You're discounting the productivity studies that show just as much, if not more, output is shown in a 4 day workweek. Other countries are experimenting with it

Your boomer side is showing

Ag92NGranbury said:

---

$30,000 Millionaire said:

---

Ag92NGranbury said:

---

Captain Winky said:

---

Threads like these always reinforce to me that you owe nothing to any company or manager. When push comes to shove, they will throw your ass out the door and be thankful it wasn't them.

---

just to approach it from the other side...

employees can and will leave on a dime and do so without thinking how their decision affects others that work around them... we really are in the 'me' generation and people will only think about their 'perceived' best outcome (or wage)

in many cases that grass is usually not greener

i'm not suggesting that people shouldn't try to better themselves with another job... it is just a bit hypocritical to lash out when a company is forced to do something on the other side that employees are doing all the time (average jump is 3-4 years)

---

I feel compelled to respond to this. I have seen companies do insanely inhumane things like rescind job offers the day before someone starts, lay off in the first week with no severance, and eliminate positions while someone is on leave. I know someone who was a 20 year vet that needed to take medical leave. Their superiors hired someone else in their position after 8 weeks, and when the employee returned after 12 (4 after this), they were given 3 weeks to find an alternative job within the company or take a severance package. It is total crap that a business can get away with anything under the guise of 'the needs of the business' but that you as an individual aren't entitled to the same leeway.

After having seen some of these things, the only thing I care about is managing 30K, Inc. I do not blame anyone at any time for acting in their best interest, even when it negatively affects me. I do care that they own it and don't do things like 'ghost', but anyone that tells me they're leaving because they've gotten something better, I wish them well and hope the best for them. I would personally have zero qualms quitting a job 5 seconds after starting if something else better came along.

I encourage everyone to moonlight, have secondary skills like OA is mentioning, and just generally be self sufficient. It's a different world now.

---

i'm not saying that all corporations aren't bad actors...surely there are some... however, the employer gets the bigger black eye nowadays thanks to people like AOC and Bernie... the company has the right to act in its self interest as well to stay afloat.

it is funny that you mention moonlighting... i'd need over 2 hands now to count the number of people that i know that do this currently and do not give their current employer what is required by their contract/employee agreement... part of the reason why remote work has failed by and large.

to me this is stealing...

---

You either pay me to be somewhere for a certain number of hours a day or you pay me to get something and done.

As long as I meet one or both of those requirements my time is my time and unless I am using resources you provided me with or I am directly impacting your profitability; it quote Cartman. "I'll do what I wanna"

To be clear, I do agree that you must meet your current obligations. But then I don't know anyone outsode of some 1099s that have a formally documented "contract/employee agreement"

Ghost of Bizbee said:

---

You're discounting the productivity studies that show just as much, if not more, output is shown in a 4 day workweek. Other countries are experimenting with it

Your boomer side is showing

---

Post links to studies.

YouBet said:

---

Ghost of Bizbee said:

---

You're discounting the productivity studies that show just as much, if not more, output is shown in a 4 day workweek. Other countries are experimenting with it

Your boomer side is showing

---

Post links to studies.

---

I know if a case study, one company tried it, and basically found 5 days no more productive than 4.

There are also studies showing that after 2-3 weeks of 50-60 hours, the productivity declines back to being the same as 40 hours a week. So long hours for employees don't cause more work to get done.

Employers should harness employees productive hours. Which it seems on average humans have a limit of their number of focused productive hours they are capable each day or over a week, and hours beyond that don't lead to more work getting done, just more time wasted at the office.

60 hours a week is pretty much proven to be unsustainable and not increase output. Things like manufacturing that have a very measurable correlation to output and time still need to limit human hours to reasonable shifts, or humans get burn out and output will decline.

The studies are out there. Need to find them

Ghost of Bizbee said:

---

You're discounting the productivity studies that show just as much, if not more, output is shown in a 4 day workweek. Other countries are experimenting with it

Your boomer side is showing

---

your ass side is showing

it is a fringe trend that will be shalacked in the upcoming recession

I have a hard time considering subpar job performance as 'stealing', especially if a company is willing to accept that level of performance from another person and continue to pay them. Acceptance may include accepting but not liking. I'm not impressed when I hear something like "He doesn't do anything, he's stealing from the company!@#!". I don't like it because it assigns intent to be deceptive and intentionally defraud another. Someone doing their job (providing services) and being bad at it isn't stealing, and given most entities are at work vs. contract, the other side has a very easy way of remedying that. I can probably argue correctly that these same companies provide a poor work environment and don't do a good job of engaging and energizing their employees. Management lesson #1 I try to teach people is to create meaning for the work.

