Tomorrow might be the official national holiday but today will be a mass celebration of a great Australian institution as hundreds of thousands of workers call in sick.

Support from staff for the 10-hour, four-day working week

Up to half a million workers are expected to chuck a sickie, voting themselves an extra day off. Even if you’re the conscientious type and decide to rock up to work today, it’s only a four-day week. Wouldn’t it be great if every week was like that?

Well for many workers it could be, with no loss of productivity plus the benefits of reduced energy consumption, lower carbon emissions, less congestion on the roads and more time for family and leisure. The key is extending the four working days to 10 hours, so all the work still gets done. And one US state has proved it can work.

In 2008 Utah moved 17,000 state employees to a four-day week, keeping their workload steady by extending the working days to 10 hours. There were savings to taxpayers from reduced energy consumption - not as high as hoped - but one aspect of it means it’s there to stay, and it’s this.

People love it.

Last month authorities produced a final report on the effects of the Working 4 Utah initiative. Over 80 per cent of staff said it was a good idea. Only a fifth of people in the entire state of Utah say it should be given the chop.

Under the 4/10 schedule, as it’s called, state employees report doing more exercise and spending less money on commuting. There are fewer cars on the roads, people are spending less money on petrol, and overtime is down by about 160,000 hours, or 30 per cent. That’s a significant saving for taxpayers.

People are using the state’s website for government transactions like license applications – saving money and shortening queues in service offices. Greenhouse emissions from state facilities are down an estimated 10,000 tonnes. And citizens are just as happy now with the services from their local government as they were before the 4/10 arrangement began.

It is a brilliantly simple idea and offers a real alternative to our cultural imprisonment by an early-20th-century psychology, essentially a factory-economy-based paranoia about being present in the workplace from morning to night, five days a week.

This manifests itself in workplaces in the corrosive culture of “presenteeism”, shorthand for the pressure for workers to be constantly on deck regardless of their workload or health. Its cost is estimated to run to tens of billions of dollars a year – sick or unhappy workers are less productive. It is also believed to be far more costly than its much more enjoyable opposite, absenteeism.

While it won’t work for every sector of the economy or all types of business it is the kind of simple change that offers savings to companies with no impact on productivity, as well as benefits to the environment and the potential to make Australia an extraordinarily attractive place to work.

It is one possible response to the Prime Minister’s call for Australia to find clever ways of enhancing productivity, which is going to be critical over the coming decades as the population gets older and the ranks of retirees swell.

Implicit in the Kevin Rudd’s call for the country to “work smarter” is an acknowledgement that “working harder” cannot give the economy the necessary productivity gains. Australians are some of the hardest workers in the world anyway – bludgers are pariahs and according to several surveys, we work some of the longest hours in the developed world.

And besides, this is not about slacking off or working less. It’s about working the same amount but in a way which, done right, can be more efficient than the current convention.

“It is important to understand that enhancing productivity is about giving workers and businesses the skills, infrastructure and positive business environment to work smarter,” Rudd said last week.

One plank of this is when complete the National Broadband Network will provide an infrastructure tool to greatly enhance the opportunities for effective, accountable teleworking. If people work from home more businesses can seek to save on the costs of running their buildings, and there’s also the benefit of easing road congestion and greenhouse emissions because fewer cars are on the road. Introducing a 4/10 work schedule could then be one part of creating the “positive business environment” Rudd talks about.

Imagine seeing it on a job advertisement. We offer a 4/10 schedule.

Translation: Work for us and have a lifetime of three-day weekends.

If there were two similar jobs but one offered a 4/10 schedule, which would you prefer to land?

A similar arrangement is already in practice for many people working in Australia’s economic engine room: the mining industry. A common arrangement for miners is to work, for example, 12-hour days days in a row before having an extended break of up to a week.

Of course moving to a four-day week won’t work for every business. But there are plenty of workplaces where you could imagine, say, the entire accounts department moving to a four-day week where staff just work slightly longer days.

And not everybody has to take the Friday off – you could split it, half the people off on Monday, the other half on Friday, meaning the business always has a quota of front-line service people on hand to deal with customers.

While it was introduced at government level in Utah, you could see private enterprise taking the lead on this in Australia, perhaps with encouragement through simple tax concessions for companies whose staff take their cars off the roads one day a week.

Interested to hear your thoughts on it. Could it work for you?

Follow me on Twitter: @colgo

84 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Julianne says:

      06:45am | 27/01/10

      I work in the States and my 5 hour workday is the norm - 8-5! No 9-5, thank you. We don’t get paid for our lunch break.

      I work in the refining industry. All our refineries work on a 9/80 schedule - you work 80 hours within 9 days. Our department, in corporate, trialed it. I worked 7.30 - 5.30, and had every second friday off.
      AND I LOVED IT. That extra friday gave me the time to do the chores that I couldn’t do during the day, considering banks opened at 8 and closed at 5.30 (and my commute is usually 30 minutes), and other services obviously worked the same type of 8-5 schedule. Time off work was reduced, because I scheduled all my regular medical appointments on the friday off. My commute in the morning improved considerably, since I was going before the usual traffic. I chose my 10-hour work schedule - as long as I started between 7 and 9, and was present the full 10 hours.
      A couple of people in our department chose not to take it for family reasons, and they hated it. It hurt worse during the summer holidays when the kids were off, and they still had to work that extra day rather than going to the local waterpark on an off-peak day.
      Unfortunately, I transferred to another department and I miss those Fridays off considerably.

    • Want employers to be fair says:

      05:37am | 27/01/10

      Unfortunately our employers/clients are too GREEDY these days and won’t accept a 4 day 10 hour week. I have been a contractor for 11 years and 10 years ago employers/clients were happy with you working 4 x 10 hour days as the 40 hour week was still recognised. This was found to be more productive and good for both parties. Nowadays, employers/clients expect you to work upto 10 hours everyday for the 5 days. So getting them to agree to pay for 40 hours even though you do this over 4 days is no longer accepted. GREED has set in and one day workers will unite to fight for the 40 hour week again and maybe, just maybe we can get to celebrate Labour day once again!

