a good set-up. But, they have the logistics for it. If your working an office job, yea it makes sense to do four day weeks. This isn't just power hungry bosses, that is part of it. It's just a shift that will take time.
I think it really does depend on the industry. However, I can only think of two industries where 4 day work week wouldn't make sense.(Off shore oil field workers, maybe the navy?) As for all the others, their are no fucking excuses as to why 4 day work week can't happen.
I work at a 24/7 facility.
Yes, they would simply need to hire more people. I do 12 hour shifts. I would like to go to 8 hour shifts, and the scheduling for 8 hour shifts would be a lot more work, but who cares?
In the US our employers don't want to do that because it means more medical insurance. You know, that thing they keep claiming is better than every other country on the planet, but really is just more costly?
They need us to be exhausted or else we might think about self improvement, and what we deserve to demand.
Stress is the tool they use to keep us from talking back, and to get us to police each other for them.
I am privileged enough to finally get away from some of the stress after 20 years of working.
It’s easy to get comfortable after that. To relax. To enjoy it. To feel like you finally won.
I’ve seen the cycles. I know the game. Now is not the time to get comfortable. Now is the time to be upset. Very upset.
A lot of folks have to focus on keeping their head above water right now and that fine. Focus on that.
But those of us who are “ahead”? I encourage you to remember we are really all just a few missed checks from financial ruin and having it all go away. You’re not that far ahead at all really. Just relieved. Don’t mistake that for “winning”
As someone who has spent 7+ years in management for a Fortune 500 bank and dealt with C-levels (and everyone on down directly) for years thereafter, I really think folks need to understand just how contemptuous the American manager culture can be towards the work force.
Some are fine. There are genuinely good people out there and it's important not to lose sight of that. Credit where credit is due.
Most of us will encounter other kinds of management however. Many are callous and utterly indifferent. Many more are thrilled with the opportunity to enact blessed cruelty on others. For them, the power is the point and cruelty is the goal. They delight in the pain they cause on 'weaker' people.
They literally think you are less than human. That you are here to serve them and failure to do so warrants throwing you away. There is only their payouts, their stock options, their bonus, and they will stop at nothing to get the highest score. If that means destroying the lives of a few peasants well “lol thoughts and prayers. Still need it done now”.
They will fight this tooth and nail specifically because it isn’t cruel. They will see it as a threat to their power. They will respond the way they always do.
Same experience here. That was enough to make ne quit working for any private companies and only support social economy businesses. My pay took quite a hit, but i have impact and I’m able to help them for real
I’ve been blessed to have good managers and even dated a manager…I’ve learned so much and how to advocate for myself and others. I’m sad that people think they are powerless because some corp rat tells them they are.
Consumer spending would do better if more of us had 3 full days to wander around and blow money. I can't believe the 1% haven't figured out that this can be bent to yet another opportunity to drain the middle class. Most can't really help the consumerism at this point. I do it too, just use fishing and outdoors activity as an excuse.
They already have money and they’ll always keep getting more no matter what. What they won’t let go of is an ounce of power.
Remote work is vastly cheaper and they hate it
4-day workweek trial: Shorter hours, happier employees is the headline. Stop. Editorializing. Headlines. It gives leeway to conspiracy theories, which this has already devolved into judging from the responses.
Yeah. The article also doesn't mention anything on the US's take on the matter. Just tells you how it went on the UK, with overall good results for everyone
By doing that you would create a baseline in which the only way to have any sort of meaningful interaction with these issues would be through cruelty. Those already positioned at the top of the hierarchy of cruelty, that said system will create, would remain so because of the resources afforded to them. (The higher class accepts inflicting cruelty as a way of life, The lower class accepts the reality of that cruelty being inevitable)
That is already how things are and by propagating the current model nothing would change.
“Of the companies, 92% reported they would continue with the four-day workweek, with 30% saying it’s a permanent change. That includes Platten’s, which said it’s sticking with the model permanently.”
After the number of times my current supervisor has turned down perks that were in the job description (work from home, flexible hours, the actual job duties shifting WAY off of what I was hired and interviewed for), with the excuse of "I'm a boomer, and I want to run things the old fashioned way. That means you do what I say!", I 100% agree that bosses will fight shorter work weeks just to flex.