There are way too many employers that feel like they own others. I worked at a place that wanted employees to disclose any 'hobby or outside activity' that took more than 10 hours a week and that same entity had to approve your participation in said activity. Being the nice guy that I am, I wrote down sleeping, eating, and commuting and I talked to a senior gum flapper about it when he told me not to play game. I just told him I took what they said as seriously as possible and that I spent more than 10 hours a week on those activities and wanted to make sure that they were OK. It's mystifying why anyone would give that degree of power to someone where you exchange time for money.

For some food for thought, most C-level executives are on the take somehow. They're paid to be on advisor boards, speak at conferences, commissions for referrals, or perform outside consulting. They also get things like super bowl tickets, invitations to use someone's beach front mansion, and a free meal every day. It's quite ironic that companies espouse ethics when their top leadership employees are unduly influenced by vendors and outside parties.

Ag92NGranbury said:

---

Ghost of Bizbee said:

---

You're discounting the productivity studies that show just as much, if not more, output is shown in a 4 day workweek. Other countries are experimenting with it

Your boomer side is showing

---

your ass side is showing

it is a fringe trend that will be shalacked in the upcoming recession

---

You are easily triggered dude, Jesus

Never seen such a pro loyal company man on this board before. That's not how the world works these days. Moonlighting is here to stay until a company pays employees what they're worth. Want your employees to take on more responsibility? Pay them more.

Go ahead and bookmark this thread. When society starts moving to a 4-day workweek, will be good to revisit

Ag92NGranbury said:

---

Ghost of Bizbee said:

---

You're discounting the productivity studies that show just as much, if not more, output is shown in a 4 day workweek. Other countries are experimenting with it

Your boomer side is showing

---

your ass side is showing

it is a fringe trend that will be shalacked in the upcoming recession

---

If I may make a suggestion, there are two things I think about on this topic:

1) Most jobs have a high degree of time waste and inefficiency involved: staff meetings, all hands, status meetings (and the pre-meeting before the status meeting), sales meetings, etc. There are also places with a martyr culture that glorify sacrifices. Anyone that's worked in big 4 knows exactly what i'm talking about with Saturday meetings. I think if you told people to get the same work done in fewer days, they would find a way to do it. The 4 day work week probably has longer hours on the days you do work. I really support a 4 day work week.

2) Technology and in particular AI/ML/robotics will make work substantially more efficient and there will be a day soon where our economy doesn't need as many workers and the workers that are there won't need to work as hard. Their jobs will be just the meat and none of the fluff. I actually think you'll see a 3 day work week in our lifetimes because of this and the other time will be spent on community activities. Companies will employee people not because they need them but because it will be part of the social contract for a functioning society. You don't have to believe me. But remember this.

There are also two types of thinkers in the world, fixed thinkers and growth thinkers.

$30,000 Millionaire said:

---

There are way too many employers that feel like they own others. I worked at a place that wanted employees to disclose any 'hobby or outside activity' that took more than 10 hours a week and that same entity had to approve your participation in said activity. Being the nice guy that I am, I wrote down sleeping, eating, and commuting and I talked to a senior gum flapper about it when he told me not to play game. I just told him I took what they said as seriously as possible and that I spent more than 10 hours a week on those activities and wanted to make sure that they were OK. It's mystifying why anyone would give that degree of power to someone where you exchange time for money.

---

This is great.

bmks270 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Ghost of Bizbee said:

---

You're discounting the productivity studies that show just as much, if not more, output is shown in a 4 day workweek. Other countries are experimenting with it

Your boomer side is showing

---

Post links to studies.

---

I know if a case study, one company tried it, and basically found 5 days no more productive than 4.

There are also studies showing that after 2-3 weeks of 50-60 hours, the productivity declines back to being the same as 40 hours a week. So long hours for employees don't cause more work to get done.

Employers should harness employees productive hours. Which it seems on average humans have a limit of their number of focused productive hours they are capable each day or over a week, and hours beyond that don't lead to more work getting done, just more time wasted at the office.

60 hours a week is pretty much proven to be unsustainable and not increase output. Things like manufacturing that have a very measurable correlation to output and time still need to limit human hours to reasonable shifts, or humans get burn out and output will decline.

