Iceland report: Fewer working hours meant increased productivity

[Orphia Nay]

A trial involving 1% of Iceland's population between 2015 and 2019 found that reducing work hours at the same pay resulted in increased or maintained productivity and improved wellbeing.

The report:

https://autonomy.work/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ICELAND_4DW.pdf

Would this work in your workplace?

 

[sackett]

Old stuff. In the UK in the 70s, a 3-day workweek (with, as I recall, 10-hour days) during power shortages resulted in no drop in production. I wish I could recall more details, but my source was a Czech man working on his PhD in economics. As a survivor of commieism, he was not much surprised. Well, neither was I.

 

[arthwollipot]

Iceland's four-day working week trials an 'overwhelming success', report finds

Trials of a four-day working week in Iceland have been lauded an "overwhelming success", with research revealing the initiative helped increase productivity, and led to an overall improvement in workers' wellbeing.

The trials, run by Reykjavík City Council and the Icelandic government, were held between 2015 and 2019, and ultimately included more than 2,500 workers — or about one per cent of Iceland's working population.

As part of the project, employees from a range of professions — including offices, kindergartens, social service providers and hospitals — moved from a 40-hour working week, to a 35- or 36-hour working week, but received the same pay.

Research into the trials, published this month by researchers from the UK think tank Autonomy and Iceland's Association for Sustainable Democracy (Alda), noted that following the trials' success, trade unions "achieved permanent reductions in working hours for tens of thousands of their members across the country".

In total, roughly 86 per cent of Iceland’s entire working population has "now either moved to working shorter hours or have gained the right to shorten their working hours", the report found, adding that such reductions were won in contracts negotiated between 2019 and 2021.

"This study shows that the world’s largest-ever trial of a shorter working week in the public sector was by all measures an overwhelming success," said Will Stronge, director of research at Autonomy.

"It shows that the public sector is ripe for being a pioneer of shorter working weeks – and lessons can be learned for other governments."

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I Have-to-Believe^TM that there is a sweet spot where maximal efficiency is obtained. Obviously you can't reduce the work week to zero hours. I'm also a bit suspicious about the Hawthorne Effect^WP. Particularly since the term was invented to describe the impact of just such changes.

 

[Belz...]

Would this work in your workplace?

What would _really_ help in my workplace is less bureaucracy. That eats up a LOT of our time.

Personally -- I can't speak for others -- I don't think I'd be as productive in less time.

 

[arthwollipot]

What would _really_ help in my workplace is less bureaucracy. That eats up a LOT of our time.

Personally -- I can't speak for others -- I don't think I'd be as productive in less time.

One of the points of the study is that you'd almost certainly be able to find ways to be as productive in less time.

 

[dann]

Iceland tested a 4-day workweek. Employees were productive — and happier, researchers say. (WP, July 7, 2021)

It doesn't do much for those who have two or three jobs to make ends meet. It requires at least a living wage.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Would this work in your workplace?

It would probably have worked in some of my more recent (white collar) jobs where people spent a good amount of time standing around the water cooler.

I grew up wiring on loading docks and factories - it's harder to see how it work there, but it's possible. Gord_in_Toronto made some good points, such as that lowering work hours to zero definitely wouldn't increase productivity! Another interesting thought experiment is to go the other way. If 40 hours per employee gets us X level of productivity, certainly 65 hours would get us that much more! ::insert c montgomery burns smiley here::

 

[Belz...]

One of the points of the study is that you'd almost certainly be able to find ways to be as productive in less time.

No, one of the points of the study is that, as a whole, people are more productive in less time. That doesn't mean it's true for everyone. It's the same thing with pharmaceuticals: that a medication is proven to work doesn't mean it'll work for you.

My point about myself is that, assuming I have enough work for my 35 hour week, I work 35 hours. If I work 28 hours, for instance, I'll do less work because if I have work for full time, I work at full capacity. Right now that's not the case, however. Lots of downtime.

 

[KDLarsen]

I've not yet read the report, but since I noticed that kindergartens were apparently involved, how did they cover the loss of hours? Did they change the opening hours to account for staff having reduced hours, or did they hire extra staff to cover it?

