454
submitted 1 year ago by sik0fewl@kbin.social to c/canada@lemmy.ca

No Canadian companies involved in a shortened workweek trial intend to revert back to a five-day week, new research from 4 Day Week Global shows.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 65 points 1 year ago

What's never clear in these sorts of articles is if there was any reduction in salaries, or increase in working hours. Like are people going from working 40 hours a week to 32 with no change to their paycheck? Or are they getting paid 20% less? Or are they still working 40 hours, just over 4 days instead of 5?

[-] hellishharlot@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

The 4 day work week is based on the idea that people are more productive with less time to goof off. Work 32 hours for the same pay and you should see the same or better outcomes. So likely the case is yes

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I know that's the idea, but I can't imagine a lot of companies being eager to effectively pay their employees the same for 20% "less work". I know it's a good idea, I just have no confidence in companies. Just look how many of them forced people back to offices during the pandemic despite the safety, cost, and productivity benefits of working from home.

[-] Obi@sopuli.xyz 41 points 1 year ago

Not 20% less work, 20% less time.

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago

Again, I agree. I just don't think suits will see it that way

[-] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Call it a KPI, trend it up. Boom suit support

[-] Kichae@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Of course they won't, but that doesn't mean that that's what's being discussed in these articles.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They are doing more work in less time (and are happier) the tests show.

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

I agree, but that is true for working remotely as well, and look how few companies still offer that now. Most companies don't like to make changes that make their employees lives better, even if there is no downside.

[-] sik0fewl@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm just guessing based on what I've seen elsewhere, but I think it's fewer hours with same pay. I don't think the pay could be less or people wouldn't want to stay with the company, as mentioned in the article.

[-] ninjamice@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My employer was not part of this trial but has been doing this since Spring 2022. There's been no increase in hours/workday or decrease in salary (and in fact, I got a raise---I think most people got at least a COLA).

We ran our own trial and the results are honestly even more positive than I would've thought myself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago

If some companiea can offer fulltime or hybrid WFH to have an advantage in getting employees, some others will.offer 4 day workweeks to be competitive with other companies. Canada can start the trend.

[-] sik0fewl@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

It would help if the governments did it... but I can't see them being a leader on this one because of the optics.

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago

Government treats public servants like shit because it's popular to do so. Nobody wants to believe their tax dollars are going toward somebody having a good job when they themselves don't have a good job.

[-] dom@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

Crabs in a bucket.

Most people fucking suck.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

help if the governments did it

You'd be interested to know that was the sticking point on the recent Fed strike.

And they got it.

I know dozens of people working on unionized government work who were WFH 100% since CoViD day, and haven't been back. Desks were sold/scrapped, leased released, space repurposed. Onsite are a handful of people, usually rotating assignments, for things like shipping/receiving, and the WFH language is baked into the latest contract there too.

The gov people ARE making progress.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

I wish I were that hopeful but I dunno I don't really see it starting. I'd love to be wrong though.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago

Is this

  • cheesy 4-day weeks where it's 4 days x 10 hours; or
  • real 4-day weeks where it's 32 hours a week and no reduction in pay or production?

I'm gonna read the article now, but I'm really expecting to be disappointed. 4-day workweek isn't about job-sharing; it's about realizing the same output with longer weekends and everyone getting the same pay for the same output.

[-] bfr0@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Article unfortunately doesn't specify.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NotAPenguin@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

My boss just mentioned 4 day work weeks.. with the same amount of hours, I said that the idea is less hours, not the same hours crammed into less days and he absolutely refused that that is what people mean with 4 day work weeks..

[-] Kichae@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago

I've been discussing this, lightly, on and off for a couple of years know, and most workers can't wrap their head around the idea, either.

"They'll never do that for us," says the class the owners are completely and totally dependent on.

Your boss is dumb as a bucket of rocks.

[-] Kichae@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

You're, uh, replying to the wrong person.

[-] outdated_belated@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 year ago

To be fair, that statement has fairly broad applicability

[-] jadero@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

To be fair to your employer, he may have conflated two different kinds of 4-day work weeks.

The current discussions are mostly about 32-hour weeks, but there is a very long history of what labour law calls the "modified work week" in which the number of hours per day or days without breaks are changed to allow for alternate scheduling without triggering overtime. I've worked 4-10s, 8 on 6 off, and other oddities since I entered the work force in the early 1970s.

The most common of those is 4-10s, and it's always been known by that name (4-10s) or 4-day week, or "4 and 3", with "4-day week" being the most common in my experience.

I know that my own following of this issue makes it clear that there are a lot of people confusing the two different kinds of 4-day weeks.

[-] sik0fewl@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah... it's definitely gonna take some time to get employers on board.

[-] TiresomeOuting@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

Any list of companies? I would send in a resume. Especially if they are also fully remote.

[-] SpunkyBarnes@geddit.social 11 points 1 year ago

Sanity reigns north of the US. Too bad trickle down doesn’t work, in any form.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Dreadrat@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

Summary of the actual report. You can download it for the price of your email address.

