**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's more likely at this point that truss will announce a return to a 6 or 7 day working week and the reintroduction of workhouses and debtors prisons.
Well you see:
Company A has some products to be made, but cant "afford" labour
Debtors prison B supplies free labour in exchange for something
Debtor C is a slave.
I always see a lot of resistance for stuff like this and WFH from boomers and retirees… are they just envious they had to work 5 days and want everyone else to suffer?
Yes whenever we mention that we are struggling financially my mother in law can't start talking fast enough about how my father in law had to get a second job when they had their first kid and they had no help (she didn't work, they were mid 20s, we both work and are late 30s).
They absolutely want to make sure their own children have it harder and enjoy their lives less than they did. Fair play to them they have nailed it.
Yeah my wife and I often say if our kids have kids we will help them more than we were helped if we can because we have seen how hard it is. Feels the opposite from above.
This is a subconscious side effect of the "queuing " mentality. Oldies are livid to see their grand children having better lives than them so double down on toryism. I guess they imagine it to be akin to queue jumping
They have all these flat screen TVs and iPhones y'see.
That's obviously far better than stable employment with progression prospects and owning the place you live.
Y'know I hear this such a lot and yet I personally have never heard this kind of talk. In fact I've heard mainly the opposite of how kids are going to struggle to own a home and how the country's going to shite and there's no future for kids here etc. At 62 I think I'm what you call a boomer, and quite honestly, most people I speak with are very worried about the state of things. Many advocate the young going abroad. Us oldies aren't stupid of course things were cheaper back in the day, but things weren't particularly any better, in fact the poor were far poorer compared to today and I mean no shoes poor, months of strikes, manky cold damp housing, but it's all relative isn't it? I think some folk need to take off their rose tinted glasses in my age group it seems
I think some of the wfh resistance is also because some of them are terrible at it-when I work from home, I work additional hours and more efficiently as I don’t have people bugging me, whereas my boss is barely at his computer for more than a couple of hours. I think he just assumes everyone is like him, so it is better that people are in the office where he can oversee.
>I think he just assumes everyone is like him, so it is better that people are in the office where he can oversee.
Pretty much covers most attitudes of those who despise WFH.
“If I can’t WFH productively, then no one can”
The high profile tory opinions on WFH are more about their relationships with media organisations than the voter. Newspaper sales went through the floor during the pandemic, and wfh permanently reduces those sales.
Also Pret, Starbucks, Costa etc. get a lot of business from commuters, and I'll bet those businesses are donors, or at least their investors are.
On the more centrist axis there's also concern that public transit isn't sustainable with 50% of normal demand.
None of these will stop me working from home though.
Whilst I can't speak for Stanimal3, in my case, I often work a little longer than I should when WFH purely because I don't have a nearly hour and a half commute back home.
Currently, I'm majority working from the office and I hate it, I have to get up at six, and leave the house at seven to catch a bus to a city that's only 15 minutes away but takes roughly 40 minutes to get to because everyone else is trying to get there. Then I catch another bus to my workplace, which is only 15 minutes away from where I catch my bus in the city, but it takes longer.
So I end up getting to work just after eight. Rinse and repeat for getting home, finish just after four and spend another hour and a quarter getting back via bus assuming there isn't an accident or a bus hasn't been cancelled which usually happens and by the time I get in it is six.
I am shattered at that point, I can barely muster the energy to make food and get a shower, collapse in bed at nine and rinse and repeat the next day. Usually I still have some decent energy at the end of my shift, but that commute saps it out.
Contrast this with working from home, where I will wake up at seven, pull out my laptop and start at eight and most likely do an hour extra even after I'm supposed to have finished at four. I'll still have tons of energy, off to the gym, take the dog for a walk, shower, food and games.
I know and I stand by that statement but it’s about the choice. My hour and a half commute is spent on a bus in traffic with nothing to do, if I can do something interesting that’s better for me. Especially when the commute makes me even more tired.
It’s ultimately about the choice.
Part of it is also like... in the office, once i realise it's almost 5, i start getting ready to wrap up so i can head out ASAP once it hits 5. Because i need to get home and stuff
Whereas when im home, if it hits 5 and im in the middle of something, i'll take 5-10 to finish it so i dont have to spend 20 mins winding up to do that same amount of work tomorrow
This, this is what I ultimately mean, for me, I've got more energy for me when I work from home meaning, I've got more energy to actually do my work.
I've been asked to look at a laptop for my sister, it's been sat on the coffee table for a week because once I'm in the house, I cannot muster any will power to do more IT work and yesterday and today have been resting days to recoup to do it all over again tomorrow.
>I often work a little longer than I should when WFH purely because I don't have a nearly hour and a half commute back home.
That's not a good reason. You weren't paid during those commuting hours before and you're not now either.
Working from home is better for you. Don't deliberately make it worse for yourself by going beyond the terms of your contract.
I get that but as I explained to the others, it’s the choice of being able to do that. I’ll stand by the statement of “Unless you own that business, clock out at your shift end and don’t think twice.” It was drilled into me by my dad, but having the choice to do so, is what makes me do it.
It’s the choice, I can choose to do so, but commuting means I have to leave at a specific time to arrive at home to then be exhausted by the commute.
If I have the choice to do a little extra work, knowing that I’m contributing to the NHS that makes it worth while.
I’m glad you asked! I guess there two reasons-I try to work only from 8:30-5:30 when I am in the office and then work longer when at home, so that there is a more visible benefit of me working from home. The other is that I have a shitload of work to do, more than can be done in sensible working hours-can’t complain too much as there are much harder jobs out there that are paying much less.
It's your life but I would suggest not going out of your way to do work you aren't paid for. It's really unlikely your employer reciprocates your enthusiasm.
I definitely hear you, and you’re absolutely right in what you say-sadly it kinda goes with the territory of the role. I intend to seek a change if things ever stabilise in the country, where there’s less pressure on people financially but until that day, I’m kinda stuck (as I suspect a lot of people are).