 

[Norman Alexander]

It looks like the simple realisation that not all jobs require continuous effort to be "successful", and therefore cannot be measured and paid by elapsed time at the coalface.

 

[mgidm86]

Iceland tested a 4-day workweek. Employees were productive — and happier, researchers say. (WP, July 7, 2021)

It doesn't do much for those who have two or three jobs to make ends meet. It requires at least a living wage.

Sure it does. Now you have time for four jobs instead of three.

 

[theprestige]

A trial involving 1% of Iceland's population between 2015 and 2019 found that reducing work hours at the same pay resulted in increased or maintained productivity and improved wellbeing.

The report:

https://autonomy.work/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ICELAND_4DW.pdf

Would this work in your workplace?

My workplace already does this... For salaried and exempt employees. A 40-hour work week makes sense as an upper limit on the amount of hourly labor you can demand from hourly laborers, in order to preserve some semblance of work-life balance in your labor force.

For salaried or exempt employees, it's totally arbitrary. In my experience, most of what we do can be done on a part-time basis, week to week. What we're really being paid for is to make our experience and skills available for the important stuff, whenever it happens to be needed.

And for sure my 4-day work week goes out the window the moment there's any kind of crisis where it's time for me to earn my salary.

 

[Nosi]

Iceland tested a 4-day workweek. Employees were productive — and happier, researchers say. (WP, July 7, 2021)

It doesn't do much for those who have two or three jobs to make ends meet. It requires at least a living wage.

THAT will never happen in the USA. Profit talks, human beings can

 

[arthwollipot]

No, one of the points of the study is that, as a whole, people are more productive in less time. That doesn't mean it's true for everyone. It's the same thing with pharmaceuticals: that a medication is proven to work doesn't mean it'll work for you.

My point about myself is that, assuming I have enough work for my 35 hour week, I work 35 hours. If I work 28 hours, for instance, I'll do less work because if I have work for full time, I work at full capacity. Right now that's not the case, however. Lots of downtime.

I think what you're essentially saying that if there's less work to do, you'll do less work. Which seems a little bit tautological to me.

 

[theprestige]

I wonder if we're overestimating the amount of work most salaried positions require. Or if we're underestimating the value of keeping a trained professional on retainer, even if they're idling for half the work week.

 

[arthwollipot]

Would this work in your workplace?

Absolutely. No question. Not even the hint of a question.

 

[Darat]

THAT will never happen in the USA. Profit talks, human beings can

This indicates that profits don't change, at least for some types of business.

Where I see issues with this would be in say retail - if you want a retail outlet to be open 7 days a week you need (at least) a body in store for 7 days. To make a very simple example: if you had one person who does 5 days, one who does 2 days. Taking your 5-days-a-week employee down to 4 days whilst paying the same means you need to fork out 1 additional day of staff costs every week. The now 4-days-a-week employee can't improve their productivity to cover that additional cost since it depends on the number of customers.

 

[arthwollipot]

This indicates that profits don't change, at least for some types of business.

Where I see issues with this would be in say retail - if you want a retail outlet to be open 7 days a week you need (at least) a body in store for 7 days. To make a very simple example: if you had one person who does 5 days, one who does 2 days. Taking your 5-days-a-week employee down to 4 days whilst paying the same means you need to fork out 1 additional day of staff costs every week. The now 4-days-a-week employee can't improve their productivity to cover that additional cost since it depends on the number of customers.

It would certainly be possible to organise a staggered-shift arrangement if all the employees worked the same number of days. Someone who's good at rostering should be able to work it out though.

Regardless, the report is specifically considering jobs where people work a five-day, forty-hour week, not part-timers.

 

[Belz...]

I think what you're essentially saying that if there's less work to do, you'll do less work. Which seems a little bit tautological to me.

No, I mean exactly what I said: fewer hours for me would mean less work done, were I in a situation that I could fill those hours with work. However in my current situation it wouldn't make much of a difference at all because there isn't work to fill all those hours.