If people are as productive in 4 days as they are in 5 days, I don’t see how the employer would be sacrificing anything at all. They would just be saving a day of office lighting bills.
The employer will see that you “could” be doing more work, since you accomplish everything in 4 hours. “You don’t have enough work to occupy your time”, they’d say in my country.
That’s why people act busy. Because when you’re efficient, you get punished with more work.
This is true. My company has afternoons off in the summer (4.5 day work weeks). Basically they acknowledge that no one is doing anything after lunch on a Friday.
The same amount of actual work gets done. It’s actually more efficient because no one is coming up with useless meetings and busywork.
The “sacrifice” is number of total man hours going down. Nevermind that the remaining hours are vastly superior to the ones you lose, that’s a number that’s smaller, and unless that’s “how much we’re paying”, numbers being smaller is a bad thing, mmkay?
If people are as productive in 4 days as they are in 5 days, I don’t see how the employer would be sacrificing anything at all. They would just be saving a day of office lighting bills.
The employer will see that you “could” be doing more work, since you accomplish everything in 4 hours. “You don’t have enough work to occupy your time”, they’d say in my country.
That’s why people act busy. Because when you’re efficient, you get punished with more work.
This is true. My company has afternoons off in the summer (4.5 day work weeks). Basically they acknowledge that no one is doing anything after lunch on a Friday.
The same amount of actual work gets done. It’s actually more efficient because no one is coming up with useless meetings and busywork.
The “sacrifice” is number of total man hours going down. Nevermind that the remaining hours are vastly superior to the ones you lose, that’s a number that’s smaller, and unless that’s “how much we’re paying”, numbers being smaller is a bad thing, mmkay?