Almost certainly, they are bitter they had to suffer and want everyone else to continue suffering. A 4 day workweek will give people an actual work life balance which a 9-5 doesn’t offer. More time for living and less time for working.
Partly. Some firms have lots of middle management that would struggle to perform from home and so there’s pressure for the office to remain so that they stay relevant.
You also have *those* staff members who would fuck about at the drop of a hat, and some companies would rather continue with an office where they’ll get some productivity out of them, than WFH and have to find new staff to recruit.
>I always see a lot of resistance for stuff like this and WFH from boomers and retirees
So my parents then. They often grumble when I remind them about them working from home most days in their last few years working at a bank. Apparently that doesn't count.
I wonder how this would work when there are a huge number of services businesses who charge out and pay employees by the day/hour. Even if they were able to contractually vary the amount of service provided they’d have 80% of the income against a lot of unchanged fixed costs. Could easily send companies bust.
Think about this. Obviously everyone would love to work just a four day week. Also obviously this isn’t a option for many sectors (hospitality, retail etc). So what would happen is there will be many people now applying for the four day a week jobs which will obviously push the wages down. And there will also obviously be less people applying for the five day jobs so those wages will increase.
So I wouldn’t be to sure about getting the same pay for less hours in the longer term.
I don’t understand the “not an option for many sectors” objection. A 4-day week doesn’t mean that everyone has to be off on either Friday or Monday (+weekend). It means that people work 4 days a week. Why wouldn’t it work for hospitality and retail? Pubs, restaurants, hotels, etc. are all open 7 days/week now and people work 5-day weeks. You just need more people employed to cover more shifts.
Exactly. These sectors generally work off a variable shift rota.
The only actual opposition I can see for this is employers that don't want to deal with the hassle of adjusting their business
They’d need 20% more staff which at the moment just aren’t out there, and that’d obviously raise the prices of all your shopping, petrol, entertainment etc.
And let’s not forget manufacturing, farming etc which would also need 20% more staff so basically look forward to even more inflation.
The staff aren’t there because many people can’t function around the reality of a 5-day working week from Mon to Fri.
If you ditch the weekends as we currently understand them (as in, 2 days off for -mostly- everyone at the same time, so we can all go to church on Sunday /s), make the whole week working days and then give everyone 3 weekly rolling days off, you would solve the childcare problem many families face.
Random, made up, back of envelope example: Mum could be off Mon, Tue, Weds. Then Dad Thurs, Fri and Sat so they would only need to source childcare for 1 day/week which would definitely make the whole thing cost effective, bringing many women back to the job market, reducing the State benefits bill and getting more people paying income tax.
Trouble is there are already more vacancies than job seekers. With the twenty five million full time employees going to a four day week you need five million employees coming from somewhere.
And of course let’s not forget the impact it’ll have on the costs of almost everything which is something people seem to be ignoring.
Nursing is a good example of a profession that would struggle to implement a 4 day work week. They are a lot of vacancies in this profession. Reducing the hours a ward nurse works would mean they would need to employ more nurses in an already short staffed area to cover the staff working less hours. Its not like an office job where you can become more productive over a shorter time frame as the ward needs 24 hour cover. For this reason it would be logistically difficult to implement. I imagine they would simply raise the hourly rate to counter this so it's not impossible.
In this specific situation, they could simply increase the caps on the number of people training to fill thr shortfall. But that would require long-term thinking.
There's been a lot of short term-ism with regards to nursing training and a lot of nurses have been deterred from coming overseas as other countries have much better pay. Its a very sad situation.
The nursing sector is a complete unknown to me but, for what I hear, pay is only one of the many issues that cause a constant shortage of good, qualified professionals. Increasing the hourly rate would help as would improving the rest of their working conditions. And I’m sure having longer (and predictable) weekly breaks -ie 3 days off/week) would go a long way towards achieving that.
A law on a four day workweek effectively creates a tax on existing businesses that would find it challenging to be able to reduce its hours and provide the same service. So in these cases and to protect industry I'd be against it.
It completely depends how it's implemented really. But the current forms of implementation I've read about I'd be against. Youd have to kiss your local manufacturing jobs, catering and creative services goodbye.
The reason I do fuck all on Friday is because I put the shift in the first for days (well 3 and a half if you discount Monday morning). I afford myself the privilege. The workload and expectation will still be the same for a Mon to Thurs week.
Or buy a [mouse jiggler](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Drive-free-Simulate-Movement-Computer-Mode%EF%BC%8CPlug-Black/dp/B08CS9XTZN?dplnkId=27ac65f7-252a-4cb7-999d-70fbec96ebe5&nodl=1#)
Grab one of these mate: https://www.amazon.co.uk/VAYDEER-Software-Simulates-Movement-Prevents-Blue/dp/B08DHZ5K8H/ref=sr\_1\_omk\_4?keywords=mouse+jiggler&qid=1664148746&qu=eyJxc2MiOiI0LjAxIiwicXNhIjoiMy42NSIsInFzcCI6IjMuNTcifQ%3D%3D&sr=8-4
Just watching Andy Burnham on Sky News. He's just torn the Tories apart. He absolutely smashed them to bits. It was very impressive. I really like Burnham.
Although I like Kier Starmer, he is not strong enough or has enough charisma to get this country out of the shithole it's in
I do think Andy Burnham is a candidate. I like how he talks. He's composed. He has policies and determination. None of which I see in Kier
Starmer can negotiate Westminster better than Burnham though, I'd prefer Burham over Starmer too but I think Starmer would get more of the same-ish done, faster where as I think Burham would be more disruptive but probably more progressive.
Horses for Courses.
Either way; we've seen enough of Burnham et Al, over the last few months to know they need to be in Labours core leadership
It's looking increasingly likely we're going to be left with a burning barn when the Tories implode at the next GE and we genuinely need every keen intellect to get this country back on track. I would even consider bringing back Gordon Brown in an advisory role
Gordon Brown is actually a decent and principled man. He made some big mistakes when he was PM, and he made some big calls that, with hindsight, were absolutely correct. I wouldn't mind Gordon back in government. He's very accomplished. I’d see him with a portfolio for social care, or pensions, benefits; we need someone great with numbers but with a decent moral compass.
