Why not both? 4 days, 6 hours each.
Hey employers reading this. Having a hard time finding software engineers? Offer me this and I will come running. I’ll be banging on your door with my resume. Think about it.
Hey employers reading this. Having a hard time finding software engineers? Offer me this and I will come running. I’ll be banging on your door with my resume. Think about it.
Offer low tech debt and good hours and get a queue form!
A company that actually takes tech debt seriously is worth it's weight in gold.
People just worked 8 hours and didn’t come in Friday’s.
Sure, You can put it this way - if workers living close have problem with that they can move or select another employer (if they prefer commuting to actually working)
>> They work fewer hours for the same pay.
I would argue that You are using definition of work time that is beneficial for employers. For me every minute of commute to work is due to employers order (You have to be where I tell You). And thus is not owned by the employee.
If I live 500 km away can I just take a train ride in, stay 30 min then get back on the train ride home and collect a full paycheck?
If so, please let me know how to apply.
It only is if You ignore constraints that exist in real live (as opposed to thought models of economic systems).
>>If I live 500 km away can I just take a train ride in, stay 30 min then get back on the train ride home and collect a full paycheck?
Yes, you can try, but first You have to find employer that is charitable enough to pay You for doing nothing (I have said nothing in my post about forcing employers to take on grifters, just asked to recognize that commute is hidden cost for employees and should be normalized).
Usually countries with laws about commuting being part of the daily wage are more about people who work across different locations rather than their fixed daily commute (i.e. you have a single fixed 'location' where you work, and then if you travel to another location then you are paid for that travel, for instance a salesperson that travels 4 hours each way to give a 2-hour presentation cannot be argued to have only worked 2 hours from a minimum-wage perspective, however if they are travelling to their usual office, even if that is 2 hours away, this would not need to be paid).
Paid daily commutes aren't a part of any countries laws I am aware of, as otherwise you would need to pay people differently depending on where they were living and rasies lots of practical considerations (What if I hire someone who is working next to the office and they move 2 hours away? Am I forced to pay them 50% extra or let them only work a 4 hour day? Presumably I can't fire/make them redundant just for moving home, as I'm assuming this is in a country with good workers-rights anwyay!), but I may be wrong and there may be a country which does do this!
Oh, I see, than You are not talking about commuting. This has different name - in my country we use something that can be translated literally as "delegation" - but it rather means business trip, I am not sure what is the international english term for this (I have been part of project creating web apps that did accounting for people that major part of work was traveling to clients).
And by the standards of HN users I make a poverty wage already. Cutting my salary to 64% would put me well under the median household income for the my state and the nation as a whole.
And I promise I won't be less productive, because I'd be surprised if I did that amount of actual work as it is.
That being said, yes. As long as the salary is enough to maintain my standard of living, I will accept a lower salary to work fewer hours.
4-day-workweek arguments from 1986 !!!