Firms to make four day week permanent.

[yorksrob]

I thought I'd post this, given that it seems to be about the only piece of good news there's been for the last fifteen years.

According to BBC news, It seems the experiment to move to a four day week for the same pay has been a success and is being adopted by a large proportion of companies trialling it. About time too.

Firms in four-day week trial will make it permanent

Many companies taking part in the scheme say productivity has been maintained or improved.

www.bbc.co.uk

Many UK firms taking part in a four-day working week trial have said they will keep it in place after the pilot ends.
More than 70 firms are taking part in the scheme where employees get 100% pay for 80% of their normal hours worked.
At the halfway point in a six-month trial, data shows that productivity has been maintained or improved at the majority of firms.
Though some "old-fashioned" companies taking part in the trial had found the shift to a four-day week "trickier".
Joe O'Connor, chief executive of 4 Week Global, which is running the scheme across a number of countries, said: "We are learning that for many it is a fairly smooth transition and for some there are some understandable hurdles - especially among those which have comparatively fixed or inflexible practices, systems, or cultures which date back well into the last century."
The trial is being run by 4 Day Week, a group campaigning for a shorter working week, along with Autonomy, a think tank and researchers at Cambridge and Oxford universities.
Of the 73 companies in the trial, 41 firms responded to a survey midway through the scheme. Around 86% of those surveyed said they would keep the four-day week policy going after the trial ends.
The majority of firms said it is working well for their business, while 95% said productivity had stayed the same or improved during the shorter week.
More than 3,300 employees are getting one paid day off per week through the course of the trial.
4 Day Week said that employees had benefitted from lower commuting and childcare costs and claimed that a parent with two children would save £3,232.40 on average per year or roughly £269.36 per month.
Will Stronge, director of research at Autonomy, said: "A four-day week with no loss of pay could play a crucial role in supporting workers to make ends meet over the next few years."

Major change​

Waterwise, which campaigns to decrease how much water is used in the UK, is one of the firms taking part in the scheme and says its team are now "pretty happy" - but it took some getting used to.
"It wasn't a walk in the park at the start." said Waterwise managing director Nicci Russell. "But no major change ever is.
"We have all had to work at it," she said. "Some weeks are easier than others and things like annual leave can make it harder to fit everything in, but we're much more settled with it now overall than we were at the start."
"We certainly all love the extra day out of the office and do come back refreshed. It's been great for our wellbeing and we're definitely more productive already."
The UK trial is part of pilots happening in the US, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

 

[nlogax]

Great where it's practicable and something that we should all be striving for. In the short term I just can't see it happening in certain industries where clients have paid for and expect a full five days of a product or service but even here I hope that can change over time.

 

[yorksrob]

Great where it's practicable and something that we should all be striving for. In the short term I just can't see it happening in certain industries where clients have paid for and expect a full five days of a product or service but even here I hope that can change over time.

Hopefully that will change over time.

The article seemed to be suggesting that productivity tended to be higher, or at least not decline in the shorter work period, so the paying customer might not get a raw deal in that case.

Maybe a move to paying for work completed, rather than hourly rates might be a way forward.

 

[3rd rail land]

I work on a programme for my employer whereby the customer has paid for a 24/7/365 service and we are required to have engineers on duty between 8am-6pm on weekdays with the rest covered by on call. We do not have anything like enough staff to enable 4 day weeks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe a move to paying for work completed, rather than hourly rates might be a way forward.

The difficulty with piecework (which for home working does have advantages for both employer and employee) is that it's difficult to tally with the minimum wage, and difficult to quantify in some ways. Depends on the job though.

 

[3rd rail land]

The difficulty with piecework (which for home working does have advantages for both employer and employee) is that it's difficult to tally with the minimum wage, and difficult to quantify in some ways. Depends on the job though.

Perhaps the answer is to pay minimum wage + a fee for work completed?

 

[najaB]

Perhaps the answer is to pay minimum wage + a fee for work completed?

That seems a sensible solution.

 

[3rd rail land]

That seems a sensible solution.