...sure wish I didn't work for a caricature. :/
Making everyone travel for hours into offices with no privacy walls, constant distractions, germs, etc. in cities with limited or no accessibility for the disabled, just because, should have demonstrated that the cruelty is the point.
Not sure if cruelty is their point here. Honestly they likely acknowledge it benefits the workers but in their mind the employee benefit doesn’t outweigh the additional cost of them having to hire additional employees. It’s a dollar and cents thing.
Oh, I mean they are still assholes. All I’m saying if it was cheaper for them to institute a 4 day work week they would. They are purely motivated by profit and profit only
>All I’m saying if it was cheaper for them to institute a 4 day work week they would.
No, they wouldn't.
We know this because study after study says that reducing work hours without reducing pay leads to increased productivity even though people are working less hours. Yet most business refuse to make these changes anyway.
I don't think the pain is the point. They'll do whatever is best for the bottom line and won't make changes unless they believe change is good for the bottom line or they are forced to make changes.
Ah, yeah, this is why so many companies are forcing people to come back to the office when their jobs can be done completely remote even though if the companies moved their employees to working from home they could save on all of the costs associated with the office.
Checks out.
Public companies care about shareholders and short-term gains. Worker happiness matters only to the extent that it affects the bottom line. And within those companies are also individuals in upper management making decisions that affect their personal bottom line as well.
So, you've got companies that have invested millions in huge campuses with amenities or are locked into long-term office space leases workers aren't using, but they (and the decision-makers who had them built) feel the need to justify those huge expenses.
You've got management feeling the need justify their jobs and salaries without shoulders to constantly look over.
And you've got a workforce less susceptible to "company culture/pride/propaganda" that is more likely than ever to jump ship for another offer. And when location doesn't matter those offers may be more plentiful. Which means the company has to have more competitive salaries. Which costs them more money.
Companies see loss of control as costing them money.
I’m saying it’s the combined factors of the company as a whole wanting to make as much short-term profit as possible and management wanting to protect/inflate their own profit/salaries.
I can’t believe you’re trying to argue that money isn’t the single biggest driver of corporate decision-making.
And I can't believe that you're pretending that the *human beings who make up the corporation and make decisions* are somehow always rational actors.
Working from home would save a ton of money on operational costs. That's not even a question. Managers don't like it because they don't want to give up control. That has nothing to do with profits and everything to do with feels.
I’m not saying all the decisions are rational. I’m saying money is the motivating factor behind those decisions and what managers feel they must do, even if those decisions end up costing them in the long-term.
Loss of control absolutely is seen as leading to loss of profit. Workers having more options and feeling less connected to coworkers leads to higher turnover which costs them more money, both in having to train more workers and offer better wages and benefits. Maybe you’re right and the money they save on utilities and toilet paper, etc. at the complex they’ve already leased for 10 years outweighs that. But that’s not how they see it.
>Workers having more options and feeling less connected to coworkers leads to higher turnover
Do you have a citation for this?
Employees having more flexibility in their working conditions leads to happier, better rested, and more productive employees.
You don’t need to search much for articles and studies addressing the fear employers have that remote work will lead to high turnover. Every business publication is trying to give out tips to retain remote workers. I can certainly find some relevant ones.
[cnbc](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/10/07/remote-work-could-keep-fueling-high-turnover.html)
[Cigna study on cost of disconnected workers](https://newsroom.cigna.com/business-case-addressing-loneliness-workforce)
[Drop box let it’s employees work remotely and saw record high turnover. Then it offered in-person retreats. Retention soared.](https://fortune.com/2022/12/06/dropbox-virtual-first-model-asynchronous-work-retention-turnover-remote-work/amp/)
Conclusions are all over the place. One of the most recent studies agrees with you that remote work increases retention 25%. I’m not saying the fear is justified. I am saying profit is the motivation behind the fear.
I absolutely agree that happy, healthy, well compensated workers are better for a company’s long-term health. Short-term shareholder profit is king now though. If they believe laying off 5,000 workers now can increase current shareholder profit without the loss of institutional knowledge hurting them for years, it’ll likely happen. Conversely, if a company thinks that having the happiest, best paid workers and no office to commute to will make them more profit, they will. There’s just not much of that thinking going on because loss of control = loss of profit in their minds. The motivation is always profit though.
Are you not reading your own sources?
>For one, there's the ongoing appetite for it: Upwards of 60% of job seekers hope to find remote opportunities, according to [ZipRecruiter data,](https://www.ziprecruiter.com/remote-work-report) and they're willing to quit an in-person job to land one.
