• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Anyone noticed anecdotally another uptick in passenger numbers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
3,186
Location
Way on down South London town
I suspect this is exactly the reason why WFH is falling out of favour with employers, who have the reasonable expectation that if they hire someone then the employee will be conscientious and organise their life such that that *aren’t* being constantly distracted by domestic stuff.

Indeed, there’s plenty of roles - train driving being an example of one - where this goes a step further and personal communication devices are explicitly prohibited whilst certain tasks are being undertaken, precisely because they’re a distraction and a disturbance.

I hire a gardener to carry out 4 hours of work one day a week. Like most people I’m reasonable enough to accept that there may be the odd thing that will crop up, but if I found my gardener was routinely “balancing household/family tasks” during the hours I have contracted him to work, then I’ll be seeking a replacement pronto.

Yes and this is exactly why employers vote with their feet and go for organisations that do permit home working. People want more control over their lives, we don’t work flat out every second of the day most of the time. There is 5 or 10 minutes that one can do something outside their working lives. No one is expecting a train driver to do his washing at 125mph nor am I expecting my gardener to take my gardening home with him. For normal office based work, working from home as the past few years have demonstrated is perfectly possible.

Our productivity problem in this country is a lack of dynamism and vision. A lack of self promotion in favour of British modesty, and an increasingly nihilistic culture in British society in which nothing really matters anyway, so why bother work hard or do anything?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
9,705
Location
Croydon
Well let’s not impose a false binary; “toxic office culture” might well be an issue in some work places, but not in all. And hasn’t mental health worsened since working from home has increased? Other countries seem to combine higher productivity with better work life balance.

Working from home isn’t a solution to toxic office culture, neither does it address low productivity.
I always thought about being self employed. That way I could cut out the bull from management and the need to support someone else's profits.

Various offices I have worked in and some have been good and some have been bad. Usually bad management has been the problem - down right aggression. My solution was to move on as I wanted to do useful work. But other people might prefer to just sit tight as often the management was too incapable to actually get work out of people or discipline them properly.
You mean working which gives us the wherewithal to enjoy our lives? I guess elements of the population were too busy thinking about their great Covid bunk to consider that the workforce provides us with the goods and services that we all need, want and/or enjoy.

Hence part of the reason why everything is now more expensive, and contrary to how many people seem to understand it, falling inflation doesn’t mean prices fall, just that they’re *rising* less fast.
I think for many people they do not really think about work providing what the want or need. Just remember not everyone is as sensible, if they were sensible then there are many jobs that they would be over qualified for and so would not do.

It might come down to something simple like seeing the CASH you have earned at the end of EVERY WEEK is as deep as the motivation can get. Going back many years I knew of people who were completely rattled by the switch to monthly pay - and it happened more recently with those on benefits.

For many in low paid jobs the benefits system possibly provides more as the commuting costs are wiped out. Possibly a number of people worked it out at the end of Lockdown when they realised they did not want to go back to work.
That only holds true if, as an employer, you can get rid of a poor performer and replace them with someone better.

Notwithstanding the fact that it’s harder to dismiss someone for mediocre, as opposed to poor, performance, with the shortage of quality labour at the moment it may well be the case that either a replacement can’t be found, or the replacement is just as ineffective.

And if the workplace is something like a public-sector one, then getting rid of people for poor performance is somewhat harder.
Yes it is not that easy to get rid of "passengers" (rights not responsibilities). But also not easy to replace the slackers if the supply of good labour might not be there to compete with. Lets not forget we cut off the supply of workers from Europe. I saw a number of Europeans leave after we voted to leave Europe (sister in law saw all her French colleagues go back to France soon after we voted to leave - my guess is they took up vacancies in Paris before other French people did, I als saw a few leave from my workplace - or rather not replaced).
Absolutely. It’s extraordinary how many struggle to understand that at a conceptual level. Admittedly in my case an A level in economics means I have some insight into the basics (and only the basics ;)), but it’s hardly a difficult concept for most reasonably switched on people to grasp - or so you’d think.
Don't assume everyone else could get to your level of understanding.
I’m sure there’s a lot of truth in that, but it doesn’t really explain why we do worse than comparator countries, unless we conclude that a. We have a lazier workforce than average (if so, why!?), and/or b. we have failed to properly balance our economy between service industries and other sectors for the past few decades.

