How Does a 9/80 Work Schedule Work Out? 1055
cellocgw writes "My company is in the process of implementing a version of '9/80,' a work schedule that squeezes 80 hours' labor time into 9 business days and provides every other Friday off. I was wondering how this has been implemented in other companies, and how it's worked out for other Slashdot readers. Is your system flexible? Do you find time to get personal stuff done during the week? Is Friday good for anything other than catching up on lost sleep? And perhaps most important, do your managers respect the off-Fridays, or do they pull people in on a regular basis to handle 'crises?'"
I worked 9/80 for 4 summers (Score:5, Informative)
Also (Score:5, Informative)
I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather have 4x9hour days, a 10% cut in pay, and 3 days off every week. (Hey, most of the last 10% is taxes anyway, right). If everyone did this, we could avoid tons of layoffs nationwide, lower energy costs (4 days commuting instead of 5), and 3-day weekends every week ...
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
The best schedule I ever worked was 12 hour days. I'd work 3 days one week, and 4 days the next week. I always had either 3 or 4 days off.
A buddy of mine worked a variant of 9/80 schedule. They worked 9 hour days M-Th, and then worked a half day every Friday. Frankly, I'd rather have a full day off every other week.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Funny)
My father did the 12 hour 3on/4off/4on/3off for years...He said 12 hour days consisted of...He would show up at 9...Take a 2 hour lunch, well that adds up to 11 and leave at 1...and that adds up to 12!
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Funny)
I remember working a schedule like that when I was in my teens..
3 work, 2 off, 2 work, 3 off... something like that...
*SIGH* the time flew while flipping burgers.....
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a firefighter. I work 24 on, 48 off. As long as there aren't calls during the night, I get paid to sleep. Relevant to your question? No. Friggin' Awesome schedule anyways? Yes.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm self employed and have often worked 12 hours / day. While the idea of taking 3 days / week off is appealing (and I've done it), I find that when I work 12 hours / day my productivity goes down the drain incrementally with each hour. I get extremely tired by the end of the shift and my brain turns to mush.
I get way more work done doing a standard 8 hour work day with weekends off. Of course that's just me, though.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Informative)
Research suggests that while 12 hour shifts can make people happy and psychologically healthy, they can introduce long term health effects due to fatigue (accrued sleep debt).
Also, people make more errors towards the end of long shifts (particularly dangerous in industrial work environments). An 8 or 9 hour shift as suggested can mitigate this risk.
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/oeme/abstract.00022707-199804000-00001.htm [wkhealth.com]
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Interesting)
I worked this schedule several years ago as a night shift NOC monkey. I think I might go back if given the chance, despite the fact that I'd make about 1/4 the money I do now. Nothing like staffing a data center by yourself (or with one other person) in an empty building with nothing to do except write code, watch movies, play video games, order takeout, and wait for an alarm. Plus we had several OC-12s at a time when I was paying $150/mo for 768k SDSL.
You didn't get to see other people very often, but everything was just starting to open on your way home from work so running errands was a snap, your commute was the opposite way traffic was going, and shopping was easy because the grocery store was empty. I used to hit the health club downstairs, swim a couple miles, and be headed out to my car to go home just as the 9-5ers were rolling in.
Just thinking about it makes me dread riding the train into the city in a few hours. I need to go to sleep...
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Funny)
If I could, I'd gladly shed 20% of my pay for a 4-day workweek. I might even be persuaded to shed more than 20% to get a four-day work week. :-) I would not, however, want to lose time in my evenings to work more hours to get the same or similar pay. Well, some evenings it would be okay, but other days I'd have to make it up on the front end because of evening activities, and I wouldn't much like making it up on the front end. (Wait, there's a 7:00 in the morning? Why didn't anyone tell me!?!)
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Funny)
I used to do that back when I worked at the explosives factory... shame it's not there anymore...
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
Not Right.
The idea that at a certain point, the govt takes most of your earnings in taxes is an urban legend.
For anybody working by the hour, there is no "tipping point" where the govt keeps most of each additional dollar - it is just untrue.
>>If everyone did this (4x9hr days), we could avoid tons of layoffs nationwide.
A company can avoid layoffs by cutting hours and pay.
If everybody at every company had their hours and pay cut, their bills remain the same, so the workers' spendable income after covering expenses is either gone or greatly reduced - You have just created a recession.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends on where you work, what deductions you have, and your tax bracket. Come up to Kanuckistan and you'll see just how much higher your marginal tax rate is on the last few hours income each week.
Also, which is more economically efficient - to pay people a marginal amount to sit around (unemployment - which comes out of taxes, remember), or for everyone to get some extra time off? I'd love a 9/36 w.a 10% pay cut. Between the lower taxes and the cost savings and sheer convenience and higher quality of life, who wouldn't?
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Informative)
I just wrote a post below about tax brackets and rates, and it just so happens that I'm a dual US-Canadian citizen, living and working in Canada now but most of life was in the US. Out of curiosity I wanted to compare US vs. Canadian income tax rates, I was surprised to find that Canadian income tax rates are slightly lower across the board than the US.