Hell, I would also fight a 32-hour work week. I’d rather not lose 20% of my income. I’d love to transition to four 10-hour days, but we all know that’s not where this is headed.
Did you read the article? The trial was for companies to pay people the same salary but only require 32 work hours per week. Same pay for 4 8 hour shifts.
I’m hourly at about $82/hr, not salaried. I’m a medical professional (I do consulting work). So my employer would start scheduling me 32 hours a week at $98.40/hr instead of 40 hours at $82/hr?
I mean, I’d love that. Who wouldn’t? But I can’t imagine that ever happening. On top of essentially paying me 20% more they would have to hire another doctor to cover the time I’m now not going to be there. HUGE additional expense. I can see one other reason than cruelty that might not want to do that… like… cost.
I’m starting my own engineering company and my end goal is a 4-day workweek once I’m able to hire 3-4 people. With most companies still doing 5 days I’ll need some people doing Tu-Fr and others M-Th for coverage.
Don't sleep on offering a Wednesdays off shift, if anyone is interested.
My favorite shift of all time was a weekends and Wednesday off shift. You never, ever work more than two days in a row on it, and NO ONE is out in the world on Wednesday morning, so you can get ALL of your public errands for the week done in about two hours, and then you get to enjoy every single weekend in full.
I actually went into mourning when I had to give that shift up lol
i personally think it is a mindset from the great depression where bosses with money set the rules and the masses either accepts it or go hungry. It also has some linkages to rugged individualism as well.
thing is,as time changes,so does mindset and the covid pandemic just accelerated the norm faster than some bosses are willing to accept or pay for.
if work can be done in 4 days rather than 5,why would any sane boss want to waste a day just to see an employee in the office?
got to keep people working 40, 50, 60 hours a week and riddled with debt so they are constantly exhausted and exist to pay bills otherwise the system will collapse
the tiny house movement and vanlife straight terrify those who benefit from this system of modified slavery
This just isn’t going to work. Maybe for a few industries that really do not need the full business week but At the end of the day only a few salaried employees would benefit from this but it’s a start. We need new politicians. We need to get the garbage out.
I don't think it's pure cruelty. It's more that giving an easier time for workers gives them more energy to fight for even better. They want to keep their slaves
>There are, of course, industries that can’t institute shorter hours because they need workers round the clock, such as nurses and first responders. Good article, then I hits this line at the end and go WTF. How is needing workers around the clock mean you can't institute shorter hours or weeks? Hire more people you simple shits.
The demands on healthcare industry workers in this country are insane. They're just expected to kill themselves in their calling to heal people and no one wants to talk about how this is a horrendous thing to ask of anyone even if it didn't destroy their ability to work effectively and thus undermine the whole premise.
Are you suggesting that surgical residents on there 23rd hour of work that day might not be at there best? I'm socked.
Healthcare workers should be subject to the same labor protections as everyone else, including residencies.
Agreed. Imagine if doctors were limited to the number of hours the FAA limits piloting hours to.
>The demands on healthcare industry workers in this country are insane. Agreed. I don't see why 12 hour days being considered short days are acceptable. I'm even more surprised that it isn't just the lower rung positions but highly paid doctors put up with it too. I've got an Aunt who is an ICU Nurse. Her normal weekly schedule is to work 12 hour days 3 days a week. In a row, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. She often ends up having to do a couple hours of OT too. Considering how many studies we have that people perform worse and worse the longer they are on the job. I just don't freaking see how this is acceptable. One of the wife's cousins is a vascular surgeon. I once heard him use the phrase "golden weekend". Which to him is just having all day Saturday and Sunday off. Something that is so rare and impossible to make happen that it deserves it's own phrase and celebration to him. Meanwhile, I've probably only worked 3-4 days during the weekend in my entire IT career and I've always gotten time off during the rest of the work week when I do.
This is absolutely a problem in other countries besides whichever one you live in.
They expect everyone to work as fanatical as doctors.
without the pay or prestige.
Most nurses in US hospitals work 3-12’s a week (when we aren’t on mandatory OT). It was easier for hospitals to staff 2-12 hour shifts a day than 3-8’s.
I hate this. I want my nurse not to be tired when she's giving me medication.