    • Bethany says:

      05:45pm | 26/01/10

      I work 12 hour days (six am to six pm) four days on, four days off. I love it! I can’t imagine going back to a five day week. My view is, if you’re going to work, your day is pretty much stuffed anyway, so you might as well put in as many hours as you can while you’re there.

    • hacks says:

      05:34pm | 26/01/10

      The long hours will always be a part of some jobs. France has a 35hr week. It is seen as a quality of life issue. Once you get past the lie that more people/hours are necessary to cover the retiring boomers, it makes sense.

    • Mark says:

      05:07pm | 26/01/10

      I’d be just happy to have a consistant 2 days off each weekend. Try working shiftwork where a lot of days off are just 1 and than you may work 5 or 6 more and get 2 off. No time to recuperate and always like a zombie. And that is driving buses in Perth. Oh for decent conditions. I reckon a 4 day week would be great.

    • Jade says:

      10:27am | 26/01/10

      I already have 1 day off a week & absolutely love it - I don’t think I can go back to a 9-5 5 days a week. I start at 7 in the morning (that’s the sacrifice I have to make) and finish at either 4 or 4:30pm. I get either Friday or Monday off and sometimes I can even get a consecutive Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday off which I’m having this week. smile

    • DD says:

      10:25am | 26/01/10

      I’m on a part time contract negotiated after working f/t 5 days a week.  I work Monday - Thursday for 9 hour days with a 30 minute lunch break.  I will be staying on this arrangement for as long as I possibly can.  I am less stressed and a happier person, and am able to manage my life/work balance a lot better.  It is a slight drop in pay, but worth it to have a life/work balance instead of a work/life balance.

    • Martyn says:

      10:21am | 26/01/10

      Most comments are about office workers, Little or none about those that are required to work on weekends. Mine workers on 12 hr shifts. Some would not be satisfied with a 4 hr working week.

    • Davo says:

      09:11am | 26/01/10

      I think the answer is to scrap the seven day week If we were to work 4 days then take 2 days off, that would only take a matter of minutes per day to make up the lost time.  (28 working days out of 42 instead of the current 30.)

    • Martyn says:

      11:42pm | 25/01/10

      Publis servants have 10% more sickies than the rest of use. Poor sods getting sick so much

    • Max Gross says:

      10:41pm | 25/01/10

      Call me when we get a 5 day weekend and a two day working week.

    • michael says:

      08:19pm | 25/01/10

      2 x 3/10 or 2 x 3/8 job share could be a way a business can get 6 days a week productivity for their assets. Offices, equipment, parking lots etc that get used 5 days a week could instead be used 6 days a week for no extra cost.

    • Paul says:

      05:28pm | 25/01/10

      Fantastic idea, but why stop there, why don’t we scrap the Gregorian calendar and invent a new day creating an 8 day week. That way nothing would ever be closed and everybody could work 4 days on, 4 days off. This would need 2 employees for every job thus eliminating unemployment and the bludgers queue at Centrelink ( my apologies to the genuine job seekers and pensioners out there). Any suggestions on what we should call the 8th day?

    • V says:

      11:38pm | 25/01/10

      Judgement Day

    • stephen says:

      04:49pm | 25/01/10

      Well while the concept is great and i currently work a 9 day fortnight - i can some employers saying well we can get employee’s to work the weekend and give them 3 days during the week - so you would get even less time with your kids - what would make it even worse is that you would be paid the same rate pay you would earn during the work week. So in recognition of work carried out during the working week - on the weekends you would normaly be paid a higher rate but not any longer - i have seen this happen with mining company’s - we call this collective bargaining - you know you give away hard earned rights fought for by workers in previous times - sell your soul and some germ will think of another way to screw the family….

      My lack of belief in some company’s to look after the family in the face of profits

    • Timmuh says:

      04:19pm | 25/01/10

      Its not for me. I find 9 and 10 hour days too depressing, and prefer to work six eight hour days when the additional time is necessary over doing the extra hours Mon-Fri.
      I can certainly see the appeal for others; especially those whose work is in a different city to their residence or those with children who can get the extra day at home with the family.

    • Steve says:

      04:10pm | 25/01/10

      Lol. I already work extra most days. If It was formalised my boss would be losing a 10 hour day every week! I can’t imagine he’d be happy about it.

    • John Dark says:

      04:09pm | 25/01/10

      Considering many of us ‘uncommitted’ people make up for your your days lost every time your kids get the sniffles or are in trouble at school, are lower priorities for leave any time around school holidays and almost always end up getting stabbed by managers to do overtime as there is no need for us to go home on time, I think you’re doing pretty well. Maybe on your day off you could take them to school and pick them up - possibly even do some of the household chores and shopping that would otherwise eat into your family time?

    • Russell says:

      04:01pm | 25/01/10

      I work a 3/10 week thanks to an exceptional boss.  I start at 7am and finish at 5:30pm. Other employees work 4/10 weeks and cover my work on my days away.  If they need information I can help over the phone.  Works brilliantly, I can look after the kids with my wife (who works four days a week) with a minimum of childcare.

    • Joel says:

      02:33pm | 25/01/10

      i used to work those hours a few years back in a store.  work monday and tuesday, have wednesday off, back to work for thursday and friday then have the weekend off - it was brilliant!  Then we got a new area manager and without even reviewing it changed it back to 5 working days.  Employees werent happy, productivity dropped and by the end of the month most of the team had resigned because they were getting paid the same but had less personal time, had to drive 5 days a week (extra fuel) and had staggered work hours so staff could be there for both opening and closing where before the whole team was there.  4 day weeks are awesome!  The extra day off during the week enables you to run so many errands more efficiently.