The report presented by 4 Day Week Global evaluates the impacts of a reduced four-day work week over a span of one year. Key findings are as follows:

Employee working hours reduced closer to a target of 32 hours a week after a year, and they were found to work more efficiently. While burnout levels slightly increased after the six-month trial, overall improvement was sustained. Physical and mental health scores, life satisfaction, and work-life balance all improved from the beginning of the trial to 12 months after. Job satisfaction saw a slight regression after 12 months but still remained higher than before the trial. The overall experience of the 4-day week was highly positive with a 9/10 rating, suggesting that reduced work time benefits can be sustained long-term. The report also includes data from businesses in the US, Canada, the UK, and Ireland. The program's design allowed companies to adopt the 4-day week without a specific model, as long as pay was maintained at 100% and employees saw a significant reduction in work time. Notably, none of the participating companies desired to return to a five-day week post-trial.

Additionally, the report indicates improved environmental outcomes, with a 42% increase in employees performing more environmentally friendly activities. Overall, the founders of 4 Day Week Global express enthusiasm for these positive results and the potential widespread adoption of a 4-day work week.

[-] bishopolis@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thank you for this excellent summary. It answers all the questions I had, and it's wonderful news.

[-] Lazz45@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

This works for many businesses, but sadly cannot work for certain industries like manufacturing, steel making, petroleum refining. etc. These are 24/7, 365 operations and running less than that actually costs them money. However, you're usually well compensated in these industries in my experience

[-] BritishJ@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

That's why they have shift workers. Reduce the shift hours to be the same as a 4 day week. Its not hard

[-] sik0fewl@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

But then you need to hire more staff. I think part of the sell is that it's no more cost for the employer, since workers get more done in less time. That might not be true for many operational jobs.

[-] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago

It could also lead to better productivity and less turn over with employees which would be a net positive in the end. When I did labour jobs 2 days off was not enough for me to recover, 3 days off would have been better for my body and mental health and maybe I would've stuck around longer.

And these were the same excuses used when we went to 40 hours a week and the world kept on turning.

[-] Dearche@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

The issue is that these sorts of fields are notorious for not liking to hire more than they have to. They'd rather overwork their existing staff than hire more.

I knew a guy who worked as a machinist, and basically everybody in his company worked 60+ hours every week all year, and the company compensated proper overtime the entire time. The company basically paid double wages for 50% extra labour, and that's presuming that the employees even did 50% extra work for being tired all the time. The guy quit the job because he couldn't take it after a few years, so in the end the company had to hire more help anyways.

It's an issue of culture as well as many other things, and few people want to go against tradition.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

not liking to hire more than they have to

A strong desire to save money seems a widespread phenomenon.

'Market Forces' will ensure these companies starve, since the first shop that CAN adapt will steal the best workers.

[-] Lazz45@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The mill I work in is already set up with shift work....they work 1st shift (week 1), 2nd shift (week 2), 3rd shift (week 3), and then go on long weekend 4 days off. My department runs 21 turns (we are the plant bottleneck by design), meaning 3 shifts of 8 hours, 7 days a week. Most people dont work 7 days straight unwillingly, but regardless of that fact, you need to keep running. Not running is losing money, losing money gets corporate to shut you down, getting shut down means you have no job and the company doesn't care either way

There is a trade off when dealing with continuous operations. You run into the issue of, "Not running costs more money than running and paying people overtime." Moving to a 4 day week just means you would likely get forced more into overtime so we can keep steel flowing, not that you get more free time.

Also from the salary side of things, I just spoke to 4 other process engineers and all of us immediately agreed that we cannot get the work done required of us + do the extras of being a floor process engineer in only 4 days. We could get our "requirements" done, but then all of the extra work that we perform would cease. It would actively hurt the company and its profitability, which in turn hurts our job stability. Its really not as cut and dry as people want to make it seem in all instances

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

We tried to bargain 4 day work weeks years ago at a place I worked, and it was a scheduling nightmare.

Objectively, since we needed to have doors open and responders/equipment operators on site 5 days a week, it would have meant hiring something like 30% more people.

Non-ojectively, when management brought these concerns forward, our position was "that's a management problem".

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

hiring something like 30% more people.

I bet it was ( 5 / 4 or ) 25% more.

Having that one day when external coordination is impossible is why absolutely no business is ever open from Sunday to Thursday or Tuesday to Saturday since they all failed. Except they are.

If you need some scheduling help, you may want to buy a computer and have it help the crunching. At the famous fast food restaurant a while ago, we used tools to ensure adequate coverage against workload; and your problem sounds the same except with one fewer variable. It was 35 years ago, so it probably works as an app on your watch, now.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

Office workers aren't very productive in general. We should focus on greater automation.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

I'm an office worker. I work on automation.

Where's that leave me? Who automates the automaters?

Also, from the office work I've seen, and compared against WFH, I'd agree to SOME reduced productivity - like 20% - but which is regained by allowing experienced people clear work time without interruption (which we get in remote work). The other 80% may actually be difficult to automate as trivially as required for any gains here.

[-] gonesnake@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

And the concordant social safety nets and baseline wealth redistribution that benefit citizens over corporations.

[-] Polar@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

It literally benefits everyone.

How many hours each day do people take to "wake up" and get going? I'd argue people are mostly useless up until close to lunch time. Then, people wind down when the day end is nearing, meaning companies are losing more productive hours each week.

I also would prefer to do longer days if I already dragged my ass out of bed. I don't run for errands daily to make them shorter. I pile them up, then take 4-5 hours one day, vs 1 hour each day. I am already out doing it, might as well do them all, and have more time to relax at home other days.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
454 points (99.3% liked)

Canada

7147 readers
483 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS