Print Story Four day work weeks?
By nightflameblue (Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:52:12 AM EST) (all tags)
Yeah, right. We already have trouble fitting all the meetings into five days.

They claim a four day work week is becoming common practice in some cities because of the fuel price crisis. Then saying that that frees up an extra day each week where people go to cafes, out to eat, shop and basically open up the rest of the economy in the local area.

However, I question whether that would work here. Our boss can't seem to come up with enough time for all the meetings he wants in a week. Right now he's at Funhouse2. He also has himself scheduled for a two hour training session that starts in fifteen minutes. He plans to be at Funhouse2 until two this afternoon.

It's all working out exactly as he planned though, so no worries.

I'm covering his training session. That ought to cause no problems at all.

But I must say, the idea of a four day work week sounds good to me. Give me an extra day to work on things around the house? Yeah, that'd be pretty rulin'.

POLITICAL FUN-POINT: The Clintons were around last night. Billy-boy, bubba, puffy, ex-pres Clinton was saying, "This will go down in history as the most rigged nomination process of all time." His stance was that the entire nomination process was rigged for Obama right from the start and that Hillary never had a fair chance.

It's funny how, when I heard that, I got the feeling this is just the start.

What's the odds that Hillary goes Independent and tries to split the Democratic vote in the final election? I'm saying right now the odds are pretty darned high. I hope I'm wrong, but there's just this tingle telling me I'm not.

I gots madz trainingz to get to. Laterz.

< Poem of the Day: "First Love" by Joan Margarit | Avoidenance >
Four day work weeks? | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)
Four day work week by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #1 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:03:33 AM EST
But would they pay you for 5?

Well, there pulling the hour shift. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:07:43 AM EST
So you work the same number of hours, but only go to work four days, then three days off. That really wouldn't bother me much though.

[ Parent ]
Hm by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #6 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:12:19 AM EST
I think I would prefer one work-from-home day. I like my evenings to de-work my brain.

[ Parent ]
I would prefer that too by Herring (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:23:59 AM EST
because some of the people I sit near are really fucking annoying.

You can't inspire people with facts
- Small Gods

[ Parent ]
Work from home would be better. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #13 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:34:48 AM EST
But the company president has a real hangup about it here for anybody that isn't a "designer." Designers can work from home, no problem. But anybody else gets a "how do I know you won't just bill us for doing your housework?" He's a real trusting sort.

[ Parent ]
doesn't he know by garlic (2.00 / 0) #28 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:44:54 PM EST
that you can do your housework from work now?

[ Parent ]
A long time ago in an industry far away... by Vulch (2.00 / 0) #8 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:16:15 AM EST

I used to do a 7 work day fortnight, with 12 hour days when I was in. M-W--SS-T-TF-- pattern, with a second shift doing the -T-TF--M-W--SS days. Notionally 8am to 8pm or midday to midnight but with some jiggery-pokery for meal breaks. There was also a night shift, volunteers only, where a couple of people would do 7 straight nights starting on the monday they'd normally work, and have the following week off. That I think was 10pm to 6am but counted as full hours.

[ Parent ]
Can't really see Clinton running as an independent by R Mutt (4.00 / 2) #2 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:07:30 AM EST
She's put a huge amount of effort into building a powerbase in the Democratic party. Less risky to wait another 4 years and take advantage of that.

Also, independents tend to base their appeal on personal charisma, or posing as anti-Washington-establishment rebels. Can't see either working very well for her.

But her goal at this point. . . by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:09:24 AM EST
isn't to minimize risk, it's to make sure Obama isn't elected - at all costs. I've already heard a few Democratic party members getting all riled up and saying if they can't vote for Hillary they'll vote for McCain. But, if she were on the ballot as an independent, I see it splitting up the remaining Democrats pretty effectively.

[ Parent ]
If you want to think like that by MartiniPhilosopher (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:13:07 AM EST
why not just have her defect to the other side instead? I'm sure the Repubs would love to have her fighting along side them this time around. And given the real lack of difference between her and their presumed nominee it could make for a very powerful ticket.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

[ Parent ]
That might be a possibility. . . by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #14 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:35:38 AM EST
But Hillary strikes me as a "fight against" type, not a "work with" type. It's her entire persona.