Neither is exactly great, and I suspect both are true to some degree, and neither bode well for our future…
I am fairly sure that the UK work force has less of a work ethic than it did decades ago. Some of that is we teach children about their rights but seem to forget to impress upon them their responsibilities. Some of it is that work just does not seem so bearable these days.

I think all Covid19 and lockdowns has done is make some more people who would/did work lose the work ethic and thus show up deeper problems with the UKs work ethic.

I am rater struck with the notion many have that people in all levels of work should be smart enough and ambitious enough. On thing I have learnt in over 45 years of work is that many are not as ambitious etc as I am. We need those people and we need them to do what we would not do. So it is too simplistic to tar them with my own brush so to speak.

Not everyone is the same.

What I do think is many would tolerate their work if they had to commute less often - I look back on some of my commutes and would never do that again. I ended up working a walking distance from home - I took a pay cut for an opportunity but it actually roughly matched the savings in my commuting costs. After that I could never go back to commuting again by rail, I do not know how or why I endured it for so long. Many others will have seen the futility of commuting since Covid19 lockdowns so there is a new reluctance to succumb to the drudgery of travelling to work.
 
Last edited:

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
3,186
Location
Way on down South London town
How very unreasonable of you. Didn't you know that people are entitled to carry out all manner of non-work-related tasks during the working day these days? It's their right to go and visit family, go shopping, do housework and watch some daytime telly whilst being paid by their employer. It's the 'new normal', apparently.

How tiresome.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,402
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Yes and this is exactly why employers vote with their feet and go for organisations that do permit home working. People want more control over their lives, we don’t work flat out every second of the day most of the time. There is 5 or 10 minutes that one can do something outside their working lives. No one is expecting a train driver to do his washing at 125mph nor am I expecting my gardener to take my gardening home with him. For normal office based work, working from home as the past few years have demonstrated is perfectly possible.

Yet productivity seems to be poor, and employers are shifting away from it. One can make the fair prediction that as time goes on employees won’t have the option to vote with their feet in this way, as the shift back to the office continues.

Our productivity problem in this country is a lack of dynamism and vision. A lack of self promotion in favour of British modesty, and an increasingly nihilistic culture in British society in which nothing really matters anyway, so why bother work hard or do anything?

What sums up “nothing matters anyway, so why bother” than people who can’t even be bothered to get up, dress up smartly, and attend a workplace for their contracted hours? Having said that, I do agree there does seem to be a culture of having given up in this country, but I see WFH as being one facet of this.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,402
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I always thought about being self employed. That way I could cut out the bull from management and the need to support someone else's profits.

There’s an element of “grass is greener” with being self-employed. Yes it cuts out elements of office politics, but by the same token you are well and truly on your own, and many of the things which are taken for granted when employed by someone else suddenly come into sharp focus, right down to having to do a tax return. And note how the self-employed tended to come off rather worse during the Covid response.



What I do think is many would tolerate their work if they had to commute less often - I look back on some of my commutes and would never do that again. I ended up working a walking distance from home - I took a pay cut for an opportunity but it actually roughly matched the savings in my commuting costs. After that I could never go back to commuting again by rail, I do not know how or why I endured it for so long. Many others will have seen the futility of commuting since Covid19 lockdowns so there is a new reluctance to succumb to the drudgery of travelling to work.

