scrubbedexpat142

But picking up on your earlier theme, achieving 5 days productivity in 4 days must surely be a good thing!

agree_to_disagree

It would be a good thing, if it worked.

I think it is pie in the sky and will never work!

hughandi

Surely if an employee is needed for 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, what advantage would there be to the company, if they would only have the worker for 4 days at the same pay. In many circumstances they would have to employ someone for 1 day, thus extra expense.
many businesses are down to the wire as it is.

scrubbedexpat142

The key word here is "needed". If the role is attendance based then yes, you are right.
If the role is task orientated then then a shorter week may be viable, provided the productivity is achieved.

hughandi

Yes, a large percentage small businesses de rely on attendance based workers, often at the lower end of the pay scale.

bfg69bug

You are missing the point.

its about un-employment.

if a company like BP for example, or the airport, per month has 160hrs of work, for 100 workers (for example), and the government reduce the maximum working hours to 32. that means that theres still 160hrs of work, but each worker is doing less. The company has to hire more workers in order to cover the amount of work. Therefore you will have 120 workers working 128 hrs a month instead of 100 workers working 160hrs a month. Thats what the government want.

The "problem" that i can see is that bosses wont like it, hiring people costs money, a persons taxes cost money.. unless they reduce that cost, its going to be difficult.


There will be teething issues I suppose, but there always is with new things ?

scrubbedexpat142

And again, that introduces another interesting element, another factor in quite a complex mix!

agree_to_disagree

5 day week to a 4 day week with prorate reduction in salary I get, but reduction in days/hours for same wage is for the birds!!!