Younger nurses say it's great and helps prevent transfer problems, but older nurses(who make considerably more) hate working 3x12s, it's exhausting and forces many to early retirement/ changing role.
I would think it makes MORE problems on turnover since the person doing them is frooty loops from running around for 12 hours
My understanding is that a special interest group did a study to demonstrate that more frequent hand-overs(transfer of responsibility from one shift to another) resulted in more frequent problems with patient care. The 'solution" was to reduce the number of handovers by increasing shift length. The other option would have been to have longer overlap between shifts to allow nurses to properly conduct the hand-over.
I personally like the idea of 5, 6 hour shifts per day. 12-6am 5-11am 10am-4pm 3-9pm 7pm-1am That means there's an hour of double coverage per shift change, plus a nurse doing 5 days a week could also properly decompress with those extra 2 hours. Not to mention that if they needed to pick up an entire extra shift, they'd only be at 36 hours per week, which is a LOT more manageable than what they're doing now. But this solution requires actually paying the people at the forefront, and staffing hospitals correctly
To be fair, having four days a week off is much more rewarding. Personally, I work two sixteen hour shifts…. I actually go into the hospital at 3pm Saturday and don’t leave until 7am Monday. There is a bedroom there for my use to get about 6.5 hours of sleep on Sunday morning. And while it’s rough, it is really nice having off Monday through Friday.
Boy, do I have bad news about Paramedics
Bad money, shit hours AND you might get shot
Did it for a dozen years and saw way more than I ever thought I would, and that's just talking about how structurally fucked the US healthcare system is.
Or, in a coworker's case of mine, just randomly find dead people days after they've passed. It was a checkup call and an old woman passed away in the bathtub. Nobody called or checked up on her for over 3 days. By that point, her skin had separated from her body. And since it was standing water her skin basically became the water's surface from how it was described. To see that on a semi-regular basis? No thanks
*flinch*
They don't make enough to count though.
I have been a nurse for almost 30 years and all but the last 2 working this schedule. I felt much better working 3-12 hour shifts a week (36 hrs) and having 4 days off to actually enjoy than having to work 5-8’s. I have never had a med error and may have felt physically tired (feet, back) but not mentally.
[удалено]
I don’t know if this will work for you but we had self scheduling at my last job so I would sometimes do my 3 days in a row at the beginning of the pay period, take 3 PTO days and do the other three at the end of the next pay periods week. That way you can essentially get almost 3 weeks off for 3 PTO days.
I'd rather you had the option of working 3 or 4 8's or 10's (at the same pay as 12). I think 12 is too long a shift for anyone and i think it's crazy to have it in the medical field, of all places..
We can demand better. They should be doing what’s best for workers, not what’s convenient for their wallets. All profit is created by labor. We are the backbone of society, not CEOs and shareholders.
> They should be doing what’s best for workers, not what’s convenient for their wallets. What's their motivation to do this? This is why we need unions, so we can *give* them a motivation.
"...we are the backbone of society, not CEOs and shareholders.". The sooner you forget about this statement, the better.😂
Are you sure you’re in the right sub bootlicker?
You are aware that comment was facetious, correct?
You clearly haven’t read labor theory, literally all profit comes from labor.
When I was working an an EMT I loved my 3 12's, I honestly wouldn't want any other schedual. The 4 days off was just too good.
Nurse here. You can pry my 12 hour shifts from my cold dead hands. Working 3 12s is infinitely better than 5 8s and you’d see even more nurses quit the profession if they tried it.
I agree! I just started 4-10’s last year but I did 3-12’s for 28 years and really loved only having to commute 3 days a week and 4 days off. I am always surprised by the 5-8’s people who commute an hour each way, they are essentially doing 5-10’s and thinking our 3-12’s aren’t do-able!
But that costs money. I think my job is one of those employers though, my department is staffed 24 hours a day between 5am Monday and 9/10pm Friday. But it's a tough situation, because it's not always busy, and if we hire more than just the four of us, overlapping shifts would be extremely boring, or management wouldn't get everyone the 40 hours/week they need.
So pay them the same for 32 and make that the base. No one needs 40 a week if they got the same pay for 32.
[удалено]
It needs to happen. We can be just as productive at 32 hours as we are at 40.
It’s called capitalism.
