The trial leaves me with plenty of question marks, personally. The first red flag is as follows:
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.
I can't speak for the companies but:
1) Some may be making their minds up.
2) "Gratuitous insult" ? Companies need to be thinner skinned in this day and age
3) More conservative companies are less likely to be in the vanguard of such a change, but some might be persuaded with good evidence. Don't forget we've not had the final report yet.
It would be interesting to speculate what an effect such a change would have on those dreadful companies that rely on hours and hours of unpaid overtime. Some work practices need to be gotten rid of, regardless of whether some companies like them or not.