Is it time to start thinking seriously about this?

[d000hg]

its 4 days a week with longer days so 9.25 hours a day not 7.5.

No it isn't, the majority are simply trialling a 4 day week ~32 hours. The whole point is to reduce the amount of hours, not just squeeze them into fewer days. People will be less productive working 9+ hour days.

[vetran]

Could be wrong, don't don't lower paid jobs get paid by the hour, at a standard hour rate? So if they condense their hours into 4 days, rather than 5, won't they still get the same pay?

It's the salaried workers who could get screwed over, not the real workers as they tend not to be salaried.

It is the ones without power that get screwed over regardless. If one of us gets messed around we find someone else who is willing to pay and move, on my remuneration just gets bigger.

If you are at the bottom of the pyramid the employer dictates.

If there is a glut of people with the skill or its a low barrier to entry then you get stiffed.

[vetran]

No it isn't, the majority are simply trialling a 4 day week ~32 hours. The whole point is to reduce the amount of hours, not just squeeze them into fewer days. People will be less productive working 9+ hour days.

Hmm "the majority" - can you see the flaw in your argument?

As Whorty mentions his employer offers 4 day weeks with extended hours, its a logical compromise.

Plenty of people work 9 hour days very productively and in critical positions. Check out your GP/Surgeon etc.

[Whorty]

How often do you have to go into the office?

Very rarely .... went in yesterday to meet external consultants. Had a workshop last week. But in the 12 months I've been at the company I've been into an office 6 times.

[vetran]

Very rarely .... went in yesterday to meet external consultants. Had a workshop last week. But in the 12 months I've been at the company I've been into an office 6 times.

say 8 times in as many months. Mostly to meet customers or the team.

[d000hg]

Hmm "the majority" - can you see the flaw in your argument?.

The story I linked to and the backdrop of companies trialling "same pay for 4 day weeks" in the news recent months is not about squeezing a 35 hour working week into 4 days. You are incorrect to state otherwise and I'm not sure why you are labouring the point.

[vetran]

The story I linked to and the backdrop of companies trialling "same pay for 4 day weeks" in the news recent months is not about squeezing a 35 hour working week into 4 days. You are incorrect to state otherwise and I'm not sure why you are labouring the point.

The link I posted, the majority. Again you are only looking at one approach.

The reality currently is if you want to work 4 days a week the most likely offer you will get is your normal hours compressed into 4 days or a 20% pay cut, especially if you are not high skilled.

I love the naivete of the idea that large international companies who offshored everyone or charged them for safety equipment are suddenly going to give everyone a 20% pay rise unless of course you have pictures of them naked with NLyUK & the flying helmet.

Not labouring the point, just providing a less optimistic view which seems closer to reality.

[Whorty]

The link I posted, the majority. Again you are only looking at one approach.

The reality currently is if you want to work 4 days a week the most likely offer you will get is your normal hours compressed into 4 days or a 20% pay cut, especially if you are not high skilled.

It's actually the total opposite of this in my experience and of my friends ... the highly skilled are salaried workers and we work x hours for y pay. We can choose to work less hours for less pay, or choose to work the same hours over less days. I know no one who has been offered less hours for same pay.

Lower skilled workers are not generally salaried but work and get paid hourly at a specified rate. They may also get an overtime allowance on top if they exceed their 'standard' weekly hours.

Working 20% less time, and therefore being paid 20% is not a pay cut. The hourly rate is the same. Similarly, if they choose to work extra hours, and get more in the pay packet, this is not a pay rise.

[vetran]

It's actually the total opposite of this in my experience and of my friends ... the highly skilled are salaried workers and we work x hours for y pay. We can choose to work less hours for less pay, or choose to work the same hours over less days. I know no one who has been offered less hours for same pay.

Lower skilled workers are not generally salaried but work and get paid hourly at a specified rate. They may also get an overtime allowance on top if they exceed their 'standard' weekly hours.

Working 20% less time, and therefore being paid 20% is not a pay cut. The hourly rate is the same. Similarly, if they choose to work extra hours, and get more in the pay packet, this is not a pay rise.

You are viewing this from a position of power.

if you get £15 an hour and work 40 hours you earn £600 a week. If you now work 32 hours a week you get £480 a week. Its nice you don't see that as a pay cut most people earning that sort of money will. The reality will be that slowly £480 a week will become the defacto pay.

Remember the proliferation of 0 hour contracts that wasn't to help staff.

[Whorty]

You are viewing this from a position of power.

if you get £15 an hour and work 40 hours you earn £600 a week. If you now work 32 hours a week you get £480 a week. Its nice you don't see that as a pay cut most people earning that sort of money will. The reality will be that slowly £480 a week will become the defacto pay.

Remember the proliferation of 0 hour contracts that wasn't to help staff.

The pay rate is the same. So not a pay cut. It's a reduction in income if the hours worked reduces, but that can happen today if there is not enough work for someone on an hourly rate (albeit in there would need to be a letter from management etc explaining the change etc).

As far as I see these lower paid role are crying out for resources in many instances, and staff are being asked to work extra hours not less. Can't see that changing just yet - carers for example seem to be able to work as many hours as they want, extra shifts, the works. Not an option for us 'powerful' salary based staff (well, we can work extra hours but we won't see any more cash in our banks for doing it, never have).