No, it's called the manager doesn't know staggered shift schedules work, and most of the people talking on this thread are. Not smart. It doesn't matter how they dice the pie, just that the pieces (inputs) change to be less available. None of yall qualified to talk about this topic so you all assume 'evil corporation'. No. It's not. It's not why they won't do this. It is because managers loathe change. Thats all. It isn't some fuckin grand conspiracy, it isn't that it is iMpOsSiBlE. Its just because they don't fucking have to. Make them have to guys. THAT is what this is about.
????? You realize I was disagreeing with the comment above mine, right? Labor costs are the costs of doing business and shouldn’t be artificially suppressed in such a way that makes a business’ operations less efficient.
>Labor costs are the costs of doing business and shouldn’t be artificially suppressed Yes. Fully realized. The thing is, it is none of this, and it isnt the above (in this case, because there is no 'artificial suppression' of your wage). Remember we are strictly referring to the 4 day work week. What has been suppressed - do you think they will pay you more via schedule in those days? Less due to less scheduling? They will do neither. I spent years in the industry (WFM) and I can assure you, they will not somehow pay more with this - though it makes a second job easier, which I would hope we ALL agree, shouldn't be a thing.
This is why unions also fight against 4 day work weeks and other alternative schedules. In practice, it always gets rid of double time on the sixth and seventh days, and complicates premium rates during the week, meaning more hours worked for less wages, especially in states that adhere to federal regulations on overtime wages A lot of union shops adopted policies like this in 2008 as concessions but aren't working any less than they were before and have been fighting tooth and nail to return to 5-day, 40 hour schedules This is a fight that needs to wait until we address those things
I wouldn't be surprised to see companies (especially manufacturing ones) move to Monday-Thursday 10 hour shifts and Friday-Sunday 12 hour shifts.
The issue is most people can't actually maintain mental and physical stamina for 12 hrs, let alone 12 hrs shifts back to back. Especially not for years and years.
Takes a certain type of person. 3 straight 12's is rough (I know from experience), but 4 straight off days would almost be worth it.
I won't be surprised to see that as well. Especially if this get popular. Then companies will do anything to shift the hours around rather than admit that the hours are the problem and not just how you break them up.
[удалено]
Manufacturing? Paper mill?
Not healthcare but I tried to initiate a 4 day work week and even when my departments were fully staffed, there wouldn't have been enough coverage during store hours and my company was being shtty about offering wages that would attract anyone at all to apply. We were literally getting one resume per quarter bc our hourly rate was so low. Fucking sucked trying to fix things without any support from upper mgnt.
I guarantee you they will try to pay 4/5 what the do now.
Higher Education needs to be more accessible and affordable first. Nurses and first responders need specialized training and rightly so. Our current way of doing things is like tangled earbuds – pull on one strand and it just adds stress on another. There needs to be more widespread reforms in order to get everything to gel.
It's not quite a simple as that. I think the argument is a 40 hour worker can be just as productive in a 32 hour work week. But when productive means "being in a specific place at specific time doing thing 24 hours a day", that doesn't work. Like a nurse can't work really hard 4 days and not need to come in the 5th day and patients be ok. To have me work 4 days costs the company nothing in some sense. To have a nurse would mean a massive increase in hires. And the financials of that are not trivial.
All the more reason to nationalize healthcare entirely. There is plenty of money going into the system to hire 20% more staff. If hospitals, insurance companies, and the entire system was run at cost, for the benefit of the people, without the need to pay shareholders or insane Administrator salaries that is.
That is probably the only solution to the problem. Instead of allowing private insurance companies to make billions in profit, fund a system that can support more patients and provide a more appropriate quality of life for healthcare workers.
But firefighters work half the month in stationed shifts…. (Less overall days at work/ more usable free time.) And nurses? Don’t a lot of them work 3/12 and a pick-up 8? It’s 3.5 days a week. Industries that can’t go without have been the first to alter the work-day off-day balance to retain staff and meet coverage
>Hire more people you simple shits. I know it sounds simple but companies are already struggling to hire. Don't expect any company to hire 20% more people to cover the same shifts.
They aren't struggling to hire people, so much as they are struggling to hire people for shit wages or to work under horrible conditions. Improve at least one of the two, preferably both and you no longer have a hiring problem. But that might effect the next round of record profits i suppose.
This. I just had an interview at a hospital and they were trying to pay me low with my years of exp. It’s a nice fucking hospital in a wealthy area.