Canada 2009: [cra-arc.gc.ca]
- 15% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +
- 22% on the next $38,832 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $38,832 and $77,664), +
- 26% on the next $48,600 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $77,664 and $126,264), +
- 29% of taxable income over $126,264.
US 2008: [moneychimp.com]
- 10% of $0 to $8,025
- 15% of $8,025 to $32,550
- 25% of $32,550 to $78,850
- 28% of $78,850 to $164,550
- 33% of $164,550 to $357,700
- 35% of $357,700 and up
The US figures do not count FICA which is 6.2% up to $102,000. My additional taxes on my Canadian payroll check do not come close to matching FICA plus other non-Federal taxes that I paid in the US.
The place where I feel overtaxed in Canada in comparison to the US is not on my income, but with the GST/PST, and the slew of fuel, booze, etc., etc., taxes which contribute overall to higher cost of living here.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Informative)
If it can knock you down into a lower tax bracket you can come out ahead.
You will never decrease your tax liability by making less enough to compensate for making less, all other things being equal, even under a system as complex as the US tax code. If you think it can, tax brackets don't work the way I suspect you think they do.
For instance, suppose in a hypothetical universe the brackets were set up so that $0-$50000 was taxed 0% and $50000+ was taxed 50%. If you made $60,000, people would say they fall into the upper bracket, but that doesn't mean they are paying $30,000 in taxes (which would imply that getting a $10,001 pay cut would increase take home pay by 20 grand). Rather, they pay 50% of the amount of money they make in excess of $50,000, meaning they will pay $5,000.
Continuing the analogy, if there was another bracket starting at $100,000 with 75% tax, someone making $200,000 would pay:
* 0% of the first $50,000
* 50% of the next $50,000 (or $25,000)
* 75% of the next $100,000 (or $75,000)
giving a total tax liability of $100,000, rather than the $150,000 they would have to pay if they were paying 75% on everything.
Now, there are changes to your employment state that can have big consequences. I am a grad student, and am taking up a teaching position this semester. Before I was a research assistant. RAs are exempt from FICA taxes (this is at least true in my state, and I think is common) but as an instructor I won't be, so even though I will be getting a nice raise, I'll also essentially be taking an instant 7.5% pay cut too. There may be something similar going from part time to full time or something like that which would apply. But in any case, if taking a pay cut actually increases your take home pay, it is definitely not because it puts you into a different tax bracket.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
Excellent post. I can't tell you how many people I know who misunderstand tax brackets and think they can be substantially penalized for earning an extra $1 if it puts them into a higher bracket.
Another factor I would add that even further detracts from that myth, since I saw you mention it, is FICA. (For non-US residents unaware of FICA, it is a separate federal payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare.) For 2008, an employee pays 6.2% up to $102,000 for FICA. If you compare to the US income tax brackets [moneychimp.com], any money you earn over that $102,000 up to $164,550 is being effectively taxed at 6.2% less than the $78,850 to $102,000 earned (considering Fed Income Tax plus FICA, the vast bulk of most payroll tax). The $164,550-$357,700 bracket raises the rate 5% on additional dollars earned, which still leaves you paying 1.2% less and only when you enter that top bracket are your additional dollars effectively taxed at a whopping 0.8% more than you were taxed for $78,850 to $102,000.
Bottom line, under the US federal tax system you never lose money by making money. In fact, it really doesn't look so progressive when you spell it out like that.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Funny)
Which is why I encourage my employer to pay me more than $102,000. Not only do I get taxed less, but so does my employer. Alas, they didn't see the logic in my argument, nor in the charts which showed the average person with my experience in my position earning $120k in my locale.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, that isn't even the worst misconception people have about taxes. Many people (most?) don't even realize that the taxes that come out of their paychecks are "withheld". They think that they have to pay one set of taxes through the year, and a seperate set of taxes at the end of the year. Just look at the tax preparation commercials that are now running where they are bragging that "95% of our customers receive a refund". They say it like it is their great service that gets the government to give you money and that the fact that you have been overpaying throughout the year has nothing to do with it.
Scarier yet are the commercials that ran last year by H&R Block. Their commercial boiled down to telling people that they should trust them with their money because they were holding a lottery.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Informative)
Are people really that stupid? A simple google search turns up:
For single filers (this is slashdot after all):
(Tax Rate Schedule X)
* 10% on income between $0 and $8,025
* 15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
* 25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25
* 28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25
* 33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25
* 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75
Do you understand what the fuck that means? If you make less than $8025, you get taxed 10%. If you make between $8025 and $32550, that means you pay 10% on the first $8025, and 15% on the rest. That means the effective tax rate at $32550 is 13.77%.
At which fucking point can you come out ahead while making less money?!
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Insightful)
You are correct. That's why they're called *marginal* tax rates. This lack of understanding, along with the inability to understand that businesses are taxed on net profit, not revenue, is why Joe The Plumber was such a target of mocking, and such a totem of economically-illiterate America.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Insightful)
This is simple.
Person A makes $50k a year. Let's say they pay 15%. They pay $7.5k per year.
Their apartment costs $800 per month. Their car costs $400 per month. Their food costs $300 per month.