Would act as a motivator for people to get less interesting stuff done. Well it would for me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the answer is to pay minimum wage + a fee for work completed?

That's certainly one option. You do sort of get it in sales jobs - a low base wage plus commission.

 

[kristiang85]

This week is a bit of a trial of a 4-day week I guess, given the late notice of the bank holiday. At first my team was a bit worried as we had a really busy week of deadlines lined up, but all are being met, and so far so good

 

[Cdd89]

Waterwise, which campaigns to decrease how much water is used in the UK, is one of the firms taking part in the scheme and says its team are now "pretty happy" - but it took some getting used to.

I just had a look at Waterwise’s mobile web site, and it’s one of the worst I have ever seen. The menu button has the wrong background colour and a badly contrasting foreground colour, the text on top of the gallery is illegible, the layout is messed up with a dodgy looking search box, and it reeks of a poorly customised Wordpress theme.

Maybe if they had an extra 7.5 hours per week, they could spend it improving their web site

 

[DelayRepay]

In one of my previous roles I worked a nine day fortnight. I'd work extra hours each day then take alternate Fridays off. It worked well for me at the time due to other commitments I had outside of work. It worked ok for the business as I was reasonably flexible about swapping my day off if they particularly needed me. I was also happy for my boss and immediate team to call me on my day off if they needed to ask me something.

I was lucky that I had a colleague with the same arrangement who took the other Fridays off, so we could cover for each other, which meant no complaints from other people who felt they were doing our work when we were off.

I would love the chance to work a four day week again.

 

[Mojo]

I just had a look at Waterwise’s mobile web site, and it’s one of the worst I have ever seen. The menu button has the wrong background colour and a badly contrasting foreground colour, the text on top of the gallery is illegible, the layout is messed up with a dodgy looking search box, and it reeks of a poorly customised Wordpress theme.

Maybe if they had an extra 7.5 hours per week, they could spend it improving their web site

I can barely get their website to work on my computer. Scrolling up and down it is extremely laggy and takes a couple of seconds to actually react to my request.

 

[yorksrob]

I work on a programme for my employer whereby the customer has paid for a 24/7/365 service and we are required to have engineers on duty between 8am-6pm on weekdays with the rest covered by on call. We do not have anything like enough staff to enable 4 day weeks.

Well indeed, but under the current arrangements, we have companies that don't employ enough staff to run their service (TOC's for example).

That's not a reason to dismiss the idea anymore than it would be to dismiss a five day over a six day week.

The difficulty with piecework (which for home working does have advantages for both employer and employee) is that it's difficult to tally with the minimum wage, and difficult to quantify in some ways. Depends on the job though.

I was thinking more of professional work such as lawyers/consultants who charge by the hour, but yes, something ought to be worked out for lower pay roles.

 

[ainsworth74]

I must admit when I worked four days per week for about a year in the 2014/15 time frame it was excellent. Having the Friday to Sunday off every week was wonderful for my mental health and I had so much more time to do things whether that was boring chores or fun stuff like trips out and about. During the working week I always felt more energised than I did during a five day week. Only downside was of course only getting paid for four days work rather than five!

That's not a reason to dismiss the idea anymore than it would be to dismiss a five day over a six day week.

I can't help but wonder if such arguments were deployed when we did move towards there being a five day working week as standard...

 

[tigerroar]

If only. I work a six-day week.

 

[Ashley Hill]

About 50% of my depot are on a 4 day week. Sounds great at first but it ends up with longer diagrams. The rest days are generally paired but obviously not always grouped at weekends. So you could work stupid o’clock in the morning Monday have rest day Tues/Wed and then return for middles the rest of the week. Occasionally you get split RDs eg Wed and Sat. Of course other TOCs and outside firms will differ.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think I'd rather a shorter working day than a 4 day week. Perhaps a 6 hour day (9-4 with an hour for lunch) and half day (9-12) on a Friday to ease going away for a weekend?