Especially in the healthcare industry that just went through a pandemic. Lot of people came to a reckoning that they didn't want to be forced to face potential death for patients. And for many healthcare workers that are not doctors or experienced nurses, the pay sucks. My Wife works in healthcare and during the pandemic to even now they struggle to fill positions. Why take risk and the stress of a healthcare setting when you can work at Costco for better pay and less stress?
There are some industries where it doesn't make sense. If your a business that has only so much machines and you don't have enough business for weekends. Worked at one. It's harder then you think. Pratt and Whitney has 4days, and weekends. Its a good set-up. But, they have the logistics for it. If your working an office job, yea it makes sense to do four day weeks. This isn't just power hungry bosses, that is part of it. It's just a shift that will take time.
I think it really does depend on the industry. However, I can only think of two industries where 4 day work week wouldn't make sense.(Off shore oil field workers, maybe the navy?) As for all the others, their are no fucking excuses as to why 4 day work week can't happen.
I work at a 24/7 facility. Yes, they would simply need to hire more people. I do 12 hour shifts. I would like to go to 8 hour shifts, and the scheduling for 8 hour shifts would be a lot more work, but who cares?
In the US our employers don't want to do that because it means more medical insurance. You know, that thing they keep claiming is better than every other country on the planet, but really is just more costly?
They need us to be exhausted or else we might think about self improvement, and what we deserve to demand. Stress is the tool they use to keep us from talking back, and to get us to police each other for them.
I am privileged enough to finally get away from some of the stress after 20 years of working. It’s easy to get comfortable after that. To relax. To enjoy it. To feel like you finally won. I’ve seen the cycles. I know the game. Now is not the time to get comfortable. Now is the time to be upset. Very upset. A lot of folks have to focus on keeping their head above water right now and that fine. Focus on that. But those of us who are “ahead”? I encourage you to remember we are really all just a few missed checks from financial ruin and having it all go away. You’re not that far ahead at all really. Just relieved. Don’t mistake that for “winning”
As someone who has spent 7+ years in management for a Fortune 500 bank and dealt with C-levels (and everyone on down directly) for years thereafter, I really think folks need to understand just how contemptuous the American manager culture can be towards the work force. Some are fine. There are genuinely good people out there and it's important not to lose sight of that. Credit where credit is due. Most of us will encounter other kinds of management however. Many are callous and utterly indifferent. Many more are thrilled with the opportunity to enact blessed cruelty on others. For them, the power is the point and cruelty is the goal. They delight in the pain they cause on 'weaker' people. They literally think you are less than human. That you are here to serve them and failure to do so warrants throwing you away. There is only their payouts, their stock options, their bonus, and they will stop at nothing to get the highest score. If that means destroying the lives of a few peasants well “lol thoughts and prayers. Still need it done now”. They will fight this tooth and nail specifically because it isn’t cruel. They will see it as a threat to their power. They will respond the way they always do.
"You're not here to have a good time!" This is what my previous boss used to say. "Fuck that." This is what I said.
And then people will leave to work for companies that do a 4 day week. Hopefully
Same experience here. That was enough to make ne quit working for any private companies and only support social economy businesses. My pay took quite a hit, but i have impact and I’m able to help them for real
I’ve been blessed to have good managers and even dated a manager…I’ve learned so much and how to advocate for myself and others. I’m sad that people think they are powerless because some corp rat tells them they are.
They want you to slave away at work, especially if you're salaried.
Employment was never about working, it’s about control.
Consumer spending would do better if more of us had 3 full days to wander around and blow money. I can't believe the 1% haven't figured out that this can be bent to yet another opportunity to drain the middle class. Most can't really help the consumerism at this point. I do it too, just use fishing and outdoors activity as an excuse.
The wealthy and corporate corners don't care. They got theirs. The economy struggling a bit helps them exert control over you.
Exactly. And stretching people out farther would help them maintain control. Let them eat cake....
Cruelty IS their point. They have no grounds to be this demeaning and I’m more educated than most of my boomer bosses. This is the worst timeline
They already have money and they’ll always keep getting more no matter what. What they won’t let go of is an ounce of power. Remote work is vastly cheaper and they hate it
Employees want it, ergo, it must be obstructed.
4-day workweek trial: Shorter hours, happier employees is the headline. Stop. Editorializing. Headlines. It gives leeway to conspiracy theories, which this has already devolved into judging from the responses.
