I actually tried this at my last job, the idea was to start swapping raises for time since I value my time and life far more than the diminishing returns from more (fairly but) heavily taxed raises but the startup I was at was incredibly zealous about long hours so I left.

In this new job I'm hoping to build up a negotiating position where this will be possible again, this time I think the company culture might support it.

So it very much depends on the company and you need to cement your value before you can try it so it's a high risk strategy.

This won't work at a company that inherently values long hours, yes.

And it's much easier at a job you've been at for a while, yes, because then you're much more valuable in a whole bunch of ways. It is doable at new jobs, but that is much harder the first time around.

So you have the right plan:

1. Get a job at company that isn't obsessed with long hours.

2. Stick around for a year so you're extra-valuable.

3. Negotiate shorter workweek.

You will then have easier time negotiating at later jobs, especially if you don't quit ("thanks for the offer, I'd love to come work for you. however, at current job I work 4 days a week... do you think you could match that?")

I started working 30 hours / 4 days a week in my last job. When I started looking for a new job, I told everyone up front that my working time will be 30 hours.

IMHO it was much easier that way than if I had first started full time. Sure, naming your terms will turn off companies that don't like people that have terms, or that absolutely want their workers to be there every day. But that might actually be a good culture filter.

Oh, you don't start full-time on the second job. For the second job you just only ask for shorter workweek _after_ you have the offer.

Obviously it worked out for you with being upfront, so that's great. But you get more offers if you only ask for it once offer is in hand, and more offers == stronger negotiating position.

That seems pretty dishonest to me. You don't have offers in-hand for part time work, you have offers in-hand for full-time work, unless it's brought up during the interview process - and hopefully pretty early, allowing them to bail early if that won't work for them.

> That seems pretty dishonest to me.

It's no more dishonest than the firm not providing their salary constraints up front before/during the interview process.

I don't think two wrongs make something right.

It’s not wrong though. They are offering their terms, to which you are providing a counter offer that includes your terms. Standard negotiation practice.

Not following through with the fully executed agreement is what would be dishonest.

The problem I see is that the term is a pretty exceptional one. The employer reasonably thinks you both have been talking about a full-time position.

It's like going through the whole interview process with a company that's clearly hiring in-office positions, and then only after getting an offer, telling them you will only work remotely. It would be different if it were really part of the negotiation - ie they're offering way less than your asking/current salary, and you're countering with part-time for that same salary (or other benefits) to compensate.

For retail transactions we have bait-and-switch laws which address the same type of issue.

Personally I'd be pissed at whoever wasted my time like that, and wouldn't hire them based on the ethics they're displaying. If they brought it up during the interview process - even as just something they're looking for - I'd respect the fact that they gave me the option of considering it as part of the evaluation, giving me the option to clarify and end the process early if it just wouldn't work for the employer.

This is something I couldn't put into words but that was part of my thinking process. I personally would feel really bad if I knowingly hid this crucial bit of information during the process and then made it my requirement.

Maybe in some other work culture you have to be sneaky if you want a part-time job. Here in Finland I'd expect at least one third of IT companies to happily allow 80% time if you just bring it up.

I think the issue is that salaries are such an arbitrary business as it is.

Pulling out the ok, I'll trade you 25% salary for 25% time at the last minute is pushing the limit.

Then again, I don't think I would personally have a problem with it so maybe you're right?

Most places will check salary constraints at the onset these days. Or at least it's almost standard practice here in Sydney for both recruiter and non recruiters alike.

I do agree though it's a bit on the nose, the expectation is that you'll be working full time hours, not part-time.

Every employer I've had has been _very_ happy with me. And the two companies which hired me not-full-time probably wouldn't have even interviewed me at all if I'd said I wanted a 4-day-workweek upfront.

So basically I am doing a disservice to employers if they filter me out prematurely because they don't know what I can do.

I _do_ make sure to ask about work/life balance early on, so as to prevent wasted time on both sides.

Also, the extra free time will enable you to prepare for a new place. Searching and working fulltime simultaneously is hard.

