Work Less
thinkvitamin.com
thinkvitamin.com
In particular due to the exact language ('day off' vs. 'days off') -- If an employee's schedule is Mon-Thu, are they free to work the weekends at another job (but not the Friday), or is all moonlighting prohibited?
Are they free to work on their own projects on their off days?
If I'm showing bias, I apologize, but I'm a little bit offended that an employer would attempt exercise control over what their employees do in their off time. I'm not saying it isn't ever justified, but if the requirement is that they only work 4 days a week, then they're free to do what they will with the fifth, unless the assertion is that they're actually 'working' five days a week, and are just ordered to relax on the fifth day.
A 32 hour work week is such a huge benefit that I can't imagine anyone actually working on such a team trying to subvert it. It's totally reasonable to have side projects and even to work a second job. I think a reasonable person stuck in the situation of wanting a second job while working for the 4-day company would simply leave the team.
M-F 9am-6pm = 4 x 9
I was able to renegotiate things to 9-5, but my manager acted like it was this really unusual request and wasn't I lucky that they were willing to let me work "less than 40 hours."
That left me wondering, what do other people consider full time in this industry?
If you're in a part of town, for example, where it takes a 10 minute metro ride to get to the nearest restaurant, it seems illogical to enforce a half hour lunch.
Still though, you really brought your argument home when you said that (paraphrasing) "If you don't accept the trade, you shouldn't work there," because that is absolutely right. But... is it fair? If my company imposed a 'no alcoholic beverages allowed on weeknights', it's the same sort of proposition, and you're free to accept or decline it as part of the job offer, but does that make it RIGHT?
I don't mean to imply that Carsonified is doing anything illicit, or immoral, and I'm sure they have great reasons for it -- but without knowing exactly where the line is drawn, it's hard (for me) to say.
However, the workers may do as they like over the weekend--including working.
Sorry for the stridency, but the logic that carries you to that conclusion is dangerously faulty. The law simply doesn't see most employment, by default, as an exchange of a set number of hours for a set amount of money. The enforceable parts of your contract can make the situation far more complicated than that. For examples, see: intellectual property and trade secrets, noncompetition, conflict of interest, overtime for salaried exempt employees, anti-moonlighting, accidentally representing your company on Twitter, and so on.
This stuff is very relevant to startups, as it's an easy way to torpedo yourself before you even pick a name for the company.
Prohibiting what I do on my day off sounds restrictive and unfair.
Being paid to relax actually sounds quite nice.
Not sure it needs to be in a contract though; surely you should be judged on your performance at work (whether it is 4 or 5 days) and not external factors.
So, if you're moonlighting at an unrelated tech company in California, you're probably fine. But if you take an off-hours job in the same industry as your employer in New York, you can probably be fired.
Generally, a prospective employer who says "we have a four day work week, but we only want team members who are going to work this one job" seems to me to be offering a fair trade. If you find those terms unconscionable, you shouldn't accept a job there.
Frankly, I'm not convinced you're seeing the implications to such a vague policy.
It strikes me that a place this good-natured wouldn't split hairs.
Virtually every other employer in the world will fire you instantly for working a second job during the day on Friday, as an extension of the rule that requires them to fire you for going fishing during the day on Friday. It is beyond reasonable for an employer to require you not to work a second job on Friday in exchange for the day off. So far past reasonable I can't imagine it ever coming up the real world; team members at the 4-day-a-week would probably quit before alienating the company.
A four day work week is just a huge, generous benefit.
I completely agree with your assertion that it's their right to request you not to, and I can certainly understand the logic of it, specifically in trying not to attract people looking to do the minimal work effort so that they can reap the benefits of another paycheck.
Regardless, I have questions. If the Friday is a 'day off', then how is it different than Saturday and Sunday. Do they also insist that you not have a second job on those days? What specifically does it prohibit? Can I work on an open source project? Can I boostrap my own projects? What if they become successful?
I was really hoping somebody from Carsonified could speak to this really, and not trying to start an argument, but I do have my own take on things -- I'd just love to know more.
It's like if a company gives you free sodas, it's not the same thing as a Coke van on campus giving out free twelve-packs, you're not supposed to load your backpack full of sodas every afternoon when you leave work, just because they're "free".
I work better in bursts. Telling me to go home so that I can be well rested is a detriment to how I generally work.
The question revolves around whether it's my time or it isn't. If it is, then why put constraints on it? If it isn't, then tell me. Either way, I believe it's a fair negotiation, honestly, I'd just like to know where the actual boundary is.
My major gripe with it is that I'd rather have a flexible schedule that allowed me to work when I was in the zone and rest when I was weary. I understand that, from an employer's perspective, it's hard to monitor, and especially hard to make sure that you're "getting your money's worth" to a micro-manager, but if the core philosophy is that they want me to be highly productive and well-rested, those ideals are somewhat at odds -- at least for the way I work.