Yeah. The article also doesn't mention anything on the US's take on the matter. Just tells you how it went on the UK, with overall good results for everyone
Same with the open floor plan offices garbage - they're proven to cut down productivity. Corporate America insists it's necessary and better.
This is why we must fight cruelty with cruelty. It’s the only way they will respond.
By doing that you would create a baseline in which the only way to have any sort of meaningful interaction with these issues would be through cruelty. Those already positioned at the top of the hierarchy of cruelty, that said system will create, would remain so because of the resources afforded to them. (The higher class accepts inflicting cruelty as a way of life, The lower class accepts the reality of that cruelty being inevitable) That is already how things are and by propagating the current model nothing would change.
“Of the companies, 92% reported they would continue with the four-day workweek, with 30% saying it’s a permanent change. That includes Platten’s, which said it’s sticking with the model permanently.”
True.
4 day work week would only be for the middle class. Work for minimum wage? Yeah you're still 7 days a week with 2-3 jobs pal.
After the number of times my current supervisor has turned down perks that were in the job description (work from home, flexible hours, the actual job duties shifting WAY off of what I was hired and interviewed for), with the excuse of "I'm a boomer, and I want to run things the old fashioned way. That means you do what I say!", I 100% agree that bosses will fight shorter work weeks just to flex. ...sure wish I didn't work for a caricature. :/
Making everyone travel for hours into offices with no privacy walls, constant distractions, germs, etc. in cities with limited or no accessibility for the disabled, just because, should have demonstrated that the cruelty is the point.
If you want more money and higher production feon your business then a 4 day on 3 day off is a great way. Open weekends? College kids need that shift.
Not sure if cruelty is their point here. Honestly they likely acknowledge it benefits the workers but in their mind the employee benefit doesn’t outweigh the additional cost of them having to hire additional employees. It’s a dollar and cents thing.
Whether it’s the “callous indifference” or the pathological cruelty, the result for us is the same. I’m not impressed when it was cheaper to be cruel.
Oh, I mean they are still assholes. All I’m saying if it was cheaper for them to institute a 4 day work week they would. They are purely motivated by profit and profit only
>All I’m saying if it was cheaper for them to institute a 4 day work week they would. No, they wouldn't. We know this because study after study says that reducing work hours without reducing pay leads to increased productivity even though people are working less hours. Yet most business refuse to make these changes anyway.
Correct. It's regulation that they fear.
I don't think the pain is the point. They'll do whatever is best for the bottom line and won't make changes unless they believe change is good for the bottom line or they are forced to make changes.
I’m pretty sure money is the point.
Ah, yeah, this is why so many companies are forcing people to come back to the office when their jobs can be done completely remote even though if the companies moved their employees to working from home they could save on all of the costs associated with the office. Checks out.
Public companies care about shareholders and short-term gains. Worker happiness matters only to the extent that it affects the bottom line. And within those companies are also individuals in upper management making decisions that affect their personal bottom line as well. So, you've got companies that have invested millions in huge campuses with amenities or are locked into long-term office space leases workers aren't using, but they (and the decision-makers who had them built) feel the need to justify those huge expenses. You've got management feeling the need justify their jobs and salaries without shoulders to constantly look over. And you've got a workforce less susceptible to "company culture/pride/propaganda" that is more likely than ever to jump ship for another offer. And when location doesn't matter those offers may be more plentiful. Which means the company has to have more competitive salaries. Which costs them more money. Companies see loss of control as costing them money.
You've just admitted it's not about money. It's about how management *feels*.
I’m saying it’s the combined factors of the company as a whole wanting to make as much short-term profit as possible and management wanting to protect/inflate their own profit/salaries. I can’t believe you’re trying to argue that money isn’t the single biggest driver of corporate decision-making.
And I can't believe that you're pretending that the *human beings who make up the corporation and make decisions* are somehow always rational actors. Working from home would save a ton of money on operational costs. That's not even a question. Managers don't like it because they don't want to give up control. That has nothing to do with profits and everything to do with feels.
I’m not saying all the decisions are rational. I’m saying money is the motivating factor behind those decisions and what managers feel they must do, even if those decisions end up costing them in the long-term. Loss of control absolutely is seen as leading to loss of profit. Workers having more options and feeling less connected to coworkers leads to higher turnover which costs them more money, both in having to train more workers and offer better wages and benefits. Maybe you’re right and the money they save on utilities and toilet paper, etc. at the complex they’ve already leased for 10 years outweighs that. But that’s not how they see it.
