The UK needs a four-day week

[Boydy]

Says Professor John Ashton of the UK Faculty of Public Health

"When you look at the way we lead our lives, the stress that people are under, the pressure on time and sickness absence, [work-related] mental health is clearly a major issue. We should be moving towards a four-day week because the problem we have in the world of work is you've got a proportion of the population who are working too hard and a proportion that haven't got jobs", Ashton said.

"We've got a maldistribution of work. The lunch-hour has gone; people just have a sandwich at their desk and carry on working," added the leader of the UK's 3,300 public-health experts working in the NHS, local government and academia.

"We need a four-day week so that people can enjoy their lives, have more time with their families, and maybe reduce high blood pressure because people might start exercising on that extra day.

"If you've got two people in a couple working, they need to be able to work in such a way that they can spend time together with their children. It's a nightmare," said Ashton, who worked in the NHS for 42 years until he retired last year.


"My concern is that too many people are working too long hours and too hard, and too many people aren't working at all. A large number of people are working crazy hours and a significant amount of people can't get work," Ashton said.

"It [a four-day week] is viable. We need an ambition in the next 10 to 20 years to move to that on a European level. We've had the European working-time directive. Why couldn't we have the ambition to move to a four-day week? The fifth day could be a community activity day, a giving back day. This is how you operationalise the big society," he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ess-top-doctor

Yes please.

[Lewis]

I suppose now they've banned fun the 'public health' wankers needed a new hobby.

[Waffdon]

That would be great.

[Yevrah]

Why 4 and not 3 while we're at it?

[Lee]

I'd love a four day but I'm not spending that extra day off doing "community activities".

[Giggles]

That's why shift work is so much better. A regular 4 day working week is never going to happen.

[igor_balis]

It is a shame that I'm exactly the kind of unambitious lazy wanker who would jump at the chance of working 3 or 4 days a week, but in order to gain the seniority in a job to get that privilege I'd need to work really hard for years and years - something obviously impossible with my lazy attitude. Proper catch-22. Guess I'll just have to smash the system by working incompetently for 37.5 hours a week forever instead.

[Manc]

People don't work hard enough. I am one of them.

[Pepe]

Why 4 and not 3 while we're at it?

Good point.

People don't work hard enough. I am one of them.

True. Keeping you 'working' for extended hours makes no difference whatsoever though.

[Pepe]

Somewhat relevant I guess:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-hours/422775/

Over the next century, he predicted, the economy would become so productive that people would barely need to work at all.

For a while, it looked like Keynes was right: In 1930 the average workweek was 47 hours. By 1970 it had fallen to slightly less than 39.

But then something changed. Instead of continuing to decline, the duration of the workweek stayed put; it’s hovered just below 40 hours for nearly five decades.

[Boydy]

It is a shame that I'm exactly the kind of unambitious lazy wanker who would jump at the chance of working 3 or 4 days a week, but in order to gain the seniority in a job to get that privilege I'd need to work really hard for years and years - something obviously impossible with my lazy attitude. Proper catch-22. Guess I'll just have to smash the system by working incompetently for 37.5 hours a week forever instead.

Same

[Lewis]

I suspect that's due to 1) 1930s futurism being balls; 2) working people actually wanting things, which the likes of John Maynard Keynes probably never considered. Or it could all be a conspiracy. I'm not sure. I'll let 'Bernie' solve it.

[Pepe]

Or inequality as the article suggests, which I am sure is what you mean when you say conspiracy.

As mentioned before, I would gladly work 20 hours a week for $30k as opposed to the $80k+ I am supposed to be able to earn for full time work. Of course, such jobs do not exist unfortunately.

[Pepe]

I do think that there are some people who work long hours because they are so fucking boring that they have nothing else to do.

[Yevrah]

Part-time jobs don't exist where you are Pep?

[Lewis]

They don't pay enough for Mr. Time Over Money.

[Pepe]

Not for decent pay, unless I looked outside my field I guess, then maybe I could find something. The whole being a foreigner makes things much more complicated of course, which is why I'll probably move somewhere else as soon as I am done with my studies.

