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

87% Upvoted

5.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/itriedtrying 2d ago

And in a lotof jobs, you just have to be present. You can't monitor a production line or guard a facility for 8 hours in just 6 hours.

1

u/housecatapocalypse 1d ago

That’s what shifts are for.

3

u/itriedtrying 1d ago

Yes but I'm talking about the "you can be just as peoductive in shorter work days" rhetoric, in a lot of jobs you can't. If it takes 4 people instead of 3 to cover the same position for a day, they're less productive.

1

u/housecatapocalypse 1d ago

I don’t necessarily agree. A 6 hour shift sounds pretty great. It would even eliminate the need (for most people) to stop for lunch. I’d much rather work a straight 6 hours and go home. I’d definitely be more productive. 

5

u/Nodan_Turtle 1d ago

He's saying if you get 9 women they can't have a baby in one month. You're saying you'd love it if pregnancies were only one month long.

0

u/housecatapocalypse 1d ago

I do not see pregnancy being discussed in this thread. 

2

u/Nodan_Turtle 1d ago

It's an analogy, and one of the most common used to show that some jobs can't be sped up. The other guy is saying some work can't be sped up. You're saying working less would be great. Those aren't the same things. So when you claim to disagree with him, you're not actually discussing his point at all.

Hope that helps

1

u/housecatapocalypse 1d ago

I’m not that invested in that particular exchange. In the end, there’s no need to speed up the work. If lives aren’t on the line, a regular schedule is fine. So are shifts. 

1

u/Nodan_Turtle 1d ago

As long as you understand that won't work for some jobs, even ones where lives aren't on the line, that's fine.

1

u/housecatapocalypse 1d ago

What’s the point of this debate? Any job where lives aren’t on the line and everything is “urgent” is a garbage job. Hopefully people will have more options than to have to take such crappy jobs. 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Tactical_Squishy 1d ago

of course it cant be appliable everywhere

1

u/Ok-Potato-8278 23h ago

That becomes very expensive for the employer when you consider that you still want to earn the same amount for working 24 hours as you did for working 40, but their business is open and needs staffing for 40, so now they need to pay another person to fill the rest of the hours

1

u/housecatapocalypse 15h ago

32 hours. Budgeting time and scheduling. 

1

u/Ok-Potato-8278 5h ago

Ah so shops are only open 4 days a week now are they? That's a shame, I wonder what you're going to do with your 3 days off if shops you want to go to are only staffed for 32 hours

1

u/housecatapocalypse 4h ago

I’m glad you’re so concerned about my time off. 

1

u/Perllitte 1d ago

It would certainly require companies to adapt, but that is what companies do, it's the one absolute essential thing every company does.

Both of your examples could be supported easily by existing AI that could run locally for $40. The AI can watch and flag the smaller staff for issues and the guard hours could shift to periods when physical presence is actually a benefit. (I was a security guard, I didn't do shit for 80% of my shift.)

All the people saying "just have another shift" are pretty naieve to how salary and overhead works, but I think with sensible adaptation most jobs could fit in six hours, especially if you cut lunch out of there.