[ Parent ]
lol you are funny by Gedvondur (2.00 / 0) #25 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:58:39 AM EST
That tongue in cheek comment made me laugh.  Thanks!

I can't imagine that.  The Republicans hate her with a passion of a thousand flames.  Entire legions of Republican pundits have built their careers on calling her a bitch.

One nice side effect is that it would kill Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh.  They would both die of collective apoplexy.

"If you do not sin, then you too may some day float like a big pink Goodyear blimp of The Lord." -theboz

[ Parent ]
To be sure, it was meant to be only half-funny by MartiniPhilosopher (2.00 / 0) #26 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:27:26 AM EST
From what I have observed both parties have largely used Hilary as a distraction from other topics and little more. She really has very little political power.

To my mind, her switching sides if she doesn't get any sort of nomination from the Dems makes a certain amount of sense. Especially if she was then paired up with someone on the Repubs side that doesn't want a second term. She easily has the ability to consolidate the Boomer vote and as a veep, no one has to worry that they're directly voting for a woman this time. She's just the backup.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

[ Parent ]
She's a Senator from New York by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #27 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:14:27 AM EST
She sticks around for a few years there and she'll have some power. She might become Senate Majority Leader, which has quite a bit of power.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Well, that would work by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #11 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:33:20 AM EST
But if she hates him that much, why not just hire an assassin to kill him? Would cost less than a presidential campaign. She'd pretty much inherit the nomination afterwards. And he's young enough to have several shots, she can't keep running spoiler campaigns forever.

[ Parent ]
he's a skinny little guy too by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #12 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:34:40 AM EST
might take a few shots to make sure you get him ;)

[ Parent ]
I hope she's not reading this. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:37:39 AM EST
It's likely she just hasn't thought of that possibility yet.

[ Parent ]
I hope the USSS isn't reading this by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #17 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:43:25 AM EST
Else lm might have to find yet another nick.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
MMmmmm no by Gedvondur (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:18:18 AM EST
I think you have mis-characterized Ms. Clinton's motivations.

She may not like Obama, hell she may hate him.  But splitting the party to run as an independent just to spite Obama is political suicide.

If she does that, not only will she not be President now, but she will NEVER get another shot at it.  As well as losing her seat in the Senate in two years.

Such a move would consign her to the political wilderness where she would have no power and no influence.  The Clintons are used to power and influence.  I can't see them giving that up just to spite Barak Obama.

Always look for the selfish personal motivations first.  She isn't going to sacrifice everything she's done just to spite Obama.

"If you do not sin, then you too may some day float like a big pink Goodyear blimp of The Lord." -theboz

[ Parent ]
Maybe. . . by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:25:57 AM EST
though there is the possibility she won't consider the long-term consequences in viewing the short term.

I still think there's some merit to the theories tossed around about her wanting to make sure if she doesn't get the nomination, the Republicans win outright in the final election because then she can ride a wave of "it should have been me" to the whitehouse the next time around. But if she's deluded enough to believe people will back her, I can see her doing something far nuttier.

[ Parent ]
Oops. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:11:54 AM EST
Training cancelled. *WHEW*

Actually, funny story - WahWah has half the accounting department and ALL of the receiving/purchasing department in a meeting in the room we were supposed to be using, and claims he had the room reserved since last week. Yet, looking at the official "reservation" calendar, HR has that room reserved for the meeting we were supposed to be in. He's lucky HR decided to reschedule, lest he'd end up with a HUGE fight on his hands.

Also, everyone in HR completely forgot about the training session. So, that's the IT director and the entire HR department forgetting about the training session they set up, and the two peons (Zippy and myself) who were supposed to attend being the only people to remember it. FUNHOUSE WOOHOO!

