[srini1785]

I am all for 4 day work week provided they pay me for 6 day work week. Hope you guys have checked your pay slips, there is a specific mention on number of days worked.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Could say the same about the shift from 6 days to 5? How did it pan out then? Any recommendations on where I should look for info/stats?

I don't think we have apples to compare to apples there.

India post liberalization is a different paradigm compared to pre liberalization.
For example, the IT industry which is the backbone of some modern cities never operated 6 day weeks officially.

I am just using IT as an example because its people intensive. Government offices started as 6 days decades back and I guess central government offices turned to 5 day offices. But that again is a different era.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

I don't think we have apples to compare to apples there...

Valid point, because we're neither dealing with a static workforce nor technology, so economic opportunities shift accordingly too. There's also the productivity Vs. value angle to consider.

For the sake of argument, let's consider an essential service like banking.

Not very long ago, most banking transactions needed an in-person visit and at least some amount of paperwork, and if something urgent came up during off-hours, one just had to wait for the next working day to begin or rely on other emergency alternatives.

Cut to today; internet/phone banking, IVRs, apps and now bots have made bank branches redundant for a vast majority of services offered, and some transactions that previously took hours, can now be done in seconds with minimal or no manual intervention, and most services are available 24/7.

So banks can now offer vastly superior services, with far better turnaround times, with far lesser staffing levels & associated costs in certain areas of their operations.

We could force banks to maintain static staffing levels from the prior technological era for the sake of economic opportunity, but would that be productive or add value? Isn't it much better if the employment scenario shifts to other areas of opportunity? For a bank, that'll probably translate to more IT staff instead of clerical staff?

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

For the sake of argument, let's consider an essential service like banking.

-----------
We could force banks to maintain static staffing levels from the prior technological era for the sake of economic opportunity, but would that be productive or add value? Isn't it much better if the employment scenario shifts to other areas of opportunity? For a bank, that'll probably translate to more IT staff instead of clerical staff?

There are different aspects to it, which needs to be evaluated separately

a) Size of the change: I am not sure Banking is something to extrapolate to a change that is generally applied to something like lets say IT industry in a city. One has to think about the footprint of the industry being changed. Is a change in banking industry staffing expected to make deep disturbances in Labor sector as a whole ? I am not entirely sure.

b) With respect to banking alone, I am not so sure if these technology related changes reduced or increased employment. When number of people working per branch reduced, the total foot print of banking increased.
And this was possible because the stage of development was primary and we had a lot of ground to cover. This cant be assumed for everything.

c) There is a level of unknown mystique usually applied to economic future which was very common in the last few decades. Basically, the idea that future brings new opportunities.
I am not sure in this AI/ML era, any of the ideas of future are talking about lot of new employment, it mostly goes in a different direction.
This is the case world over.
So, in my opinion unless there is some rational direction we can clearly point to, the available evidence shows the opposite.

Most cities in the world absorb a lot of labour on service industry. Like the pandemic, the extra off day also most probably will be net negative for service industry. So, the unknown "good" future may or may not come.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

...There is a level of unknown mystique usually applied to economic future which was very common in the last few decades. Basically, the idea that future brings new opportunities.

Won't presume to speak for everyone, but I only mean new as in 'different from before', not necessarily 'better'. Better is wildly subjective based on who one asks.

...in this AI/ML era, any of the ideas of future are talking about lot of new employment, it mostly goes in a different direction.

I'd suppose we can at least agree the overall volume of manual labor (at least the paid variety) is only ever going in one direction in the future.

...Most cities in the world absorb a lot of labour on service industry. Like the pandemic, the extra off day also most probably will be net negative for service industry...

This is what triggered my original question. How? Leaving the net negative of the one-off pandemic event aside, how is the service industry impacted negatively as a whole as long as consumers have the ability and opportunity to spend? Or are we assuming income and consumption will necessarily trend downwards with a reduction in working hours (not overall output)?

