Sweden's Six-Hour Workday Experiment Officially Kicks Off Tomorrow(entrepreneur.com)
entrepreneur.com
Sweden's Six-Hour Workday Experiment Officially Kicks Off Tomorrow
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/235283
16 comments
I don't see how this can be a valid scientific experiment if the control group is aware of their colleagues working 2 hours less and getting the same salary. How can this not affect the results?
I think probably the only way to do it correctly is to divide the participants into two groups. In group A, they work 30 hour weeks for 3 months, then work 40 hour weeks for 3 months. In group B, they start with 40 hour weeks, then go to 30 hour weeks.
You can't actually hide control/experiment status from the test subjects, though. You usually know if you are working more or fewer hours in a week. There is some danger that people will intentionally slack off while doing 40s and bust their ass while doing 30s, just so the experimental results suggest shorter work weeks. To counter that, you have a huge number of people following the protocol, and the researchers and participants simply don't know exactly whose data will be randomly selected for inclusion in the study.
You can't actually hide control/experiment status from the test subjects, though. You usually know if you are working more or fewer hours in a week. There is some danger that people will intentionally slack off while doing 40s and bust their ass while doing 30s, just so the experimental results suggest shorter work weeks. To counter that, you have a huge number of people following the protocol, and the researchers and participants simply don't know exactly whose data will be randomly selected for inclusion in the study.
I am much more concerned about the volatility of small sample size. Sickdays inside a single building can be easy effected by single individuals. Imagine if either the control or test work place has an employe who is carrier for the flue but with limited symptoms. Such event would invalidate the experiment if one is simply looking at the number of sick days for data points.
At best, I think one should view this experiment as a preliminary test in order figure out how to do a real test with a larger sample size.
At best, I think one should view this experiment as a preliminary test in order figure out how to do a real test with a larger sample size.
Not just small sample size, it's also biased. FTA, "The year-long experiment will compare two factions of municipal workers." Obviously, the results would be very different for various professions. For people who just push papers, yes they can be 25% faster to get 2 hours more with their family. However, what happens with the service industry? If the bus drivers work 2 hours less, then there will surely be less busses on the road.
Given the postscript, I'm not sure how upset the control group will be:
> A similar experiment involving 250 workers in the Swedish town of Kiruna was scrapped in 2005 after 16 years. With shrinking hours, job pressures intensified, reports The Local, and as a result, the city council concluded that sickness actually increased.
> A similar experiment involving 250 workers in the Swedish town of Kiruna was scrapped in 2005 after 16 years. With shrinking hours, job pressures intensified, reports The Local, and as a result, the city council concluded that sickness actually increased.
I feel like this is the case for most economics studies I've read (note: not nearly an expert). I enjoy the types of studies done and think they have value, but am concerned they can be taken as direct, strong supporting evidence when by their nature they make controlling for confounding variables impossible.
Double-blind is neither necessary nor sufficient for a "valid" scientific experiment. It just helps keep the variables down.
Sure, but this whiffs of cargo cult science. Given that the working conditions, workload and motivation of the "control group" are all heavily affected by the length of the work day of their colleagues in the other group, the interaction effect actually multiplies the variables and the experimenters would actually be more likely to make reliable inferences without it
(i.e. measuring 8 hour workday productivity and health indicators as a baseline prior to introducing the 6 hour work day)
The main issue with that is, that the variable introduced by not doing an experiment double-blind can only be measured by repeating the experiment double-blind.
For those in the US that aren't aware: Swedish workers already get a lot more time off, and seem to value it as part of the culture. I am collaborating with a tech worker in Sweden and last week I got an email that ended with
"I will be going for vacation starting from today and I will be back on August 11. Hopefully you will be busy enough with the material I send you until I’m back."
I am jealous because in the US, a decent summer vacation seems reserved for students and teachers. I would much rather work somewhere that values free time instead of the current american culture which often honors the person who spends the most time in the office regardless of output.
"I will be going for vacation starting from today and I will be back on August 11. Hopefully you will be busy enough with the material I send you until I’m back."