They don't pay enough for Mr. Time Over Money.

I don't think I have ever seen a part-time engineering job. Also, in the great US of A if you're part-time you get no benefits such as the luxurious basic healthcare. I think I would be willing to go back to being a waiter, was working about 30 hours a week for over $30k, but to do that I would have to go back to working illegally which I would rather not.

[Dquincy]

I don't have enough time in a 5 day week to do my work, let alone a 4 day week. Madness.

[Giggles]

I don't have enough time in a 5 day week to do my work, let alone a 4 day week. Madness.

Same as that.

[Boydy]

Yes, that's the maldistribution of work he's talking about in the opening post.

[Giggles]

Yes, that's the maldistribution of work he's talking about in the opening post.

But what can a company do? They can't give me less to do without cutting customers or stumping up for another salary/vehicle. Do they only want large multinationals operating?

[Pepe]

I don't have enough time in a 5 day week to do my work, let alone a 4 day week. Madness.

Same as that.

There should be more than one person doing the work then.

[Lewis]

I'll do your engineering on Fridays if you like.

[Giggles]

There should be more than one person doing the work then.

See above. How can smaller businesses be expected to survive if they are just meant to double their staff to cut down on work?

[Pepe]

I'll do your engineering on Fridays if you like.

Deal.

[Yevrah]

There should be more than one person doing the work then.

Which is where the whole thing falls on its arse.

[Lewis]

Deal.

Enjoy spending your Saturdays undoing my mistakes.

[Pepe]

See above. How can smaller businesses be expected to survive if they are just meant to double their staff to cut down on work?

Oversimplification of course. Still, if you really don't have enough time to do all your work then they are doing a poor job anyway which means they'll go to shit anyway, or you are working extra for free, which makes you a hero (or an idiot maybe.) I have no idea who you work for but if adding one salary is enough to ruin the company then what's the point of owning such a company in the first place?

[Pepe]

Which is where the whole thing falls on its arse.

Why? Are all companies now generating zero profit or so little than an extra hire will ruin them? How do they manage to give their CEOs multi-million bonuses then?

Enjoy spending your Saturdays undoing my mistakes.

Like they'll ever notice.

[Yevrah]

Why? Are all companies now generating zero profit or so little than an extra hire will ruin them? How do they manage to give their CEOs multi-million bonuses then?

Not all companies give their CEO's multi-million pound bonuses.

What this proposal suggests is that every company either lose 20% productivity from their staff, or they pay 20% more to additional staff to cover that.

Add to that that a 5 day working week is absolutely fine in the first place and I'm really not sure what the problem is.

[Pepe]

The problem, according to the article, is the number of health issues associated with work-related stress.

It doesn't suggest 20% decrease in productivity. hours working =/= productivity.

[Yevrah]

Although I guess it all depends on how this is supposed to work.

Do employers just lose 1/5th of their staff's working hours while paying them the same wage, or is it that the same number of hours are spread across 4 days rather than 5?

If it's the latter then it's workable, but I'm not sure I'd want to do that ahead of current arrangements.

[Giggles]

Oversimplification of course. Still, if you really don't have enough time to do all your work then they are doing a poor job anyway which means they'll go to shit anyway, or you are working extra for free, which makes you a hero (or an idiot maybe.) I have no idea who you work for but if adding one salary is enough to ruin the company then what's the point of owning such a company in the first place?

I'll do a few extra hours for free but it only means I'm driving a bit earlier or later. It's the sort of environment where I don't really mind and I enjoy most of the actual work.
One more salary and vehicle wouldn't ruin us but 3 of us doing around 6 extra hours a week (on a busy week) doesn't warrant another one.

[Dquincy]

There should be more than one person doing the work then.

Whilst i do need to improve my delegating, it's not as simple as that. The company needs to balance it's overhead with work load. We have an amount of staff which means a profit can be achieved (providing we hit our monthly fee targets).

Plus when i do delegate my work to staff, it often means it takes longer as i have to review and correct all their stuff. I know it's a means to an end, but still.

