John: In 1926, Henry Ford
instituted a five-day 40 hour
workweek with no loss of pay for
Saturdays off.
This is now the standard.
Now, there is a push to consider
a 32 hour workweek with no loss
in pay.
How practical is that?
Earlier, I spoke with an
economist to test a four-day
workweek.
I asked about the results.
>> It's a good idea because we
have seen in the trials that
have taken place that most
companies have said they plan on
making the policy permanent.
Revenue has remained stable or
increased and they have
experienced productivity is able
to be maintained or improved.
Unsurprisingly.
It is something that can be
better for business.
John: Is there a cost for this?
>> There is.
I can't believe that if this
were applied that we would not
see substantial decline in
output and a substantial decline
in people's incomes.
If employers could do this, why
haven't they done this?
Everyone would win, I just am
thick they can.
John: What do you say?
>> I agree that this is not a
one-size-fits-all model.
I'm not arguing it should be the
new norm.
There are many sectors,
industries and companies.
I am arguing most companies
could move to a four-day week
without needing to increase
headcount or damaging business
performance, priorities or
productivity.
When they attack unnecessary
meetings, processes that are
outdated or efficient and poor
use of technology, it can go a
long way without undermining the
bottom line.
John: What about the point that
if this is such a great idea,
why haven't they done it?
>> Before the pandemic, it was
not acceptable, the site did it
you can run a global company
from your kitchen table.
That you can be productive at
home and in the office.
It took a game changer like the
pandemic to dislodge these
norms.
I believe the same is true.
This is open the eyes of leaders
and managers.
John: You say it is a trade-off.
Where do the benefits become so
great that they outweigh the
loss of productivity?
>> It depends on preferences.
Some people would need to take a
5% or 8% cut in income.
The point is, there are a lot of
industries where this does not
work.
Manufacturing cars on the
assembly line, I don't see why
working fewer hours is going to
get any more for less output.
There has been a huge trend
already before the pandemic
toward more four-day work.
We went from 1% in 1973 to 6% in
2018.
I expected to go up.
It's a good thing.
John: There are some models in
the United States or it's a
compressed week, four days
before the hours.
What do you think about that?
>> The difficulty with that
model, I'm not persuaded that
people are as productive in
their ninth or 10th hour on
Wednesday.
I'm not persuaded from a burnout
perspective the people are
likely to be better rested.
The research is not conclusive
that this is something good for
business and people, and the
other point I would make is it
overlooks the power of the
incentive.
Get time back in exchange for
the same pay, people are focused
and motivated and driven in
order to achieve the goals.
John: What do you say to that?
The point about efficiency and
productivity having diminishing
returns?
>> It is quite correct on that.
Even a 10 hour day people are
doing nothing.
This would keep up the output we
now have.
The crucial point is people like
bunching leisure.
In industries, medical
hospitals, 12 hour days three
days a week is full-time.
That accords very well with the
demands of clients not to have
the patient shifted.
All of this depends on >>
Appropriate.
I doubt there are that many
industries where four days will
leave us as well off.
John: Thank you both very much.