We’re all paying for someone else’s 4-hour work week, not ours

Re:We’re all paying for someone else’s 4-hour work week, not... by stanrivers on Monday June 07, 2021 @08:22AM (#27421701)

Is this essentially a place where both employers and employee agree to a 35 hour work week, and then they all agree on the compensation differences because of that arrangement... and then if all good, it just magically works?

I feel like the hard part will be policing this going forward, no? "You said only 35 hours" "Yeah, but we have a deadline and it just moved closer"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re all paying for someone else’s 4-hour work week, not... by strken on Monday June 07, 2021 @09:11AM (#27422137)

You probably want employers who think a 35 hour work week is quantifiably better value, and understand they're harming retention and productivity by having workers work more.

I'm convinced that the marginal hours between 35 and 40 are much less productive than the marginal hours between 25 and 30, and the marginal hours between 50 and 55 may actually be negative.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re all paying for someone else’s 4-hour work week, not... by donatzsky on Monday June 07, 2021 @09:26AM (#27422310)

> the marginal hours between 50 and 55 may actually be negative.

It has in fact been proven to be negative:

https://igda.org/resources-archive/why-crunch-mode-doesnt-wo...

https://lifehacker.com/working-over-40-hours-a-week-makes-yo...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re all paying for someone else’s 4-hour work week, not... by s1artibartfast on Monday June 07, 2021 @09:47AM (#27422560)

, the problem with that is the marginal benefit argument only works white collar workers, who still net value unless it truly goes negative. Blue collar worker value is usually tied to hours on the job.

Also, having personally struggled with overwork and burnout, I can say 60 and 80 weeks can be productive.. Until they aren't.

[ Parent | on HN ]