I've been working between 4 and 2 days a week for more than 5 years now. I am never going back to 5 days. Never.

Are you working as an employee?

Are you classified as a part-time or full-time?

How does this affect your benefits?

Dealing with a drop in pay is one thing, but I think a lot of people are worried about how it will affect how they qualify for things like health insurance coverage, vacation time, etc.

In the US, for IRS purposes of "you must give health insurance or pay a penalty", full-time is 30 hours a week or more. (Specifically companies with >50 employees, IIRC). So as long as you're working 30 hours a week you should be getting health insurance same as the full-time employees.

See https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/identifyin...

(Some health insurance plans in fact _require_ people to be >=30 hours a week to be included on it.)

I am a freelancer. Though working on long term projects - a typical engagement would be between 1 and 3 years. I am lucky enough to live in a country where health insurance is not linked to one's employment.

Tim Ferris got famous (arguably) writing a book about this. It's a bit winding and some of the content is out of date, but the general concepts are good - Four Hour Workweek, probably most here have already heard of it / read it though.

I'm mildly surprised at people's skepticism though, this has been a thing for a while.

His main point is to have people start their own businesses. Whereas what I'm talking about (and in fact also wrote a book about: https://codewithoutrules.com/3dayweekend/) is working shorter hours while still being an employee.

Well, I won't argue what the main point is, I have no idea (I remember the book as being very meandering). But he definitely addressed how someone should get less hours at their job. As I recall:

1. Find an excuse to work from home. Sick, doctor's appointment, just say you wanna work from home, whatever.

2. On that day, get more work done than you've ever done before.

3. Do this consistently.

4. Request regular fridays off, point to your increased productivity.

5. Rinse and repeat until you're totally remote.

6. Reduce actual working hours, taking advantage of less distracting environment and more flexible hours to maintain productivity.

7. Automate wherever possible.

The problem with this is that his book is at this point well known, but at the same time his book made less (but still productive) work more socially accepted, so it's better to just go the honest way.

Does he really suggest lying to your employer?

To take a sick day off? I don't really remember, don't let me put words in his mouth. As I recall it was framed like "find a way to get a day off. Wait until you need to take a sick day if need be."

I really wouldn't read too much into my decade-old-take. I read the book last in 2014.

komali2's comment is accurate.

That's exactly what Tim was talking about in sections of his book, negotiating reduced hours as an employee with existing employers.

I'm not even sure "start your own business" was the main point of 4HWW, so much as it was "Work yourself less on tedium".

This was from memory, and my recollection is he then segues into "and now use this free time to start your dropshipping business or whatever". Perhaps I'm misremembering, though.

I think you're right - it was something like "now you have all this free time, you can do this drop shipping thing to make yourself totally independent of work. Maybe you quit one day!"

The trick is to build yourself a four-hour workweek by starting a business that tells people how great a four-hour workweek is.

Sometimes, all you have to do is ask. I had an ex-employer want me back. They have a 40hr/week culture, mostly onsite, ass-in-seat. I asked for part time (3 days per week) remote. They didn't love it initially. Probably hadn't occurred to them as an option, but after consideration they accepted. Better 24hrs/week than zero I suppose. And I was more motivated to add value for the few precious hours I was on the clock. I bet I produced nearly as well as anyone else physically there (but mentally less focused)

Reading the two links, you are advocating for _negotiating_ a shorter workweek AND a salary cut, no?

Typically this ends up involving a salary cut, yes.

However: the point is to negotiate. And if you're negotiating you can also negotiate other things at the same time. Including your pay.

For my book on negotiating a shorter workweek (https://codewithoutrules.com/3dayweekend) I interviewed multiple people, and I've also heard from readers who successfully negotiated shorter workweeks, and a common theme was that they also negotiated a higher salary while they were at it. Or switched to higher paying jobs, etc.. So even with 20% reduction in pay, they still did OK.

If you're already a great negotiator you might be at top of your expected salary range—but then if you're a programmer at the top of your salary range you're probably in good shape financially to reduce your pay a little.