    • Dave says:

      02:22pm | 25/01/10

      I’ve thought this for years. I’d happily hand my two front teeth in, in exchange for a 4 / 10 working week.

    • cats says:

      12:28pm | 25/01/10

      This strategy probably wouldn’t do much for me personally, except give me more time to do nothing..

      I find the most annoying thing about working full-time is that when you want to go to the bank, post office, doctor, dentist, chiro or whatever, you have to take annual leave of one hour to do so. It’s not like you can do anything much with 1 hour lunch break, particularly when the doctor is ALWAYS late with appointments. Some workplaces even have 2 30 min lunch breaks making it even harder.

      At first i thought: oh great one day a week off means that i can do all these things! then realised that it would be just like a weekend when nothing is open as everyone else would have the day off too.

    • Brian says:

      12:37pm | 25/01/10

      No cats, the idea would be that people have different days off. I get Monday, you get Friday, Bob gets Wednesday if he wants it, that sort of thing. So everything would still be open.

    • SARK says:

      12:02pm | 25/01/10

      My partner already does something similar by working extra hours to get every Wednesday off. We’ve worked around this schedule for the last 5 or so years and it works absolutely brilliantly for us. We use this mid-week day to run errands, do the shopping and take care of important matters. Wednesday evenings we relax. Our Wednesday is like an oasis in the middle of an otherwise busy week.

    • snilbert says:

      11:34am | 25/01/10

      A much better idea would be to keep the five days work and introduce a new day into the weekend between Saturday and Sunday. So an eight day week with a three day weekend. This might even create more jobs in the service industry for more hours of weekend work available.

      Of course, there would be the small problem of getting every country on Earth to agree….

    • NCG says:

      11:19am | 25/01/10

      For anyone in a serious business this will never work. Simple reason; this is a global / online economy that functions 24/7. Imagine trying to do business with companies who only works 4 days a week, talk about supply chain problems! What would you do? I’d change business partners to someone who is more readily contactable and as serious about their work priorities as you are. For a company to switch to a 4 day working week, regardless of how many hours per day it works, screams a message of mediocrity.

    • Timmuh says:

      04:24pm | 25/01/10

      What do you do with a business that functions 24/7 when people are doing a 5/8 (or as is more likely in many such businesses a 5/12) week and someone calls on day 6 or hour 13? You have people to cover the time, they might not be quite as proficient with a particular client’s needs but they can get the information and work out what’s going on.
      Some of these businesses might, of necessity, become the last to provide these options (it might not work for retail or some hospitality either, due to the other issue - not needing employees 10 hours a day) but its not impossible once other businesses - including some of the client base - is doing it.

    • Brian says:

      02:27pm | 25/01/10

      And in the event that such an employee is required every single weekday, they simply wouldn’t be the ones given the 4 day weeks, but would remain on 9-5. However, you stated ‘for ANYONE in a serious business’ (emphasis mine), and then go on to make arguments applying to people with very specific and specialised skill sets (which even in most highly technical companies will only comprise a fraction of the workforce, perhaps as much as half). Can you explain to me why it couldn’t work for 90% of people in serious businesses? Or are we all completely invaluable?

      Organisations of professionals still tend to share a lot of employees between client accounts, such as secretaries, accountants, payroll officers, HR personnel, drafters, librarians, maintenance workers and so on. Surely it will work for these?

    • NCG says:

      01:44pm | 25/01/10

      Cathy, overlap to a limited degree. But if you have a professional organisation (which is the core of my point) with people who have very specific and specialised skill sets, complete overlap is only achievable by a huge financial loss. My employees know of everyone else’s pieces of work at a high level, but not to an intricate detail, which would be required should they need to take over at a drop of a hat. Documentation research time and client meetings would need to be undertaken to bring the replacement employee up to speed, which is more preferable than to hire additional people permanently to be a waste of space 3 days a week. 

      Extenuating circumstances like the “hit by a bus” analogy could be off set by explanation of said event to clients, who could only be understanding of the situation. This would certainly not be a weekly occurrence and there fore the business relationship not jeopardised

    • Brian says:

      01:39pm | 25/01/10

      No, NCG, you don’t have to hire two employees for every position (and despite popular belief, time is not money if it’s significantly inside the decision loop cycle - and any major decision with one less than a week is in trouble). You have to have enough cross-training to cover the problems WITH YOUR EXISTING EMPLOYEES, something you should already have. You also do not need to keep everyone informed, you have to keep one person informed (the backup. Probably best to inform your boss too).

      Now, to some business principals. Assuming that your employees are not working in-tray to mouth and able to deal with every arriving task immediately (in which case you have too many), your employees will manage the same amount of workload (extremely short demand/supply periods of less than 24 hours excepted). This is the case for almost every industry. Not one extra employee needs to be hired, unless the existing employees were not already creating sufficient information redundancy for comfort. Your 5 employees will still do 200 hours a week between them, hopefully doing 200 hours of work. This just means that if one is unavailable for some reason, you’re not going to come crashing to a shuddering halt.

    • Cathie says:

      01:21pm | 25/01/10

      NCG if your business does not have employee overlap and only one person that can do certain things you have a HUGE risk in your organisation. What happens if that person is sick? On holidays? Gets run over by a bus? You should always have overlap so that skill transfer can occur and the organisation doesn’t have bottle necks. 4 day weeks just mean that companies have to ensure that this is taking place. A win/win for all concerned

    • NCG says:

      01:16pm | 25/01/10

      Brian, time is money plain and simple. Trying to keep everyone informed and in the loop in relation to projects that you are directly responsible for is just not always possible; consider a project manager as an example. In business process nirvana it seems achievable, but not in real world scenarios. I’ve worked in many multinational IT companies and have never seen this done well even though it was preached relentlessly and business processes were core fundamentals for all employees.