 

[3rd rail land]

I think I'd rather a shorter working day than a 4 day week. Perhaps a 6 hour day (9-4 with an hour for lunch) and half day (9-12) on a Friday to ease going away for a weekend?

That sounds better to me than a 4 day week. You could could have people on differing start times to cover usual business hours. Easier to do on a 4.5 day week than a 4 day one.

 

[DelayRepay]

I think I'd rather a shorter working day than a 4 day week. Perhaps a 6 hour day (9-4 with an hour for lunch) and half day (9-12) on a Friday to ease going away for a weekend?

Whilst I'd prefer fewer but longer days, offering employees a range of options would help employers provide flexibility to everyone.

It is interesting that everyone wants Friday off. My former colleague moved to working four days a week (with a pay cut) before retirement, but he decided to have Mondays off. Partly because there were already a few people in the team who didn't work Fridays, so it worked better for the company, but he said he preferred having Mondays off as it made the weekend feel longer.

 

[Broucek]

Easier for some types of job than others... Many office-based roles could be done in c. 80% of the time by "working smarter, not harder" but it wouldn't work in a front-line type role (transport*, retail, hospitality, health)

* unless we could speed trains and buses up

 

[Bletchleyite]

Easier for some types of job than others... Many office-based roles could be done in c. 80% of the time by "working smarter, not harder" but it wouldn't work in a front-line type role (transport*, retail, hospitality, health)

* unless we could speed trains and buses up

It's all about improving productivity, i.e. getting a fifth more (financial) productivity from each employee (overall) so them working 4 days brings in the same amount of money as them working five. That can be done in all sorts of settings - using your examples:

Transport:

• Revenue guards instead of non-revenue guards and separate ticket inspection staff
• DOO (sorry, it has to go in - whether you like it or not it factually does improve productivity by having one person do the job of two)
• Replace paying the bus driver cash after negotiating the price with flat fare contactless so the driver can drive a bus further in the same time (as it moves faster), so fewer drivers are needed for the same service frequency. Similarly, add bus lanes and increase the number of doors
• Run a larger vehicle or longer train less frequently, so one member of staff transports more people

Retail:

• One member of staff supervising say 10 self checkout machines rather than running a till themselves. This doesn't multiply their productivity by 10 but does increase it
• Increased online sales/click and collect means fewer people can serve more customers

Hospitality:

• Order-from-your-table apps mean you don't need as many staff taking orders, so more orders are fulfilled with fewer staff as you only need the kitchen staff and ones taking stuff out to tables
• Online booking of hotels and arrangement of special requests e.g. late checkout means you don't need to take up a member of staff on the phone to do it

Health:

• Online booking of appointments means fewer reception staff
• Electronic communication more efficient than sending letters
• Online prescription ordering more efficient than doing it on paper

I'm sure people can think of lots of things that could be added there.

 

[nw1]

My preference is undoubtedly working the same number of days for less hours.

Three-day weekends are very nice if it's May or June when the weather has half a chance of being good, the days are long, and the landscape is at its most attractive - however working till you drop Mon-Thurs in November or January for the 'reward' of a three-day weekend enjoying the rain and the gloom doesn't sound so much fun.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My preference is undoubtedly working the same number of days for less hours.

Three-day weekends are very nice if it's May or June when the weather has half a chance of being good, the days are long, and the landscape is at its most attractive - however working till you drop Mon-Thurs in November or January for the 'reward' of a three-day weekend enjoying the rain and the gloom doesn't sound so much fun.

One thing that'd enhance my life a lot is actually a two hour lunch break so I could do an hour in the gym then go for a leisurely lunch. I've had projects where that was workable (by working an extra hour on the start/end of the day) but they're fairly rare. Just as many people would probably like to have only 20 minutes so they could spend the extra time with their kids. I guess flexibility is key, which can be offered in office work at least.

