How would you feel about a 4-day work week?

know1

Derrick wrote:

I personally resent that the norm is that we spend 5/7 days of the bulk of our prime years at work.

What are your pros/cons to the 32 hour work week?

What would you rather be doing?

Dustin51

mca47 wrote:

If I could I'd work 4, 10 hour days instead of 5, 8 hour days.

I can't do less hours in my line of work. I'm simply too busy.

Yeah, I'd be willing to put in 4-10's. Some Government jobs allow that I believe.

sonicreducer

we should ask congress,...

LeilaMoonTurtle

that is my work week
I work 3 or 4 long days
the rest are MINE!

hippiemom wrote:

I'm all in favor. I don't even care about cutting the hours ... I'd much prefer to work 4 longer days and have an extra day when I don't have to be here at all.

Byrnzie

Derrick wrote:

I personally resent that the norm is that we spend 5/7 days of the bulk of our prime years at work.

What are your pros/cons to the 32 hour work week?

I agree. 2 days of rest isn't enough. I need 3 days to recover fully. 5 days of work out of seven is too much.

JenInTheBx

I'll let you guys know what I think about it when my schedule changes over in two weeks...

My new schedule at work is going to be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 8-7.. can't wait. However, I did put in for a promotion, which in all likelihood is going to give me some not so good hours (but a very good pay raise), so we'll see how long this lasts.

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

What would you rather be doing?

Living - which is the opposite of work.

MrBrian

MrBrian wrote:

How about siesta? That would be cool.

we need siesta.

mammasan

I would gladly pick a 4 day 10 hr a day work week over a 5 day 8 hr a day work week. I hardly get out on time as it is and usually end up working 9-10 hrs a day anyway.

OutOfBreath

he still stands wrote:

"... ociologists make short shrift of "work ethic" as a useful sociological concept because to have a "work ethic" in excess of management's control doesn't appear rational in any mature industry where the employee can't rationally hope to become more than a manager whose fate still depends on the owner's decisions. Sociology prefers to renarrate excess work ethic as a form of alienation from truer needs for family and community connections, and twentieth century "critical theory" sees the "work ethic" as a unilateral demand which evolved from a mass confusion between Max Weber's "Protestant work ethic" of company founders, and a sociologically uninteresting phenomenon (rare enough to not register on a mass radar screen) which in fact produces deviance (of interest to the sociologist) in the form of addiction and family neglect

.... Many white collar employees, in a rational reaction to a demand for a "work ethic" involving the sacrifice of unpaid hours, cultivate a rhetorical "work ethic" consisting of external obeisance to absolute management control while producing little."

From wikipedia

That was a weird way of putting it... said the sociologist...
Could you link me the article?
From my take right here based on this, I think the author presupposes a way way too unified field of sociology. And the way he uses the term sociology/sociologist it may seem he goes from a very distinct (and somewhat unusual) definition of the term.

Peace
Dan

fanch75

Derrick wrote:

I personally resent that the norm is that we spend 5/7 days of the bulk of our prime years at work.

What are your pros/cons to the 32 hour work week?

Well of course it'd be nice to work less than more. I mean, it'd be great if I could work 32, 22, 15 hours, whatever, and make the same money.

That's not really the issue. The issue is should the government mandate such a thing. The answer is absolutely no. The reasons for this have already been addressed in this thread so I'll just refer to those.

Besides, 40 hours really isn't anything. It wasn't that long ago that people spent 12-14 hours per day out in the fields just to survive (and there weren't "weekends" to get away from that). It'd be great for you to go back in time and tell one of those folks that you don't like to work 40 hours per week, and that you "only" have 128 remaining hours each week for everything else. They would probably point at you and laugh.

Purple Hawk

Derrick wrote:

I personally resent that the norm is that we spend 5/7 days of the bulk of our prime years at work.

you resent the fact that capitalism allows you to pursue excellence, but you choose not to do so and have "the norm" (that's supposedly pushed on you) as a convenient excuse.

work 32 hours if you want, who is stopping you?

Purple Hawk

fanch75 wrote:

Well of course it'd be nice to work less than more. I mean, it'd be great if I could work 32, 22, 15 hours, whatever, and make the same money.

That's not really the issue. The issue is should the government mandate such a thing. The answer is absolutely no. The reasons for this have already been addressed in this thread so I'll just refer to those.

Besides, 40 hours really isn't anything. It wasn't that long ago that people spent 12-14 hours per day out in the fields just to survive (and there weren't "weekends" to get away from that). It'd be great for you to go back in time and tell one of those folks that you don't like to work 40 hours per week, and that you "only" have 128 remaining hours each week for everything else. They would probably point at you and laugh.

if people are counting their hours, they aren't doing what they should be doing.

my2hands

Derrick wrote:

I personally resent that the norm is that we spend 5/7 days of the bulk of our prime years at work.

What are your pros/cons to the 32 hour work week?

as a member of my unions executive board we are currently negotiating an optional 4 day work week, but we must still work 37.5 a week. trust me, i will be the first to sign up! other agencies in my state already have the option.


but i personally feel that we work WAY too much. as you said, a nice chunk of your adult life (about 33%) is spent at work.

boxwine_in_hell

Derrick wrote:

I personally resent that the norm is that we spend 5/7 days of the bulk of our prime years at work.

What are your pros/cons to the 32 hour work week?

I think it's about 4 days too long.

farfromglorified

Sweet...a 4-day work week thread. Soon to be followed by a "prices too high" and a "I hate poverty" thread.

Keep it real....

Uncle Leo

macgyver06 wrote:

40 hours is hardly work.

I figured we'd get some of this on here. We love to puff our chests and say "I work 70 (or whatever) hours a week." Then you are not professional or hard working or whatever if you don't.

Well I work 40. It is work. And I am in no way ashamed of that. I work in a field in which evening meetings , a few times a month, are sort of a necessary evil. So I guess I average a bit over 40.

I think it is totally healthy to work a 40 hour week (or whatever the standard should be). Working 70 hours a week, you'd damn well better love what you do. I like what I do, but not to the tune of 70 hours a week. If I did that, hours 50 to 70 would not be very productive anyway.

Derrick

Surely the level of automation that we achieve in this century should allow us to work less while still getting paid the same amount...or more.

The bottom line is you only live for 75 years (give or take). Then you are dead and dead is forever. Sure, this provides a healthy argument for educating yourself to find a job you like...but the reality of most people's situation is that they have to find a job that will afford them the life they wish to live. A life which is typically drained down to two days on the weekend, and maybe 1? hour of free time per night.

It is not balanced.

Someone asked what I would rather do. The answer could be anything...

- it could be nothing
- it could be to spend time with the family/friends
- it could be to make/grow a website
- it could be to do whatever _I_ want to do

Even as it stands, one of our weekend days is typically eaten up by necessity chores: laundry, cleaning, yardwork, groceries, other responsibilities. And that leaves only 1/7 days of the week...1/7 of your life ...for chilling out and doing w/e the hell you want to do.

It is _really_ not balanced.

farfromglorified

Derrick wrote:

Surely the level of automation that we achieve in this century should allow us to work less while still getting paid the same amount...or more.

Hehe...it does. How's the air conditioning, wherever you are? The cars? How about that computer?

Uncle Leo

The problem with society today is that people don't spend enough time with their kids. That and they don't spend enough time at work.