What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

32-Hour Work Week (1 Viewer)

Max Power

Footballguy

With 30% of US companies at least exploring the idea now, and a small but growing number of companies actually trying it, there's a real possibility it will take hold.​


The four-day work week was unthinkable, except in science fiction, as recently as five years ago. But one of the many things the COVID-19 pandemic taught us is that the structure of the workplace can change significantly and still be viable. That realization has opened the door to considering a work week of four 10-hour days or even 32 hours as a real possibility.
The idea has been around since at least the 1950s; but until recently, it hasn’t been taken seriously.
A 2024 KPMG poll of 100 US CEOs found that nearly one-third of US companies are exploring the idea of dropping one day a week. That may sound unimpressive at first, but think about it for a moment. Let it sink in.

This is only the vanguard.

Four-day week trials and studies have been surprisingly positive for both employees and employers. The large UK four-day work week pilot program was so successful that, of the 61 firms that participated, 92% said they would continue their four-day work week beyond the trial, including 29% that had already decided to make the change permanent. Earlier studies were also successful. And several companies have reported success in many facets of their business with their own trials, such as US-based Exos.
Employees are receptive to the idea. A Washington Post-Ipsos conducted a year ago showed that 75% of US workers would rather work four 10-hour days than five eight-hour days for the same pay. Meanwhile, according to a survey by cloud-software vendor Qualtrics, 92% of US workers are in favor of a shortened work week, even if it means working longer hours each day.

European countries may be ahead of the curve on shorter work weeks, with the UK and Germany undertaking large-scale trials; Iceland, Portugal, and Spain are also running pilot programs; and Belgium is the first country to pass a law that gives workers the option to work a four-day 40-hour week.

Analyzing the benefits

A shortened work week can help companies attract top talent, boost employee retention, reduce employee stress, lower the carbon footprint of employees (and potentially that of the company), and save employees money on commuting and childcare. The largest benefit, however, is a major boost to work-life balance, which appears to foster an increase in work productivity. (Check out this list of pros and cons of the 4-day work week.)

The concurrent arrival of a host of generative AI tools should also bolster productivity, mitigating any risks when switching to a four-day work week.
Those who oppose the notion might see productivity as chiefly measured by time — so many minutes equals so much productivity. And that might be true for assembly-line manufacturing, for example; the four-day work week isn’t for every company.
For many other jobs where what’s being created is intellectual property, ideas, strategic plans, sales, marketing, and software, for instance, intellectual acuity is the essential ingredient — and burn-out is a very real challenge in such roles. To be sharp, you need to be well-rested in mind and body. A four-day work week could well boost productivity in that kind of environment.
Even before the pandemic, some companies had begun to loosen up. Casual Fridays became work-at-home Fridays, for instance. Switching to working four days a week seems like a natural progression in that scenario.

So, it’s not surprising that a common finding of many four-day-work-week trials is that employee productivity grows, even in 32-hour weeks. More days in a week allows for more meetings, more distractions, more long lunches, and more employee procrastination. Fewer days in a week forces employees to sharpen their time-management skills and focus on completing tasks. Getting your mind out of the job for three days recharges your batteries and brings new perspective to your work, which in turn can elevate productivity.


There are some implementation ideas in the link as well. When I first heard the idea, I thought it was just flat out silly. I work at a place that requires manning 24/7, so less hours would mean more personnel and higher costs. However, the more I look at my situation, we already can't recruit top talent, have horrible retention rates and are constantly fighting employee burnout. We can't work virtually, so I'm starting to entertain this idea a bit more.

Thoughts from the group? Obviously, this isn't for all situations, but I'm thinking this might be a better idea than at first glance.
 
I'm in. I work a 4 day now but 4-10s.

That being said for me 32 hours I could still get my work done no problem. My job I'm sure like others has ebbs and flows. I can have "nothing" to do a couple days, to up in my eyeballs others. It all depends

The question is would you take pay cuts and or PTO cut for this to happen
 
In mining and oil field it is quite common to work 9-80's which would be great. My wife did that for years before she quit to be a stay at home mom.

We do let our engineers and other professionals at our manufacturing facilities work 4-10's.
 
If it works for firms and employees, great.

I can point to a handful of staff jobs around here that are really 3/4-time jobs if we're being honest, but the person works and is paid as if they were full-time. We do that because everything around here is either <49% or 100%. The inclusion of benefits really screw up the ability to offer work that is more than half-time but not full-time.
 
I'm in. I work a 4 day now but 4-10s.

