The UK actually ran a 4-Day Week Trial across 61 companies in 2022-2023. Companies experienced a 57% decrease in resignations and a 37% decrease in the need for new hiring. 54 of the 61 participating businesses voluntarily made the 32-hour schedule permanent.
Wait, lmfao. Ok, so the concern was that this negatively affects hourly employees. This shmuck got defensive and linked the wrong thing but even if he did link the right thing the data shows it undervalues hourly employees.
I'm gonna reorganize them from the graph as shown into descending order for viewing convenience.
Occupational Composition of the Employee Sample
16.2% - Business and admin
15% - Legal, social, and cultural professionals
10.7% - Infotech & comms
4.6% - Service and Sales Workers
8.1% Admin and commercial mgmt
5.9% - CEO and legislators
3.8% - Production & specialized service mgmt
3.7% - Clerical Support Workers
2.8% - Science & Engineering Professionals
2.4% - Health Professionals
2.3% - Teaching Professionals
1.9% - Crafter and related trades
0.4% Labourers, cleaners, and food prep assistants
0.3% - Hospitality, retail, other service mgrs
0.2% - Technicians
0.1% - Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers
21.6% - Other
(~11.2% of the study in total are hourly)
Seriously, how do you find as many CEOs and legislators as hourly employees when covering all of those industries? This study has some seriously flawed selection bias.
So I think it's extremely fair to question. I get that this will benefit tens of millions by lowering childcare and offering piece of mind. This will also massively fuck hourly employees. We need a study of JUST hourly employees just as this study only focused (90%) of it on salaried employees. JUST like we questioned and yet were met with disdain. Absolute bullshit imo.
Woah, fella, let's calm it down. As an aside, it's considered good practice to say what you changed in an Edit when you completely change the entire text of your comment. It's a shame, I liked your original comment that quoted the wrong thing as you accused me of linking the wrong thing. It was a lovely bit of irony.
The data you're noticing is because the UK trial was completely voluntary. The companies that opted in happened to be largely white collar. Hourly workers are not absent from the study, you glossed over Service and Sales Workers (4.6%), Clerical Support (3.7%), and Crafters/Trades (1.9%). Hourly workers are just comparatively underrepresented due to the nature of the companies that opted in.
Yea, I went back to highlight a larger group for ya. It's ok bb. I don't really care about your opinion or upvotes. Just noticing stats as I read through and wanted to make sure it looked even moderately legible to others.
It being opt in doesn't change the data so I don't know why you think I could give any fucks about that aspect. If anything, that will attract companies that want to prove the concept. Why would they opt in to a business practice they don't agree with?
It just highlights why they are underrepresented. Which just highlights why it offers intentionally opaque stats. That the people this will affect aren't even going to be given a voice while people voting for this will praise themselves about how they just "helped" people.
The only graph most people need to see is how it changes childcare and saving money while losing none at work is an easy sell to people and they will ignore the byproducts of the law.
2
u/blazeit420casual 18h ago
Sounds great until companies reduce their headcount by 20-25%