• Uranium 🟩@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why don’t you think working less hours (assuming that the same amount of work gets completed in the same time frame) couldn’t work?

    The biggest issues I see with it are for things where jobs that are restricted by physical limitations (manual labor, construction, etc) wouldn’t be able to follow the same reduction in working hours, but beyond that, many jobs could likely benefit from it.

    The other way it could be achieved is paying people more per hour of time worked whilst having people working less hours but also increasing amount of people working on a job, which would result in more people being employed and likely an increase in productivity.

    We have a higher efficiency in output of work per hour nowadays than we did 50 years ago, yet we work longer hours for less compensation than we did then, IIRC

    • SturgiesYrFase
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I work for a public body in Scotland, we’re currently on 37.5 hrs weekly, annualised, and come April we’re moving to 35 hrs weekly, annualised. We’re in winter hours so I work 7.5 hrs a day including breaks, and only 4 days a week. I’m a Stone Mason, so manual labour, summer hours are longer and 5 days a week to be able to effectively use the good weather and longer days, but I’m salaried, so my wages stay the same regardless of what the work schedule is. I’d happily move to a 30 hrs work week, and do like 45 in the summer months, and 15 or 20 in the winter, there’s sweet fk all to do when it’s pishen of rain and cold af anyway.