I am jealous because in the US, a decent summer vacation seems reserved for students and teachers. I would much rather work somewhere that values free time instead of the current american culture which often honors the person who spends the most time in the office regardless of output.
It's interesting how society unanimously view 'work' as a concept that is undesirable and as something to be reduced.
Is a society where where people are actually passionate about what they do and want to spend more time working because it increases their overall happiness too unrealistic to strive for?
Is a society where where people are actually passionate about what they do and want to spend more time working because it increases their overall happiness too unrealistic to strive for?
> Is a society where where people are actually passionate about what they do and want to spend more time working because it increases their overall happiness too unrealistic to strive for?
Shouldn't it be? Aren't there jobs that should be automated? And if we automate all the jobs shouldn't we no longer have to "work"? Why work if you can provide resources without said work?
People will still create. People will still pursue goals. What we call "work" will just become fuzzy. There is no point in work for work's sake.
Shouldn't it be? Aren't there jobs that should be automated? And if we automate all the jobs shouldn't we no longer have to "work"? Why work if you can provide resources without said work?
People will still create. People will still pursue goals. What we call "work" will just become fuzzy. There is no point in work for work's sake.
The belief that work is an intrinsic good is a variation of the Protestant work ethic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic).
Even though only certain groups of Protestants (Quakers, Mennonites, etc.) believe in the original version of the ethic, that work is a route to religious salvation, weaker versions still persists in many places where Protestantism is or was common -- including much of North America.
These weaker versions manifest as the idea that work is intrinsically good; or the reverse, that not working is intrinsically bad.
Even though only certain groups of Protestants (Quakers, Mennonites, etc.) believe in the original version of the ethic, that work is a route to religious salvation, weaker versions still persists in many places where Protestantism is or was common -- including much of North America.
These weaker versions manifest as the idea that work is intrinsically good; or the reverse, that not working is intrinsically bad.
"It's interesting how society unanimously view 'work' as a concept that is undesirable and as something to be reduced."
Because a lot of us are only productive at work for 4-6 hours per day. But we waste the next 3-6 hours in the office trying to look busy. What a waste of our lives.
Because a lot of us are only productive at work for 4-6 hours per day. But we waste the next 3-6 hours in the office trying to look busy. What a waste of our lives.
It's because you (not just you but the society in general) are mixing "wage work" and "work"
Why should there be an inherent different between the two?
I hope the people in the 30 hours work week are going to work their asses off during the 1-year trial.
[deleted]
Comparing municipal workers productivity? You are kidding me?:) 8hrs * 0.01 vs. 6hrs * 0.01? That will solve the world problems!
Let us be honest, if the same work can be accomplished in less time then it suggest less people are needed that are currently employed.
The other issue here is that only in government could this suggestion float because they really don't have to show a profit, answer to share holders. Don't count to heavily on voters because if this does succeed; why wouldn't it when they set the criteria; they can market it so that anyone opposed is transformed into the guilty party.
It is also can cynically be viewed as a means to raise employment because if the work goes unfinished with fewer hours then more people working those fewer hours will be needed
The other issue here is that only in government could this suggestion float because they really don't have to show a profit, answer to share holders. Don't count to heavily on voters because if this does succeed; why wouldn't it when they set the criteria; they can market it so that anyone opposed is transformed into the guilty party.
It is also can cynically be viewed as a means to raise employment because if the work goes unfinished with fewer hours then more people working those fewer hours will be needed
The point of the experiment is to see whether the work will get done faster.
I just hope that no matter the results they will publish report that will be accessible.
I hate when interesting experiment starts and then if it fails researches do not release reports and reasons it failed.
I hate when interesting experiment starts and then if it fails researches do not release reports and reasons it failed.
[deleted](4)
6 hrs? Man, that sounds horrible. I'd never get anything done. I'd rather have 4-10s. And extra two hours of maker time to offset all the bullshit meetings, plus a real weekend.