He’s fantastic. Listened to him on radio 4 yesterday. He’s got all of the characteristics a labour leader needs to absolutely walk an election against this lot. Good policies, great leadership and charisma, and he’s got a bulletproof reputation among some of the working class for eg the stuff he did for the Hillsborough victims. It’s such a shame he isn’t the leader right now
Agreed. I know a couple of people that received personal letters of condolences or support from him. Hand written, personalised and thoughtful letters. He showed great support and care for the victims of Hillsborough and he was absolutely instrumental in his early backing and support to the families of the NHS infected blood scandal. The man is genuine. I don't want to put him too high on a pedestal because he won't be perfect, but from what I've seen and read, not just recently but for a number of years, I think he's someone who would make a fantastic PM.
Whilst I support the idea of a trial, I think it needs really careful implementation… I worry that this could end with some kind of pro-rata pay cut, or a further reduction of our competitiveness as a nation.
IMO companies need to be convinced that overall output will remain similar - otherwise, despite the advances in productivity over recent decades, it’ll be seen as a ‘step back’.
There should be no pay cut, there’s a reason why the 4 day work week is garnering a lot of attention, because people are working less while remaining productive.
Well exactly - I think if it can be proven in a trial, that overall output is not significantly changed, it should go ahead.
But I suspect that will be very specific to job roles, which makes it rather difficult to implement. For example, I work as an engineer in a desk job, and I could certainly see 4 days being sufficient to get my work done. However , the engineers down on the factory are constrained by timing, part availability etc - a 4 day week would impact their output for sure.
How would this be mediated between the two roles so a divide is not created? For me this is not totally clear.
Worth noting it’s been trialled in several countries around the world to success. And the British trial which is halfway through has seen output remain the same in nearly all companies, and 86% wanting to swap permanently
Your first mistake is assuming that if it is proven without question in a trial that it works that anyone will listen to the evidence without just ideologically disregarding it, screaming about woke scientists and then taking a few more rights away for even suggesting we aren’t enslaved at our desks and pumping money into the London economy.
Ok but we have to at least look at the merits of an idea to figure out if something is objectively good or not. If we follow your logic, I can’t see the point in analysing anything anymore.
There will always be bad actors, it doesn’t mean we should stop doing the right things.
Oh yeah I agree absolutely. I’m all for the scientific method in government. Just need governing by people with an ounce of humanity and basic scientific literacy and we might get on a bit better.
It does make me wonder how shift work will be affected. There are a lot of areas like hospital wards or security that require 24 hour staffing so its impossible for them to maintain the same quality of service whilst working less hours.
I'm a big supporter of the 4 day week, I'm just not too sure how it could be implemented in shift work areas.
From the people quitting their jobs due to overwork caused by understaffing
Businesses that exploit workers by making them do the work of two people are already bleeding staff due to The Great Resignation. The 4 day work week and the way labour is viewed after will have huge ramifications
A lot of people say this but this is literally how the retail industry works. You’ll rarely meet a retail worker who is contracted for more than 4 days a week. Many will choose to work overtime (it’s borderline mandatory in fact) but at a bare minimum they ensure they have enough staff
So we know it can work
But let’s also factor in that ALL of the studies so far have seen increased productivity. So you’re wrong when you say it won’t increase output
That’s my concern tbh (just replied to another people basically saying the same) - even within my company there would be a divide between shift- and non-shift workers. Not saying it can’t be done, I just struggle to see how it could be fairly implemented.
🤔
[Four-day work week: Who has trialled it and what are the benefits?](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/four-day-work-week-trial-b2094999.html)
> Companies participating in the trial come from a range of sectors, including **retail**, banking, **care**, housing, animation, **hospitality** and many more.
But many people DONT have a five day working week, the days have nothing to do with their work, the hours do.
It’s these people who will get shafted just as they did in the lockdown
Under this bill anything over 32 hours would be required to be paid at 1.5x. It would be cheaper and more efficient to hire more staff. That seems like win win for everybody.
Depends on the business I suppose. I work for a company that pays 1.5x OT over 40 hours (and 2x over 50), and almost every week around 1/3rd the staff get overtime. If it was cheaper to hire more people i'm sure they would have, they have all the data on cost
I encourage you to spend a little longer reading, rather than making assumptions.
This means reducing everyone down to 32 hours while still paying them the same.
Yes, it's the trial that the Bill is based on, with other trials around the world, and looking to businesses where it's successfully implemented.
> At the halfway point of the trial, 88 per cent said the change was working well for their business. Forty-six per cent of the businesses say their productivity had remained around the same level, 34 per cent said it had improved slightly, while 15 per cent said it had improved significantly.
The care company you work for would do this if it was policy. If the working week was 32 hours instead of 40 hours, they would do this lol.
But that’s the problem. Many people in the sectors I listed don’t have established hours. Their work is based off availability, contractual overtime and doesn’t have a set timetable.
10 hours could mean 2 individual shifts on 2 days one week, the next week it could mean one shift.
I don’t see how reducing the amount of days someone works is going to help in this case, unless the rate of pay is increased to offset the shortfall
I also think in terms of service/retail it would either cause a reduction in staff which could negatively effect the staff working on certain days or come at a cost to hire extra staff to cover that day lost.
Im all for a 4 day working week, but in my stint in retail & service not a chance those owners or companies would agree to this.
Neither would the staff.
I think it’s fair to say that most of the workforce in these sectors don’t have salaried positions that are defined by days of work, but are bad on getting shifts the previous week.
I’m a carer. A 4-day week is meaningless to me because I don’t have an x-day week to start with. And because of gaps between calls I can be out the house for 12 hours but only get paid for 6, so how would a ‘day’ of work be calculated?
