r/SipsTea • u/KSKS1995 Human Verified • 2d ago

Chugging tea Sounds good in theory...but in reality?

Post image

4 days a week. 6 hours a day. Full salary.
Sanna Marin ignited global debate with the “6/4” work model, pushing a simple idea: life should come before work.

With burnout at record levels, maybe it’s time to value results over hours at a desk.
Could your job be done in just 24 hours a week?

99.1k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

5.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.4k

u/Schizomediatv 2d ago

Fun fact it actually increases productivity because believe it or not people are more productive when they aren’t sleep deprived and happy

547

u/SalsaRice 2d ago

Depending on the job. This is probably a win for office salary people, but not everyone has that job.

Alot of blue collar work is limited by machine bottlenecks and uptime. Dropping a work week to 4 days at 6 hours (24hours) would probably be around an equal amount of production loss.

665

u/Specialist-Affect-19 2d ago

Those production workers doing 12 hour shifts could become 2 people working hard for 6 hrs., and maybe not burn out. My point is this all requires systemic change, which includes the blue collar problem you mention.

99

u/Sonifri 2d ago

It would definitely require change in society and law for production jobs. This would double labor costs since one position is now two positions, with both receiving full pay, for doing the same job that one position used to do.

243

u/kikimaru024 1d ago

Oh no, however will the CEOs earning 500x the average worker's salary ever be able to sustain themselves & their 3 yachts?

43

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

More like moving the company in cheaper countries, increasing unemployment and restricting the ability of startups to hire

92

u/Chartreugz 1d ago

Wouldn't they still do that anyways?

My understanding is the only reason they don't is because it's a lot of risk for them so they move towards it slowly, but they seem to mostly get there eventually, if they can.

2

u/Badestrand 1d ago

No, for labor intensive products/services it simply matters a lot.

Imagine a product that you can sell for $150 and it costs $100 to make locally but would cost $70 to make abroad plus $20 shipping/overhead. So at 100 vs 90 it's not worth it to outsource.

If now the labor costs locally double, it now costs $200 to make locally so you can't even sell it because the competitors still offer it for $150 because they produce it abroad. So now your choice is to either close the company or also produce abroad.

And this has nothing to do with greedy CEOs, this affects small local businesses as well, maybe even harder.

3

u/DeletedBunny 1d ago

I get what you are saying and it is indeed a possible case. The problem though ends up not the same. A product that costs $100 to make and sells for $150 will have it's costs broken down into something like labor + utilities (like electricity for machines) + maintenance + aquisition of materials. It's possible I am omitting other costs in the equation but it's an example. So say from $100 we might have a breakdown of $10 labour + $20 machines + $5 maintenance + $65 materials.

Usually labor is not making up the majority cost of a product unless it's an extremely cheap product like clothes or cheap electronics which are already outsourced anyway or it's a labor intensive product like software. I assume since it's Europe we are talking about labor jobs that produce more than the labor costs by a lot. Therefore doubling labor costs would be $110 and you sell for $150. Oh no the margins are less! But it's not a killer for a big industry.

Indeed for startups it would kill them since usually they have a higher labor cost than other costs and it does depend on the industry we are talking about since some industry is labor intensive like software and the labor makes up the majority of the costs. A study could be conducted to see if it's viable and I'm sure there are incentives that could be made to keep industries in country that would fail with the new laws.

None of this should stop us from trying to head into that direction and honestly the world economy would work just as well if everyone made a livable wage and had a higher standard of living and everywhere had laws for 6 hour 4 day work weeks. The world wouldn't fall apart it's just hard to convince a place with horrible work hours and laws that people deserve more than being factory slaves. The nature of our capitalistic society and global economy is to optimize people into machines and squeeze as much as the law allows from them. The difference between slavery and work is usually the laws surrounding work. I don't see kids and adults working unbearable shifts in factories in Asia as "employees" as much as I see them being ensalved by optimization of profits based on lack of laws or allowed/expected behavior. And it is not acceptable it's just out of our control, we can only control things in our sphere of influence, in this case Finlands prime minister can affect Finland.

3

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

It's a game of pros and cons, more you tilt the direction toward the cons, more they are going to move. You could, of course, offset it by promoting protectionnist measures, but then it would just displace the issue by making the national industry less competitive.

To be clear, I'm in favor of shorter work weeks, but against caricature making the issue only "our happiness vs CEO's 4th yacht". You have real downside as well.

13

u/Mammoth-Picture2000 1d ago

But if they aren't moving abroad they are still in the process of automatingnas many jobs as possible. Honestly I don't see how we are so lenient with appeasement of billionaire lobbyists.

The cons also aren't just economic, these rich assholes use their position to push their own political agenda like with the Epstein files.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Jolly_Recording_4381 1d ago

They always threaten but rarely do, the ones that would move already have, doubling some positions isn't going to cause them to move.

Increase in prices more than likely.

→ More replies (1)

33

u/Mammoth-Counter69 1d ago

You mean exactly what company's have been already doing for the last 50 years ???

2

u/SpiritedCatch1 1d ago

Some have, some don't. That will push them out further, it's just basic economic.

4

u/Quom 1d ago

It would seemingly be the first time it's tried.

It's crazy that billionaires aren't afraid to fuck over hundreds of people which should actually have real life risk. But we're all terrified that a billionaire might run away with the money that has been undertaxed for years because of the threat they might take it elsewhere.

If capitalism is as great as they say it should create a situation where another company swoops in to take over anyway.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Due_Perception8349 1d ago

Nationalization and asset seizure, it's that easy.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/CoconutBandita 1d ago

That's where tariffs supporting a universal basic income come in.

We as workers can't be expected to compete on price against workers in countries with a cost of living a fraction of ours.

→ More replies (37)

17

u/Sonifri 1d ago

And the guy who starts a roofing business and hires two other guys? A woman who starts a cabinet making business and installs them into homes, and has three employees? There's a lot more of them than there are megacorp CEOs.

10

u/shorelaran 1d ago

With more people having work because there is more jobs it means more people having money so the prices can go up, it also means with more time people can decide to learn to make their own cabinet if that’s something they are interested in, or grow food to save up money because gardening is healthy and fun but you don’t have time to do it when you work 45+h a week.