Is commuting *that* bad? Most people choose to work a distance away because overall the benefits (probably higher pay, or in some cases access to jobs they don’t have locally) outweigh the disbenefits. If sufficiently capacity was provided then commuting wouldn’t need to be that bad.
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
3,186
Location
Way on down South London town
Yet productivity seems to be poor, and employers are shifting away from it. One can make the fair prediction that as time goes on employees won’t have the option to vote with their feet in this way, as the shift back to the office continues.



What sums up “nothing matters anyway, so why bother” than people who can’t even be bothered to get up, dress up smartly, and attend a workplace for their contracted hours? Having said that, I do agree there does seem to be a culture of having given up in this country, but I see WFH as being one facet of this.

Any employer who thinks dragging resentful employees back to the office will raise productivity is deluded.

Perhaps we should consider why people want to work from home:

Unpleasant or expensive commutes
Lack of adequate Childcare provision
Unpleasant/incompetent management
Long hours with not enough work to fill the time

Addressing these issues might actually raise productivity faster than having a jolly good laugh at people who don’t want to spend 8 hours at a desk when they don’t need to be.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,656
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Is commuting *that* bad? Most people choose to work a distance away because overall the benefits (probably higher pay, or in some cases access to jobs they don’t have locally) outweigh the disbenefits. If sufficiently capacity was provided then commuting wouldn’t need to be that bad.

Typical London commuting seriously compromises quality of life. Most people are leaving home before 7am and not getting home until well after 7pm, which tends to mean you don't see enough of your kids, family meals are compromised and lack of sleep amasses during the week. A commute of more than an hour may be accepted as a "least worst", but it's certainly not good and it'd be best if we as society could try to move away from it. Even if the railway was perfect!

Car commutes of much over an hour are dangerous - people are driving far too tired.

I've done both of these in the past, and I would never wish to do them again. Two days a week yes (ideally not two consecutive ones to allow sleep recovery) but no more than that.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,656
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What sums up “nothing matters anyway, so why bother” than people who can’t even be bothered to get up, dress up smartly, and attend a workplace for their contracted hours? Having said that, I do agree there does seem to be a culture of having given up in this country, but I see WFH as being one facet of this.

Uncomfortable smart dress is another off-putter for the office. People should be allowed to dress comfortably yet presentably, e.g. wearing a company branded polo, chinos and comfortable trainers or similar. The suit and tie and traditional brogue shoe are uncomfortable, impractical garments that deserve relegating to the 20th century as a piece of history.
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
3,186
Location
Way on down South London town
Typical London commuting seriously compromises quality of life. Most people are leaving home before 7am and not getting home until well after 7pm, which tends to mean you don't see enough of your kids, family meals are compromised and lack of sleep amasses during the week. A commute of more than an hour may be accepted as a "least worst", but it's certainly not good and it'd be best if we as society could try to move away from it. Even if the railway was perfect!

Car commutes of much over an hour are dangerous - people are driving far too tired.

Good lord yes. I remember daily Morden branch Northern Line commuting in 2018. It was truly awful.
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
Is commuting *that* bad? Most people choose to work a distance away because overall the benefits (probably higher pay, or in some cases access to jobs they don’t have locally) outweigh the disbenefits. If sufficiently capacity was provided then commuting wouldn’t need to be that bad.

Surely the main reason for commuting, or at least choosing to live some distance away from your location of work is the benefit of being able to afford a nice property in leafy suburbia where your money goes much further than it would in the city.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
9,705
Location
Croydon
There’s an element of “grass is greener” with being self-employed. Yes it cuts out elements of office politics, but by the same token you are well and truly on your own, and many of the things which are taken for granted when employed by someone else suddenly come into sharp focus, right down to having to do a tax return. And note how the self-employed tended to come off rather worse during the Covid response.
Oh - the tax return. I finally shook off their desire for me to fill one in about fifteen years ago !.

No wonder people want to work for cash - maybe its not the tax itself that they hate BUT having to fill in a tax return !.
Is commuting *that* bad? Most people choose to work a distance away because overall the benefits (probably higher pay, or in some cases access to jobs they don’t have locally) outweigh the disbenefits. If sufficiently capacity was provided then commuting wouldn’t need to be that bad.
I would say commuting was bad for me and must have been for many more.