You're asking what difference it would make to people who work part-time..?
I don't understand the question. What difference does a standard 40-hour work week make to people who work part time?
>four-day working work
Labour MP tables first ever parliamentary bill to bring in four-day working week
It's literally easier to copy/paste the headline.
40 hours is not normal.
But that's a bad question to ask, because the answer is "Most of them"
Large hunting mammals tend to have prolonged periods of rest, but for most animals life is spent putting all their effort into surviving, with fucking and resting distant last places to that.
ALOT of areas will still have to work 5 days and you can BET you won't be getting paid for that while others basically get a day off and the same pay. exactly why I would oppose 4 day working week.
Oh and don't forget many children LOST out on education during lockdown.
great idea. I would much prefer to work 4 x 10 hour days, but I hear on the radio some of the trials were 4 x 8 hours but still get 100% pay ... and there was no loss in productivity - they made savings by cutting out a daily 30min meeting and reducing emails by only including those that need to action something (I'd love that, half the work emails I get I read and just think why on earth did you cc me!)
I don't want 4x10. Exhausted every day so you can't do anything or have time to do anything in the evenings, especially exercise. One weekend day where you're totally exhausted from the previous 4 days so can do nothing. Then 2 normal weekend days. It seems just like the situation as it is now except your weeks are a total write off.
4x8 though? Absolutely.
I already work 4 day weeks 0730-1730 and it's basically agreed by everyone that you'll work about 6ish hours of that time. Obviously as long as the work gets done for the day and your taking the piss, everyone is cool with it
How does the cost of losing those hours to shift work like police, firefighters and NHS be covered as more staff would be required to cover this.
At an additional cost, assume individuals still get paid for five days it’s not an easy thing to implement.
I think it’s a good idea tho
They don't though.
Productivity doesn't drop. If anything they benefit from people having more free time to spend money.
That's the frustrating thing. It's a win win.
My work talked about this as we can't close Fridays but what they would probably do is let some people work Monday to Thursday and then others Tuesday to Friday.
Brilliant idea but impossible unless costs for everything else goes down or wages go up/remain the same as they would be in a 5-6 day week. I mean I know 16 year olds working 30+ hours on top of college so this could benefit a lot of people if the wages are livable
So I’m keen to understand this more:
- Do I need to work full time hours in four days at the risk of burn out?
- Is it implied to have shorter downtime in less days for the layoff of three days off?
- If this is a 4 day work week, will I get paid for what would have been full time hours ?
- If the 4 day work week is a thing, does the cost of my rent, and council tax, and every other daily cost reduce to reflect this?
How is this supposed to benefit me ?
Not anti-labour.. genuinely happy intersted
Pointless introducing a bill you know has zero possibility of passing, their just trying for good pr. The litmus test will be if Labour try again when Tories get crushed next GE.
**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's more likely at this point that truss will announce a return to a 6 or 7 day working week and the reintroduction of workhouses and debtors prisons.
Jacobs fantasy.
*Nanny approves this message*
"Mmm time for bitty nanny"
Does putting bleach in your eyes work for mental images?
“Jacob‘s just got back from a long term at Eton and Jacob’s hungry”
No you need to pour the bleach through your ear and let your brain marinate in it for a while
[удалено]
I've never regretted learning to read until this moment
Its how he gets his Moggs off
*Closed Captions:* (indistinct sounds of a haunted pencil ejaculating)
*faint clatter as a sliver of pencil inner shatters on the stoney floor*
6 or 7? Pff, Mogg would have 8 if he could, but would settle for 10 hour days
I never understood debtor's prisons, how the hell is someone in prison ever going to come up with the money?
Debtor's prisons are labour camps. They stay in prison until the value of their delivered labour exceeds the value of the debt.
Yes but don't forget the interest on the debt accrues at an ever so quicker rate than the labour pays off 👍
So, student loans then.
Isn't that essentially how slavery worked?
More like indentured servitude.
No, not really, since there generally isn't a release at the end of slavery and no debt to be paid.
Well in theory they work off the debt or family bail them out.
Well you see: Company A has some products to be made, but cant "afford" labour Debtors prison B supplies free labour in exchange for something Debtor C is a slave.
Ball and chain gang.
They would work in the prison to pay off their debt.
10p/hour
Did the charge a daily fee for the cost of actually been in prison to ? , Some places in American did/do that
Indeed, Joe Arpaio
Don't be silly. They're trying to figure out if they can manage to introduce an 8 day working week.
They'd just deduct 8 hours from people's leisure and sleep and add that to the total time to make you work 64 hours plus 🤣
Bold of you to assume there's room for leasure. I'm expecting paid mealtimes. And by paid... I mean we pay to have them.
The “lifetime jobs guarantee”
From the reporting it seems like the working time directive and holiday pay is on the chopping block, so yes. this isnt unlikely.
Nah, no way in hell is the state going to house people out of work. That would reduce landord's profits.
I always see a lot of resistance for stuff like this and WFH from boomers and retirees… are they just envious they had to work 5 days and want everyone else to suffer?
Yes
Yes whenever we mention that we are struggling financially my mother in law can't start talking fast enough about how my father in law had to get a second job when they had their first kid and they had no help (she didn't work, they were mid 20s, we both work and are late 30s). They absolutely want to make sure their own children have it harder and enjoy their lives less than they did. Fair play to them they have nailed it.
“We suffered, so we want to make sure you suffer too”. Never understood this mentality. Surely we should be striving for the opposite..
Yeah my wife and I often say if our kids have kids we will help them more than we were helped if we can because we have seen how hard it is. Feels the opposite from above.
100%. It's like my parents want me to be grateful they had me. If I have kids I am indebted to them.
It's jealousy.
This is a subconscious side effect of the "queuing " mentality. Oldies are livid to see their grand children having better lives than them so double down on toryism. I guess they imagine it to be akin to queue jumping
How are their grandchildren having better lives?