 

[GusB]

It's all about improving productivity, i.e. getting a fifth more (financial) productivity from each employee (overall) so them working 4 days brings in the same amount of money as them working five. That can be done in all sorts of settings - using your examples:

Transport:

• Revenue guards instead of non-revenue guards and separate ticket inspection staff
• DOO (sorry, it has to go in - whether you like it or not it factually does improve productivity by having one person do the job of two)
• Replace paying the bus driver cash after negotiating the price with flat fare contactless so the driver can drive a bus further in the same time (as it moves faster), so fewer drivers are needed for the same service frequency. Similarly, add bus lanes and increase the number of doors
• Run a larger vehicle or longer train less frequently, so one member of staff transports more people

Retail:

• One member of staff supervising say 10 self checkout machines rather than running a till themselves. This doesn't multiply their productivity by 10 but does increase it
• Increased online sales/click and collect means fewer people can serve more customers

Hospitality:

• Order-from-your-table apps mean you don't need as many staff taking orders, so more orders are fulfilled with fewer staff as you only need the kitchen staff and ones taking stuff out to tables
• Online booking of hotels and arrangement of special requests e.g. late checkout means you don't need to take up a member of staff on the phone to do it

Health:

• Online booking of appointments means fewer reception staff
• Electronic communication more efficient than sending letters
• Online prescription ordering more efficient than doing it on paper

I'm sure people can think of lots of things that could be added there.

Online this, online that. Fewer this, fewer that.

What an awful world to live in!

I'm absolutely in favour of a four day week, but it's only going to benefit the sort of person who is in a salaried position and works in an office on a 9 to 5 (ish) basis, and quite often these people already have a certain amount of flexibility, be it working from home, flexitime etc.

That list you've provided mostly consists of jobs that are hourly paid, and any reduction in hours worked will automatically result in less money for them at the end of the month. All your proposals do is increase the amount of work that an individual has to do when many are stretched enough as it is.

Let's take your checkouts situation, for example (I use this because I have a fair amount of experience here): it's fine when everything is running smoothly, but when you have six of those tills requiring attention at the same time it ramps up the workload (and stress) considerably. People under stress make mistakes, and it only takes one person under age to ruin your day if you take your eye off the ball.

All of this is fine in your ideal world, but you've given little thought to the people who actually do those jobs.

 

[Broucek]

It's all about improving productivity, i.e. getting a fifth more (financial) productivity from each employee (overall) so them working 4 days brings in the same amount of money as them working five. That can be done in all sorts of settings - using your examples:

Transport:

• Revenue guards instead of non-revenue guards and separate ticket inspection staff
• DOO (sorry, it has to go in - whether you like it or not it factually does improve productivity by having one person do the job of two)
• Replace paying the bus driver cash after negotiating the price with flat fare contactless so the driver can drive a bus further in the same time (as it moves faster), so fewer drivers are needed for the same service frequency. Similarly, add bus lanes and increase the number of doors
• Run a larger vehicle or longer train less frequently, so one member of staff transports more people

Retail:

• One member of staff supervising say 10 self checkout machines rather than running a till themselves. This doesn't multiply their productivity by 10 but does increase it
• Increased online sales/click and collect means fewer people can serve more customers

Hospitality:

• Order-from-your-table apps mean you don't need as many staff taking orders, so more orders are fulfilled with fewer staff as you only need the kitchen staff and ones taking stuff out to tables
• Online booking of hotels and arrangement of special requests e.g. late checkout means you don't need to take up a member of staff on the phone to do it

Health:

• Online booking of appointments means fewer reception staff
• Electronic communication more efficient than sending letters
• Online prescription ordering more efficient than doing it on paper

I'm sure people can think of lots of things that could be added there.

That's a much more thoughtful analysis than my rather superficial comments! I agree if jobs are reconfigured and/or augmented by tech then productivity upgrades are very possible....

