seems that the reduction in time forced to cut down on crap - starving the beast so to say - and that would be the major reason for the productivity increase:
" In their research into working
time reduction in the last few decades of the 20th
century, for instance, Bosch and Lehndorff (2001)
note how a number of workplaces have indicated
that successful reductions in working hours have been
closely tied to changes in the organisation of work —
whether through workers gaining greater autonomy
over work processes, or changes in operating times and
shift patterns. Such reorganisations have clearly had a
positive impact on productivity.
...
The
stated reduction in working hours did lead to staff
actually working less as a direct result of workplaces
implementing new work strategies, and through
organising tasks via cooperation between workers and
managers.
As mentioned earlier, a central aim of both trials was
to ensure service provision remained the same following
reductions in working time. To be able to work less while
providing the same level of service, changes in the
organisation of work therefore had to be implemented.
Most commonly, this was done by rethinking how
tasks were completed: shortening meetings, cutting
out unnecessary tasks, and shifts arrangements"
I think you can motivate people to work too hard for a while before burn-out given some rest time, much like you can overstrain your car engine for a while if you let it cool a bit after.
Some cars have better cooling systems than others, and most cars once had great cooling but now the radiator is busted and the coolant is all gummed up.
In the end, the I'd bet the sum comes out more or less the same.
> much like you can overstrain your car engine for a while if you let it cool a bit after
But that overstraining will result in small damages that are not directly noticeable but will hurt performance and durability in the long run. Especially if you don't keep to a proper maintenance schedule.
A person isn’t a radiator though; I think the same rules apply as before. You have companies that treat people as discardable and those that do or try not to be like that.
> "The trials, in which workers were paid the same amount for shorter hours, took place between 2015 and 2019."
Does anyone knows is it same amount per hour or monthly ?
I guess if it is monthly this is only for permanent workers, contractors/freelancers who are paid by day/hour would be exempt from this study/practice as it would mean that their rate would increase.
The whole idea behind 4 days work week is that you are more rested and more motivated and don't slack around. Therefore doing as much in 4 days as in 5 days.
Though I don't see how this could be applied to factory workers. I only can see from sw dev perspective. I would probably spend less time talking about 4 days work week on HN if on that schedule :)
That's kinda the thing. The five day work week evolved in response to factory work. The machines were the expensive overhead, and profit was maximized by keeping them going for as long as possible.
The work week had previously been six days, or even seven if management was insufficiently religious. Just getting down to five was a literal fight:
Office work inherited that ethic, but without the reasoning. Nobody even tried to determine the optimal number of hours.
Service sector work is more complicated, since it's often part time or hourly, and varies widely from place to place and person to person. Optimizing that would take a whole lot more work. But for office jobs, it's long since past time to reconsider why we're basing it on factory jobs.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27733827