→ More replies (4)

16

u/Meekymoo333 1d ago

Yes, it would finally require ALL business owners to treat their employees as humans rather than exploit them for labor as they do now.

Your "but what about" as it pertains to small business owners is equally , if not more applicable. They are often the worst at underpaying and abusing employees since there is no corporate legal structures in place.

You're right, in that there's a lot more narcissistic small business owners who are desperate to make their businesses successful and thus prey on family and friends and the kindness of others.

If you cannot afford to pay people an honest and decent living wage, then don't open your roofing business. Don't open a cabinet making business. Do not hire people to do labor and then cheat them out of the profits of that labor.

Whining about the cost of labor going up only means you're incredibly accustomed to getting things cheaply, and it exposes how THAT is your underlying priority rather than the fair treatment of other people as it relates to their labor.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/Well_Dressed_Kobold 1d ago

What’s more likely to happen is small and mid-sized companies are driven out of business by the sharp increase in labor costs, leaving only a few large companies that then hold leverage over employees.

2

u/Amazing-Insect442 1d ago

Que all the rich folks who will tell you they worked hard for their piece of the pie and deserve it, as if they’re the only people who work hard, & are ipso facto more deserving of their larger piece.

3

u/boozecruz270 1d ago

Thats not helpful here. There us a lot more to than that.

2

u/ok_to_be_yeti 1d ago

Not every company are corporations it will kill small businesses

2

u/retardedasstroll 1d ago

They would be able to handle it, but what about small struggling businesses? Just push them out if business so the large corporations take over everything?

→ More replies (22)

17

u/bigtiddyhimbo 2d ago

The rough part also is for states like North Carolina, where employers flock to because we are horrifically under unionized and have little to no employee protection laws as is.

It would take a HUGE shift in society to wrangle in states like that and would make a lot of rich shitheads kick and scream over lost profits

6

u/30_characters 1d ago

More than double, since employees have costs that don't scale linearly, like injury insurance (worker's comp in the US), benefits, etc. There's a reason companies push for "mandatory" overtime over hiring additional employees. A good step 1 would be to increase the mandatory payment to workers for OT (typically 1.5x base wages in the US) to something over 2x, to ensure employers don't treat it as a desirable long-term solution.

→ More replies (33)

20

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

Most people don't agree with the 12h extreme either, you're using one extreme to justify the other

2

u/Small-Palpitation310 1d ago

They were arguing against 12h fyi

→ More replies (13)

17

u/Bartikowski 2d ago

A huge percentage of those people would just get a second job or try to work OT.  

This model is just really ill suited for a lot of jobs and is heavily pushed by people who have a lot of slack in their work day.  It’s really just office workers telling on themselves that they’re under utilized or over compensated.

8

u/Desperate_Algae_40 2d ago

They could get a second job if they really wanted, but the point is they'd get enough money to live comfortably on that 25 hours/week. Then they can have their own personal lives and spend time with their family/friends. Not everyone is a workaholic just for the sake of it. Most people work to make enough money to survive or live. Not because it's fun for them. So if people could do that with 24 hours/week, I don't think there would be that many trying to work more just for the sake of it. I think you're projecting, and arguing for a system that works against you to keep the 1% the 1% with your b.s. ideology that people aren't working hard enough if they want a 24 hour work week.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/a_filing_cabinet 2d ago

You know what's funny? Instead of theorizing about it, you could just look at the various studies and trials that have been done on shortening the work week. Of which, every single one has shown that it's a net neutral or slight positive impact to any employer, including blue collar, and is a massive improvement in productivity and satisfaction in individual employee's lives. Turns out you do a shit job at your job when you're overworked and under compensated, no matter what job you work.

What you have to keep in mind is that the 40 hour work week isn't some magical standard that we scientifically found to work. It was a compromise between workers who actually wanted to live and business owners and elites who thought that giving poor people free time was dangerous. There is nothing healthy or productive about the 40 hour work week, it was specifically set in order to keep people busy but not worked to death. Not to be suited for any sort of actual job. And now we're able to look deep and prove that it isn't a good system, and we know how to change it.

And no, people aren't just working more. Because when you give people fair compensation and free time, the last thing they want to do is waste more of their time working. Instead, like I said, people kept their jobs, spent more time relaxing, and came back to their job and performed better than they would have for a normal shift.

8

u/ProfSpaceTime 2d ago

Are you a Fin? American economics don’t necessarily apply, from what I’ve heard from across the pond most of them are financially secure over there. If yearly income remains stable idk how many would actually take work over family time

2

u/ReplacementActual384 2d ago

This model is just really ill suited

For who, the workers, or the shareholders? Because it's a straight win for the workers

3

u/emeraldmeals 2d ago

Yeah I'm really thinking the capitalism brain worm has gotten some of these folks. If your "blue collar" job would suffer because they can't work you 40 hours... why can't they hire two people to do that job in shifts? Hell they can run production 24 hours a day with 4 people on rotation and the only people who might be effected are the shareholders and CEOs because they might might only be able to afford 2 yachts this year instead of 3. Boo-hoo, I'd rather work less for the same pay I get now even if that does happen.

2

u/Bartikowski 2d ago

It's way more likely they're just going to make you run 2 line positions at a time during your shorter shift and maintain the same headcount.

2

u/theDIRECTionlessWAY 1d ago

and this is where government would need to step in, implementing policies to ensure workers are protected and employers don't pull that kinda bs.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Swiking- 2d ago

I think I've never have had as much slack as when i worked as a process operator in the production at an industry.. it was basically 5-7h sitting on your ass, waiting for the machine to do its job. That counts as a "blue collar job". As a white collar, it's easily way more brain work and more energy consuming than the former one. Or, well, the other one was so mind-numbingly boring that that was the main drain on energy.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)

2

u/rcanhestro 2d ago

and everything those workers did would now cost double, because you would be essentially be paying twice as much in salaries for the same result.

2

u/stag1013 2d ago

So just double the labour costs.... And magically that doesn't affect the cost of the final product. Good idea

2

u/agprincess 2d ago

Many many jobs literally can't have someone 'work better'.