While I like the idea of a three day weekend, aren't you addressing a difference problem? The swedish experiment is seeking to increase productivity and decrease the time employees spend being sick. You're trying to compensate for a distruptive work environment by moving a large part of your workday. It would make more sense to address the things that keep you from doing your job effectively. If you're correct, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that you could work 8 hour days, four days a week and be just a productive and allowing a three day weekend.
The issue is of cause that in many large companies some people jobs are more or less defined as keeping you from doing yours. The owner of a Danish consulting company once postulated that: "Many larger (Danish) companies could fire all of their CUSTOMERS, and 40 - 60% of the employees would still have a job to do." - His point being that a large part of the workforce isn't in anyway related to providing services or products to the customers. Having worked for a large telco, I wouldn't be surprised if he's right. The point is that a portion of these people, which doesn't really produce anything will eventually do something that distrupt the "makers", because they need to make their presents known.
The issue is of cause that in many large companies some people jobs are more or less defined as keeping you from doing yours. The owner of a Danish consulting company once postulated that: "Many larger (Danish) companies could fire all of their CUSTOMERS, and 40 - 60% of the employees would still have a job to do." - His point being that a large part of the workforce isn't in anyway related to providing services or products to the customers. Having worked for a large telco, I wouldn't be surprised if he's right. The point is that a portion of these people, which doesn't really produce anything will eventually do something that distrupt the "makers", because they need to make their presents known.
Wouldn't it be 4 8's? Why are we constrained to requiring 40 hours/week when productivity has skyrocketed over the last 30 years?
Hours/week should be indexed to a productivity index, just as entitlements are indexed to inflation/CPI.
Hours/week should be indexed to a productivity index, just as entitlements are indexed to inflation/CPI.
A lot of people like the feeling of progression. If, whenever I improve somewhere, I have to cut back elsewhere to keep myself at the same overall level of productivity, that just feels bad. I'd rather just get more work done and get a raise.
I don't think the your parent was talking on an individual level, but a more macroeconomic level where this appears to not be happening[1].
[1] http://www.winningwordsproject.com/assets/pages/340/producti...
[1] http://www.winningwordsproject.com/assets/pages/340/producti...
Correct. Thank you.
If it doesn't happen at the individual level, why should it happen at the systemic level?
For a good bit, I worked 4 hour days (plus probably an hour of planning time): but I didn't go to work till after 5, and I spent all 4 hours on the machine, coding and testing. It was one of the most productive periods of my career.
I believe I've seen quite a few studies that shows that the longer workdays the fewer work produced per unit of time. I can't seem to find them right now so take it with a grain of salt, but it sounds like longer and fewer workdays would not be desirable from your company's point of view in that case.
What I personally would like to see it how applicable these results are between jobs. The jobs in question here are quite unskilled such as caring for the elderly, and are physically demanding. What works for them might not work for a programmer for example.
What I personally would like to see it how applicable these results are between jobs. The jobs in question here are quite unskilled such as caring for the elderly, and are physically demanding. What works for them might not work for a programmer for example.
To your first point, I think a common misconception with this as developers and skilled knowledge workers is that we only look at our personal productivity. Yes, an individual programmer's productivity may be decreased by working 50 hours in a week, but if the company's productivity overall is increased, you'd be hard-pressed to make an argument against it. This is assuming that extended periods of 50 hours weekly (including all planning and meetings, not just programming) is below the level that would induce burnout in most, or that that's factored into whether it's "better" for the company or not.
The point here is that if you have 50 hours of developer time, you will get the most output if you spread it over more days than one long stretch. Therefore the 4 day workweek may be a tougher sell than the 6 hour workday.
I hope to find a job that will let me work this schedule some day. As long as those extra two hours were as if everyone else in the office had already left so I wouldn't be interrupted.
Look for remote (telecommute) jobs. Our (tiny) company is 100% remote, and people work whatever schedules they want (as long as they're around for an hour on Monday afternoons for a weekly meeting). The tradeoff is we have to try to be available to help out in our off hours if something urgent comes up, but that doesn't tend to happen often.
Yea--4-10's. My day's union had a opportunity to work 4 days; and the membership refused? I still think the votes
were rigged. These were San Francisco Electricians in the
seventies.