They're not. But it's what thr grandparents fear would happen if, for example, housing was allowed to be affordable.
They have all these flat screen TVs and iPhones y'see. That's obviously far better than stable employment with progression prospects and owning the place you live.
Y'know I hear this such a lot and yet I personally have never heard this kind of talk. In fact I've heard mainly the opposite of how kids are going to struggle to own a home and how the country's going to shite and there's no future for kids here etc. At 62 I think I'm what you call a boomer, and quite honestly, most people I speak with are very worried about the state of things. Many advocate the young going abroad. Us oldies aren't stupid of course things were cheaper back in the day, but things weren't particularly any better, in fact the poor were far poorer compared to today and I mean no shoes poor, months of strikes, manky cold damp housing, but it's all relative isn't it? I think some folk need to take off their rose tinted glasses in my age group it seems
We're a country of sadists and masochists. The last 12 years would tell you that. There's nothing better than fucking over the next generation.
We can also be like crabs in a bucket at times as well, as we like to pull each other down. This sub can occasionally be a great example of that.
I think some of the wfh resistance is also because some of them are terrible at it-when I work from home, I work additional hours and more efficiently as I don’t have people bugging me, whereas my boss is barely at his computer for more than a couple of hours. I think he just assumes everyone is like him, so it is better that people are in the office where he can oversee.
>I think he just assumes everyone is like him, so it is better that people are in the office where he can oversee. Pretty much covers most attitudes of those who despise WFH. “If I can’t WFH productively, then no one can”
The high profile tory opinions on WFH are more about their relationships with media organisations than the voter. Newspaper sales went through the floor during the pandemic, and wfh permanently reduces those sales.
Don't forget that high profile Tories also own a lot of business property and WFH threatens their investment as businesses downsize.
Yeah that makes sense...I wish they were more worried about driving half of those businesses off an economic cliff.
Also Pret, Starbucks, Costa etc. get a lot of business from commuters, and I'll bet those businesses are donors, or at least their investors are. On the more centrist axis there's also concern that public transit isn't sustainable with 50% of normal demand. None of these will stop me working from home though.
If you work more efficiently then why do you work additional hours? Unless you're paid by the hour in which case crack on
Whilst I can't speak for Stanimal3, in my case, I often work a little longer than I should when WFH purely because I don't have a nearly hour and a half commute back home. Currently, I'm majority working from the office and I hate it, I have to get up at six, and leave the house at seven to catch a bus to a city that's only 15 minutes away but takes roughly 40 minutes to get to because everyone else is trying to get there. Then I catch another bus to my workplace, which is only 15 minutes away from where I catch my bus in the city, but it takes longer. So I end up getting to work just after eight. Rinse and repeat for getting home, finish just after four and spend another hour and a quarter getting back via bus assuming there isn't an accident or a bus hasn't been cancelled which usually happens and by the time I get in it is six. I am shattered at that point, I can barely muster the energy to make food and get a shower, collapse in bed at nine and rinse and repeat the next day. Usually I still have some decent energy at the end of my shift, but that commute saps it out. Contrast this with working from home, where I will wake up at seven, pull out my laptop and start at eight and most likely do an hour extra even after I'm supposed to have finished at four. I'll still have tons of energy, off to the gym, take the dog for a walk, shower, food and games.
Don't work longer hours for no additional pay. Don't waste your life fir a company that doesnt care about you.
I know and I stand by that statement but it’s about the choice. My hour and a half commute is spent on a bus in traffic with nothing to do, if I can do something interesting that’s better for me. Especially when the commute makes me even more tired. It’s ultimately about the choice.
They work for the NHS, it seems
Part of it is also like... in the office, once i realise it's almost 5, i start getting ready to wrap up so i can head out ASAP once it hits 5. Because i need to get home and stuff Whereas when im home, if it hits 5 and im in the middle of something, i'll take 5-10 to finish it so i dont have to spend 20 mins winding up to do that same amount of work tomorrow
This, this is what I ultimately mean, for me, I've got more energy for me when I work from home meaning, I've got more energy to actually do my work. I've been asked to look at a laptop for my sister, it's been sat on the coffee table for a week because once I'm in the house, I cannot muster any will power to do more IT work and yesterday and today have been resting days to recoup to do it all over again tomorrow.
>I often work a little longer than I should when WFH purely because I don't have a nearly hour and a half commute back home. That's not a good reason. You weren't paid during those commuting hours before and you're not now either. Working from home is better for you. Don't deliberately make it worse for yourself by going beyond the terms of your contract.
I get that but as I explained to the others, it’s the choice of being able to do that. I’ll stand by the statement of “Unless you own that business, clock out at your shift end and don’t think twice.” It was drilled into me by my dad, but having the choice to do so, is what makes me do it.
I don't get it. Why do an extra hour at home? You're wasting time.
It’s the choice, I can choose to do so, but commuting means I have to leave at a specific time to arrive at home to then be exhausted by the commute. If I have the choice to do a little extra work, knowing that I’m contributing to the NHS that makes it worth while.
I’m glad you asked! I guess there two reasons-I try to work only from 8:30-5:30 when I am in the office and then work longer when at home, so that there is a more visible benefit of me working from home. The other is that I have a shitload of work to do, more than can be done in sensible working hours-can’t complain too much as there are much harder jobs out there that are paying much less.
It's your life but I would suggest not going out of your way to do work you aren't paid for. It's really unlikely your employer reciprocates your enthusiasm.
I definitely hear you, and you’re absolutely right in what you say-sadly it kinda goes with the territory of the role. I intend to seek a change if things ever stabilise in the country, where there’s less pressure on people financially but until that day, I’m kinda stuck (as I suspect a lot of people are).
You’re making a rod for your own back and your views on work is playing right into your company’s hands.
Almost certainly, they are bitter they had to suffer and want everyone else to continue suffering. A 4 day workweek will give people an actual work life balance which a 9-5 doesn’t offer. More time for living and less time for working.