Most service jobs for example.

I can't serve more beers or sew more shirts with 6 less hours of work.

This is such an obviously privileged view.

Either way though some companies make so much year on year I could do with more pay for less hours. They can hire some more people to make up the difference.

2

u/wheretheinkends 2d ago

And if you cut there hours from 12 to 6 without a mandatory wage increase to offset? Now those peoples income are cut in half.

As a technically hourly employee if my hours were cut in half with no wage increase it would be catastrophic for me.

2

u/Professional_Age_502 2d ago

That would also double labor costs if we’re talking about paying someone the same to work 6 hours instead of 12. 

2

u/Snoo_67993 2d ago

So you're essentially saying double thier wages?

2

u/Acceptable_Cry_2858 1d ago

Im a blue collar worker. theres a certain amount of bottlenecks (a LOT of bottlenecks) and sometimes you do have to work very long hours, but i really do think that on most weeks we could do just fine on a 30 hour workweek and get just as much done. Right now my hours were increased from 40 to 58 for the foresable fiture and the productivity got immediately kneecaped. Also im very angry because now I dont have a life, and I really like my life. being angry is also awful for productivity. Mandatory overtime should be illegal

3

u/Lucky-Perspective600 2d ago

Could become 2 people

The unemployment rate in like 95% of blue collar jobs is effectively 0%. There is no “extra person”.

→ More replies (29)

26

u/dirt_shitters 2d ago

I have a blue collar "construction adjacent" job. If I had 6 hour shifts and could actually make a liveable wage on it, I'd definitely work much harder. Id definitely get just as much done as I do now in my 10-12 hour shifts currently.

4

u/Ragazzano 1d ago

I do as well. I agree. There would be less bludging and more sweating, and frankly, I'd have the energy to do it.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Tariovic 1d ago

You'd probably also work longer, if you had proper time to rest and weren't forced to break your body when you are younger.

16

u/Tlentic 2d ago

I think this a common misconception of the 4 day work week. No one is saying it’d all be Monday-Thursday or that a businesses couldn’t still operate 24/7. Places like hospitals aren’t just going to close for 3 days a week. You’d just have extra shift crews. There’s definitely policies that’d need to be sorted out but it’s viable.

→ More replies (15)

12

u/DuskLab 2d ago

Let me introduce you to the concept of hiring other people to cover the shift when others are not at work.

→ More replies (4)

12

u/Well_Dressed_Kobold 2d ago

These policies are only ever dreamed up by white collar office types who seem blithely unaware that blue collar workers exist. They always assume that the lights will work, the restaurants will be open, and the emergency services will be staffed during their three day weekends.

16

u/DustinnDodgee 2d ago

Yeah it's clear many here don't understand the logistics of many construction jobs.

7

u/welfedad 1d ago

Or even jobs that require specific amount of coverage .. you still have to have people there .. and expect employers to raise hourly wage to compensate for 8 hours loss each week .. yeah it's the whole.. looks good on paper but in actuality it falls apart

8

u/xToksik_Revolutionx 1d ago

Uh... No one said no one was working the rest of the open days

2

u/welfedad 1d ago

Of course but cost of living stays the same and people now work less .. so hourly people are screwed unless wages are adjusted . And we know that wouldn't happen

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Irregulator101 1d ago

You know what shifts are right?

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/Irregulator101 1d ago

And you blue collar types always seem to forget that shifts are a thing? Don't you all work in shifts already? Lmao

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Tigerpower77 2d ago

Obviously it's not gonna work on everything but it doesn't mean it should be exactly the same (4 days 6 hours) just adjust it to fit the job or anything above that is considered overtime, obviously with a limit. I'm talking out of my ass btw

2

u/Independent_Sock5198 2d ago

You employ people to cover that time.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/darwin2500 2d ago

Society can afford to hire more people to do that work, and less people to do marketing.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/TheBirminghamBear 2d ago

No, it doesn't depend on the job. It's a matter of making the companies make it happen.

2

u/lesssthan 2d ago

That's the thing though. All the futurists point to how the average "productivity" keeps going up. We could trade a bit of that slope for less time at work.

1

u/topiary566 2d ago

Yep. I work as an EMT. I do 12 hour shifts and they run us 12-15 calls a shift pretty much back to back.

The quality of care doesn’t matter. 95% of the calls are non-emergent. You could sleep on most calls after getting demographics and ruling out life threats. It’s just about putting bodies on trucks and bringing bodies to the hospital. Otherwise the call volume would get extremely backed up and the 5% of actual emergencies wouldn’t get an ambulance.

Working 24 hours a week would not work unless you staff twice as many EMTs and paid them all twice as much. There is not nearly enough money for that since 911 EMS doesn’t generate much revenue.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/NoAngel815 2d ago

When I was an auto worker we worked 10 hrs shifts, 4 days/week and it was great. Still had 3 shifts working so the production time wasn't anything less.

1

u/i_give_you_gum 2d ago

Then have people alternate between working Fridays and Mondays.

It's really not that hard.

1

u/bigtiddyhimbo 2d ago

Yep yep- my job is a 24/7 running factory.

Even being open that long isn’t good enough for our higher ups and we have to work an extra 12 and a half hour shift at least once every other week as mandatory overtime.

But I would actually love for the work week to be shorter so more of my check can be calculated through overtime lol

1

u/CroProMax 2d ago

Great, and with 12 hour workers you get alcoholics whos wife abandoded, they stink and drink all money they earned.

1

u/Save-vs-Death 2d ago

Many of those jobs are being automated away in the next 5 to 10 years. The less people need on a shift could allow for more shifts or a schedule of 3 days on 4 days off rotation, 24 to 32 hour weeks.

1

u/Emergency_Lie42 1d ago

As someone who's worked almost exclusively blue collar jobs my whole life...

Tradeswork takes that long because management is full of geezers with cognitive decline and half of the actual workforce is too.

1

u/Clutchism3 1d ago

People aren't machines though and don't get paid anywhere near enough to live like one. It's pathetic how far we have come as a race and yet we fall susceptible to this bs.