      Now for some basic business principals; You are implying that as an employer I would have to hire two people for every position. The market has dictated I only need one to do a 5 day working week, but now I have to back fill a day as we have moved to a 4 day work week structure. Employing someone part time can’t work as they wouldn’t be familiar with the environment complexity so I now have an extra 0.625 FTE cycles (0.25 FTE for the worked day, 0.125 for the handover process) to use per extra employee. Cost / benefit ratio is pretty poor and grows exponentially worse with the number of current employees a company has to back fill.

    • Brian says:

      12:12pm | 25/01/10

      Lynchpins who are THAT essential have performed their job poorly by failing to arrange for another person being available and correctly informed. I wouldn’t want to deal with any company who only had one person able to deal with my case - what if he (or she) was hit by a bus? Took leave? Had the flu? In the aforementioned case you refer to, presumably the person would have made arrangements to be contactable over his/her long weekend, and if advice was THAT essential that it had to come today, chances are that you’d need weekend access too. Even more important to recognise is that if advice HAS to come today, you have either got higher expectations than is reasonable, or the matter will be simple enough to be dealt with by another. Complex advice takes time to research.

      So in answer to the question you pose - assuming that you are dealing with a professional, reputable company, you will probably lose no more than one or two hours to either contact the solicitor (who would probably have other cases if they were at work anyway, and would have taken this long to get to yours) or complete the brief of the standin who should have a good knowledge anyway, with likely little no monetary cost due to the fact that the decision would most likely not have taken effect until after the weekend. Relying on advice given in haste is flawed. Asking for advice on exceedingly short notice and then relying on it is even more so.

    • NCG says:

      11:52am | 25/01/10

      Guess being a lynch pin in your organisation isn’t something to aspire to in this case then Brian? I will concede that worker ants in jobs like the mining industry won’t be missed as the client relationships just don’t exist (or need to), but for professional service companies this can’t work.

      Imagine having an urgent legal matter handled, only to be palmed off to another employee in the firm while “your” solicitor is on a 3 day weekend. How much lost time and money is involved to bring that fill in up to speed on one particular matter?

    • Brian says:

      11:38am | 25/01/10

      No one ever said a company would work 4 days a week, just individual employees. A situation which is already in place in many ‘serious businesses’. Generally speaking most of the time you don’t need to speak to ‘Geoff’, you need to speak to ‘The guy who can order this part for me’. If that’s Geoff four days a week and Bob four days a week (overlapping for three) it doesn’t matter. As I’ve said above, all of the technical staff at a great many minesites already do this, and it works fine.

    • Adrian Codrington says:

      11:11am | 25/01/10

      @acker: As someone who is married to a teacher, I can honestly say you have no idea what you’re talking about. Most lessons are planned by the state syllabus? Where do you hear this drivel?

      The 4/10 idea, as people have already stated, would work for certain industries but not others. My workplace already has fairly flexible arrangements, but a similar situation wouldn’t work for my wife - it is hard enough trying to retain the focus of 30 young children for the duration of a current school day. A 10 school day is completely impractical for all those at school, both teachers and students.

    • Michael says:

      10:39am | 25/01/10

      My company does this, and it’s excellent. You’ll never want to work a five-day week again.

    • Brian says:

      10:36am | 25/01/10

      David, I work in the mining industry, and do eight 12 hour days in a row followed by 6 days off, as do my colleagues. While I don’t have children, my first one is on the way so this is actually something I’ve done a lot of asking around about, to determine if I want to look for a job in the city.

      Here’s the thing: Every single parent that I’ve asked the question of says that they get to spend more QUALITY time with their kids when they work up here, even though they lose a full weekend (admittedly my sample is biased by the fact that these are the people who stayed out here, and therefore like the roster) than they did while they were in Perth. Several people have moved to jobs in Perth instead of fly-in fly-out to spend more time with their kids - about half of them come back, as they find they get less, and many of the remainder who I emailed don’t think it’s any better. Probably one in four thought it was an improvement, and they almost exclusively have children too young for school.

      In your standard 8 hour day you might see your kids for an hour before and an hour after work - but both times you or they will be busy for a good portion of that time washing, cooking, doing homework, getting dressed or undressed, thinking about that damn meeting you had today, doing the internet banking and general chores.

      If you have a 10 hour day, you’ll still see your kids each day, although admittedly for less on 4 of them, but on that final day you can walk home from school with them. Take them to the park while it’s still light outside. Watch their soccer training. Discuss their day while it’s still fresh and they’re not winding down ready for bed. Stop for an ice cream. When was the last time you could pick your children up from school, in person?

      Overall you may get an hour or so less ‘possible child contact time’ over the course of the week, but you’ll probably spend more time actually with them. Add that to the chance to go into a bank and speak to the manager in person, shop when it’s quiet, call the plumber in business hours, wait for the furniture delivery man without taking leave, save 20% of your commuting costs and so on (all of which mean that the limited time you have on the four working days doesn’t have to be eaten up by other tasks), and there are numerous benefits.

      It won’t work for everyone (single parents for example may find they NEED that time every day just to cook dinner at a reasonable hour, and those who have both parents working could cause issues for similar reasons), but it is definitely an option well worth considering. The key is to make it a ‘second standard’ - i.e. make it an option, rather than the rule. If a company offers BOTH 9-5 and 8-6 (or 7-5, or 9-7, whichever works) work, with the employees allowed to choose which they prefer (and the company determining which day you get off if you choose 8-6, in consultation with the employee) it can be a huge improvement.

      Sorry to be rather lengthy, but this is one subject I feel well-qualified to discuss, having talked it over with dozens of people who effectively work 4 day weeks already (remember, we spend the 8 days in the middle of nowhere, so get NO time with the kids at all. If they STILL feel they’re better of, there must be something to those 6 days).