The studies are out there. Need to find them

---

I'm not going to dispute this. However, many people who clamor for the 4 day work week are wanting the French model and simply want to work less (the left side of the aisle). If the government forces it, like they do in France, then that won't get you the productivity you want. It gets you lazier employees who will just want more handouts.

If the market dictates a 4 day work week where productivity is the same or better then I'm all for it.

On remote work, the days of going into the office the majority of the week are waning. You're fighting an uphill battle, a battle which the majority of millennials and Gen Z workers are staunchly against.

On the other side, your assumption is 4 day workweeks mean you work less than a 5 day workweeks. That's not accurate.

Here's one example from Microsoft linked here. 40% boost in productivity in a country whose people define their identity by their work arguably more than any other country in the world. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-says-4-day-workweek-boosted-workers-productivity-by-40

Facts are facts. If you can't acknowledge that, I can't help you

Keep an eye on this too, massive 4-day workweek experiment happening over the summer in the UK:
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/worlds-largest-4-day-workweek-experiment-launched-in-uk/

Ragoo said:

---

Has anyone encouraged the OP to start looking for a new company to work for?

---

Would save a lot of time to just do himself first

Decay said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Has anyone encouraged the OP to start looking for a new company to work for?

---

Would save a lot of time to just do himself first

---

i dont know the industry or company - but I get this feeling layoffs right now are a leading indicator of a poorly run company. The economy is weird but people are hiring and capital is being spent.

Hard to believe people are still arguing against things like WFH and flexible working arrangements. There isn't a reputable consulting practice that would recommend full office, 5 days a week for just about any office job out there.

This thread has taken a turn and maybe we have a spin off, but for many typical office jobs, I'm all four a do what needs to be done approach. K know many that just create extra work and they live miserable lives. I will work weekends and nights as needed, but I make sure it's important and not the norm. I try and work half day Fridays. I was about 20 when I realized people thought I worked much more and harder than I actually did. I think it's focusing on only what is important and ignoring the trash. It's gotten me pretty far.

I hope everyone has a "me" mentality because if you aren't looking out for yourself, no one else will. If you want to chalk that up to being part of some "entitled" generation then go ahead.

Re: lay offs, they happen for so many reasons but the commons ones I see:

- company changes strategy, doesn't need the people in an area. They are probably still net hiring in this type of environment
- financial trouble or trying to make the financials look rosy on a quarter to quarter basis, so they'll tell the street they're growing top line while cutting bottom line
- post merger synergy: in some roles there can be only one
- technology makes a given function more efficient or obsolete
- big project or activity wraps up, eg building a pipeline or doing some sort of migration
- too many people get hired in a given area and not enough people leave on their own
- shutdown of site or location. This is typically a merger synergy
- last and most important: McKinsey or AT Kearney shows up and makes stupid suggestions to cut costs and work differently. The company will go all in and then fail at it, only to rehire for all the people they eliminated in the near future. If I hear one more jerk from there talk about agile tribes or the Spotify model, I'm going to scream.

Milwaukees Best Light said:

---

OP, nobody has said it, so I will. Bring your pistol. People are crazy as hell, even without firing them. Don't tell anyone, just conceal carry and pray it stays there.

And, find yourself another company. F those guys.

---

I mean, that seems a bit extreme, should he shoot the monitor or camera first?

Captain Winky said:

---

I hope everyone has a "me" mentality because if you aren't looking out for yourself, no one else will. If you want to chalk that up to being part of some "entitled" generation then go ahead.

---

I'm one that complains about the "entitled" generation. However, I don't disagree with anything you say above. Everybody is looking out "me" including the company and your boss. The trick for employees is to find a spot where their goals are aligned with the company goals and their bosses goals.

The disconnect is when the "entitled" generation puts the onus on the company or their boss to achieve their goals. If you want to work remote and do the bare minimum, great! Companies need that lower level employee that is going to churn out widgets until they figure out how to outsource it or automate it for less.

The problem arises when the entry level person is saying "They are paying me $60,000, so I'm going to do the bare minimum for a $60,000 job". If you want to make $100k, act like it. If you want to make $200k, act like it. Can you do that working 4 days a week at home with minimal interaction with others, maybe, but that's on you. Too many $60k employees, complain non-stop that their boss or company isn't giving them opportunities. GO EARN IT! You may have to ask for additional training or work a weekend or volunteer to help out another department in addition to your current job.

Oracle is a dog poop company.