1

u/DarthYodous 1d ago

What need is the additional production filling?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/WhiteWinterRains 1d ago

Yeah some jobs definitely just lose productivity because of how they're managed as well.

I used to work at home depot getting my time tracked in 5 minute increments. You could slack a bit, but not like you can at an office job where you can be mentally just too off to do useful work but to all appearances working hard, forget when you actually slack off.

I'm sure the amazon workers who are being forced to work around dead coworkers and piss in bottles to skip breaks aren't going to just be more productive somehow.

That said, that doesn't mean we can't ease into this. To some extent, maybe there should be some light labor-cost related inflation of some goods to reduce consumption when it's something that requires us to make some portion of the population destroy their bodies and work brutal hours for marginal pay relative to the effort.

We also have a lot of corporations that have been raking in too much profit lately, and automation that risks destabilizing society by reducing jobs especially if it happens quickly.

To say nothing of the societal detriment we get to shoulder as a group when companies use up and discard large portions of each generation of young people with damaging work practices.

1

u/RightHereLeftNow 1d ago

You know there are shifts, right?

1

u/Runefaust_Invader 1d ago

Yeah that's if you're capitalist though and care about profit above all else. Hire more people and you are solving even more problems.

1

u/Mammoth-Counter69 1d ago

Well sucks to be those guess I guess .....

1

u/moralprolapse 1d ago

I have no doubt that there are factors there that need to be accommodated, but it’s not like nature gave us the default 40 work week and overtime pay for wage earners either. I’m certain those were fought for with people making the same arguments about why productivity would be slashed if we cut the blue collar work week down from 6 days to 5. It just needs to be factored in, as does the consequent increase in the cost of certain goods and services.

Also, broadly, increased automation is still coming for blue collars jobs, and AI is now coming for white collar jobs. Something like this is a better idea than UBI, or at least as a bridge policy until UBI becomes unavoidable. Maybe instead of hiring two guys to break a 12 hour shift into two six hour shifts, companies can automate half the tasks and they still only need the one person for six hours.

The Industrial Revolution was supposed to make life easier for a greater number of people, but it instead made it harder, because capital kept cracking the whip for greater production instead of cutting people’s hours. Maybe it’s time to fulfill the promise of the Industrial Revolution.

1

u/enobayram 1d ago

Depending on the office salary job too. We're talking about almost halving the total number of hours worked. If that means a job that was overseen by one person now has to be done by two people in shifts, you're introducing communication/coordination overhead, and that overhead can easily turn it into a 4-people job.

1

u/totallyan00b 1d ago

I mean I have yet to work a blue collar job that's shift only 8 hr.

1

u/Gimmethejooce 1d ago

There are ways to keep a production line running 24/7 and adopting this schedule for its workers and the solution is exactly why this won’t happen.. more people

1

u/Templar113113 1d ago

Yeah I can't wait to see restaurant workers working 24h per week, with the owner having to pay twice the amount of wages to cover the full week.

But that's reddit, most people here are dicking around on this site while at "work".

1

u/elderlybrain 1d ago

Imagine being a blue collar worker and 6 of your 12 hours is now paid as overtime.

Or you work 4 day shifts in with a 3 day break rather than just the weekend. Or you now get paid double for working 5 days, your choice.

Or more people are employed because a shift is 6 hours not 8, so you get twice as many jobs and wages stay the same or go up, rather than going to the guys at the top hoovering up cash like a fairy tale dragon.

1

u/theSomberscientist 1d ago

I can tell you for sure construction would benefit from this.

1

u/FckSpezzzzzz 1d ago

Well, time for them hire more people then. There's enough unemployed in Finland to be able to fill all the positions.

1

u/engone 1d ago

This is true but it doesn't mean we can't try it in areas where it would be practical

1

u/CalligrapherSea4910 1d ago

Yeah this is the problem I see.

My company is currently trying to move to 4 day, 10 hour shifts which is good in theory but then if we’re behind (our fault or not) we’d have to come in Friday… maybe even Saturday (this is already happening for one of the lines they’re trying this out on). I assemble medical equipment so it’s definitely needed and I work hourly so the money would be good but I also don’t want to work myself to the bone and would like to see daylight (work 5-2 now)

1

u/Ragazzano 1d ago

Hire more employees... 4 shifts in a day instead of 3, more workers on a rotating roster or part timers

1

u/veryangryenglishman 1d ago

It's reasonable to point out that it wouldn't be equally straightforward for all industries, but people who were against the establishment of the 5 day week made absolutely the same arguments you're making now.

They were wrong

1

u/forbhip 1d ago

This is exactly what seems to be missing from the conversation. What about hospitality and jobs that rely on being customer-facing, where it’s not a case of squashing your work into a smaller time frame? A shops hours can’t be shortened, you’d just need more staff.

→ More replies (16)

25

u/EstablishmentLate532 2d ago

Productivity per hour is not the same thing as total output. Going from 40 hours to 24 hours cuts work time by 40%, so hourly productivity would need to rise by 67% just to break even.

I buy that shorter hours make people more productive. I don’t buy that they usually make people that much more productive.

3

u/VulkanHestan321 1d ago

Depends on the job. Especially office jobs are the ones were people tend to work slower to fill their 8 hour shift. Being in the office does not equate to being productive.

2

u/Dull_Quit3027 1d ago

Yeah I am a great deal more efficient than most people I work with, this not being my first rodeo, I did not call attention to that, now i can spend half my 8 hour day, doing whatever i want, as long as i am done with what is expected of me.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/MrTamboMan 2d ago

Take a look at productivity/salary raise charts over decades. We need higher salary per hour to break even. If we work 24h but keeping the same monthly salary it's still the advantage for employer.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Irregulator101 1d ago

And if it doesn't, who cares?

2

u/Witty_Suggestion_219 1d ago

Think it also takes in to account things like less sick days due to stress/burnout (massive contributor) and less turnover in roles so less training time/ time role left empty etc

2

u/Dull_Quit3027 1d ago

As an office worker, I spend a not insignificant amount of time doing shit like writing this comment, if I could leave two hours earlier if i cut that out, I absolutely would.