P.S. I shouldn't have mentioned the pandemic at all. Meant it only in a limited context, but the cat escaped captivity.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

This is what triggered my original question. How? Leaving the net negative of the one-off pandemic event aside, how is the service industry impacted negatively as a whole as long as consumers have the ability and opportunity to spend? Or are we assuming income and consumption will necessarily trend downwards with a reduction in working hours (not overall output)?

P.S. I shouldn't have mentioned the pandemic at all. Meant it only in a limited context, but the cat escaped captivity.

I am not entirely sure how to not have the pandemic in the whole equation.

The most benign explanation for the pandemic induced change is to say 10 years of changes came thru in a single year.
When such things comes thru, people take uncommon decisions, find it is okay and continue with it. Anecdote: I know a lot of people who will never visit a barber again because they figured out how to cut their own hair.

You can see it around in cities like BLR, look for the To Let boards in commercial spaces. Retail has been changed such that a lot of stuff can be bought online and it is fine.
Net physical business has gone down.
For some companies it is good because their operation costs come down.
But operation cost also includes staffing.
Another example is Education and general academics area (read coaching classes etc) -- its a whole other discussion if we were good to begin with, but with the bombardment of online apps etc, a lot of teachers are going to get a lot less income.

If the class is online, a dance teacher can handle 50 children as opposed to 10 children earlier. This means the number of teachers will come down.

I am just drawing examples from all over the place, but I guess you get the point.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

...
I am just drawing examples from all over the place, but I guess you get the point.

Of course, because I'm directly impacted too .

In context of economic activity, while the pandemic may have caused some new behaviors, the majority effect is accelerating already existing behavior.

Parts of my job were on the automation path anyway, but the last year has accelerated that by at least an order of magnitude. Some parts of my job will never need manual work again (barring occasional exception handling), and other parts are on the same track. It's not a new risk, it's just here sooner than anticipated due to the pandemic.

...If the class is online, a dance teacher can handle 50 children as opposed to 10 children earlier. This means the number of teachers will come down...

Short-term, sure, but will it hold true longer-term? Are you considering the other side of that argument? Teachers will be able to reach students that were previously unreachable (economically and physically), plus online classes mean reduced overheads attached to in-person teaching.

From a student perspective, someone who wouldn't have considered taking a class from a specialist across town (or in another part of the country/world altogether) because they couldn't afford the commuting time and/or related costs, can now manage it because the class is now delivered at-home.

Reduced entry barriers both ways would ultimately mean a larger student pool and ergo, more teachers, no? Not necessarily for the same subjects as before, of course, but that's true for all of us. Most of our employment, even assuming we stay in the same overall jobs/roles, will look drastically different in a decade, if not sooner.

[V.Narayan]

As employees people would love a 4-day work week. With movement of technology, attitudes I can see this gradually taking shape in at least some industries to a partial extent.

As an employer my heart sinks at this thought. An ordinary entrepreneur in India battles the fronts of poor & expensive infrastructure, horribly expensive and scarce financial capital, imports from China etc at dirt cheap rates, delays at customs and the proverbial rent seeking from some sarkari worthies. All this in one sentence means that we have to wring out the mostest from all our factor inputs - labour, machines, material & ourselves - if we have to survive. A 4-day week in India only means the entrepreneur must hire more labour if his service has to sell or produce 5 or 6 or 7 days a week. And mind you adjusted for productivity labour is not exactly cheap in India while all other input factors in real terms are more expensive than China, SE Asia or even Turkey.

But anyway this is only an option the Govt is giving. Nothing compulsory about it. In India the Govt was the first to move to a 5-day week in the mid-1980s driven by then PM Rajiv Gandhi. Some PSUs and private companies followed suit - not all. And small businesses and Indian owned businesses are almost always still on 5.5 days a week. The gentry at Team BHP might view the 5-day week as normal but it isn't so for most of the country outside MNCs, big IT firms and the Govt departments.

The piece about doing in 4 days what you normally do in 5 might work with some jobs in some industries but for most industries it would be difficult to make functional unless your entire eco-system can be made to work a 4-day week. And all jobs are not exactly measurable on daily output.

As an entrepreneur there is only one type of working week - the 7-day working week. Period.