Probably because they preferred 8 hour days plus OT :-) for non professional jobs often its the OT/Spanish Practices where you make bank.
I have a mate (who's now in hr/ir) who started as an erector in heavy engineering some of the story's he tells abut the 70's even the tea boy got £900 as a bung .
I have a mate (who's now in hr/ir) who started as an erector in heavy engineering some of the story's he tells abut the 70's even the tea boy got £900 as a bung .
Yeah, I did construction for a while, and everyone was kind of happy when we had 6/12s during crunch time. Sure, it sucked while you were doing it, but man that overtime.
It will be interesting to see how Parkinson's law plays out.
What do you mean by that? Sure, the law will hold true, but actually for the good.
I think your parent is wondering whether work will shrink to fit the time available.
like Silverstorm said. It will be interesting to see if the same results can be achieved with less time available.
I recently read that the start of the experiment had been postponed for a while because they hadn't managed to find a suitable researcher to follow it. Maybe they've found one now..?
It's been delayed.
Source: http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.2423446-sextimmarsdagar-...
Translated using Google Translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev...
Source: http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.2423446-sextimmarsdagar-...
Translated using Google Translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev...
It's interesting how every time this comes up we see Americans protesting how it's the wrong approach to take.
It's ok guys, you're welcome to keep your third world working conditions, just don't expect the rest of the progressive world to.
It's ok guys, you're welcome to keep your third world working conditions, just don't expect the rest of the progressive world to.
I've held several positions in America, from subsistence farmer to minimum wage retail flunky to upper management in higher education. I've also been to 3rd world countries in South America.
None of the places I have worked were 3rd world working conditions including the subsistence farming (we had much nicer/safer machinery). Granted it's a small sample size, but still.
Anyway. Stop with the hyperbole. It's an ineffective argument tool, it's insulting, and it shuts people off from debate.
None of the places I have worked were 3rd world working conditions including the subsistence farming (we had much nicer/safer machinery). Granted it's a small sample size, but still.
Anyway. Stop with the hyperbole. It's an ineffective argument tool, it's insulting, and it shuts people off from debate.
You're right, the parent was exaggerating. Let me fix it:
It's ok guys, you're welcome to keep your Worst in the developed world working conditions, just don't expect the rest of the progressive world to.
It's ok guys, you're welcome to keep your Worst in the developed world working conditions, just don't expect the rest of the progressive world to.
It has been tried before in Sweden, and it didn't work then either. It actually made workers sicker, and people were expected to do the same amount of work in less time.
Are you thinking about the change from 10 to 8 hours? Because that change seems to have been quite successful all over the world.
Regarding the 8 hour work day: “One of the first businesses to implement this was the Ford Motor Company, in 1914, which not only cut the standard work day to eight hours, but also doubled their worker’s pay in the process. To the shock of many industries, this resulted in Ford’s productivity off of these same workers, but with fewer hours, actually increasing significantly and Ford’s profit margins doubled within two years. This encouraged other companies to adopt the shorter, eight hour work day as a standard for their employees.” http://blog.bufferapp.com/optimal-work-time-how-long-should-...
Regarding the 8 hour work day: “One of the first businesses to implement this was the Ford Motor Company, in 1914, which not only cut the standard work day to eight hours, but also doubled their worker’s pay in the process. To the shock of many industries, this resulted in Ford’s productivity off of these same workers, but with fewer hours, actually increasing significantly and Ford’s profit margins doubled within two years. This encouraged other companies to adopt the shorter, eight hour work day as a standard for their employees.” http://blog.bufferapp.com/optimal-work-time-how-long-should-...
No, they tried 6 hour days in Kiruna with dismal results.
A large part of many employees' day is spent chatting to others in the office and browsing the web. My guess is compressing their day into 6 hrs will make them more stressed out because they won't be able to relax at the office
Are you sure this kind of web browsing is really relaxing?
In my personal experience, office work involves a lot of pure time wasting, time I'd rather spend doing other things than browsing reddit in my cubicle: grocery shopping, being in the sun, exercising, reading, or anything else.