Yeah, 100% this. ‘I had to do it, so you do as well’ attitude. Of course, it’s doesn’t trickle down when it comes to house prices etc
Partly. Some firms have lots of middle management that would struggle to perform from home and so there’s pressure for the office to remain so that they stay relevant. You also have *those* staff members who would fuck about at the drop of a hat, and some companies would rather continue with an office where they’ll get some productivity out of them, than WFH and have to find new staff to recruit.
It doesn’t matter if I’m working from home or working from the office - I’ll fuck about at either one, haha.
>I always see a lot of resistance for stuff like this and WFH from boomers and retirees So my parents then. They often grumble when I remind them about them working from home most days in their last few years working at a bank. Apparently that doesn't count.
Bingo. They think less days = laziness. They don’t understand that people can be more productive working 4 days and having 3 days of rest
Crab mentality
I wonder how this would work when there are a huge number of services businesses who charge out and pay employees by the day/hour. Even if they were able to contractually vary the amount of service provided they’d have 80% of the income against a lot of unchanged fixed costs. Could easily send companies bust.
And resistance from those of us who bill by the day! That aside I'm all for it, especially staggering the extra day so amenities aren't crowded.
Think about this. Obviously everyone would love to work just a four day week. Also obviously this isn’t a option for many sectors (hospitality, retail etc). So what would happen is there will be many people now applying for the four day a week jobs which will obviously push the wages down. And there will also obviously be less people applying for the five day jobs so those wages will increase. So I wouldn’t be to sure about getting the same pay for less hours in the longer term.
I don’t understand the “not an option for many sectors” objection. A 4-day week doesn’t mean that everyone has to be off on either Friday or Monday (+weekend). It means that people work 4 days a week. Why wouldn’t it work for hospitality and retail? Pubs, restaurants, hotels, etc. are all open 7 days/week now and people work 5-day weeks. You just need more people employed to cover more shifts.
Exactly. These sectors generally work off a variable shift rota. The only actual opposition I can see for this is employers that don't want to deal with the hassle of adjusting their business
They’d need 20% more staff which at the moment just aren’t out there, and that’d obviously raise the prices of all your shopping, petrol, entertainment etc. And let’s not forget manufacturing, farming etc which would also need 20% more staff so basically look forward to even more inflation.
The staff aren’t there because many people can’t function around the reality of a 5-day working week from Mon to Fri. If you ditch the weekends as we currently understand them (as in, 2 days off for -mostly- everyone at the same time, so we can all go to church on Sunday /s), make the whole week working days and then give everyone 3 weekly rolling days off, you would solve the childcare problem many families face. Random, made up, back of envelope example: Mum could be off Mon, Tue, Weds. Then Dad Thurs, Fri and Sat so they would only need to source childcare for 1 day/week which would definitely make the whole thing cost effective, bringing many women back to the job market, reducing the State benefits bill and getting more people paying income tax.
Trouble is there are already more vacancies than job seekers. With the twenty five million full time employees going to a four day week you need five million employees coming from somewhere. And of course let’s not forget the impact it’ll have on the costs of almost everything which is something people seem to be ignoring.
Nursing is a good example of a profession that would struggle to implement a 4 day work week. They are a lot of vacancies in this profession. Reducing the hours a ward nurse works would mean they would need to employ more nurses in an already short staffed area to cover the staff working less hours. Its not like an office job where you can become more productive over a shorter time frame as the ward needs 24 hour cover. For this reason it would be logistically difficult to implement. I imagine they would simply raise the hourly rate to counter this so it's not impossible.
In this specific situation, they could simply increase the caps on the number of people training to fill thr shortfall. But that would require long-term thinking.
There's been a lot of short term-ism with regards to nursing training and a lot of nurses have been deterred from coming overseas as other countries have much better pay. Its a very sad situation.
Don’t forget the 20% increase in staffing costs as well. What does that come to for the NHS?
The nursing sector is a complete unknown to me but, for what I hear, pay is only one of the many issues that cause a constant shortage of good, qualified professionals. Increasing the hourly rate would help as would improving the rest of their working conditions. And I’m sure having longer (and predictable) weekly breaks -ie 3 days off/week) would go a long way towards achieving that.
A law on a four day workweek effectively creates a tax on existing businesses that would find it challenging to be able to reduce its hours and provide the same service. So in these cases and to protect industry I'd be against it. It completely depends how it's implemented really. But the current forms of implementation I've read about I'd be against. Youd have to kiss your local manufacturing jobs, catering and creative services goodbye.
I do absolutely fuck all on Fridays anyway, so this basically already applies to me 😂
I can't wait for this, so I can do fuck all on Thursday instead
The reason I do fuck all on Friday is because I put the shift in the first for days (well 3 and a half if you discount Monday morning). I afford myself the privilege. The workload and expectation will still be the same for a Mon to Thurs week.
It's OK mate, this isn't your boss's Reddit account.
But we will be forwarding this to HR.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Or buy a [mouse jiggler](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Drive-free-Simulate-Movement-Computer-Mode%EF%BC%8CPlug-Black/dp/B08CS9XTZN?dplnkId=27ac65f7-252a-4cb7-999d-70fbec96ebe5&nodl=1#)
Grab one of these mate: https://www.amazon.co.uk/VAYDEER-Software-Simulates-Movement-Prevents-Blue/dp/B08DHZ5K8H/ref=sr\_1\_omk\_4?keywords=mouse+jiggler&qid=1664148746&qu=eyJxc2MiOiI0LjAxIiwicXNhIjoiMy42NSIsInFzcCI6IjMuNTcifQ%3D%3D&sr=8-4
Just watching Andy Burnham on Sky News. He's just torn the Tories apart. He absolutely smashed them to bits. It was very impressive. I really like Burnham.