I remember having to get to Victoria before the Victoria line platforms closed in the morning and being stuffed if my journey to Victoria was delayed. That was before 1988 and was still happening last time I checked in about 2018 ? - so before Covid19 and likely before the new access route to the Victoria line was opened.

I also remember the packed Southbound platform at Oxford Circus in the evening, stuck in the foot tunnel leading from the Eastbound Central line. I used to work around two hours extra just for a quiet journey home (did not have flexible enough hours to start late and finish late or start early and finish early). That is when I started to yearn for fewer longer days - I was working two hours per day extra anyway and not getting paid for it plus I could have one day less commuting.

Typical London commuting seriously compromises quality of life. Most people are leaving home before 7am and not getting home until well after 7pm, which tends to mean you don't see enough of your kids, family meals are compromised and lack of sleep amasses during the week. A commute of more than an hour may be accepted as a "least worst", but it's certainly not good and it'd be best if we as society could try to move away from it. Even if the railway was perfect!

Car commutes of much over an hour are dangerous - people are driving far too tired.

I've done both of these in the past, and I would never wish to do them again. Two days a week yes (ideally not two consecutive ones to allow sleep recovery) but no more than that.
I agree. Moving closer to London (Croydon) made it better but I still had to endure the tube.
Uncomfortable smart dress is another off-putter for the office. People should be allowed to dress comfortably yet presentably, e.g. wearing a company branded polo, chinos and comfortable trainers or similar. The suit and tie and traditional brogue shoe are uncomfortable, impractical garments that deserve relegating to the 20th century as a piece of history.
Yes I think dress standards have become less demanding over time. One thing was back in the 1980s I had to wear a suit but women could wear something cheaper, more comfortable and likely to be different every day.

I would still wear a suit for an interview !.
That is if I was not retired !.

Yes. I really think a lot of people have seen the other side of the fence since lockdowns.
Not production workers mind, just those who can (technically) work from home have seen the "other way".

Personally I was was in a role that required me to be in the factory so lockdown was something I envied. Except working from home was never my thing - I worked that out in the late 1980s when there were transport strikes every Wednesday. So I would not have wanted to work from home after lockdown ended BUT I would have wanted to work a lot nearer to home to avoid the commuting.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,402
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Surely the main reason for commuting, or at least choosing to live some distance away from your location of work is the benefit of being able to afford a nice property in leafy suburbia where your money goes much further than it would in the city.

Part of the issue here is possibly that commuting distances have tended to stretch over the past couple of decades. Just looking at my local rail service, back in the 1980s places like Hitchin and Letchworth (roughly 30 minutes from London) were typical commuter towns. The 1990s pushed it out towards the likes of Cambridge and Peterborough, and nowadays there’s people who routinely travel in from further still - places like Kings Lynn or Newark. Bet it’s the same on the Midland side.

This does raise the question as to why there seems to be insufficient availability of desirable / affordable housing in London itself, and why people seem to be increasingly taking the view that London no longer offers a good standard of living relative to elsewhere.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,402
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Uncomfortable smart dress is another off-putter for the office. People should be allowed to dress comfortably yet presentably, e.g. wearing a company branded polo, chinos and comfortable trainers or similar. The suit and tie and traditional brogue shoe are uncomfortable, impractical garments that deserve relegating to the 20th century as a piece of history.

I think that standard of dress went out the window some while ago. But I’d take issue with the idea that a suit and tie is somehow so uncomfortable as to be awful. I wear one, and don’t find it uncomfortable at all. It makes a statement of making some effort.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
9,705
Location
Croydon
Part of the issue here is possibly that commuting distances have tended to stretch over the past couple of decades. Just looking at my local rail service, back in the 1980s places like Hitchin and Letchworth (roughly 30 minutes from London) were typical commuter towns. The 1990s pushed it out towards the likes of Cambridge and Peterborough, and nowadays there’s people who routinely travel in from further still - places like Kings Lynn or Newark. Bet it’s the same on the Midland side.

