To think Companies/employers should offered more flexible work, less hours, more annual leave

[Luna9]

Just reading another thread about how unhappy many people is to be working/commuting 5 days per week and I am thinking people will be happier if they could have a bit more flexibility like doing some days/hours from home. Also 35 hours per week instead of 37.5 or 40 and 30 days annual leave.

I understand flexible working doesn’t work for some jobs but it does for many others.

I think people will be more productive and happier.

Just dreaming

The 7 day week thing is completely unrelated- the OP is about working less, not more

It's not unrelated though.

My argument is, if people want the standardised working week to be four days, it might be in a companies best interest to actually open seven days, and have people work on a rota basis. So people can work a four day week, but that might involve working all weekend, or only having one weekend off a month, or working all bank holidays to accommodate it.

So you can have a receptionist job with two staff members both working four days. One of those days can overlap each week (say, whatever the busiest day is) and the rest of the time you have one person in doing the job. It also means sick days/annual leave can be covered more easily as the other person can switch their days.

But people won't agree to that aspect of a shorter week. They don't want to work shifts, weekends or BH's because it inconveniences them.

“I actually did my master thesis on this subject, and where four day weeks and flexible working have been trialled, they have had mostly positive results. Productivity has increased, because well rested, engaged employees are better able to produce quality work than tired, ever present ones.”

I’m still really struggling with how- would you mind expanding? I completely agree well rested colleagues perform better- this is why I leave at 5 and rarely work overtime (unless essential) but how could I perform 5 days work in 4 from being more rested?

The other thing that really bothers me is that colleagues who work 4 days spend an inordinate amount of those 4 days in meetings, because their input is needed and they’re not always present to give it.

Irradiating meetings or project based work which requires it is a huge change and most organisations are decades away from this being a. Reality. Therefore if that kind of change is needed, we are surely decades away from a 4 day week as standard?

Well it’s not that adaline it’s because it costs the company twice as much to employ 2 receptionists

Take the company receptionist - someone has to cover her day off on the 4 day week. Who? Who covers that persons work?

Who covers them when they take the leave they are legally entitled to?

I don't think it's good for anyone to consistently work 40/50/60 hour weeks with no real break except for a few weeks annual leave and weekends. It's not surprising that so many people "burn out" or get mental health issues (stress, anxiety) due to work

This is true, and backed up by research. It's especially pronounced in this day and age, where in most cases both partners have to work in order to make a living, so a lot of 'spare' time is spent on housework and chores. It leaves people constantly chasing their tail, with very little quality leisure time.

Well it’s not that adaline it’s because it costs the company twice as much to employ 2 receptionists

But they'd be open seven days a week, not five. So it's not as simple as "they'd be paying double the salary".

How do you think it works in industries who already operate on a seven day week? People step up and cover on people's days off, people job-share, or there are duty managers to cover all hours of the day. 24h shops will have night managers. It could work that way if people did a four day week too.

Of course it wouldn't work in every single industry but it's more than possible if employers want it to.

Imagine if all gps went on a 4 day week. There woildnt be more appointments available.

There aren't any anyway, and it has nothing to do with a 4 day week.

Several European countries do a 4 day week. It's not compulsory and it depends on the job. I'd love a 4 day week. I might earn less but I'd pay less tax (I am just in 40% band). I also could easily do my job in 4 days if I worked an extra 30-60 minutes on those days. Friday afternoon is basically dead in the industry I'm in.

I appreciate it's not the same everywhere but it works for a lot of people.

Ebugbear- in the companies I’ve worked for, temps or bank staff.

Adaline it makes no sense that you want people to work less but 7days a week. You’re just making an argument for employing more people, which is fine, but it doesn’t benefit the company unless they have a way to generate revenue over the weekend. Any business open at the weekends has done so based on a cost benefit analysis. Traditional “offices”- it’s hard to see what increase in revenue their companies will see by opening head office Saturday and Sunday

I’m still really struggling with how- would you mind expanding?

It was found that in a five day week, there was quite a lot of slack where people weren't fully focused, in part due to tiredness and lack of motivation. Anyone who works in an office will see it on Friday afternoons, when people are less engaged in their work. There is a limit to the amount of time humans can spend fully focused on their work, before concentration starts to wane.

The shift to a four day week reduced this slack time, in part because the employees were less tired, and in part because they felt more valued by the employer, which in turn improved their motivation.

Any business open at the weekends has done so based on a cost benefit analysis. Traditional “offices”- it’s hard to see what increase in revenue their companies will see by opening head office Saturday and Sunday

Like I've said numerous times, it won't work for everyone, but it obviously would work in some situations. Plenty of industries already operate seven days a week with job-shares in place.

I've never worked in an industry that doesn't operate a seven day week so it's normal for me for people to job share and work reduced hours or shift-work. If all the full-timers where I work dropped to a four day week, the place would still operate just fine. But at the moment full-time is five days, so that's what people do.

Who covers them when they take the leave they are legally entitled to?