    • Crispin Huntington says:

      10:35am | 25/01/10

      The good old Aussie sickie is a tradition and should be treated as such. Remember sickies are a right, not a privilege. American have there right to bear arms, and we have the right to call in sick when we are not. So enjoy you long weekend. There is a great article I have read about Australians love of chucking sickies.

      http://thingsaustralianslove.com/index.php/things-australians-love/chucking-sickies/

    • Jack says:

      10:31am | 25/01/10

      I think you’ll find that, for many jobs, the same amount of work could be done in four eight-hour days. The key is eliminating wasted time. I’m fairly comfortable that I could do my job in three days a week, but I’m not about to voluntarily take a 40% pay cut, so I spend hours a day doing nothing or working on side projects.

      (Fake personal info given for obvious reasons!)

    • cats says:

      12:24pm | 25/01/10

      here here! thats why i’m on the punch right now..

    • h says:

      10:12am | 25/01/10

      think of it this way: this week is a four-day week for most of us. will we be asked to do 80% of the work? not really. we’ll basically still do 100% of the work. you don’t need to extend to 10 hour days, mind you most of us already do 10 hour days quite regularly anyway, so we’d be getting time back….

    • Mistress D says:

      10:09am | 25/01/10

      I wonder what tune you’ll be singing when it’s your children who are the ‘uncommitted’ people. Wouldn’t it be nice for them to spend a weekend with you? But sadly, due to this big land of us, travel would require taking an extra day off….One they couldn’t possibly take, it’s a 5 day week afterall.

    • Graeme King says:

      09:21am | 25/01/10

      All things being equal, i agree the 4/10 is a better idea than what we have, but i think we would need to be a little clearer in how we propose to do it. Does everyone work the same days and then have the same days off (eg Everyone works Mon - Thu and then we have a 3 day weekend (Fri -Sun). Or do we still need to have a concept of the weekend and you just get any 3 days off in a 7 day period for example. If we do want the concept of week days and weekend, can some work Mon-Thu and others Tue-Fri, or others Mon-Tue, Wed off, Thur-Fri, Sat-Sun Off. In my opinion the more flexible the better, but then again i’m an employee and not a employer that has deadline to meet.

      I think this review should also take into account the “working” hours problem, since we would be working longer where our public transport is packed for peak hours but under utilized during non peak hours. Maybe also increasing business hours to 12 hours, so that people can stagger their start and end times, to help spread the load, and maybe even save costs by using “hot seats” or job sharing for older workers or people that want part time work..

      And a third suggestion (probably the most costly, and hardest to implement) would be to have more CBD’s (lets say 5, the existing one, and then one in the N,S,E,W) in each of the major cities, and instead of larger businesses owning multiple floors in the one building, like they currently do, they could own single floors in each of the CBD’s and then people can work at the office closer to them so they don’t need to travel into the city all they time, reducing the burden on public transport and using less fuels etc and creating construction jobs.

    • Brian says:

      05:43pm | 25/01/10

      Not being particularly familiar with Melbourne (being from the West), I’m not really qualified to say much on the specifics there. But what I’m pretty sure of is that in 30 years time much of what we’re saying is a good idea will have come to pass, and the demand for large buildings will have eased, being more of a place for the executives and their direct staff, as well as anyone who specifically needs access to them or is needed by them.

      You’ll find it difficult to convince any major developer to try to create a major office complex (I’m talking the really big ones - 10 floors plus) away from amenities such as international airports and other major businesses, and unfortunately you’ll find it just as hard to get the government to build such a facility (and even harder for a private developer to build one before the demand is there. Which won’t come until the airport is. And hence we have a vicious circle). Unfortunately the economics don’t stack up, as much as it would be nice, until we grow a LOT bigger, and in the time that takes technology (and rising costs of transport and office space) will likely make the new complex redundant.

      I’m also not specifically endorsing working from ‘home’ (although I do approve of the concept), more like a small satellite office closer to the homes of given workers, such that you still have to ‘go to work’ (far too many distractions at home), but don’t have to go to the same workplace as some of your colleagues, with possibly a day a week where everyone gets together somehow (online or in person) across the company, for those times you HAVE to hand a bit of paper to someone personally.

    • Graeme King says:

      01:25pm | 25/01/10

      More good points, I think we do need big buildings (and it would be a waste to get rid of the ones we already have), but as melbourne grows we need more space to put the workers, so rather than making the CBD able to hold more people, just start building the new BD at one of the new locations.

      Obviously this isn’t something that can happen over night and may even take 30 years to be useful, but start planning it now so in 30 years things will be better.

      The other option is to build a whole new major city 3 hours drive (far enough to make it an effort to get there) from Melbourne, and encourge growth in that city rather than Melbourne, so that new people go there.

      People who make the choice to move there will get “inner city” addresses at 1/4 of the price as what they would pay in Melbourne.

      I do like your idea of “working” from home if the job allows it (mine would), as that would get people off the roads even more! but for those that don’t they still need to go somewhere, but i suppose we’ve got off the original topic a bit, but i think they are all related in a way anyway.

    • Brian says:

      01:05pm | 25/01/10

      I’m more referring to the fact that the construction of large office buildings (which would be needed even in subsidary locations) is far less desirable than having the non-client facing people working remotely. If you’ve come to the decision that you don’t need them in a major building in the center of the town, then why decide you need them in a major building somewhere else? If you do need to be clustered, it’s normally because you need to be close to something (hence the CBD).

      If you were going to move away from the CBD (a good aim to have), there is no need to create NBD, EBD etc - you’ve already decided you don’t need to be clustered. Simply have them in a suburb you pick, regardless of whether other businesses are nearby (and hence not really a ‘business district’).

    • Graeme King says:

      12:42pm | 25/01/10

      Good point Brian,

      Well it’s central in my mind in name only not through need. The others would be NBD, SBD, WBD, EBD and if you wanted to put all your head offices in the “CBD” still thats ok, so the executive do their stuff easily, but for the average non client facing worker the job can be done anywhere (as we well know it’s being done overseas in many cases) and even for some client facing people, your customers can go to a more “Central” location to them, all reducing the need to travel far as melbourne is exceeding it’s roads and public transport, during the peak hours.