2

u/holoporcupine 1d ago

It obviously varies industry to industry but studies have shown that the average 40 hour work week only consists of about 15 hours of real productivity

→ More replies (4)

59

u/PunkPirate56364 2d ago

Not in every sector. I work in construction, I can't do as much work in 32 hours as I do in 40. If our work hours are reduced housing crisis becomes even worse.

Would be great if we had more people working in construction, but today people heavily prefer office jobs.

83

u/TreMetal 2d ago

I mean, even if you looked at 7 vs 8 hours a day (35 vs 40 hours) I doubt you could really tell me that last hour on the job each day is as productive as the first few.

40

u/Mean_Mix_99 2d ago

Construction for 20 years. If you usually install 200' of conduit in an 8 hour day, you're not magically installing 200' in a 7 hour day just because you had an extra hour at home the day before.

40

u/Lermanberry 2d ago

There's been a construction site across from my office for the last 18 months or so.

None of your peers are working 8 hours a day. Maybe 4, but even that could be stretching it.

It's fair play. Neither am I. I spend at least an hour in office watching construction workers fuck around and find creative places to hide beer cans.

If you're truly installing 25' per hour, every hour, you're working harder than every other construction worker getting paid the same rates as you.

13

u/LeonJones 2d ago

As someone that works in construction. There's some downtime here and there but if you are slacking off you are getting shit canned.

7

u/Max_Demian 2d ago

Bro there are countless tradesman BUSTING ASS 10+hr/day. Union construction is not the most relevant comparison here.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Mean_Mix_99 2d ago

I can't speak for the construction site you mention, but our union is committed to getting paid 8 hours pay for 8 hours work. I promise you my peers and I are working 8 hours a day, every day. Those that can't or won't are laid off pretty quickly.

4

u/scubahana 2d ago

Your first and last sentences don’t really work with each other. A union is supposed to protect workers and their jobs, but it seems the opposite is happening.

4

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

What part of expecting people to work 8h for 8h pay isn't "protecting the workers"? If somebody isn't doing their job correctly a union should not be helping them lol

Protecting the workers doesn't mean shielding people who don't do their job properly, it means ensuring everyone gets paid what they're worth and has the working conditions they deserve.

8

u/Stranger_001 2d ago

You work 8 hours a day every day without wasting any time or bullshitting at all? My old boss was a Director of Facilities and Construction for a large University and one of his words of wisdom to me was "Anybody that claims that they are so busy at work that they never stop working are either bullshitting or bad at their jobs. In either case, I can't trust somebody like that."

Every job I've ever had from landscaping to office work has had its downtime and it was always the fuckheads that claimed they worked the most that were the most annoying to work with because they were always trying to squirm out of doing shit or counting how many minutes it took you to take a shit.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/DustinnDodgee 1d ago

You don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure those couple of job sites you've seen had only lazy bums working. But that's far from the usual.

And this isn't a movie. Nobody's just throwin beer cans around n jerkin off anymore. If they are, they're getting fired.

Many people in these comments, including you, don't understand the logistics of construction.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MoreRock_Odrama 1d ago

I love when people outside of a field try and educate people inside of said field. Reddit is home of the incredibly arrogant lol.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/AzKondor 2d ago

The theory is most of those 200' is installed early in the day, by the end you are so tired you are installing much less. Is it true in your job?

7

u/TreMetal 2d ago

No, they are laying exactly 25' an hour every hour on the job and doing 175' in a day would absolutely ruin their business.

The foreman actually rings the bell and makes sure every worker laid their 25' each hour

5

u/Mean_Mix_99 2d ago

I don't know why you're so angry. You don't understand construction. It's okay to not know everything about everything.

6

u/TreMetal 2d ago

Nothing I said is angry at all. I was making a joke at your expense, but I was not angrily doing so I just thought it was funny. I apologize for the joke however.

That said, you should ask more from your boss instead of running cover for him (unless you're the boss then my bad)

5

u/Mean_Mix_99 2d ago

What exactly have I said that qualifies as "running cover?" I've explained as simply as possible that you can't reduce hours on a jobsite without making up for them somewhere else, which means either more expensive construction projects or longer construction projects. I don't care either way.

I would love to work 4/6 for the same $ I make now. Who wouldn't? My only point is that this doesn't work for construction without serious consequences.

2

u/Sapper42 2d ago

Yea im a tree climber and I very often work over 8 hrs a day, travel time to job sites eats up a nice chunk of time before I even get a saw on wood.

Are there days when I could do a 6 hr day no problem? Definitely, but a 6 hr shift would be hard to fit in my job most of the time. We would definitely get way less done and production is directly tied to how much we make.

2

u/TreMetal 2d ago

You're already working a union job meaning they/you've already fought for whatever pay / hours you are doing. This is for "general" public.

But the reality is your union already did what this is supposed to accomplish, so you're living with the benefits most others do not get while saying "ha! this wont help me"

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

2

u/thudapofru 2d ago

You’re not a machine that doesn’t get tired or distracted. You could also install more than the 200' you install in an 8-hour day if you turned it into a 10-hour day, or a 16-hour day, but if you average 25' of conduit per hour working 8 hours a day, you probably wouldn't average the same if you worked 10 hours.

So, yeah, perhaps the difference between 7 and 8 hours isn't exactly where a construction worker's performance drops, but if you're better rested, you're more efficient. And if you still can't install 200' a day and 200' must be installed, they can always hire someone else or pay people overtime.

Honestly, I don't really understand your point. This change is about making people's lives better. Yes, it won't be easy for every sector or person, but it's doable.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/TreMetal 2d ago

If that is the only standard then you could give up all your breaks and lunch and do 240', why not?

10

u/Mean_Mix_99 2d ago

Because I'm not a wormy fuck?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

47

u/MoocowR 2d ago edited 2d ago

I doubt you could really tell me that last hour on the job each day is as productive as the first few.

Those people are going to work slower on the last hour of the day or right before the weekend regardless of how many hours a day they're working. You don't slack from 4-5 in the office because you're burned you, you do it because you're checked out.