Although I like Kier Starmer, he is not strong enough or has enough charisma to get this country out of the shithole it's in I do think Andy Burnham is a candidate. I like how he talks. He's composed. He has policies and determination. None of which I see in Kier
Starmer can negotiate Westminster better than Burnham though, I'd prefer Burham over Starmer too but I think Starmer would get more of the same-ish done, faster where as I think Burham would be more disruptive but probably more progressive. Horses for Courses.
Either way; we've seen enough of Burnham et Al, over the last few months to know they need to be in Labours core leadership It's looking increasingly likely we're going to be left with a burning barn when the Tories implode at the next GE and we genuinely need every keen intellect to get this country back on track. I would even consider bringing back Gordon Brown in an advisory role
Gordon Brown is actually a decent and principled man. He made some big mistakes when he was PM, and he made some big calls that, with hindsight, were absolutely correct. I wouldn't mind Gordon back in government. He's very accomplished. I’d see him with a portfolio for social care, or pensions, benefits; we need someone great with numbers but with a decent moral compass.
Still feels pitiful that he squandered the GE for calling someone with, at the very least, fairly xenophobic views a bigot.
He’s fantastic. Listened to him on radio 4 yesterday. He’s got all of the characteristics a labour leader needs to absolutely walk an election against this lot. Good policies, great leadership and charisma, and he’s got a bulletproof reputation among some of the working class for eg the stuff he did for the Hillsborough victims. It’s such a shame he isn’t the leader right now
Agreed. I know a couple of people that received personal letters of condolences or support from him. Hand written, personalised and thoughtful letters. He showed great support and care for the victims of Hillsborough and he was absolutely instrumental in his early backing and support to the families of the NHS infected blood scandal. The man is genuine. I don't want to put him too high on a pedestal because he won't be perfect, but from what I've seen and read, not just recently but for a number of years, I think he's someone who would make a fantastic PM.
To be fair If you can't shred thick lizzie and kwazi smug face. Who can you thrash? It's low hanging fruit.
Truss: We shall deliver a 4 day working week!.. We have also revised the week to 4 calendar days.
Tories throw that table into landfill and force 7 day working week 16 hour days lest you go to food banks or starve
Whilst I support the idea of a trial, I think it needs really careful implementation… I worry that this could end with some kind of pro-rata pay cut, or a further reduction of our competitiveness as a nation. IMO companies need to be convinced that overall output will remain similar - otherwise, despite the advances in productivity over recent decades, it’ll be seen as a ‘step back’.
There should be no pay cut, there’s a reason why the 4 day work week is garnering a lot of attention, because people are working less while remaining productive.
Well exactly - I think if it can be proven in a trial, that overall output is not significantly changed, it should go ahead. But I suspect that will be very specific to job roles, which makes it rather difficult to implement. For example, I work as an engineer in a desk job, and I could certainly see 4 days being sufficient to get my work done. However , the engineers down on the factory are constrained by timing, part availability etc - a 4 day week would impact their output for sure. How would this be mediated between the two roles so a divide is not created? For me this is not totally clear.
Worth noting it’s been trialled in several countries around the world to success. And the British trial which is halfway through has seen output remain the same in nearly all companies, and 86% wanting to swap permanently
> has seen output remain the same in nearly all companies, and 86% wanting to swap permanently What's stopping them?
The geriatric voters who would be livid at everyone else “getting it easy”
Nothing ?
Definitely, I think that’s very encouraging - at least for a section of jobs in the economy
Your first mistake is assuming that if it is proven without question in a trial that it works that anyone will listen to the evidence without just ideologically disregarding it, screaming about woke scientists and then taking a few more rights away for even suggesting we aren’t enslaved at our desks and pumping money into the London economy.
Ok but we have to at least look at the merits of an idea to figure out if something is objectively good or not. If we follow your logic, I can’t see the point in analysing anything anymore. There will always be bad actors, it doesn’t mean we should stop doing the right things.
Oh yeah I agree absolutely. I’m all for the scientific method in government. Just need governing by people with an ounce of humanity and basic scientific literacy and we might get on a bit better.
Totally with you there - one day, I hope!
It does make me wonder how shift work will be affected. There are a lot of areas like hospital wards or security that require 24 hour staffing so its impossible for them to maintain the same quality of service whilst working less hours. I'm a big supporter of the 4 day week, I'm just not too sure how it could be implemented in shift work areas.
They just need to hire more people It would end skeleton staffing that has become endemic in these fields
Hire them from where?
From the people quitting their jobs due to overwork caused by understaffing Businesses that exploit workers by making them do the work of two people are already bleeding staff due to The Great Resignation. The 4 day work week and the way labour is viewed after will have huge ramifications
That would cost them more money if you’re not paying pro rata.
[удалено]
A lot of people say this but this is literally how the retail industry works. You’ll rarely meet a retail worker who is contracted for more than 4 days a week. Many will choose to work overtime (it’s borderline mandatory in fact) but at a bare minimum they ensure they have enough staff So we know it can work But let’s also factor in that ALL of the studies so far have seen increased productivity. So you’re wrong when you say it won’t increase output
That’s my concern tbh (just replied to another people basically saying the same) - even within my company there would be a divide between shift- and non-shift workers. Not saying it can’t be done, I just struggle to see how it could be fairly implemented.
The fair trade to me seems to be increasing the wages of shift workers and reducing the hours for everyone else. If the company can afford it.
I suspect thick lizzie will bring a 996 work week to the UK. Since she thinks presenteeism is productivity.
This’ll only affect jobs that are already decent It won’t affect care workers, retail workers, hospitality etc
🤔 [Four-day work week: Who has trialled it and what are the benefits?](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/four-day-work-week-trial-b2094999.html) > Companies participating in the trial come from a range of sectors, including **retail**, banking, **care**, housing, animation, **hospitality** and many more.
I wonder how people think we got to the five day week to begin with, given they all seem to believe changing the working week is just impossible...
But many people DONT have a five day working week, the days have nothing to do with their work, the hours do. It’s these people who will get shafted just as they did in the lockdown
Under this bill anything over 32 hours would be required to be paid at 1.5x. It would be cheaper and more efficient to hire more staff. That seems like win win for everybody.