I'm doing my part for the 4-day work week by theboz (2.00 / 0) #10 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:30:25 AM EST
I attached to some printers on the floor around HR and printed an article about that out on those.  I've also left copies in the break room.  It probably has no effect other than pissing off upper management who are stuck in the 1950's style of I.T. work, but you never know.  I could start a big enough grumbling that they'll just outsource I.T. instead of dealing with all of us.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
Outsourcing is a lot more palatable to management by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:36:38 AM EST
than the idea of allowing their workers an extra day off, even if the hours remained the same. At least, that's the way it feels in these parts.

[ Parent ]
My company is too disorganized by theboz (2.00 / 0) #18 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:57:42 AM EST
They also are used to having their own personal bitches in I.T. to do whatever they want, so outsourcing would not be a good option.  The average age of employee here is 52, and the few of us in our 20's and 30's are treated like endangered species that they want to keep around.

In any case, outsourcing is always a possibility when you have inept senior management, but I think they would be reluctant to do it because it would be a major change, and they hate change around here.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

[ Parent ]
There is that. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #19 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:01:16 AM EST
Though I could see a day here where they decide outsourcing all but one standard issue IT Bitch would look good on paper to them. Not real likely, but possible.

[ Parent ]
6 to 8 hours is the optimal working day by lm (2.00 / 0) #22 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:37:29 AM EST
For most people productivity starts to wane after 6 hours. After 8 hours, productivity decreases so much as to make the extra time mostly useless.

That said, the option of working 4 ten hour days is picking up steam all over the place, especially in large metropolitan areas. I've also seen variations on this, like working 9 hour days with every other Friday off or 8.5 hour days with every fourth Friday off.

Personally, I think a standard 32 hour work week should be applied across the board for full time workers. Fat chance of that happening, though.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
Yeah. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #24 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:40:10 AM EST
Stardard work week here is pretty much 50 hours, though that isn't stardard for the hourly employees. Only the salaried folks are expected to put in an extra ten a week just for the hell of it.

Another reason the idea of the four day work week probably wouldn't actually work in practice for us here.

[ Parent ]
Sometimes we have summer hours by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #23 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:38:47 AM EST
four ten hour days, but that was more common in the 90's.

Four Day Work Weeks by FlightTest (2.00 / 0) #29 Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:24:28 PM EST
Theoretically, we work 9/80, M-Th 9 hours, 8 hours one Friday, the next Friday off. Half the company gets one Friday off, the other half the other, so projects are theoretically covered.

You notice the heavy use of the work "theoretically" there? Yeah, we started it last September. I've got 4 of my "off" Fridays off, and went home at 1pm or 2pm on one other "off" Friday. Most of my "off" Fridays I'm either at the office or traveling. On the other hand, some of the most respected people in my industry have personally commented to my boss that they are quite impressed with my work.

Also, our management who insisted on setting up who had which schedule so he could "make sure programs were covered" pretty much succeeded in having all the key people on $big_program off the same Friday.

In re: politics; the dems appear determined to cement themselves as the party most able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

clock's dad by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #30 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:30:05 AM EST
is changing the company where he works to 4 10s AND the company is paying to vanpool all the employees in AND they're now getting their bonuses weekly.

he figured they're going to save a crap-ton of money doing things this way - they work in mfg. so not having to power everything up one day a week will be great.

That'd be us too. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #31 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:19:19 PM EST
If we could convince the big guys. We use a SHIT TON of power during a day in saws, sanders, robotic table saws, you name it. Skipping turning them on one day a week? Yeah, a huge amount of savings.

[ Parent ]
Word to the 4 10s by LinDze (2.00 / 0) #32 Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:00:21 PM EST
It's totally feasible. When I interviewed at $Shrubbery_Networks the dept had a required telecommute 1 day per week policy. Totality ne MCI ne Verizon (used to?) do a 3/4 schedule. 3 work days of 12 hours one week, 4 the next. A friend of mine at an ISP out here does 4 10 hour days and loves it.

I worked from home today and did an entire days worth of work from my kitchen table. Finished up by 4pm including an hour and a half for lunch to boot.

-Lin Dze
Arbeit Macht Frei

Four day work weeks? | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)