The perception of lost productivity, whether true or false, would be the opposition. I’m sure with a lot of specific jobs, productivity is highly maximized even at 40 hours. And in customer service positions, you might still need coverage 16 hours a day 7 days a week. So ultimately if your whole team of 12 works 8 fewer hours a week each, they’ll need to hire 3 more people to cover the lost time. If nobody’s weekly pay amount changed, now suddenly your labor costs have risen 25%.
I’d assume they’d pay less so the hourly rate would be the same. Maybe it’s the training and getting up to speed the has a longer payback time? Or just communicating between more people to do the same work is difficult?
The tests I’ve read about in recent times have not netted a loss in pay - simply a reduction in hours but an increase in productivity because workers are well rested and happier with their work life balance.
Again - what you’re describing already exists, it’s called a part time job. If it comes with a loss in pay, then how improved is your work life balance when you have to go get a second job to supplement your income as a result of transitioning to a 32 hour work week? And how much more productive are you going to be if it means you’re now working a 6 or 7 day work week?
I was thinking moreso in terms of higher paying jobs. Programmers often complain about how draining their jobs are, but it pays so well they stay with it. I think a lot of them would be happy for 20% less time for 20% less pay. I’m in engineering, and I would think hard about it as well. I could live off 20% less, and I would be happier with more free time.
Part time doesn’t have benefits does it? Or as many protections against getting fired? So I don’t think that’s exactly equivalent.
The perception of lost productivity, whether true or false, would be the opposition. I’m sure with a lot of specific jobs, productivity is highly maximized even at 40 hours. And in customer service positions, you might still need coverage 16 hours a day 7 days a week. So ultimately if your whole team of 12 works 8 fewer hours a week each, they’ll need to hire 3 more people to cover the lost time. If nobody’s weekly pay amount changed, now suddenly your labor costs have risen 25%.
I’d assume they’d pay less so the hourly rate would be the same. Maybe it’s the training and getting up to speed the has a longer payback time? Or just communicating between more people to do the same work is difficult?
The tests I’ve read about in recent times have not netted a loss in pay - simply a reduction in hours but an increase in productivity because workers are well rested and happier with their work life balance.
Again - what you’re describing already exists, it’s called a part time job. If it comes with a loss in pay, then how improved is your work life balance when you have to go get a second job to supplement your income as a result of transitioning to a 32 hour work week? And how much more productive are you going to be if it means you’re now working a 6 or 7 day work week?
I was thinking moreso in terms of higher paying jobs. Programmers often complain about how draining their jobs are, but it pays so well they stay with it. I think a lot of them would be happy for 20% less time for 20% less pay. I’m in engineering, and I would think hard about it as well. I could live off 20% less, and I would be happier with more free time.
Part time doesn’t have benefits does it? Or as many protections against getting fired? So I don’t think that’s exactly equivalent.