But then you need to hire more staff. I think part of the sell is that it’s no more cost for the employer, since workers get more done in less time. That might not be true for many operational jobs.
It could also lead to better productivity and less turn over with employees which would be a net positive in the end. When I did labour jobs 2 days off was not enough for me to recover, 3 days off would have been better for my body and mental health and maybe I would’ve stuck around longer.
And these were the same excuses used when we went to 40 hours a week and the world kept on turning.
The mill I work in is already set up with shift work…they work 1st shift (week 1), 2nd shift (week 2), 3rd shift (week 3), and then go on long weekend 4 days off. My department runs 21 turns (we are the plant bottleneck by design), meaning 3 shifts of 8 hours, 7 days a week. Most people dont work 7 days straight unwillingly, but regardless of that fact, you need to keep running. Not running is losing money, losing money gets corporate to shut you down, getting shut down means you have no job and the company doesn’t care either way
There is a trade off when dealing with continuous operations. You run into the issue of, “Not running costs more money than running and paying people overtime.” Moving to a 4 day week just means you would likely get forced more into overtime so we can keep steel flowing, not that you get more free time.
Also from the salary side of things, I just spoke to 4 other process engineers and all of us immediately agreed that we cannot get the work done required of us + do the extras of being a floor process engineer in only 4 days. We could get our “requirements” done, but then all of the extra work that we perform would cease. It would actively hurt the company and its profitability, which in turn hurts our job stability. Its really not as cut and dry as people want to make it seem in all instances
all of us immediately agreed that we cannot get the work done required of us + do the extras of being a floor process engineer in only 4 days.
the plural of ‘anecdote’ isn’t ‘data’.
most/all 4-day-work-week experiments collected statistical data showing a strong trend suggesting the extra rest time made both the rote/repetitive work cleaner and the knowledge/expert work faster.
Unless your shop is a weeeird outlier, you stand every chance of coming out of a 4dww trial working more efficiently, more rested, more reliably, more effectively. That’s actually a very common theme in all this, that any ‘loss’ in time or money is eaten up by better work done more effectively when we’re not so tired we’re microsleeping all day and wondering where we are and where we were.
The issue is that these sorts of fields are notorious for not liking to hire more than they have to. They’d rather overwork their existing staff than hire more.
I knew a guy who worked as a machinist, and basically everybody in his company worked 60+ hours every week all year, and the company compensated proper overtime the entire time. The company basically paid double wages for 50% extra labour, and that’s presuming that the employees even did 50% extra work for being tired all the time. The guy quit the job because he couldn’t take it after a few years, so in the end the company had to hire more help anyways.
It’s an issue of culture as well as many other things, and few people want to go against tradition.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
But then you need to hire more staff. I think part of the sell is that it’s no more cost for the employer, since workers get more done in less time. That might not be true for many operational jobs.
It could also lead to better productivity and less turn over with employees which would be a net positive in the end. When I did labour jobs 2 days off was not enough for me to recover, 3 days off would have been better for my body and mental health and maybe I would’ve stuck around longer.
And these were the same excuses used when we went to 40 hours a week and the world kept on turning.
The mill I work in is already set up with shift work…they work 1st shift (week 1), 2nd shift (week 2), 3rd shift (week 3), and then go on long weekend 4 days off. My department runs 21 turns (we are the plant bottleneck by design), meaning 3 shifts of 8 hours, 7 days a week. Most people dont work 7 days straight unwillingly, but regardless of that fact, you need to keep running. Not running is losing money, losing money gets corporate to shut you down, getting shut down means you have no job and the company doesn’t care either way
There is a trade off when dealing with continuous operations. You run into the issue of, “Not running costs more money than running and paying people overtime.” Moving to a 4 day week just means you would likely get forced more into overtime so we can keep steel flowing, not that you get more free time.
Also from the salary side of things, I just spoke to 4 other process engineers and all of us immediately agreed that we cannot get the work done required of us + do the extras of being a floor process engineer in only 4 days. We could get our “requirements” done, but then all of the extra work that we perform would cease. It would actively hurt the company and its profitability, which in turn hurts our job stability. Its really not as cut and dry as people want to make it seem in all instances
Unless your shop is a weeeird outlier, you stand every chance of coming out of a 4dww trial working more efficiently, more rested, more reliably, more effectively. That’s actually a very common theme in all this, that any ‘loss’ in time or money is eaten up by better work done more effectively when we’re not so tired we’re microsleeping all day and wondering where we are and where we were.
The issue is that these sorts of fields are notorious for not liking to hire more than they have to. They’d rather overwork their existing staff than hire more.
I knew a guy who worked as a machinist, and basically everybody in his company worked 60+ hours every week all year, and the company compensated proper overtime the entire time. The company basically paid double wages for 50% extra labour, and that’s presuming that the employees even did 50% extra work for being tired all the time. The guy quit the job because he couldn’t take it after a few years, so in the end the company had to hire more help anyways.
It’s an issue of culture as well as many other things, and few people want to go against tradition.
A strong desire to save money seems a widespread phenomenon.
‘Market Forces’ will ensure these companies starve, since the first shop that CAN adapt will steal the best workers.