This does raise the question as to why there seems to be insufficient availability of desirable / affordable housing in London itself, and why people seem to be increasingly taking the view that London no longer offers a good standard of living relative to elsewhere.
I think London is in danger of pricing itself out of existence.

For many people the only way they can live in London is to rent a house and get housing benefit. It is easier for an unemployed person to get housing benefit so London is becoming impossible for a large section of working people.

I moved nearer to London when I could afford to buy a house there (Croydon). I earn't more than most so I could do it. For many people living in London is not an option.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,656
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think that standard of dress went out the window some while ago. But I’d take issue with the idea that a suit and tie is somehow so uncomfortable as to be awful. I wear one, and don’t find it uncomfortable at all. It makes a statement of making some effort.

I prefer to make that statement using the quality of my work.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,379
Location
Yorks
How very unreasonable of you. Didn't you know that people are entitled to carry out all manner of non-work-related tasks during the working day these days? It's their right to go and visit family, go shopping, do housework and watch some daytime telly whilst being paid by their employer. It's the 'new normal', apparently.

Lets just go to the four day week and have done with it (then people might have time to do their chores outside of work hours).

I go into the office most of the time because I find it a better working environment, however I just find that work takes up so much time. If it weren't for the need to pay my way in our feudal housing system, I'd probably drop some hours.

Infact, scrap the four day week. In a civilised society, one would be able to spend ones time 50:50 work/leisure and still be able to meet ones needs
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,402
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Infact, scrap the four day week. In a civilised society, one would be able to spend ones time 50:50 work/leisure and still be able to meet ones needs

But if everyone thought like this…

…what would happen is there would be a massive fall in the supply of labour, which in turn would mean a massive fall in the provision of goods and services, as the country as a whole would be less productive. Meanwhile with more leisure time if anything demand for these goods and services would increase, let alone stay the same. So the result would be absolutely massive inflation.

I can guarantee you absolutely wouldn’t be able to meet your needs when you suddenly find prices have increased in a way that would make the post-Covid spike in inflation look like a walk in the park.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,379
Location
Yorks
But if everyone thought like this…

…what would happen is there would be a massive fall in the supply of labour, which in turn would mean a massive fall in the provision of goods and services, as the country as a whole would be less productive. Meanwhile with more leisure time if anything demand for these goods and services would increase, let alone stay the same. So the result would be absolutely massive inflation.

I can guarantee you absolutely wouldn’t be able to meet your needs when you suddenly find prices have increased in a way that would make the post-Covid spike in inflation look like a walk in the park.

But if everyone had thought like this two hundred years ago, we'd still be stuck with a six day week (with a day off for church).

Plys what is all the automation/extra productivity for if it isn't for freeing up peoples spare time (lining the pockets of the billionaires probably, but such developments ought to be geared towards improving the lives of working people).
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,875
Typical London commuting seriously compromises quality of life. Most people are leaving home before 7am and not getting home until well after 7pm
This isn’t correct. Most London commuters have a journey of well under an hour, not least because most people who work in London live in London.
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
Infact, scrap the four day week. In a civilised society, one would be able to spend ones time 50:50 work/leisure and still be able to meet ones needs

If we assume an 8-hour average working day 5 days a week then your work/leisure balance is already 33:66 (rounded down and not including commuting to and from the workplace) which doesn't even include weekends. if you're advocating a 50:50 work/leisure balance then I'd suggest you need to work more hours.
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
But if everyone thought like this…

…what would happen is there would be a massive fall in the supply of labour, which in turn would mean a massive fall in the provision of goods and services, as the country as a whole would be less productive. Meanwhile with more leisure time if anything demand for these goods and services would increase, let alone stay the same. So the result would be absolutely massive inflation.