[Yevrah]

The problem, according to the article, is the number of health issues associated with work-related stress.

It doesn't suggest 20% decrease in productivity. hours working =/= productivity.

Yeah, I probably chose the wrong word with productivity.

[Dquincy]

But what can a company do? They can't give me less to do without cutting customers or stumping up for another salary/vehicle. Do they only want large multinationals operating?

Exactly. If you reduced to 4 days a week, i'm quite sure my clients will still be expecting the same deadlines. Just don't think it would work at all. Profit margins would be affected in a big way.

[Yevrah]

Plus when i do delegate my work to staff, it often means it takes longer as i have to review and correct all their stuff. I know it's a means to an end, but still.

The reviewing bit's fine, but if you're having to correct a load of stuff then you need better staff.

[Manc]

Leisure time is overrated. Especially now were people are just binge watching TV.

[Dquincy]

The reviewing bit's fine, but if you're having to correct a load of stuff then you need better staff.

Yep, agree to a point. My approach is that with each review of work they produce, the process should shorten as they should be improving. With most staff this happens, but there are the select few where you can tell they just don't have the ability or inclination to improve.

[Dquincy]

Leisure time is overrated. Especially now were people are just binge watching TV.

What did they do in the olden times?...Apart from whack a wheel down a hill with a stick?

[Jimmy Floyd]

It depends on the job. If you do a 'project' based job then you could easily work 4 or even 3 day weeks and get the same amount done, indeed you could argue the quality of the work might improve in some cases.

In my job for example though, you can't condense it, the work is simply there and has to be done on the day in question regardless of who is and isn't there to do it. I'm sure my employers would want everyone to work 7 days if they could.

[Lewis]

Although I guess it all depends on how this is supposed to work.

Do employers just lose 1/5th of their staff's working hours while paying them the same wage, or is it that the same number of hours are spread across 4 days rather than 5?

If it's the latter then it's workable, but I'm not sure I'd want to do that ahead of current arrangements.

Something tells me the sort of twats pushing this (they also seem keen on the idea of 'useless jobs') wouldn't be happy for people to take the pay cut, in which case I expect the company goes bust and the government puts people to work doing productive things such as informing on their neighbours' sugar intake.

[Dquincy]

It depends on the job. If you do a 'project' based job then you could easily work 4 or even 3 day weeks and get the same amount done, indeed you could argue the quality of the work might improve in some cases.

In my job for example though, you can't condense it, the work is simply there and has to be done on the day in question regardless of who is and isn't there to do it. I'm sure my employers would want everyone to work 7 days if they could.

Would never work. Majority of people will always have more than one project...and quite often several. You need 5 days a weeks so you can keep on spinning those various plates.

[Henry]

The guaranteed income might incentive this.

[GS]

Perhaps possible in certain industries, e.g. bar staffing, low-level jobs in the service industry, warehousing etc., but clearly impractical in many environments, particularly professional environments.

[Toby]

To flip Yev's point a bit, why work five days and not six?

[Cord]

I'm not sure about four day weeks, but it strikes me an awful lot of people in this country with pointless office jobs have to commute every day for very little reason.

When I say an awful lot of people I mainly mean me. I spend two grand a year commuting to go and sit at a computer by a phone all day. I could save myself a lot of time and money by just staying at home where I have a phone and a computer, unless otherwise expressly required at work, which would probably be about two weeks a year total.

[Pepe]

Perhaps possible in certain industries, e.g. bar staffing, low-level jobs in the service industry, warehousing etc., but clearly impractical in many environments, particularly professional environments.

Why is it practical to work five instead of six or seven then? If everyone moves to four then it is the same as it is now in your 'professional' environment where things just wait during the weekend already.

[GS]

Why is it practical to work five instead of six or seven then? If everyone moves to four then it is the same as it is now in your 'professional' environment where things just wait during the weekend already.

Because five is now the 'accepted' working week, and life is structured accordingly.

[Boydy]

'Because this is how things are and I can't imagine things ever being any different.'