      It might be cheaper to have everything in one spot but having a single point of failure is also a problem just waiting to happen, but most infrastructure is “rented” as opposed to owned as well.

      I also wanted to clarify that the 12 hours business day is to allow you flexibility on when to start your 10 hour shift…..maybe even do two 5 hour “sessions” for want of a better word with a two hour lunch

    • Brian says:

      11:00am | 25/01/10

      Interesting thoughts Graeme, most of which I agree with… with one major ‘but’. The CBD is so called because it’s the CENTRAL business district, and grows through economies of scale. It’s a LOT cheaper to have everything in the one spot, both in terms of construction and service provision. Better would be the option of remote workplaces using electronic communications for things like accountants and so on who get their work emailed to them anyway, but still sit in the building.

    • SM says:

      09:19am | 25/01/10

      You can do 4 x 12.5 hour days then

    • Bellezyx says:

      09:07am | 25/01/10

      Ummm… what about those of us who already work 10 hour days?  Do we actually get a day off or squash a few more hours into the remainder?

    • Anonymous says:

      09:04am | 25/01/10

      well im guessing teachers are workers too, sort of,  so that would also mean 4 day school weeks?

      but if this is such a good idea, then obviously, two days work and a 5 day weekend has to be even better!

    • Chris says:

      08:05pm | 25/01/10

      Acker,
      This is the usual type of smart-arsed comment from someone who is, frankly, jealous of teachers and their conditions. In NSW, teachers get 11 weeks holidays. I’m a secondary teacher. I enjoy having 11 weeks holidays. I enjoy having every weekend off and never having to work nights. Oh, that is, except for the frequent 7-hour shifts I do on Saturdays or Sundays at home, marking assignments or exams; except for the parent-teacher interviews at nights; except for the school production which would not get off the ground unless a few of us were willing to put in about 130 hours, each, of our own time, unpaid; except for the overnight excursons that take me away from home; (one could go on).
      If it’s such a great deal, here’s the simple reality: get your HSC, with decent marks in your intended subject area; four years at Uni; then, the dream job can be yours, too.
      To address the main comment: no, it probably wouldn’t fly in the education system. Schools would probably need to operate from 8am to 6pm—considering the issues of timetabling, buses, supervision, implications for the home, etc, it would be almost impossible.

    • kevvy says:

      11:03am | 25/01/10

      Well, you would expect a monumental shift in society if a 4 day week was embraced…this being said,  Kids can concetrate less than adults, a 4 day week would suit them too. You do waste a lot of time at school doing sweet FA…when i was in yr 11 & 12 we only had a four day week, that was in griffith, nsw.  This might also give parents to reload the batteries and get the kids involved in a lot of extra-curricular activity.  I am sure all teh parents here would agree, an extra day to the weekend to get out and do something with the kids would be a great idea.

    • Brian says:

      10:45am | 25/01/10

      Acker - they don’t go to work. But they also don’t get paid for them. If you look at their hourly rate, it’s paid over the 5 days a week, 7 hours a day, 40 weeks a year, with 4 weeks of the holidays paid. I’m sure you’d be real happy if your employer said ‘You can have 12 weeks holiday a year. But we’re only paying for four of them. And you have to take them at the times we set. Which happen to be the most expensive for any flights, accommodation and so on.’ For the record, many of them do work in the school holidays (at least, most of the ones I know) for about 5-10 days a year, so it’s more like 10-11 weeks holiday, and most of them do a LOT of out of hours work.

      The syllabus says WHAT to teach, it doesn’t say anything about WHICH lesson should be done on which day, with what aids, marked in which way. It’s like saying ‘The engineering standards say that the pressure vessel should be strong enough to hold twice it’s operating pressure’ telling you how to design one (What material will you make it from? How thick? Where are the pipes going? That’s for you to choose.). Like any procedure, it gives a vague guideline, but doesn’t decrease the workload any.

    • nic says:

      10:37am | 25/01/10

      The four day working week probably wouldn’t be feasable for schools.  I do have to say this in response though, why is it that people who have never taught school age children think its so easy? This often comes from people who are scared witless at speaking at any sort of formal gathering, let alone dealing with 30 adolescants.

    • acker says:

      09:49am | 25/01/10

      @Anomymous…...perhaps the teachers might want to trade there 12 weeks per year annual leave for that…....you dont honestly beleive thay go to work during school holidays do you ? And most lessons they plan are as directed by the state education department sylabus.

    • acker says:

      08:57am | 25/01/10

      @Craig would’nt a lot of the education and training costs of an older employee 45+ be offset by the extra skill set/ career job skills they bring to the job. A lot of these older workers find themselves outside the workforce due to employers shedding them to get younger lesser paid staff that often need to be trained.

      Thats not always the employers fault, in some cases I think it is the fault of the current employment system employer/union/government.

      Remember we are also moving towards more home employment and less CBD employment with faster internet speeds. Administrative staff will have more opportunity to sub contract themselves and home office to employers for an agreed amount of work output, and face to face discussion will take place via webcam and perhaps your supervisor will call by once a week to your home for a cup of tea and a meeting.
      The equipment, cleaning and workers compensation will be the responsibility of the sub-contracted employee

    • JohnD says:

      08:56am | 25/01/10

      “Unpaid work” What a joke! Yeah! Some people work extra hours - hospital nurses, medical staff, teachers, self-employed workers, small business owners, etc - but don’t try and tell me that public servants on ‘flexi-sheets’ work unpaid overtime!  Just go to a Test match mid-week and survey the attendance and find out how many are ‘skipping’ work and just how many of those rationalise their presence on the basis of ‘the extra hours I put in’!  I work, on average 20 hours a week as a community volunteer - i.e. doing wok that the organisation would otherwise have to use a paid employee to do (if they could get one to do it ,or, were resourced to employ someone). I don’t know how many of those supposed ‘unpaid hours’ many people claim to work are really required to be worked!  Maybe they are just have poor time management skills , or, cannot read a clock!