I'd much rather spend 14 hours non-stop on something if I'm making progress on it, and rest when the task is finished than be arbitrarily asked to stop for whatever reason. This doesn't burn me out in the least. Doing that non-stop definitely does, but I generally allow myself time to reset between tasks, when I'm less likely to forget things, or lose track of where I was in the code.
At my last gig, I was management. My program manager hated it, but I refused to care who was coming in late and who was leaving early. It wasn't a terribly large team, and it was quite easy to know who was performing, and who wasn't. As we were meeting all our deadlines, and I never felt like I was being taken advantage of, I never saw it as an issue.
My program manager, on the other hand, firmly believed in the 9-5 mentality, even when it was clearly not working for our team.
Before that, I worked at a job where I was free to come and go as I pleased, so long as the work got done. The work got done, generally ahead of deadline. Admittedly, I was the only 'developer' on that team, but with careful hiring, and a slow evolution toward freedom, things were a-okay. When I left there for greener pastures, we'd had consecutive years in which each year was better than the last, dollar-wise.
To beat the horse dead, you really got it right the first time, in that I'm free to take or leave the offer. I'd just really like to understand it better. The 32-hour week isn't for everybody. 4 10 hour shifts isn't for everybody. 5 8 hour shifts isn't for everybody.
I'm sure it seems that I've made a mountain out of a molehill, and perhaps I have, which is ironic, since it doesn't really reflect what I'd want out of a job -- it's just confounding to me that they would say 'four day weeks are the norm', but then follow that up with 'well, it's really a five day week, you're just not allowed to do anything on the fifth.'
I think we're running out of arguing room, so I'll finish by saying that really, I don't disagree with you in theory, or even in practice. It is perfectly within their right to structure their work weeks however they choose, and it is perfectly within the right of potential hires to take or leave potential offers from Carson and crew, and it is perfectly within the right of Carson to not hire people who would like to use their off-time to stay sharp. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't take the job at Carsonified (I've heard great things about Bath, England, as well as that team) -- it just means I'd have questions if I saw that in my contract.
Since nobody from Carsonified has chimed in here to clear it up my hypotheticals, I'll save any further ponderance for the unlikely event that I'm ever presented with such a contract.
What if it's nothing at all to do with their job? What if the tech guy wants to work in a dog pound for the day off, or the marketing girl wants to instruct surfing?
Is it "any paid work at all"? What about unpaid/volunteering?
"Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."
They place value in that day assuming you will use it to rest. Working on it would be counter productive to what they see it being useful for.
If I'm on a roll with something, I don't want to chance that I'll come back from a three day weekend every week and have to remember where I left off, or spend that time trying to get back in the groove.
One of the best places I worked (now defunct) allowed for you to work hours per week -- if you worked over, you were credited it for the next week. It was great to crank out marathon sessions, and then, between projects, you could take the remainder of the time off, to rest. So if I spent 7 days straight on a project, I could take 4 days to rest and be 'neutral' on my schedule balance (assuming 8 hour days).
For example, applied to a compression algorithm, it fails, too, yet we have lossless compression.
A more sound argument would be one with actual data and measurements about how reducing the workweek affected overall productivity of the team. Without that it's just opinions and guessing.
No such lower bound is defined, but one need not be. The OP is merely stating that the lower bound is 32 hours or less. He's not dropping 24 hours off, merely 8 (or 9, that par is unclear).
As another commentor points out, the lower bound on compression algorithms varies by input. This is likely true here, too.
I also think it's inaccurate to assume that folks generally have "hidden capacity" that will miraculously allow them to get done in 4 days what would normally have taken 5.
All this boils down to is profit margin on your work: if you're able to build a pricing model where you bill clients enough to fund 15 people taking an extra day off per week, then you can move to a 4 day work week. If not, you can't.
We don't have an adversarial relationship with our team. We're not checking every word of the contract and neither are they.
We're all working towards a greater goal and we're all doing what it takes to get there.
If someone wants to do some extra freelance work on a Friday, then we don't hassle them about it. However, if they do that, they're missing the entire point: they're getting paid a full salary, but only having to work 4 days a week for it.
Why not just take Friday off and enjoy it? The whole point is that a good work-life balance is healthy, fun and fulfilling.
If the money isn't good enough (even though we pay well), then maybe it's not the right job for you.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything here.
As to those who are commenting about being "forced" to take the day off, I am not sure you are getting the point the author is trying to make. The whole point is not being burned out. Adding another job is a great way to reach burn-out faster.
Notice I say "job." In my book, this does not include hobbies. Which, to the outside observer, may look like work only because I use many of the same tools.
And if you really want to work that hard (and it was easier to get away with it when I was younger) maybe this is not the right employment for you...
FWIW. I have cycled through burn-out several times, and I prefer living a healthy lifestyle, if at all possible.
(Edited to be a bit less harsh than my first wording - Sorry).
The one thing i just love about this is the "Do Something Cool". This is something i have tried to do even on my weekends, something as simple as take a 2-3 hour walk. Or try and get lost and find my way home.
Silly stuff like that, but the second you truly relax and let your mind wander you actually start to be MORE creative. I would love to instate something where employees must take a one hour walk a week!