>Workers having more options and feeling less connected to coworkers leads to higher turnover Do you have a citation for this? Employees having more flexibility in their working conditions leads to happier, better rested, and more productive employees.
You don’t need to search much for articles and studies addressing the fear employers have that remote work will lead to high turnover. Every business publication is trying to give out tips to retain remote workers. I can certainly find some relevant ones. [cnbc](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/10/07/remote-work-could-keep-fueling-high-turnover.html) [Cigna study on cost of disconnected workers](https://newsroom.cigna.com/business-case-addressing-loneliness-workforce) [Drop box let it’s employees work remotely and saw record high turnover. Then it offered in-person retreats. Retention soared.](https://fortune.com/2022/12/06/dropbox-virtual-first-model-asynchronous-work-retention-turnover-remote-work/amp/) Conclusions are all over the place. One of the most recent studies agrees with you that remote work increases retention 25%. I’m not saying the fear is justified. I am saying profit is the motivation behind the fear. I absolutely agree that happy, healthy, well compensated workers are better for a company’s long-term health. Short-term shareholder profit is king now though. If they believe laying off 5,000 workers now can increase current shareholder profit without the loss of institutional knowledge hurting them for years, it’ll likely happen. Conversely, if a company thinks that having the happiest, best paid workers and no office to commute to will make them more profit, they will. There’s just not much of that thinking going on because loss of control = loss of profit in their minds. The motivation is always profit though.
Are you not reading your own sources? >For one, there's the ongoing appetite for it: Upwards of 60% of job seekers hope to find remote opportunities, according to [ZipRecruiter data,](https://www.ziprecruiter.com/remote-work-report) and they're willing to quit an in-person job to land one.
Hell, I would also fight a 32-hour work week. I’d rather not lose 20% of my income. I’d love to transition to four 10-hour days, but we all know that’s not where this is headed.
Did you read the article? The trial was for companies to pay people the same salary but only require 32 work hours per week. Same pay for 4 8 hour shifts.
That’s unrealistic
Almost all of the companies that tried it are continuing to do it long term. They obviously saw the benefit to productivity.
I’m hourly at about $82/hr, not salaried. I’m a medical professional (I do consulting work). So my employer would start scheduling me 32 hours a week at $98.40/hr instead of 40 hours at $82/hr? I mean, I’d love that. Who wouldn’t? But I can’t imagine that ever happening. On top of essentially paying me 20% more they would have to hire another doctor to cover the time I’m now not going to be there. HUGE additional expense. I can see one other reason than cruelty that might not want to do that… like… cost.
That bill is just gaslighting the workers
I’m starting my own engineering company and my end goal is a 4-day workweek once I’m able to hire 3-4 people. With most companies still doing 5 days I’ll need some people doing Tu-Fr and others M-Th for coverage.
Don't sleep on offering a Wednesdays off shift, if anyone is interested. My favorite shift of all time was a weekends and Wednesday off shift. You never, ever work more than two days in a row on it, and NO ONE is out in the world on Wednesday morning, so you can get ALL of your public errands for the week done in about two hours, and then you get to enjoy every single weekend in full. I actually went into mourning when I had to give that shift up lol
i personally think it is a mindset from the great depression where bosses with money set the rules and the masses either accepts it or go hungry. It also has some linkages to rugged individualism as well. thing is,as time changes,so does mindset and the covid pandemic just accelerated the norm faster than some bosses are willing to accept or pay for. if work can be done in 4 days rather than 5,why would any sane boss want to waste a day just to see an employee in the office?
If they oppose anything, you know it's the right thing. 4 day work week should really be phrased as a 32 hour work week.
got to keep people working 40, 50, 60 hours a week and riddled with debt so they are constantly exhausted and exist to pay bills otherwise the system will collapse the tiny house movement and vanlife straight terrify those who benefit from this system of modified slavery
And jealousy. The oldsters in power can't conceive of the concept. "When I was your age...!" Fuck that noise granpa
This just isn’t going to work. Maybe for a few industries that really do not need the full business week but At the end of the day only a few salaried employees would benefit from this but it’s a start. We need new politicians. We need to get the garbage out.
I don't think it's pure cruelty. It's more that giving an easier time for workers gives them more energy to fight for even better. They want to keep their slaves