    • Lee Smith says:

      06:52pm | 25/01/10

      Not all public servants get flextime.  I work as much as is required (within very very broad parameters) without overtime - not allowed at my level, and only a percentage of time off in lieu - if i can be spared.  I can work from a 40 hour to a 60 hour week without recompense.  I don’t mind for the most part but get sick of people assuming that public servants regularly abuse flex time or are paid heaps of overtime.  I think the 4/10 would work well in some public sector environments.

    • Frank Scicluna says:

      08:53am | 25/01/10

      A 10 hour day/4 day week is something that I have long considered to be the way of the future together with a “home office” which many jobs can be adapted to. Our economy can only benefit from it.

      I am now retired but the position I had when I was working could have easily been done from home. All I needed was a PC, a printer, a scanner, a fax machine and a telephone…all of which I had for years and which are found in almost every home.

      Despite discussing this possibility with my superiors many times however, the answer was always that it was against company policy without any good reason given as to why the policy could not be updated.

      Had I been able to work 2 or 3 days from home in the job that I had been doing for many years, I would still be in the workforce today.

      May I suggest that a 10 hour/4 day week trial can commence in our education system? Many children of working parents are enrolled in pre and/or after school care already while 10 hour days will not present any problems for non working mothers.

      It just has to be the way of the future.

    • Jo says:

      08:42am | 25/01/10

      I am lucky enough to work for a company who have the 4 day week in place over a 36 hour a week - we have a rotating RDO which means that every 5 weeks we get a long weekend, with Friday then Monday of the following week off. The whole company isn’t off work as we are assigned RDO groups so business can still be done. It encourages team work, allows for work life balance and also has cut down on days taken off sick. Love it! Not sure how I would feel going back to the traditional 5 day week anymore

    • sarah says:

      08:38am | 25/01/10

      As long as the arrangement was optional, I think this would be great.

      I work in a pretty flexible environment now, but it would be great if I could have a four day week guilt-free. Some times you really do the need the extra day to do all those damn errands that you can’t do when you work a 9-5 job!

      I say bring it on!

    • Dave Sag says:

      08:36am | 25/01/10

      How I often dream of a mere 40 hr week. At Carbon Planet we have a strong ‘work from home’ culture, very flexible hours and generally measure people on their productivity rather then their time spent at a desk.  The main requirement if you are working is that your Skype or iChat be on.  Some people felt that this would just lead to people slacking, but the truth is the reverse, people tend to put in more time and I don’t know anyone in my company who limits themselves to a mere 40 hours.

      A lot of our work involves people in the USA, Middle East, South America and UK / Europe so it’s quite normal for meetings to happen late or early in the day.  A 10 hour day as standard could address that I guess, and to be honest, personally, I’d welcome a 4 day week if I thought I could get everything done in that time.

    • Jane says:

      08:34am | 25/01/10

      @ David, you made your point without your generalisation of young and single workers being uncommitted. Get some perspective.

    • Craig Lambie says:

      08:11am | 25/01/10

      I have to agree with @David 842 and @Lily Mulholland, I don’t even have kids, but I already work 10+ hours 5 days a week, so I don’t see this changing productivity, or letting me have more social time.
      Although in some low level jobs I am sure this type of thing would help with productivity.
      @Acker’s suggestion of more part time employees is also a good suggestion, but the problem as a business is the overhead on each staff member.  More staff = more administration and management costs, education and training, equipment etc.  These costs are often not included when you think about job share, also the loss of information, ie “secret whispers” as each day’s info is passed along.  Mind this works in some industries, ie. Hotel Reception where info is passed down each shift regardless.

    • acker says:

      07:45am | 25/01/10

      4 day 10 hour day makes sense to me, employers could stagger staff to operate 5 days seemlesly…How about more job share opportunities for over 45yo’s perhaps (2x10hr) x 2 job share….a lot of people would keep working past 65yo if they only had a 2 day week…and possibly 8 week annual holiday.

    • David says:

      07:42am | 25/01/10

      Great!!! So I’d see even LESS of my kids on a regular weekday.

      Even now with a regular 9-5 job, I still only see my kids for an hour or so when they wake up or before they go to bed. This would basically mean I’d be out of the house their ENTIRE waking days for four days a week!!! What good is a day off if my kids aren’t around anyway (they’ll be at school)!!!

      Grow up!!! Whoever this company is, they clearly employ a substantial proportion of ‘uncommitted’ people (i.e.: young and single).

    • Bogan Bill says:

      12:17am | 27/01/10

      Mel, I dont think Sue mentioned her kids paying taxes to fund your pension, I think she was more talking about having people to do the physical aged care work, you know wiping your arse, making sure you dont get your pills mixed up, changing your sheets when you splatter all over them in the middle of the night. Anyway aside from that why are people without kids so bitter towards people with kids and vice versa, there is pluses and minuses in every situation why not try to be happy with the good in your situation rather then focusing on how good the other side has it.
      Now to comment on the actual topic. If it was 100 years ago that the 5 x 8 was considered the best working model then surely now with all our advances in technology that have made us so much more efficient we should be able to work 4 x 8 and thus keep the blood pressure of people from both sides of the argument down

    • Mel says:

      09:16pm | 26/01/10

      Actually Sue it won’t be your offspring funding my retirement. Because I’ve chosen to be childfree, I haven’t had to waste money funding their education, health and social life. I also have had no extra bonuses or welfare handouts to prop up my choice of lifestyle. I work hard and save to support myself in my retirement, and no thanks I won’t be needing anything from your precious children now or in the future! Not being a part of one of Rudd’s sacred ‘working families’ makes me a second class citizen apparently, who’s only birthright is the right to pay tax ....