 

[DelayRepay]

It's all about improving productivity, i.e. getting a fifth more (financial) productivity from each employee (overall) so them working 4 days brings in the same amount of money as them working five. That can be done in all sorts of settings - using your examples:

Transport:

• Revenue guards instead of non-revenue guards and separate ticket inspection staff
• DOO (sorry, it has to go in - whether you like it or not it factually does improve productivity by having one person do the job of two)
• Replace paying the bus driver cash after negotiating the price with flat fare contactless so the driver can drive a bus further in the same time (as it moves faster), so fewer drivers are needed for the same service frequency. Similarly, add bus lanes and increase the number of doors
• Run a larger vehicle or longer train less frequently, so one member of staff transports more people

Retail:

• One member of staff supervising say 10 self checkout machines rather than running a till themselves. This doesn't multiply their productivity by 10 but does increase it
• Increased online sales/click and collect means fewer people can serve more customers

Hospitality:

• Order-from-your-table apps mean you don't need as many staff taking orders, so more orders are fulfilled with fewer staff as you only need the kitchen staff and ones taking stuff out to tables
• Online booking of hotels and arrangement of special requests e.g. late checkout means you don't need to take up a member of staff on the phone to do it

Health:

• Online booking of appointments means fewer reception staff
• Electronic communication more efficient than sending letters
• Online prescription ordering more efficient than doing it on paper

I'm sure people can think of lots of things that could be added there.

The thing is, companies do all of these things. The question is how to transfer the savings to employees via working less hours for the same money, vs. the traditional approach the company keeping the savings via a lower wage bill.

When I started working in banking 20+ years ago, there were lots of branches, and lots of cashiers serving customers. Now there are a lot less branches, the branches we have are open for less hours, and most customers are quite happy using online services. But that army of cashiers wasn't asked to work less hours for the same money, most of them were made redundant.

Even the recent trend for shorter opening hours hasn't really helped the staff. Most banks that have gone down that route have found other work that the branch staff can do during the afternoons now they're no longer serving customers.

 

[najaB]

I must admit when I worked four days per week for about a year in the 2014/15 time frame it was excellent. Having the Friday to Sunday off every week was wonderful for my mental health and I had so much more time to do things whether that was boring chores or fun stuff like trips out and about. During the working week I always felt more energised than I did during a five day week. Only downside was of course only getting paid for four days work rather than five!

When I worked in the call centre, one of the contracts I was on enabled me to work a three-day week - 8am to 10pm Saturday and Sunday and either 8am to 10pm or 9am to 11pm on Wednesday. A full week's pay with four days off per week.

 

[yorksrob]

The thing is, companies do all of these things. The question is how to transfer the savings to employees via working less hours for the same money, vs. the traditional approach the company keeping the savings via a lower wage bill.

When I started working in banking 20+ years ago, there were lots of branches, and lots of cashiers serving customers. Now there are a lot less branches, the branches we have are open for less hours, and most customers are quite happy using online services. But that army of cashiers wasn't asked to work less hours for the same money, most of them were made redundant.

Even the recent trend for shorter opening hours hasn't really helped the staff. Most banks that have gone down that route have found other work that the branch staff can do during the afternoons now they're no longer serving customers.

I think some people are missing the point of the trial. Key points are:

-People are working for the same money as previously
-Productivity is generally the same or better.

The wider economic picture of this is that you have the same productivity from the employee in terms of their work and they will generate extra productivity in the tertiary sector on their day off.

 

[Cdd89]

I think some people are missing the point of the trial. Key points are:

-People are working for the same money as previously
-Productivity is generally the same or better.

The trial leaves me with plenty of question marks, personally. The first red flag is as follows:

Of the 73 companies in the trial, 41 firms responded to a survey midway through the scheme. Around 86% of those surveyed said they would keep the four-day week policy going after the trial ends.

Why did 32 not respond? If we operate on the basis of 35 companies responding affirmatively, that becomes 48% which doesn’t sound nearly so good.

Second, I can’t imagine those companies which hadn’t found it beneficial would be pleased at being described as “old-fashioned”. That seems like a gratuitous insult to firms who participated in good faith, and makes me question the impartiality of the organisers.

Third, looking at the list of companies, I’m not convinced they are a representative of the employment market in general. Many companies look exceedingly small, and the creative and non-profit sectors are overly represented. It would be interesting to know the full survey results to see the breakdown of which sorts of company found it worked for them — but I can’t see any evidence of that having been published.