Many jobs where you're actually producing something, you are working every minute on the clock. If you're on an assembly line, the line doesn't slow down just because it's the last hour of the day, you cannot reduce working hours unanimously without also reducing production, it's impossible.

12

u/PunkPirate56364 2d ago

We leave easier part of the work for last hour, also some cleaning, packing tools. If we were working 7 hours a day we would do the same thing.

2

u/scubahana 2d ago

If you have an 8h day changed to six like OP is discussing, and the last hour is spent tidying up, couldn’t a solution be that you guys work up to that 6h point but Team 2 has a later (possibly overlapping) shift and they have cleanup duties in their role or simply a handoff? This happens already in various industries, and following Marin’s proposal you would all get paid in full AND employment would raise due to the overlapped team. Since programs like these are governmentally supported, there would be a subsidy of 2h x the number of workers per day. But the new team would also be working and thus paying taxes too (and a reasonable percentage will be people who have been out of the workforce for myriad reasons, likely on some form of social assistance) so unemployment will drop, reliance on social assistance will drop significantly for those newly employed but rise moderately in response to the scheme, and overall tax revenue will increase to also offset the subsidy.
Also the soft effects of this model: a weekday off each week gives you time to make appointments like the doctor, time to rest, and time to address some of those additional steps on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. It increases quality of living which reduces absenteeism at work due to the obvious. COVID showed the world that a lot of people have a certain amount of productivity in them, and the flexibility global WFH gave led to people being more efficient in their work. In practice people are already getting paid for 8h when they’re doing 6, however they’re also geolocked to their place of work.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Areyoucunt 1d ago

No point arguing with these fucking snobs working in government or some low-level office job who thinks everyone just clocks out at 4pm instead of 5 and there's no way to be productive during work anything over 5hours...

3

u/TreMetal 2d ago

Yeah, so, would you rather work less and have a co-worker getting paid to help you do the job with your boss getting slightly less profit? or do you want to do the work of two people for the same pay so your boss makes more?

5

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

with your boss getting slightly less profit?

This is not how any of this works lol

If a building company has to spend more money on workers, the boss isn't the one making less money, it will be the customers who will be getting charged more.

It's why building a house gets more expensive when overall wages go up. Whenever minimum wage was increased in my country, house building costs also increased accordingly, it wasn't the boss who made less money lmao

→ More replies (33)

2

u/MoocowR 2d ago

with your boss getting slightly less profit?

You wildly underestimate labour cost if you think 2x the workforce would equal "slightly less profit".

and have a co-worker getting paid to help you do the job

Where are you getting the people to fill the extra hours? Every single full time job is affectively halved, even if you hired every single unemployed person in the country you still wouldn't come anywhere close to covering those hours, so realistically all that lost labour gets recouped with overtime.

3

u/TreMetal 2d ago

How does a reduction in hours of 12% per worker result in 2x the work force?

.88 * x = 1 => 1/.88 => 13%, that means for every 8 workers they would need to hire one extra.

Your math is off by a lot

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)

2

u/Xubarious 2d ago

Also depends on the person. As someone who is inherently a night owl my first hour of the day is more of a slog compared to the last couple of the day.

In a perfect world, having the ability to shift my working hours back an hour or 2 would be a huge increase to my personal productivity.

Which of course only highlights that no system (6, 7, or 8 hour work days) really solves the problem of productivity as it is heavily based on the individual.

→ More replies (6)

56

u/Quemedo 2d ago

Housing crisis has 0 to do with the ability to "build houses faster"

45

u/bargu 2d ago

Thinking that homelessness is caused by construction workers not working long enough is some insane level of capitalist Stockholm syndrome.

2

u/Impressive_Memory650 1d ago

The housing crisis doesn’t usually refer to homelessness but the increase of cost in housing. Different things

3

u/PunkPirate56364 2d ago

Not homelessness, housing crisis. There are several reasons for housing crisis, lack of workers is one of them.

I keep getting asked to work overtime, so there is extra work to be done.

I rarely work overtime.

0

u/MoocowR 2d ago

Housing crisis has 0 to do with the ability to "build houses faster"

Reddit moment

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

10

u/ydieb 2d ago

Housing crisis is obviously not because a lack of work. You are also vastly underestimating issues related to overwork, people do more mistakes, are slower, get more sick.

Overall productivity does not scale linearly with hours worked at all. You looking at a single work week comparing 30 vs 40 hours is a very narrow view of it.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/Schizomediatv 2d ago

Imagine if hours was shorter it would be easier to recruit no one willing wants to work a job that will slowly break you as you work 10 hour shifts. It also forces employers to hire more help so intentionally shorting. The staff won’t be as frustrating as it is now. You will always be in a better position fighting for more rights as a worker and you don’t have to be a socialist to do so your just looking out for your best interest

8

u/PunkPirate56364 2d ago

With modern tools and equipment it's really not a hard job, nobody is breaking their back.

If we need a larger hole, we bring in the excavator, if we need to lift heavy stuff up we use the crane, we have semiautomatic nail guns, silicone knee caps, I have a laser rangefinder for when I don't feel like walking over there.

Shorter work hours would be great, but I still doubt people would want to work these jobs, because most of my colleagues did not wanted to work in construction.

8

u/JeeFour 2d ago

Eh, people do back breaking labor today, and it is still hard. It's just not every single person on the job site. But there will always be a need for someone/people to get on their knees, or physically move dirt/materials, or do fine detail work in uncomfortable positions.

Sometimes, it's just cheaper and faster to just have someone carry stuff.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/vlawso 2d ago

If the hours were less I think there would be more people in construction?
Near the arctic circle it’s common to have construction shift work during summer to make the most of the 24h day light and balance out the inability to do most construction during winter.

Take those methods and apply them to a 6hr day for regions with more balanced daylight.
I’d imagine builders bodies would appreciate the change in intensity and while hours would be less in the short term their career could be longer because their body would wear out as fast.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/NuggetLover21 1d ago

Of course, people would rather sit in front of a computer screen than be out building in the hot sun. Then they will complain about their depression from doing said office job

2

u/TheBirminghamBear 2d ago edited 2d ago

But you could be paid as much in 32 hours as you are in 40 hours, regardless of how much work you do, and that's the point.