Having said all this and despite my old fashioned views it will at least partly come into play. But with India's huge unemployment those demanding a 4-day week might find themselves priced out by those willing to work 5 or 5.5 days a week.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Short-term, sure, but will it hold true longer-term? Are you considering the other side of that argument? Teachers will be able to reach students that were previously unreachable (economically and physically), plus online classes mean reduced overheads attached to in-person teaching.

This is fine, but this is the type they call new value without net new employment. In this case, the successful institute/teacher/app finds a new student, but this is different from a new teacher coming into picture.

From a student perspective, someone who wouldn't have considered taking a class from a specialist across town (or in another part of the country/world altogether) because they couldn't afford the commuting time and/or related costs, can now manage it because the class is now delivered at-home.

For lack of an easier example and good articulation skill, let me draw up a Netflix example.
Most film industries in India exist with a set to A and B grade cinemas. While urban A grade centres take in the leading movies, the B centres take B grade artists, or older A grade films and they cater to rural centres.

Lets say Netflix disrupts thru and everybody has the App. At this point, A grade centres will easily migrate to Netflix.
Not just that, A grade industry will eat up B grade industry.

For the rural folks who could watch the new Shah Rukh movie after a week can see it thru their phone the very first day, so its new value for them.
But a person has only a fixed number of hours, and on average the same person cannot watch A grade thru Netflix and B grade thru an actual Cinema.
In this case, even if all the economic activity of A grade is absorbed to online apps( reduced employment, but wider reach), econonomic activity of B grade is lost.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

...small businesses and Indian owned businesses are almost always still on 5.5 days a week. The gentry at Team BHP might view the 5-day week as normal but it isn't so for most of the country outside MNCs, big IT firms and the Govt departments.

The 5-day workweek is a myth in most of those you mention too (I'll exclude govt departments because I have no idea).

Most IT firms and MNCs are 24/7 setups, and any sort of customer interactive roles usually have an on-call component that goes beyond the on-paper workweek, so the switch to 4 on-paper may actually drag the real number closer 5 than it is today. That's before considering chronic under-staffing in the name of efficiency.

The piece about doing in 4 days what you normally do in 5 might work with some jobs in some industries but for most industries it would be difficult to make functional unless your entire eco-system can be made to work a 4-day week. And all jobs are not exactly measurable on daily output.

That it varies by industry is indisputable, but can't wrap my head around this bit. Most 24/7 operations (IT, manufacturing, whatever else) works with a rotating labor force, so why is a 4-day workweek for the individual staffer getting equated to 'the business itself will only function 4 days a week'?

...with India's huge unemployment those demanding a 4-day week might find themselves priced out by those willing to work 5 or 5.5 days a week.

That's true today too. Plenty of people working 5-6 days a week are being priced out by those willing to work longer hours at cheaper pay. That aspect will never go away, at least until capitalism exists in some form.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

...even if all the economic activity of A grade is absorbed to online apps( reduced employment, but wider reach), econonomic activity of B grade is lost.

Again, there's a flip side to that argument.

Plenty of people who couldn't afford to produce and distribute content through the usual channels in your example for financial and various other logistical reasons, are today doing so directly via online, on-demand media platforms.

That means more people employed through the spectrum and (arguably) more value for your subscription money as a consumer.

Small (mobile) screens trumping big screens, while affording a lot more people livelihoods that simply didn't exist earlier. Theater screens lost out, independent content creators lacking financial and logistical clout to participate in the traditional industry, gained in the bargain.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Again, there's a flip side to that argument.

Plenty of people who couldn't afford to produce and distribute content through the usual channels in your example for financial and various other logistical reasons, are today doing so directly via online, on-demand media platforms.

That means more people employed through the spectrum and (arguably) more value for your subscription money as a consumer.

Small (mobile) screens trumping big screens, while affording a lot more people livelihoods that simply didn't exist earlier. Theater screens lost out, independent content creators lacking financial and logistical clout to participate in the traditional industry, gained in the bargain.