That being said for me 32 hours I could still get my work done no problem. My job I'm sure like others has ebbs and flows. I can have "nothing" to do a couple days, to up in my eyeballs others. It all depends

The question is would you take pay cuts and or PTO cut for this to happen
In theory you keep the same pay. Not sure about PTO, that may have to drop a bit.

I think there is something to paying employees by task/production vs hours.
 
The question is would you take pay cuts and or PTO cut for this to happen
For me, the answer is an emphatic yes.

But I don’t think most people agree.

Currently, my job is entertaining a 5% pay cut. While I’m not ecstatic about the prospect, the alternative is increasing productivity ~50% to maintain our current salary. It’s a no-brainer to me, but any pay reduction is a non-starter for nearly all of my colleagues. They argue we’ll be asked to do extra work regardless, so why get paid less to do it?

I don’t agree with that logic at all, but imagine people would be even less likely with lower discretionary income.

Anyway, I’m all for working less, in just about every situation.
 
At this point, if it involves a pay cut, I'll pass. With full time remote work, I'm fine with the 5x8 model. Depending on the time of year, I actually prefer that over the 4x10; like having those 2 extra hours when the weather is nice and there's an abundance of daylight. When I get to retirement time and I decide to keep working, then I'd be interested in the 4x8 with pay cut. 3x8 would be ideal at that point.
 
I already have half day Fridays so my technical work week is only 36 hours.

I’m sure in some positions if can and will work, but not sure how it’s going to work for manufacturing, teachers, service industry, etc
 
I'm here for it.

Actually, have reduced my working hours, but with increased productivity from home the past 5 or 6 years.

I'll make the argument that having a packed and full schedule for 6 to 7 hours per day, working from home, is the equivalent as working 9 to 10 hours per day in an office setting. Maybe it's my line of work but I'm on zoom / teams calls all day and have project-based deadlines, so I'm constantly busy.
 
I mean of course it’s going to be a pay cut. Companies aren’t going to give people 25% raises.
Again the theory is that you keep your current salary. The company would benefit from the increased production in 32 hours vs 40 hours. Work place morale, retention and talent acquisition would shoot up.
 
This is long overdue and would not necessarily require a pay cut (more on that below), and I have posted extensively about this in the writers strike thread here on FBGs last year. Some points worth noting.

1)The productivity/output per hour of an average worker has risen SIGNIFICANTLY since the time we originally went to the 40 hour work week. Due to the advent of computers and streamlined output processes that no longer are made up mostly of assembling widgets by hand, a person can produce a LOT more output in 40 hours now than they could in 1940. Yet, instead of getting the same amount of work done in less time, or splitting that productivity gain (getting a lot more work done in slightly less time), we've given the ENTIRE thing to corporations and executives. Workers never got their fair share, and instead of these incredible technological changes creating a better life for workers, we've simply seen CEO salaries explode as a result of them.

Consider the robot maids in the Jetsons cartoon. When you were watching that as a kid did you think to yourself "boy I hope those come true one day so I don't have to clean the house and grocery shop so I can spend extra hours at work and get even more work done!", or did you dream of them so you'd one day have more free time? With computers we've essentially done the former.

2) Worker productivity per hour is not linear. The longer you work without a significant break, the less productive you are. Fridays are, by far, the least productive day of the week. If you cut out 1/5 of the work time you don't lose 1/5 of the output. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO IT, in fact. How much is debatable, but consider this.

When Henry Ford switched his company from a 6 day work week to a 5 day work week he didn't do it haphazardly. They split tested it for years, going back and forth, and breaking up different parts of the company between the two.

In the end, they found that the net loss in output when switching from a 6 day work week to a 5 day work week was: ZERO


That is, the gain in morale and output per hour with an extra day of rest/break was at least equal to, if not in some cases greater than the output they gained from an extra day of poor productivity work at the end of the week.

Would it be zero when going from 5 to 4? Maybe not. But there are extreme diminishing returns in the output return per hour work on that last day of the week, or the last hours of each day. Multiple times throughout history we've reduced the work week and I can't find any evidence of wages being decreased for any of them.

Several European companies have already shifted to 4 day work weeks with no reduction in pay. Lamborghini is one. It's not a perfect measure of production of course, but take a look at their stock chart and tell me if you can tell when they switched to a 4-day work week (hint: you can't).

3) Our work/life balance kinda sucks. This is subjective, but 40 hours only seems acceptable to people because they're used to it. When it was 60 hours, people thought that was acceptable too. Because we were conditioned for it. This is especially true now where single income families are much less common than a hundred years ago, so there's not someone to get all the weekly chores done at home during the week so at least the weekends can always be family time. You barely see your kids during the week, and then on the weekends you've still got to grocery shop, do the laundry, fix the gutters, mow the lawn, etc.