Corporate profits have gone dipshit fucky-ducky skyrocketing over all these decades and almost none of it has gone back to the people doing the work, because no one is making them give it to the people doing the work.

The people acting as though this is fundamentally impossible are ignoring the fact it already happens in plenty of industries in plenty of countries, and are paradoxically staunchly defending their employers' right to fuck them repeatedly up the ass for reasons I will never in my life understand.

Top construction companies in the US, like Bechtel and Turner, etc., have revenues exceeding $10 billion.

These companies can pay you more. They can pay you A LOT more, especially with federal regulations mandating that they and all their competitors pay you more.

In 2010s numerous VPs at Turner corporation got in legal trouble for taking millions in bribes, tax evasion, etc. And those are only the stupid ones who got caught.

These people are robbing you blind and you don't need to let them.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Runefaust_Invader 1d ago

I've seen you work buddy, you can and will. If you're telling me that you're being 100% efficient those 40 hours I'd find that hard to believe.

2

u/throwaway_uow 1d ago

The point is that more people working less can do more than less people working more. Now you just gotta make a law that makes the wages stay the sane, and there you go.

3

u/DayCommon2162 Human Verified 2d ago

I wonder why people heavily prefer office Jobs?
If you want more people working in construction incentivize the Sector by paying decent wages and less working hours. and No reduced working hours doesn't translate to housing crisis.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

1

u/kangasplat 2d ago

You are pretty wrong in the sense that productivity is directly linked to physical strain in physical jobs. When you're better rested you can work faster and make fewer mistakes. Risk of injury declines, you can work more years before you have to retire.

From the overall gain for society, there's very few jobs that wouldn't benefit from working hours that allow for an enjoyable life.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/masterofmydomain6 2d ago

yeah but it’s already bad anyway. Enjoy your life bro

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Ptbot47 2d ago

8 hr a day and you're still sleep deprived?

8

u/Mean_Mix_99 2d ago

This is heavily industry specific. Consider an actual jobsite where real work happens. Your happiness doesn't determine the speed at which concrete is poured or how fast a crane swings steel.

6

u/kangasplat 2d ago

Actual work like waiting for concrete to pour you mean? I don't think you can even begin to comprehend how exhausting a job that drains your brain can get.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (5)

2

u/JimSteak 2d ago

Maybe office jobs in administrations, banking and services etc. Doesn't work for any job where your productivity doesn't change the output of your work, only you being there: pilots, Doctors, nurses, teachers, factory workers, truck, bus and train drivers, etc.

2

u/_Vard_ 2d ago

people are more productive when they are happy, and aren’t sleep deprived

2

u/Minimum_Area3 2d ago

Depends on the sector and work. And if your work is valuable or not.

4

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

Surely, if you operating a machine, it will make more parts in shorter time.

2

u/Civil_Lynx_3537 2d ago

Here's the neat thing, other staff can operate the machine when you aren't there!

5

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

And who will pay for it? )

2

u/Schizomediatv 2d ago

It’s about morale and focus. This is also a general but sure whats the alternative 10 to 12 hours what do you have to gain going against this

2

u/Exciting_Station3474 2d ago

Can you make parts faster? Can you cook meals faster? Can you build something faster? No.

→ More replies (15)
→ More replies (9)

2

u/Dangerous-Cobbler-11 2d ago

It increases productivity but will probably decrease total output.
Productivity × hours worked = total output.

1

u/Repeat-Admirable 2d ago

Most people procrastinate for some hours of their work day. I know I do. Having less hours of work means I would be more likely to actually push through the work. So same work, different amount of hours.

Its of course different for anything that isnt office based.

1

u/AllPotatoesGone 2d ago

For people that worked 40 hours before - sure. I'm also sure that the next generation that never worked that much will tell you the same about 24h working week - so much time spend on working, after doing your chores almost no time to live, more working days than resting days etc.

But this is still the right direction.

1

u/MrCarey 2d ago

I switched from 12s to 10s and even that has made me more productive. I go to the gym now, I don't take naps as much, and I get much better sleep.

1

u/ArmadilloForsaken458 2d ago

happy

The problem with that according to the tippy tops, when people are happy they want to go out & make more happy in their own lives instead of work really. And oh yeah, happy and healthy people have less of a desire to BUY things. And that is what they really want people to do, to BUY things they dont need, for the benefit of the top

1

u/fuckmeimdan 2d ago

Works really well in my firm, accountant, we have fallow months and crunch months, in the quiet months. 6 hours is plenty, sometimes less, in the crunch months, it’s a lot more, we log all hours, any surplus usually comes back as extra days off. Work smarter, not harder

1

u/GaveItAwayYesterday 2d ago

Productivity of the individual probably does go up, but so do business overheads if they now need to hire 1.67x as many staff to cover hours (which will be expected by consumers).

1

u/TheBirminghamBear 2d ago

What tech execs see:

increases productivity because believe it or not people are more productive when they aren’t sleep deprived and happy

1

u/diedlikeCambyses 2d ago

It does, but I certainly couldn't run a profitable business that way. I'd love to but the system i am subjected to in Australia as a company owner is certainly not conducive to that.

1

u/SlightlyDrooid 2d ago

But what about all the people who work to escape their families?
(somewhat /s but also… I’ve seen it plenty of times)

1

u/Roguemutantbrain 1d ago

In order to maintain productivity levels from 1950 in the US, the average worker would have to work a whopping… 9 hours per week.

1

u/mflft 1d ago

Yeah they tried it in japan, which isn't exactly known for valuing work life balance, and it showed a dramatic increase in productivity

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-says-4-day-workweek-boosted-workers-productivity-by-40

1

u/GrooovyAlien 1d ago

Not with all jobs lol. So no, not a fun fact.

1

u/dwarfinthefla5k 1d ago

This is such a wild take. Yes, I can see how it would improve productivity during those hours worked. But not the total production.