    • Sue says:

      04:10pm | 26/01/10

      As a parent I would just like to point out - it will be my kids that are looking after all you non-breeders when you are old, ill and alone. Sociely needs people to have kids - and singles to work. Grow up people - you will be the first to critise parents, no doubt, when ‘kids are out of control’ because we worked your suffering hours. You also choose this lifestyle - don’t expect us to follow.

      For the record - I work 4X10 to limit child care and start at 7am to make it work. I love the day at home, but hate not being with my kids more.

    • Anne says:

      09:19am | 26/01/10

      David, you sound like yet another bitter breeder blaming single and /or child-free people for all your problems. Yet you’re happy enough to take all the tax money the government gouges out of us in the form of baby bonuses, child care subsidies, family benefits, etc. And we’re also pretty good at picking up the slack in the workplace when you have to take time off to look after your kids. I don’t grudge any of that but once, just ONCE I’d like to hear one of you express a bit of gratitude rather than always telling us how selfish we are.

    • uncommittedandweary says:

      06:27pm | 25/01/10

      David - it is your choice to have children.

      You also knew that it would be a tough task to manage work and home life.
      It is not your employers fault that the expectation is that you work a standard days work and that you have limited time with your children. You knew your responsibilities when you decided to procreate.

      I really wish families would stop blaming others (ie. employers, government, ‘uncommitted’ people) for THEIR choices in life. No one deserves a free ride.

      I agree with Chris - I for one am tired of hearing parents having to run home and leave work unfinished and co-workers in the lurch when they have unexpected time off. I get affected, my work load increases and I can miss deadlines, all because people choose to have children and expect others to carry the work burden with a smile and a simper.

    • Naomi says:

      04:31pm | 25/01/10

      Uncommitted?

      I’m young and single. I’m not interested in slacking off, I enjoy life balance, and that’s what counts, regardless off your circumstances, kids or no kids, partner or no partner.

      We are all striving for life balance.

    • Martin G says:

      03:09pm | 25/01/10

      Maybe you should grow up and stop expecting young and single people like me to fund your children through our taxes. I could think of plenty of other places my tax dollars could go other than straight into your pocket.

      I’m tired of people who think this country revolves around their family.

      And I think 4/10 is a bloody brilliant idea.

    • Ali says:

      12:04pm | 25/01/10

      i’ve got kids, and my partner and I work it so one of us gets to take them to school and the other does tea time. If I take my kids to school there’s no way I get home in time for more than a quick kiss goodnight anyway, whereas if I had a whole extra day at home, I could pick them up from school at 3pm and spend an extra 4 or 5 hours with them before bedtime. plus I’d maybe even have some kid-free time to spend with my partner. joy!

    • Geri says:

      11:45am | 25/01/10

      I agree with David.  David your opinion and values are justifiable.  I am not afraid to speak up and say the 8 hour days 5 days a week or more is too much out of my life.  Gladly take a pay cut to work 9-3.

    • Chris says:

      09:08am | 25/01/10

      David you sound jaded my friend, maybe a 4/10 working week might make you more personable? I am pleased however that you like many parents get home to see your children at a reasonable hour, which is obviously a wonderful thing. I would just like to call for some workplace equality where those of us without children get the same rights to a fair working week as parents allowing us to enjoy quality time with our partners or just general recreational activities, I have spent the last sixteen years working approx 60hrs a week, quite regularly whilst colleagues with families are given special dispensation. Although my industry could never shift to the 4/10 principle, the benefits to our economy, the enviroment and our collective health makes the idea a no brainer, let us hope Kevin Rudd read the Punch.
      PS - Happy Australia Day Penbo.

    • wolf says:

      08:31am | 25/01/10

      David I’m concerned about the way you say ‘uncommitted’ people like it’s a bad thing or we are in some way freaks. Remember that these ‘uncommitted’ people subsidise your decision to breed through a proportionately higher tax burden.
      I would love to have a 4 day week. Technically my employment conditions allow for it, but there is always the caveat “subject to manager approval” or the “needs of the business”.  The reality is that the culture within many businesses is that you are expected to work a 5x10 hour week or that if you are on a “day off” which you have worked for via additional hours that you be contactable if they require assistance.
      For this to truly work in Australia the 4x10 hour working week would need to be explicitly written into a persons working conditions, otherwise it would be open to exploitation by employers with a feebly muttered “needs of the business” all that is required to stop employees accessing the time that they have accrued.

    • Pete says:

      07:25am | 25/01/10

      I work for a local council and, along with the HR department, created a series of recruitment ads which focused on the fact that we work a nine day fortnight.

      We were castigated by the powers that be for promoting the fact that our employees get every second Monday or Friday off… despite this being a pretty attractive carrot. Needless to say, the ads were scrapped quickly.

      It’ll be interesting to see if public authorities over here are ready to embrace the concept.

    • realist says:

      12:18pm | 25/01/10

      i used to work in local government and really miss the 9 day fortnight. I thought it created an excellent work/life balance for me.

    • Lily Mulholland says:

      07:14am | 25/01/10

      To me, this is a no-brainer. However, what’s not addressed in this piece is the enormous amount of unpaid overtime many of us work. We don’t work a 40-hr week - often it’s more like 45-50 hours (with many people working much more than that). If we were to drop to 4/10, then businesses would find productivity doesn’t necessarily increase. Also unaddressed, is the problem for people who have children at home or in childcare. We see our children very little during the week. If we were to come home after their bedtime we wouldn’t see them for more than a half hour over breakfast for four days a week. I’m not sure this is acceptable. All that being said, I am in favour of a voluntary switch to 4/10 if it works for the business as well as the individual. I can also see a benefit to the greater economy in that workers on 4/10 would have more time to spend, spend, spend! We could do it for the economy smile

    • melbourne man says:

      03:10pm | 26/01/10

      Lilly,

      About your kids, you would save the money of a days childcare as well as having a WHOLE day to spend with your kids, rather than the rushed hours between cleaning up and getting ready for work or dinner.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter