Four day week

Thanks Ginny 42 for your comments and also to Growstuff for not wanting to belittle me and my efforts to explain the poor management decisions which lead to over manning and eventually, poorly motivated staff.

I rest my case.

Ginny It wasn't an attempt to belittle, so no need to have a go at me. No, I don't like to feel superior.

However, if somebody isn't working the hours he or she is paid to work, that person is not providing good value to the organisation. There are a number of reasons that happens, some of which are historic. Management doesn't always take into account changes resulting from technology, etc. It's more likely to happen in large organisations because managers themselves are protecting their roles.

There are also cases, particularly in the public sector, where additional relatively low skilled and low paid jobs are created to provide a cheaper alternative to highly paid workers doing work below their capability and pay level. Unfortunately, such moves don't always result in higher productivity. It means that the workload can e spread unevenly, with some people rushed off their feet and others waiting for instructions because they're not in a position to use their own initiative.

This was such a brilliant informative discussion of aspects of working life I had no experience of. Thank you.

It was spoiled by your attempts growstuff to seek to belittle pantglas2, about her honest account of her working experience years ago, which added to the conversation, whereas for some reason you chose to make a very personal challenge to her. Unnecessary and arrogant. No idea why you would wish to do that, unless it was because you like to feel superior.

Callistemon Clearing out cupboards was a job to be done during holiday time.

My first job was in the Hospital Secretary's department of a psychiatric hospital. It was a very busy job and I always had plenty to do - as did my colleagues.

Following that, I mostly worked in the private sector, spending the majority of my working years in provincial and central London law practices. In the last few years of my working life I re-trained as an adult literacy teacher for adult education services - and that was a job which was emotionally rewarding but extremely hard work and, given the number of hours required to do the job properly, very poorly paid. In the end, I was so exhausted and out-of-pocket that I had to return to work in a law firm.

When my children were very young I did a lot of temping in both the private and public sector. Some of these jobs were very busy and stressful, and some were not - and that wasn't dependent on whether they were in the public or the private sector. However, private sector jobs were generally better paid.

Whilst some jobs are not 9-5 type jobs, it is possible to adequately cover the hours needed through the use of shifts. This is done anyway in many jobs, such as nursing, public transport, etc, etc.

As I said before, any change in working hours or pay is always met with people throwing their hands up in horror and saying that it is not feasible. My feeling is that workers who are not physically and mentally exhausted are likely to be far better employees - and parents - and generally more productive within our society. People who are tired and trying to do too much over the course of a long working day are also likely to have low morale, poor motivation and little commitment and loyalty to a job or employer.

I accept that it would be quite challenging to try and make changes to working hours, but just because difficulties are likely to be encountered at first and adjustments made to meet them, that is no reason to just dismiss the whole idea. After all, radical changes were made in the past and the country didn't fall apart.

I wish I'd ever had a job where I had the time to clear out cupboards
growstuff that is a preconception; it is entirely dependent on what was in the cupboards/freezers.

Ha ha! I know you’re cleverer than that Growstuff (given the job you do and your qualifications to get that far) and are choosing to misinterpret my work ethic - for whatever reason.

I left one job after a month because I wanted more work and they couldn’t/wouldn’t give me any and the last one (30 hours) I retired early from and they’ve now got a young girl doing exactly the same work spread over 37hours and are paying more for it!

Every other clever person I’ve told that story to thinks it’s ludicrous and most are totally peed off that public money is being wasted that way!

If this is personal you need to explain fully as I haven’t the foggiest why!

You've just admitted you weren't! You spent half your time looking for extra work, so you obviously weren't good value to whatever organisation employed you.

To be honest, jura, I think the idea of a four day week is an irrelevance. For some people, it would work, but it wouldn't for others and would be almost impossible to enforce, especially as approximately one in seven people are self-employed.

I really think politicians of all parties fail to grasp the realities of current working practices, insecure contracts, low wages and high prices in areas such as rents and transport - the essentials. They're all more interested in appealing headlines, which don't seem to take into account unintended consequences.

I’m sorry Growstuff was that for me? In what way wasn’t I productive?

Maybe not, but you obviously weren't very productive.

Just been to see Ken Loach's new film 'Sorry we missed you' - about a couple from Newcastle. She working for an agency looking after the elderly in their home- and the other down and out and getting a 'supposedly franchise job' = zero contract, inhumane delivery van job. Both working all hours and falling further and further backwards - harrowing. Just don't know how it fits into a 4 day week- for sure.

Will never ever complain at a delivery man- if you order from Amazon and co- make sure you go watch the film- and know the reality behind. No wonder some delivery men drive like crazy, a phone to one hear and tapping on another device at the same time. Sick.

I’m sure the problems with lazy folks abound in both sectors - I was lucky not to have met many!

Maybe you should have trained for a front-line job in the public sector. You wouldn't ever have had to ask for more work, although you might have been frustrated at how lazy some admin staff are.

All my jobs until the last two were at private companies where of course they got their money’s worth!

Never had a problem with a hard day’s work for a hard day’s pay but found the stringing it out malarkey in the public sector more tiring and taxing than the former.

Imagine having to ask for more work rather than less Growstuff! Beggars belief doesn’t it?

Why didn't you go and get a job in a private company, if it was so bad?

Believe me, it's no fun working a 70+ hour week.

Believe me Growstuff- no one with any gumption would want a job where there wasn’t enough work to fill the contracted hours!

There’s nothing more soul destroying than knowing you’ve done everything for the day and then have to look busy for a couple of hours when the boss is around!

I worked in another full time job (Council) which only had a mornings work to keep busy but was told it as funded as a full time post and would remain that way! It was suggested I slow down and shut up.....I lasted a month!

Could somebody please say where this story originated? As far as I can work out, John McDonnell commissioned a report, but Lord Skidelsky concluded that a four day working week across the board isn't feasible.

I wish I'd ever had a job when I had time to clear out cupboards. :-(

Grandad I can see that a 32 hour week would work in some sectors, but it's difficult to see how it would work in others.

Most of what is considered "full time" employment contracts in present times are now for thirty six or thirty seven hours per week. What the Labour Party are proposing is those hours would be reduced to a thirty two hour four day week brought about over the next ten years.

Those proposals give any Business more than ample time to consider how they would adapt to that change, and in that, necessity is the mother of invention.

By example, I was an HGV driver in the Road Transport Industry in the 1970s when prior to the Health & Safety At Work Act coming into being huge amounts of manual handling was carried out throughout the industry, and trailers were all " flatbed ropes and sheets" type construction. It was stated that such work practice and equipment were an essential requirement of the industry and everyone agreed with that thinking.

However, with the introduction of the above act manual handling was severely regulated, therfore forklifts and Palletization of goods quickly came about and curtain side or box trailers were introduced along with tail lifts throughout the industry. Within a few years we all became much more productive, healthier and safer in our jobs to the benefit of not just the employees but also the employers.

Therefore, should the Labour proposals come into being there will be a ten year period for all industries and employers in those industries to bring forward and develop working methods and practises that will incorporate the new regulations.

Legislation always places a floor under all that it encompasses and therefore equality in competition. It was child employment legislation that eventually prevented chimney sweeps pushing kids up chimneys to the benefit and credibility of the whole nation

Any new legislation on working hours should be viewed in the above light I believe.

Saying that productivity increases with a four-day week may wellbe true, but what about occupations where productivity can't be increased? If people work shorter hours for the same money without being able to increase productivity, then employers have a 20% increase in costs without a 20% increase in income to pay those costs.

The costs would be the same with the same pay per hour, but the total hours spread over fewer days - but that makes the days longer for the employees. Closing down completely for almost half a week is not always feasible either, nor is leaving costly machinery and equipment idle.

It has to be tried on a case-by-case basis by individual firms to see if it suits before becoming universal. If it works, it is possible that more people could be employed to keep the business operating for the other two or three days - but if it isn't it could go back to previous hours.

Yes Calendargirl. Lord knows what she’s been doing for the other 7 hours a week - there were times when I struggled for work and resorted to clearing out cupboards an£ stuff just to stop being bored!

One size does not fit all!

Extended hours for less days suits some areas but not all. And a lot of the areas it DOES suit already do it! We do not need to be ORDERED to all work the same way by an over paternalistic government.

Take for examply our largest employer: the NHS.

Longer but less days works well on wards and most wards do it.

It would NOT work well for the thousands of screen/office workers

It would NOT work well in chemo or day treatment units where it is proven that giving high risk treatments like blood transfusions in the evening is LESS safe.

It would NOT work well in day surgery, see previous point (same reason)

It would NOT work well in interventional radiology where staff have to wear heavy lead aprons for most of the duration of their shift.

Pantglas2

If your job was government funded, was it being paid for by the taxpayer when the hours etc were increased?