Submitted 1 year ago by mannycalavera@feddit.uk to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
https://www.ft.com/content/f65a837c-8c6e-4583-afb9-dfa97b65b9ff
Archive link for us cheapskates:
Krystal ended the experiment prematurely after finding response times suffered. On Monday, its busiest day, the team was only 50 per cent staffed
Whose stupid idea was it to make Monday’s one of the days off then? Sounds more like bad management
Wednesday is best, imho.
Anything that happens on weds, you’ve got time to catch it on Thurs/Fri. And you’ve only got to deal with two work days at a time.
It is also likely that companies would need to employ more staff to cover the reduced hours. That would cut into those precious profits though.
This aspect of the four day week discourse has been missing. For the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely support it. But the proposal must explicitly include hourly paid workers (for whom it means a 25% increase in hourly pay) and it must explicitly include workers whose productivity cannot possibly increase by 25% to make up for the missing hours because of the nature of the work (whether it’s answering phones or assembling widgets).
In this real world that we live in, where employers are free to pick and choose which employees it applies to, it’s very hard to see it leading to equitable outcomes.
We got offered 4 day weeks… most people didn’t take it although I note a couple did as they’re not around on Fridays any more.
I have enough work to do without compressing it into less time…
fruitleatherpostcard@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Sounds like CEOs slave driving again.