But the American workforce are largely a bit cuck-ish. We actually BRAG about being overworked. "I worked 50 hours last week". "Only 50? Lol get on my level bro, I put in 60 on the regular". I see this all the time, even in salaried positions without any extra pay for working extra. People actually bragging about getting taken advantage of so the CEO can get a bigger boat. Nuts.

4) Henry Ford projected that within 100 years with advances in technology the average work week would be under 20 hours and that it would be a net positive to society (more time off means more spending, which actually leads to more production, not less, and which has proven essentially true in every workweek cut in history). And as recently as 50 years ago, the American workforce was very much promised that a shorter workweek was in the cards for their children: https://gizmodo.com/the-late-great-american-promise-of-less-work-1561753129

Instead, in both cases, it all went to the CEOs. Bait and switch.
 
Last edited:
I already have half day Fridays so my technical work week is only 36 hours.

I’m sure in some positions if can and will work, but not sure how it’s going to work for manufacturing, teachers, service industry, etc
It would be very tough for some industries. They would have to get creative on manning or one solution offered was to pay OT rates after 32 hours.
 
I mean of course it’s going to be a pay cut. Companies aren’t going to give people 25% raises.
Again the theory is that you keep your current salary. The company would benefit from the increased production in 32 hours vs 40 hours. Work place morale, retention and talent acquisition would shoot up.
This only works as long as it isn't the norm. Even still, it sounds like magical thinking - there are tradeoffs, and that's okay. Some people would probably welcome the chance to work fewer hours for a correspondingly lower salary.
 
I mean of course it’s going to be a pay cut. Companies aren’t going to give people 25% raises.
Again the theory is that you keep your current salary. The company would benefit from the increased production in 32 hours vs 40 hours. Work place morale, retention and talent acquisition would shoot up.
This only works as long as it isn't the norm. Even still, it sounds like magical thinking - there are tradeoffs, and that's okay. Some people would probably welcome the chance to work fewer hours for a correspondingly lower salary.
Yes, good point. There is a difference between a company offering a 32-hour work week as a solution and it being something government mandated.

I do like the idea a lot. I don't like the idea of the government getting involved. I appreciate the recent bill for starting a conversation though.
 
In mining and oil field it is quite common to work 9-80's which would be great. My wife did that for years before she quit to be a stay at home mom.

We do let our engineers and other professionals at our manufacturing facilities work 4-10's.
We do 9-80. It's nice. We have some senior folks that accumulate enough vacation they just take the other Friday off and work 4 days weeks.
 
My company has moved to 4-9s with half day Fridays. It's been a success, but to be honest, the half day could be eliminated all together. Very little gets done, almost zero email traffic occurs, and everyone is basically staring at the clock to leave before lunch.
 
I mean of course it’s going to be a pay cut. Companies aren’t going to give people 25% raises.

This will be the discussion.

My perception is the expectation will be 25% less hours for the exact same pay and exact same benefits.

In 1886 Illinois passed a law restricting the work day to max of 8 hours.

In 1926 Henry Ford instituted a 40 hour work week (reduced the workweek from six 8 hour days to five 8 hour days)

In 1938 Congress passed a bill limiting the work week to max 44 hours without paying overtime

In 1940 Congress amended that bill to reduce it from 44 to 40 hours

In 2023 Lamborghini and other European companies reduced their work week from 40 hours to 32

As far as I'm aware, in none of these cases were wages reduced. In most of these cases the net impact to the company and economy was actually positive, even if we completely disregard the benefit to the workers themselves.

In all of those cases, output/production versus hours worked was already significantly lower than it is right now (that is to say, companies are operating at a net overflow of worker output now compared to those times)

The fact that reduced wages are even a point of discussion this time shows just how far we've fallen into corporate propoganda.
 
If it comes with a pay cut no thanks.

It should not come with a pay cut unless you are expected to do 25% less work. Even then I wouldn't want it. It's still less money, but cost of living isn't suddenly also going to drop by 25%.
 
Even without a pay cut, I wonder if the eventual result would be a "pay cut" relative to others. There are plenty of people who would work more than 32 hours a week (just like there are plenty who work more than 40 right now) and it is those people who benefit from their willingness to work more. You want a bigger raise this year? Work more than 32 hours. You want a promotion? Work more than 32 hours. You want to do well in that interview with another company? Tell them all about how hard you work and how you go above and beyond the standard.
 
