Experiments with a shorter workweek have shown that shown that working fewer hours improves worker well-being and productivity. But we can’t expect employers to implement this transformative change of their own volition.
Experiments with a shorter workweek have shown that shown that working fewer hours improves worker well-being and productivity. But we can’t expect employers to implement this transformative change of their own volition.
So some people are going to work four days a week, but management is still working six?
Are companies supposed to double their workforce to cover the missing day? Who pays for all those additional employees? If employees are only working four days a week, are they taking a pay cut? Or are businesses expected to pay the same wages for fewer hours?
What about small businesses? Where are they supposed to find the additional revenue? And how are they supposed to compete with companies that continue operating on a traditional five-day schedule?
What about people like me who are paid based on completed work orders? Do I suddenly need to complete 14 work orders a day just to make the same income? Or do we charge homeowners significantly more to make up the difference?
And what about business owners themselves? Do they only work four days a week, too?
Every time this idea comes up, people talk about the benefits, but they rarely explain how the math is supposed to work in industries where revenue is directly tied to labor and hours worked.
You would be more productive per hour in a 32 hour work week than in 40, simply by being more rested. Because of this, you don’t really produce much less in 4 days than in 5.
Your boss can still pay you based on completed work orders. Because you’ll be able to complete more every day, because you’re more productive.
If you’re compensated based on hourly work, your hourly rate just needs to increase by 20%, which is fair, because you’re still getting the same amount of work done.
People are telling you how this works and how we solve the issues. Try listening to them instead of being closed minded.
Did you even read the questions I asked?
I do not work hourly. Where is that missing 20% of revenue supposed to come from? Are employers supposed to magically generate it out of thin air?
I already complete seven work orders a day. If I lose a day or two of work each week, I would have to increase that to nine or more work orders per day just to make up the difference. No matter how you slice it, I would lose a significant amount of income on a four-day work week.
We cannot simply raise our flat rates either. This is a competitive industry. If we raise prices too much, another company will undercut us and take the business. That is how markets work.
And you still have not answered one of my main questions: what about the companies that want or need to operate more than four days a week?
I will freely admit that there are monopolies and conglomerates in certain sectors of the economy. But competition absolutely still exists throughout much of the private sector, especially among small businesses.
There is no giant nationwide conglomerate dominating plumbing, electrical work, or appliance repair. Those industries are overwhelmingly made up of small companies competing with each other.
What frustrates me is that you are not actually addressing the concerns being raised. You keep focusing on a few specific points while ignoring the larger practical questions about labor costs, revenue, staffing, competition, and business viability.
A four-day work week may work in some industries. I do not dispute that. But saying it is broadly feasible across most industries in America ignores the economic realities many businesses and workers face.
The work week we have today did not appear out of nowhere. It developed because of a large number of economic, logistical, and operational factors.