At the Gothenburg office I worked in, literally everyone I talked to about a 6 hour work week saw it as extremely desirable. I didn't ask the manager, and she'd probably work more anyway, but I don't think she'd oppose it if it made employees happier.
In my personal experience, office work involves a lot of pure time wasting, time I'd rather spend doing other things than browsing reddit in my cubicle: grocery shopping, being in the sun, exercising, reading, or anything else.
At the Gothenburg office I worked in, literally everyone I talked to about a 6 hour work week saw it as extremely desirable. I didn't ask the manager, and she'd probably work more anyway, but I don't think she'd oppose it if it made employees happier.
Half the city gets to work two hours per day less, but the other half has to work the same hours as before? Sounds sucky for the people in the control group.
Well, actually they get the same thing they always got, and if the experiment goes well, they may get more free time later, but some of their lucky co-workers get the extra free time right now.
Well, actually they get the same thing they always got, and if the experiment goes well, they may get more free time later, but some of their lucky co-workers get the extra free time right now.
I have faced this attitude a lot in the US. "I suffer, so you must too!" It is sad really.
Crab mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
Around here it's "it doesn't matter if I suffer, as long as my neighbour suffers more than I do". It's even a saying.
The experiment seems ripe for gaming though - just have the control group gradually lose productivity (if needed) to be just below the test group, so it seems like 30hrs/week is definitely better than 40hrs/week. Assuming they're measuring productivity with some easy to game number, which I hope they aren't.
The experiment seems ripe for gaming though - just have the control group gradually lose productivity (if needed) to be just below the test group, so it seems like 30hrs/week is definitely better than 40hrs/week. Assuming they're measuring productivity with some easy to game number, which I hope they aren't.
Yeah, gaming it seems unavoidable. It cannot be a blind study. You can't help but notice how many hours you work, don't you?
You need a pretty long term experiment, so the 30 hour group gets the chance to settle in their new rhythm, and you need a control group that doesn't know they're the control group, presumably from a different city that happens to have very similar productivity.
You need a pretty long term experiment, so the 30 hour group gets the chance to settle in their new rhythm, and you need a control group that doesn't know they're the control group, presumably from a different city that happens to have very similar productivity.
The other half is "I've got mine, so fuck you!"
In a lot of workplaces whenever one person is out, another person has to make up for it by doing the person who's outs work in addition to their own work. Not saying it will definitely be the case here, but it could be.
The long term success of that strategy indicates the extreme likelihood that the 6 hour people will get the same work done as the 8 hour people, just the 8 hour people will browse facebook and gossip for 2 more hours per day.
The interesting part of the analysis is that obviously a 8 hour workplace can handle a fraction of the employees calling in sick pretty much transparently. Now what happens when everyone works 6 and there theres no slack WRT sick days?
From personal experience the time and monetary savings of four tens is far more appealing to me than the idea of spending perhaps nearly a quarter of my time away from home, going to / from work. As a starving student I worked 4 hour part time shifts working while going to school... at $1/gallon gas it barely made sense, now gas being permanently around $4/gallon I don't think short shifts make sense unless your commute is extremely short or you make a substantial amount of money per hour.
The interesting part of the analysis is that obviously a 8 hour workplace can handle a fraction of the employees calling in sick pretty much transparently. Now what happens when everyone works 6 and there theres no slack WRT sick days?
From personal experience the time and monetary savings of four tens is far more appealing to me than the idea of spending perhaps nearly a quarter of my time away from home, going to / from work. As a starving student I worked 4 hour part time shifts working while going to school... at $1/gallon gas it barely made sense, now gas being permanently around $4/gallon I don't think short shifts make sense unless your commute is extremely short or you make a substantial amount of money per hour.
If I work 4*10, I barely get to see my son anymore. I wouldn't mind slightly shorter days; we already sometimes struggle with who has to pick him up. Technically my wife should do it, because she goes to work much earlier than I do (I bring, she picks up), but sometimes she has late meetings on the other side of the country, whereas I work on cycle distance from home.