4 Day Work Week

[Sketcher]

Working four days means either working more hours on those four days, or getting dangerously close to losing full-time benefits (not to mention getting paid less overall). Working more hours can be do-able, but for me it would either mean losing my evenings or losing two hours of sleep.

 

[Nithavela]

I think the intention of OP was to suggest not only a reduction of work days, but also a reduction of workhours by 1/5th, while keeping the same level of remuneration per week.

 

[jayem]

Working four days means either working more hours on those four days, or getting dangerously close to losing full-time benefits (not to mention getting paid less overall).

ACA is still the law on health benefits. It stipulates that all employers of 50 or more FTEs, must provide health insurance, or pay a tax penalty. And any employee working 30 hrs/wk or more, qualifies for coverage. For the last 8 years, I voluntarily reduced my work week to 4 8hr days. So I still qualified for health benefits.

Edited to add: A state may impose a lower threshold at which an employee qualifies for health coverage. So an employer in that state could have to offer benefits to 28 hr/wk employees. But the current federal lower end is 30hrs.

 

[Tallguy88]

I think the intention of OP was to suggest not only a reduction of work days, but also a reduction of workhours by 1/5th, while keeping the same level of remuneration per week.

That will be quite bad for the job market. More jobs sent overseas and more companies hiring fewer people in the states. Such top-down tinkering hurts the working class more than helps us.

 

[High Fidelity]

Wasn't this recently trialled/adopted in Sweden and found to actually be more productive? Or was that the shorter work day?

Either way, it'd be great. We should work to live, not live to work.

 

[Nithavela]

That will be quite bad for the job market. More jobs sent overseas and more companies hiring fewer people in the states. Such top-down tinkering hurts the working class more than helps us.

Maybe you should go back to working six days a week with 10 hours each?

 

[Sketcher]

ACA is still the law on health benefits. It stipulates that all employers of 50 or more FTEs, must provide health insurance, or pay a tax penalty. And any employee working 30 hrs/wk or more, qualifies for coverage. For the last 8 years, I voluntarily reduced my work week to 4 8hr days. So I still qualified for health benefits.

Edited to add: A state may impose a lower threshold at which an employee qualifies for health coverage. So an employer in that state could have to offer benefits to 28 hr/wk employees. But the current federal lower end is 30hrs.

Before that was put into effect, it was in the mid-30's. However, at my workplace, if you routinely put in fewer than 40 hours a week, you could be demoted to part-time status, in spite of it being in the mid-30's at the time. They adjusted this down when that law went into effect, but the point is that the 40 hour work week provided a cushion against hitting that minimum limit. A 32-hour work week would be too close to the 30 hour limit for my comfort, as that is a smaller cushion than we had previously.

Now, I will qualify this by saying I never saw anyone dropped down to part-time, even someone who consistently didn't make those minimum hours due to Crohn's disease. And they had my back when I had to take several weeks off due to medical reasons. But I don't expect every workplace to be as generous.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think the intention of OP was to suggest not only a reduction of work days, but also a reduction of workhours by 1/5th, while keeping the same level of remuneration per week.

That's correct.

 

[Paradoxum]

No kidding. Depending on the industry, 40 hours/week isn't enough to get the required job done.

Maybe more people could be hired (which would help the economy), or the job could be done slower?

 

[Paradoxum]

Just seems like the average person's income will have to suffer from that. Unless we somehow force companies to pay roughly the same wages.

Why should income have to suffer? Productivity has increased, so why not decrease work time?

As for what happened in the past I have no idea. I cannot imagine there wasn't some reduction people had to stomach. Maybe over time it balances out.

Well people worked more in the past, but pay and quality of life is higher now.

 

[Paradoxum]

How would you like it to be enforced legally? By mandating benefits for 4-day workers? By increasing the minimum wage?

A employee can't be required to work 5 or more days in a row in their contract? And a minimum wage could help hold wages at similar levels?

I'm not saying I have it all worked out, I'm just asking the questions. It seems strange that days of work and hours worked fell, but then stopped. At the same time the rich keep getting richer, which normal people don't see much of that.

Are resources going towards making the rich richer, instead of peoples lives better?

 

[MehGuy]

Why should income have to suffer? Productivity has increased, so why not decrease work time

I don't see companies willing to pay people the same wages for less work.

Well people worked more in the past, but pay and quality of life is higher now.

Which is why I questioned that maybe such adjustments settle in time. Although I can't think that people didn't face some decrease in lifestyle for at least a little while in it's initial stages.

 

[Paradoxum]

As I see it the problem isn't that the work week is too long or the work unpleasant or hard.

Couldn't you have said that when people worked 6 days a week, or 16 hours a day? Why arbitrarily be happy with where we are?

To me it just seems like a waste of time working 5/7 days of my life. What's the point if it could be different?

Most employees have no problem with either, but a minority always seems to have problems. I wouldn't let the tail wag the dog here.

That was probably true too in the past. Many people just learn to be happy with the conditions they have to live in. I'd bet humans were relatively happy living in caves thousands of years ago. That doesn't mean the working class should live like that now.

A minority unhappy is what pushes society towards a better future.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'd be fine with the idea. With automation being what it is (and will become), four days a week may be too much for the amount of people in the workforce. More and more and items are being purchased online. Zombie-malls are cropping up. Added to this, driver-less trucks and cars. Amazon has a grocery store that's entirely automated; all your items are charged to your Amazon account. Maybe a minimum income is the idea, but I don't know if they'll be enough people working to cover everyone. Walmart and the government can't hire us all.

Maybe we'll have to conclude that authoritarian unaccountable business is dangerous like authoritarian unaccountable government, and things have to change?

 

[Paradoxum]

I would say the main reason not to do this would be the loss of industry. Much as industries left once minimum wage, work hours, and all sorts of worker's rights were implemented by law...even more industries will leave if a 4 day week is enforced.

Things change. Don't you think the industrialization of the developing world was relevant too?

Employment in the UK (for example) is below 5%. It's not as if there aren't jobs because some jobs have gone away.

 

[Paradoxum]

In principle, one should keep busy 6 days leaving one day for rest.

Why?

 

[Paradoxum]

For most of the world it's simply not a possibility. It may be possible for those who are independently wealthy, have trust funds, or are supported by their parents or someone else.

Why isn't it possible? Why don't people work 6 days a week?

But for most people if you only work 4 days a week then you'll only eat 4 days a week, so to speak. Who can afford to only work 4 days a week?

Many people work 5 days a week. Why don't think only eat 5 days a week? Why don't people work 6 days a week?

Why did work hours decrease in the past? Why now does productive increase, and the rich get richer, but the average person sees little increase in pay, or decrease in work?

 

[Paradoxum]

I couldn't make bank on four days a week unless they were 10 hour days. Most people need full time work to get by, or even more. Mandating less would hurt the working class.

What if people were paid the same (per year) for one less days work?

 

[Paradoxum]

Working four days means either working more hours on those four days, or getting dangerously close to losing full-time benefits (not to mention getting paid less overall). Working more hours can be do-able, but for me it would either mean losing my evenings or losing two hours of sleep.

What if you worked less, but were paid similar?

 

[Paradoxum]

That will be quite bad for the job market. More jobs sent overseas and more companies hiring fewer people in the states. Such top-down tinkering hurts the working class more than helps us.

Why is it okay to work 5 days instead of 6 then?

Is number of jobs really a problem? Unemployment is below 5%. And might not more people be employed to fill the gap of less work days?