I can guarantee you absolutely wouldn’t be able to meet your needs when you suddenly find prices have increased in a way that would make the post-Covid spike in inflation look like a walk in the park.

Quite the opposite. A 50:50 work/leisure balance would see people working 12-hour days seven days a week. Productivity would be greatly increased, as would fatigue no doubt.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,656
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Quite the opposite. A 50:50 work/leisure balance would see people working 12-hour days seven days a week. Productivity would be greatly increased, as would fatigue no doubt.

I don't think most people would consider sleep to be a leisure activity, rather it's a physiological necessity. Thus, any sensible discussion is about waking hours only.
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
I don't think most people would consider sleep to be a leisure activity, rather it's a physiological necessity. Thus, any sensible discussion is about waking hours only.

Then an 8-hour working day still gives you a 50:50 work/leisure balance on each day that is worked, plus any additional rest days / weekend. If people struggle to fit the rest of their lives around that then I would say their organisational skills are rather lacking.
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
3,186
Location
Way on down South London town
Then an 8-hour working day still gives you a 50:50 work/leisure balance on each day that is worked, plus any additional rest days / weekend. If people struggle to fit the rest of their lives around that then I would say their organisational skills are rather lacking.

Cooking, cleaning, commuting, childcare...
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,402
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Quite the opposite. A 50:50 work/leisure balance would see people working 12-hour days seven days a week. Productivity would be greatly increased, as would fatigue no doubt.

I suspect when people talk about 50/50 they mean in terms of days when they attend work at some point. rather than hours worked. I guess this is why some people are so keen on WFH, as they can notionally compress everything into 3 days of circa 12 hours. I bet in practice this would be way less productive though.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,379
Location
Yorks
Lets just go to the four day week and have done with it (then people might have time to do their chores outside of work hours).

I go into the office most of the time because I find it a better working environment, however I just find that work takes up so much time. If it weren't for the need to pay my way in our feudal housing system, I'd probably drop some hours.

Infact, scrap the four day week. In a civilised society, one would be able to spend ones time 50:50 work/leisure and still be able to meet ones needs

If we assume an 8-hour average working day 5 days a week then your work/leisure balance is already 33:66 (rounded down and not including commuting to and from the workplace) which doesn't even include weekends. if you're advocating a 50:50 work/leisure balance then I'd suggest you need to work more hours.

Then an 8-hour working day still gives you a 50:50 work/leisure balance on each day that is worked, plus any additional rest days / weekend. If people struggle to fit the rest of their lives around that then I would say their organisational skills are rather lacking.

Yes, I mean in terms of days.

I do sometimes manage to arrange an early morning of work then have most of the day off, but I find work knackers me for the rest of the day.

It should be 3 and a half days at work, three and a half off.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,379
Location
Yorks
I suspect when people talk about 50/50 they mean in terms of days when they attend work at some point. rather than hours worked. I guess this is why some people are so keen on WFH, as they can notionally compress everything into 3 days of circa 12 hours. I bet in practice this would be way less productive though.

I did some twelve hour shifts when temping at a colour matchers (this was quite fun) but anything involving problem solving/liaising I'd be flagging towards the end of that.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,402
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I did some twelve hour shifts when temping at a colour matchers (this was quite fun) but anything involving problem solving/liaising I'd be flagging towards the end of that.

Yeah exactly it doesn’t really work, so this is the problem with aiming for a 3.5-day week. It can’t be done without a massive loss of productivity. In essence, it would be highly inflationary.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,379
Location
Yorks
Yeah exactly it doesn’t really work, so this is the problem with aiming for a 3.5-day week. It can’t be done without a massive loss of productivity. In essence, it would be highly inflationary.

True to an extent (although its interesting the number of companies in the recent four day week trial that didn't report a drop in productivity. I suspect that where people had the prospect of an extra day, they did more of their allotted work tasks in a shorter time).

But this is where the advances from technical development should be used to free workers time for a change.

A four day week is a reasonable compromise towards this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top