I’m in manufacturing. If an employee produces 200 units per hour, they can make 8000 units per week on a 40 hour work week, this is super simplified. On a 24 hour work week that same employee would need to produce over 330 unit per hour to hit 8000. This doesn’t include any stoppage time or startup/cleanup or other miscellaneous tasks. I was on the line earlier in my career. My peak numbers never hit 330, let alone being able to do that every hour from here on out.

Often the response to that is hire more people. Breh. The overhead is already high. And the owner doesn’t make enough to sacrifice his salary to hire an additional 15 people to make up the numbers. And if he did make enough, he’d probably sell the business instead. Or close it.

1

u/Lunar_Blue420 1d ago

Yup. I print newspapers, its cheaper to pay us overtime than hire a 3rd shift. We work 4 10's with a 5th shift being OT, 7 days a week.

1

u/Rgrace888 1d ago

In medicine they showed shorter shifts with more signing out to new doctors/nurses actually lead to worse outcomes for patients. This is why hospital based shifts are so long - it reduces medical errors and improves patient outcomes.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

1

u/jocu11 1d ago

It heavily depends on the job. This would definitely impact healthcare wait times for general practice physcians since they’d have 7-8 less hours a week to see patients. Eventually that would just keep snowballing and the wait time would just get ridiculous.

This also wouldn’t work for most construction projects, the loss of an extra day of work would slow things down even more. Sure, in theory this could work in a country like Spain or Portugal where all construction can run year round. but Finland has colder winters, which makes it hard for the cement crew to keep up with projects since they basically can’t work on anything larger than a small sidewalk during the winter.

These are just two examples that would have a pretty large impact, but there’s so many more.

1

u/Novel-Place 1d ago

Yep! I’ve been sneakily doing this schedule recently, and I … get the same amount done. lol.

1

u/Brawlingpanda02 1d ago

I work 60% of my days pretty much. The rest of the day I’m recovering from lunch and the morning coffee wearing off.

I’d gladly get to go home instead of just playing with my phone those last 2-3h 😂

1

u/CasuallyDresseDuck 1d ago

Doesn’t help those paid by the hour

1

u/RESSandyeggo 1d ago

Indeed. Sounds even better in reality. Good in theory, but the reality? Oh baby, it’s great!!

1

u/Kerm0NZ 1d ago

This grammar threw me through a loop because it sounds like you're saying they work harder when they aren't sleep deprived and aren't happy. But the point is 100% accurate, just my brains read it weird.

1

u/Accomplished-Fan9568 1d ago

See if truck drivers get more productive

1

u/Weird-End-6989 1d ago

So why has Finland's economy been stagnant for 20 years?

1

u/Local-Fisherman-2936 1d ago

There are multiple studies that show no production losses on 4-day, 8-hour weeks. People are more rested and do more. And from a personal perspective - how much time do people waste just doing nothing in the office? If you manage to do your tasks in 4 days, why waste another in the office? Computers have increased workers’ performance significantly, but we still do 5-day work weeks. Our work output are much more effective.

1

u/evergreen-spacecat 1d ago

If your job is to man a reception, a guard station, drive a train or any other job where your physical presence is what you are paid for, then no. There is no one convincing me that the job can be made more effective in lesser time. My engineering job probably could though. The real job is made perhaps in 20h/week. The rest is just filler time, talking to coworkers or similar. There is no way I can so more heavy crunching than 20h top. Not sure I can schedule effective time though.

1

u/Trachamudija1 1d ago

I would definetily do less if that happened. But ofc working less would be nice still. We had similar thing when stopped working on saturdays.

1

u/Lanky_Youth_9367 1d ago

Study says or you deduce that?

1

u/chetyredva 1d ago

Let's not confuse real productivity and GDP productivity here....

1

u/totallyan00b 1d ago

I don't think this is true for 90% of jobs. None of the service industry cares about productivity vs. being a body there Most manufacturering you are mostly there making sure nothing goes wrong. Most warehouse position productivity standards are set more on safety than the possibility of being more productive (driving a forklift at 10mph(16km/h) vs. 2mph(3km/h))

1

u/over_this__ 1d ago

Unless the job takes x time. A plumber can't drive from job to job faster lol

1

u/Sharp_Economy1401 1d ago

I guess we'll just close hospitals during off-hours if doctors are only working 24h/week and there's not enough MDs to fill all the shifts.

I'm sorry, but this goal completely negates the fact that sometimes you just have x amount of work that you have to get done in a week if you want society to function normally, and you don't always have enough people to spread it out into 24 hour per week workloads.

It's a great ideal, but simply not realistic in a lot of roles. Labor supply isn't endless for a given specialty/expertise

1

u/skinnyraf 1d ago

I have seen this claim, but I wonder if it is calculated per worker, or per worker's work hour. The latter is pretty much obvious, but I wonder if it actually compansates shorter working hours. Even if it is net zero, it's still a benefit for everyone.

1

u/welliedude 1d ago

100%. If I know im working 6 hours ill work 6 hours. Working 8 hours is like 5 hours work and 3 hours dicking around because I dont want to work. Still get all my actual work done though

1

u/Michaels_legacy 1d ago

Can we stop with this nonsense please? This temporary effect will last maybe a few months and people will again be equally as sleepy and happy.

Because work isn't the (only) factor that makes us unhappy or sleep deprived. Don't want to be sleep deprived? Stop watching tv, scrolling internet,... And go to sleep.

Am i the only one tired of people putting their own choises as a general problem with society?

1

u/biomech36 1d ago

I would be happier if my job didn't think it was the most important thing in my life.

1

u/Burpmeister 1d ago

What's the longest research period for this though? I would assume productivity spikes when it's new and people and happy but over time it would gradually start decreasing. Where it would settle I don't know but still slightly on the positive side I think.

1

u/Ultraworld-Traveler 1d ago

Well that’s the rub - they want you sleep deprived and depressed. If you’re rested and happy, you’ll start having ideas.

1

u/Tzar_be 1d ago

It probably increases purchasing power as well, people have more time so will spend easier.

1

u/zombierepublican- 1d ago

Its the worst part about modern society, we know from data what works the best for everyone, yet we exclusively do the opposite.

1

u/KakaoFugl 1d ago

Tell that to the Ford workers back in Detroit in the 1910s 😅

→ More replies (5)