I mean of course it’s going to be a pay cut. Companies aren’t going to give people 25% raises.
Worth it.

3) Our work/life balance kinda sucks. This is subjective, but 40 hours only seems acceptable to people because they're used to it. When it was 60 hours, people thought that was acceptable too. Because we were conditioned for it. This is especially true now where single income families are much less common than a hundred years ago, so there's not someone to get all the weekly chores done at home during the week so at least the weekends can always be family time. You barely see your kids during the week, and then on the weekends you've still got to grocery shop, do the laundry, fix the gutters, mow the lawn, etc.

But the American workforce are largely a bit cuck-ish. We actually BRAG about being overworked. "I worked 50 hours last week". "Only 50? Lol get on my level bro, I put in 60 on the regular". I see this all the time, even in salaried positions without any extra pay for working extra. People actually bragging about getting taken advantage of so the CEO can get a bigger boat. Nuts.
There was a pretty big study (and of course I can't find it) that showed that work beyond 55 hours a week doesn't add to work product at all. Productivity increase goes to zero. 50-55 barely increases productivity. Based on that a number of years ago I moved from 2900-3000 hours a year to about 2700. I don't think it decreased my work product at all.

Now, 1600 hours a year? Yeah, sign me up.
 
You forgot to blame the lazy young people

My understanding is this would be for all ages.

As far as "laziness," I don't see that factoring in much.

It seems to be an issue of people would prefer to work less hours and be paid as if they worked more hours. Seems pretty obvious people would like that.

In the same way, I can see how companies would not like to pay the same amount and receive 25% less time from the employee. That seems obvious.

It seems there is a discussion to be had on both sides with fair points to be made. I don't see much propaganda or ill-intent on either side.
 
At my company some people are on 80% work, 80% PTO, 90% pay, 100% other benefits (medical, 401K). Not a huge amount, but some takers.
 
Another good discussion on this is discussing what an employer is actually paying for. An employee's time? Or an employees work/output?

It's the classic manufacturing model of piece work vs hourly rate. And for sure, different states see this differently I believe.

But as a generalization, in piece work, the employee is paid by the piece of work they produce. If you work in a plant sewing jeans, an employee might be paid X$ for every pair of jeans.

Or they might be paid X$ per hour.

I've seen both work well. And both have advantages and disadvantages.
 
In a perfect world...I could probably get my job done in 32 hours a week (occasionally putting in a little "overtime" during our busy seasons)

But that "perfect world" would require the people I'm reliant on doing their jobs properly and on time.....which often doesn't happen (and would likely happen less if people were working fewer hours).
 
You forgot to blame the lazy young people

My understanding is this would be for all ages.

As far as "laziness," I don't see that factoring in much.

It seems to be an issue of people would prefer to work less hours and be paid as if they worked more hours. Seems pretty obvious people would like that.

In the same way, I can see how companies would not like to pay the same amount and receive 25% less time from the employee. That seems obvious.

It seems there is a discussion to be had on both sides with fair points to be made. I don't see much propaganda or ill-intent on either side.
I'd support some form of education or possible small incentive to companies who are interested in this. One of the things we should try to change is how companies see employee labor and don't automatically equate that to "time". It's become an outdated mindset that we need to break from. Technology has made employees more productive than ever and it's a huge benefit to companies.

If an employee produces 99% of the work in 20% less time isn't that still a win for the employer? Less operating costs, less turnover, less absenteeism... Happier and healthier workforce who has more time for family and friends is a win our culture could use.
 
Id probably do it with 10% cut. No chance I'd do it for 25%. Yes I get the the math doesn't line up
 
As far as "laziness," I don't see that factoring in much

If an employee produces 99% of the work in 20% less time isn't that still a win for the employer? Less operating costs, less turnover, less absenteeism... Happier and healthier workforce who has more time for family and friends is a win our culture could use
And current mindset is to just give that person more work.

That doesn't need to happen too often for people to wise up and work less efficiently.
 
Last edited:
I already have half day Fridays so my technical work week is only 36 hours.

I’m sure in some positions if can and will work, but not sure how it’s going to work for manufacturing, teachers, service industry, etc
Curious why you think it wouldn’t work for teachers?
 
My employer has this as an option. They do it in a fake four day week though requiring an extra hour in each of the four days, so **** that, work/life balance is bad as it is
 
There is no way US companies agree to an increase in hourly pay to make a 32 hour work week equal what you now make in a 40. I could see equal benefits but you are certain to take a big pay cut. Biggest benefit would be OT at 32. Anything more than that is a pipe dream.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top