Same person who covers the one receptionist when s/he does that.

So I guess it’s fair to say those that can and should work 7 days already so then adaline, and they’d be best positioned to trial 4 day weeks?

I do take the point that Fridays, particularly in the afternoon, become less productive, and particularly with staff with repetitive jobs. But when I think of the amount of work my team and I clear most fridays it’s hard to see how that could be kept up. However there is absolutely a Friday or two a month where everyone is flagging and not much of value gets done

The problem is that in her highly skilled, domain specific jobs, the same person needs to be there when everyone else in. It's not easy for a management consultant to stay home on Friday if the client expects progress to happen, or for a delegate to pick up someone's code for a day..

For jobs where it's more shift based, e.g. doctors, checkout staff, it might work.

The French 35 hour week was not a great success and put off a lot of international investors. There they had to repaid the time if they did have to work over for any reason and French friends said it promoter presenteeism more than anything else.

Excuse all the typos. Juggling the proverbial baby!

I prefer the idea of basing most jobs on results, rather than bums on seats. More flexibility is good for employees, but also employers.

What do you mean by results? How do you quantify it?

Vote labour then and you'll only have to work for 32 hours.
A lot of employers are against working from home because the past tells them very little work is done.
You read threads on here about how someone wfh doesn't need childcare. Or spouses expecting someone wfh to be completing domestics and parenting duties.

Really shearwater? I’ve not noticed that at all

My experience was in two law firms, where partners were complaining that new trainees and junior lawyers didn't want to work long hours. I thought "Good on them!" I decided straight away as a trainee that I wasn't going to do stupid hours for the sake of presenteeism, only when there was something that actually needed doing. I wasn't going to waste the best years of my life in an stuffy office.

Hourly paid people on NMW or low wage are unlikely to be able to afford to reduce their hours.

I have just been working with a business who introduced flexible working, better holidays and enhanced sick pay eighteen months ago. Now they’ve just closed 3 sites and 250 people were made redundant.

In a lot of industries the profit margins are not big and people need to be physically there. Living wage and enhanced terms and conditions are great in principle but a lot of businesses, particularly small businesses, simply cannot afford more.

A lot of employers are against working from home because the past tells them very little work is done.

In my experience, most of the employers who are against it have never actually tried it. If the work isn't being done, that should become pretty obvious and the person should be pulled up on it. The job is still the same, so childcare and domestic duties shouldn't be taking focus away from it.

Most people I know who have worked from home (including myself) are conscious that the employer is placing trust in us, so we want to show that we're doing just as much work as we would in the office.

Where I work the senior managers seem to be able to work from home all the time but if the workers suggest it we get told no. Presenteeism is alive and well for the office workers but not for senior managers.

So many jobs are bullshit jobs.

Work for 50 years and then drop dead at work as you won’t be able to afford to retire. What’s the point in it all? Working for years and years making somebody else richer.

I work 21 hours per week, all from home (barring infrequent client meetings - usually 1 per month, max). I have 30 days (pro-rata) annual leave, plus all bank holidays (not pro-rata). I get as much done in 3 days as I used to in 5, and am paid accordingly--basically, I never have pointless time-sucking meetings or people interrupting because I'm not in the office to chat to! All my work is deadline driven with written deliverables, so it's clear what I've achieved. I've never missed a deadline in 8 years of working, either based in an office or at home. However, when I was office-based, I frequently did unpaid overtime because interruptions and meetings meant I couldn't get my work done in the allotted time. I now log off after my 21 hours are up unless I am not happy with the quality of my work in that time (we all have bad days sometimes!).

Most people at the company I work for have some form of part time, flexible working, and frequently work from home. What this means:

minimal meetings
lack of disruption by colleagues chatting around you
no downtime
a fair distribution of work
good will from everyone because we feel like we're treated really well
parents get to fit their work around childcare are are welcomed back post maternity (or paternity... a couple of dads have shorter days with later starts/early finishes to manage a school run)

I'm encouraging my husband to go part time too as a result of my increased happiness, job satisfaction and improved physical and mental health. We're happy to tighten our belts if it means more time to have an actual life!

People who argue against these (much better) conditions: why? I can understand if you are on a horrible wage and can't afford to cut your hours - I've been there myself, trying to squeeze extra minutes of work in minimum wage temp jobs for an extra few pounds at the end of a week - but the other arguments don't match my experiences or those of others I know at all.

I work in the public sector and flexi time is brilliant for me. However my DH is private and they are very rigid.

Probably because the ‘public sector’ isn’t at risk of going broke and isn’t answerable to shareholders. They can afford to be generous with a never ending stream of taxpayers money.

I'm not so keen on home working as you do not have the contact that enables you to do your job well, and some people I think do it to avoid speaking to people. Doorstepping the person (at their work desk) who owes you some information or a decision is very effective I find.

I do think that a shorter working week (even with less pay) works for some, and also adjusted start and finish times to make it easier with travelling arrangements and childcare.