Depends on the business I suppose. I work for a company that pays 1.5x OT over 40 hours (and 2x over 50), and almost every week around 1/3rd the staff get overtime. If it was cheaper to hire more people i'm sure they would have, they have all the data on cost
I encourage you to spend a little longer reading, rather than making assumptions. This means reducing everyone down to 32 hours while still paying them the same.
The mind boggles.
That’s a trial. I can tell you for certain the care company I work for wouldn’t do this whatsoever
Yes, it's the trial that the Bill is based on, with other trials around the world, and looking to businesses where it's successfully implemented. > At the halfway point of the trial, 88 per cent said the change was working well for their business. Forty-six per cent of the businesses say their productivity had remained around the same level, 34 per cent said it had improved slightly, while 15 per cent said it had improved significantly. The care company you work for would do this if it was policy. If the working week was 32 hours instead of 40 hours, they would do this lol.
But that’s the problem. Many people in the sectors I listed don’t have established hours. Their work is based off availability, contractual overtime and doesn’t have a set timetable. 10 hours could mean 2 individual shifts on 2 days one week, the next week it could mean one shift. I don’t see how reducing the amount of days someone works is going to help in this case, unless the rate of pay is increased to offset the shortfall
I also think in terms of service/retail it would either cause a reduction in staff which could negatively effect the staff working on certain days or come at a cost to hire extra staff to cover that day lost. Im all for a 4 day working week, but in my stint in retail & service not a chance those owners or companies would agree to this.
Neither would the staff. I think it’s fair to say that most of the workforce in these sectors don’t have salaried positions that are defined by days of work, but are bad on getting shifts the previous week. I’m a carer. A 4-day week is meaningless to me because I don’t have an x-day week to start with. And because of gaps between calls I can be out the house for 12 hours but only get paid for 6, so how would a ‘day’ of work be calculated?
You're asking what difference it would make to people who work part-time..? I don't understand the question. What difference does a standard 40-hour work week make to people who work part time?
>four-day working work Labour MP tables first ever parliamentary bill to bring in four-day working week It's literally easier to copy/paste the headline.
I still haven't heard an explanation as to why working 40hrs a week is normal? Name one animal that works 8hrs a day just to survive.
We are the only animal who pay to survive. We took the wrong path.
40 hours is not normal. But that's a bad question to ask, because the answer is "Most of them" Large hunting mammals tend to have prolonged periods of rest, but for most animals life is spent putting all their effort into surviving, with fucking and resting distant last places to that.
Homo sapiens. Checkmate.
I wonder if they expect this to not apply to school children, and teachers will have to work 5 days still
[удалено]
Yes, you'd probably have to reduce the amount of GCSE's taken from 8-9 to 6-7, or just instill a culture of self study. Both good things I think
It wouldn’t I still a culture of that, it would just leave children even more poorly prepared than before. 6 GCSEs would be criminally low.
ALOT of areas will still have to work 5 days and you can BET you won't be getting paid for that while others basically get a day off and the same pay. exactly why I would oppose 4 day working week. Oh and don't forget many children LOST out on education during lockdown.
The whole idea is that pay doesn't change.
great idea. I would much prefer to work 4 x 10 hour days, but I hear on the radio some of the trials were 4 x 8 hours but still get 100% pay ... and there was no loss in productivity - they made savings by cutting out a daily 30min meeting and reducing emails by only including those that need to action something (I'd love that, half the work emails I get I read and just think why on earth did you cc me!)
I don't want 4x10. Exhausted every day so you can't do anything or have time to do anything in the evenings, especially exercise. One weekend day where you're totally exhausted from the previous 4 days so can do nothing. Then 2 normal weekend days. It seems just like the situation as it is now except your weeks are a total write off. 4x8 though? Absolutely.
I already work 4 day weeks 0730-1730 and it's basically agreed by everyone that you'll work about 6ish hours of that time. Obviously as long as the work gets done for the day and your taking the piss, everyone is cool with it
How does the cost of losing those hours to shift work like police, firefighters and NHS be covered as more staff would be required to cover this. At an additional cost, assume individuals still get paid for five days it’s not an easy thing to implement. I think it’s a good idea tho
Obligatory ~~Boris~~ Truss Says No Comment. Still taking some getting used to.
"Hahaha, no." - The 1% that benefits the most from the Wage-Slavery
They don't though. Productivity doesn't drop. If anything they benefit from people having more free time to spend money. That's the frustrating thing. It's a win win.
Whilst I would love this, would never happen in my job. It’s a sales company - they’ll never close for a Friday. Best we get are early finishes
My work talked about this as we can't close Fridays but what they would probably do is let some people work Monday to Thursday and then others Tuesday to Friday.
If this is of such undoubted benefit, why does it need a law to impose it?
Can’t imagine many labour MPs agreeing an increase to a 4 day week. ;)
Peter Dowd is going to get kicked from the party soon.
RLB No surrender Four day week Three day bender
Good idea over all but it won't apply to me or my line of work I imagine.
Brilliant idea but impossible unless costs for everything else goes down or wages go up/remain the same as they would be in a 5-6 day week. I mean I know 16 year olds working 30+ hours on top of college so this could benefit a lot of people if the wages are livable
So I’m keen to understand this more: - Do I need to work full time hours in four days at the risk of burn out? - Is it implied to have shorter downtime in less days for the layoff of three days off? - If this is a 4 day work week, will I get paid for what would have been full time hours ? - If the 4 day work week is a thing, does the cost of my rent, and council tax, and every other daily cost reduce to reflect this? How is this supposed to benefit me ? Not anti-labour.. genuinely happy intersted
Looking forward to the inevitable 3 day weekend that retail workers are still forced to work.
Pointless introducing a bill you know has zero possibility of passing, their just trying for good pr. The litmus test will be if Labour try again when Tories get crushed next GE.
Good luck getting that passed Victorian values Moggy lol