This is a common claim, but I am not sure there is enough data to validate this. The theory that more people can have entry into lets say a medium is one thing, the idea that this translates to net new employment and money making is not validated with data. We would need to see this run for about 5 years to see how it goes.
If you do a general survey, the channels with highest average viewership in Youtube say, will be the same News/Entertainment/Movie production houses.
Like I said before, an individual has only a fixed number of hours to invest into social media, and it is going to be a competition between cat videos, established channels, and rookie content creators.
To see whether this offers net new employment, you have to wait for 5 years or so.

Regarding the movie business, this is almost the opposite of coming thru. Netflix, Prime or even the Indian ones, they are all exactly like production houses. They are evolving as gatekeepers.

PS: I can't place where I diverged, but its going way off topic, so we should let the subject get back to 4-day workweek.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

This is a common claim, but I am not sure there is enough data to validate this

Have to concede that, though I have anecdotal exposure to that side of the industry both through friends and my better half.

... can't place where I diverged, but its going way off topic, so we should let the subject get back to 4-day workweek.

I think it was me, asking why 4 days is the breaking point while 5 wasn't, and the tangent we went on from there. Sorry about that.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Most IT firms and MNCs are 24/7 setups, and any sort of customer interactive roles usually have an on-call component that goes beyond the on-paper workweek, so the switch to 4 on-paper may actually drag the real number closer 5 than it is today. That's before considering chronic under-staffing in the name of efficiency.

Then why worsen things with a 4-day week. At least at 5.5 days we are not pretending :-)

That it varies by industry is indisputable, but can't wrap my head around this bit. Most 24/7 operations (IT, manufacturing, whatever else) works with a rotating labor force, so why is a 4-day workweek for the individual staffer getting equated to 'the business itself will only function 4 days a week'?

You are viewing the whole matter through the narrow prism of an employee. There is the whole nine yards of organizing the working of your labour with your tools with your customer. You can't tell a customer that Mr. A will service you Mon to Thu and Mr. B on Fri & Sat - assuming here that the customer needs the service 6 days a week. A rotating work force is something we are forced to do because of the understandable human physical & mental limitations and law. It does not necessarily make it easy or optimal. And IT companies don't work 24x7x365. Extended deadlines and stretched work hours is not 24x7x365. Hospitals, Airports, trains, power stations etc - they work 24x7x365. Let's not mix up the two.

That's true today too. Plenty of people working 5-6 days a week are being priced out by those willing to work longer hours at cheaper pay. That aspect will never go away, at least until capitalism exists in some form.

No capitalism, no jobs except the ones created by the Govt. We saw that for half a century.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

... IT companies don't work 24x7x365. Extended deadlines and stretched work hours is not 24x7x365. Hospitals, Airports, trains, power stations etc - they work 24x7x365. Let's not mix up the two...

Maybe not product development divisions, but services definitely do, because the industries you mention that do work 24/7 are often our customers, and our ability to manage/maintain their IT infrastructure round-the-clock directly impacts their ability to operate 24/7.

Hospitals, banks, flight ops, global logistics, you name it.

...No capitalism, no jobs except the ones created by the Govt. We saw that for half a century.

Didn't say capitalism was preferable or not, just that it will always involve someone willing to work more for less.

You can't tell a customer that Mr. A will service you Mon to Thu and Mr. B on Fri & Sat - assuming here that the customer needs the service 6 days a week.

Does person A work round-the-clock 6 days (possible, I guess)? If not, what happens if the customer has an issue during person A's off-duty hours (got to eat & sleep sometime, if nothing else), or a critical issue happens 7th day of the week? They wait until A is available again, or someone else trained to handle the situation takes care of it?

[SoumenD]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Burnout, stress lead more companies to try a four-day work week

***


Would love to hear the views of members on this. A 4-day working week or a French style 35-hour working week - anyone for it? anyone against it?

Totally for it.

While abroad this was a common thing to see people work 40hrs in 4 days and take a 3 day weekend. Having done it myself there, don’t see why we can’t have it at least in IT industry. When required we do stretch into weekends as well without any OT or anything.

Ofcourse there’s no ‘one size fits all’ and this won’t work for manufacturing industry.

But hopefully industries where it’s possible start giving this as an option. I would really love to opt for it