At the end of every month they have about $500 left over for spending money.
Person A gets a 50% raise. They now make $75k. Let's say their total tax burder is now 20%. They now pay $15k in taxes a year.
They buy a house with their new found fortunes with a $1800 a month mortage. They ea tout more and their food costs $500 a month. They get a nicer car and their lease is now $500. Now they have a net debt of $200 a month.
Suddenly they're broke. Obviously the government is holding them down. Before their raise they had money to spare. After their raise they are out of money. Taxes are to blame.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Insightful)
You have absolutely no idea how the US tax code works.
Nobody knows how the US tax code works.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Informative)
There is no doubt that, cutting back to necessities (as the country may finally be lurching toward), we have a surplus of working capacity. If people *really, really* cut back to needs (rice, beans, 100 warm square feet), we'd have 75%+ unemployment. Tech, mech, and automation meant that we had enough surplus to have more hairdressers and marketers than farmers. The flip side is that we don't need more farmers, even if millions wanted to go back to it.
As for me, I'm lucky as hell. I'd found the ability to work 30 hours or so a week, with some vacation flexibility, in my nice cheap midwest small town, for slightly under $30k a year. Lucky as all hell to have it, for now. With my degrees and training, I 'should' make $80k or maybe $100k+ on the coasts. Instead, I get time to garden, volunteer, cook, and jam with friends. Awesome and a half. But, of course, it's far less efficient for most companies. Hiring 6 people and pushing them 50 or 60 hours a week is, sadly, much more efficient than having 10 people work 30 to 35. Perhaps shifting certain fixed costs (health care) off the employer might help this become an option for more people?
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people don't "get" the idea that we don't "need" a lifestyle supported by huge mountains of debt. That's what started this whole problem - people (and countries) piling on more and more debt as they over-leveraged themselves. If you have no debts, and your work hours and pay are both cut 10%, you'll probably be okay. If debt payments represent half your net income, a 10% pay and hours cut is going to mean you don't "make your nut" each month. It's not the lower income, but the high debt level that leaves NO room to maneuver.
When you take into account that as many as 1 in 2 mortgages (and even the most conservative estimate now puts it at 1 in 4) will be under-water over the next 5 years, now is the time to be shedding debt, not taking on more.
The debt that is being incurred in everyone's name for all the bailouts isn't free money - every $ the government borrows is one buck less that consumers can borrow (or, if the government just revs up the printing presses, the excess currency forces the value of the consumers' dollars down by an equal amount).
Depending on who you talk to, the dollar has lost between 93% and 97% of its' value in 40 years - the typical "generation". Why should anyone lend you money for 40 years if history shows that in terms of real purchasing power, it's worth less? The answer is, they won't lend, so watch for the US Dollar to continue to fall in value.
Propping up the banks pretty much guaranteed a Japan-style "lost decade", unfortunately. Bail-outs don't put money in the consumers' pocket - they suck it out to prop up an inefficient system or create an artificially-high floor price.
But that's another story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pduy96-kES4&NR=1 [youtube.com]
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
Japan's 'lost decade' (and continuing) also has a lot to do with lack of population growth. Sadly, interest-based capitalism goes hand-in-hand with growth. Japan has gone into negative population growth territory. Much of the west will follow in our lifetimes. From a green or even moderately sane perspective, the cessation of growth and consumption is a blessed and long-hoped-for event. But, economics as we know it stagnates. People get money, but they don't lend it. They don't because lending entails some risk, but, whatever you might invest in is unlikely to grow in a steady or shrinking economy.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Interesting)
It takes a while for the layoffs to hit the higher paid/more qualified people but it will. Unless things improve quickly, which they won't.
It is called the trickle up effect. The lower paid jobs can react to this quickly, because they have less money in the bank, and their employees are protected less by law.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. That worked so well in France.
There's something to be said for putting some focus on quality of life as opposed to simply maximizing income.
It's kind of nice to notice in France that grocery stores aren't normally open 24/7 (more like 10/6 or less), so no one has to work those shitty shifts. I moved to France a few years ago; I never noticed how weird the US was until I was back on business and managed to get a haircut at 10pm on a Sunday night. WTF, America? Yay, jobs created. But they are so shitty and so poorly paid that mostly they just prevent the employees from having the time for education, family, friends, or even searching for a better job.
Not that France had the ideal balance at all (or even that they took the best approach to "enforcing" quality of life) but I think the base idea is a very good thing.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Insightful)
This highlights an unfortunate truth. Employers have an economic incentive to decrease the quality of their employees' lives. I could come up with a dozen different plans involving scheduling, benefits, and workplace amenities that would help to make employees happier and foster a richer national culture. Each and every one of them, however, can and would be countered by businesses as promoting inefficiency. As a society, we've decided that being being productive and successful is all the culture that we need. That makes me pretty sad.
Getting Customers to leave you alone Fridays (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not on a 9/80 plan, but I've been with my company long enough that when they started requiring us to use or lose our vacation every year rather than carrying it over, I started taking Fridays off most of the summer. I had mixed success with it; just because I'm not planning to work on a given day, that doesn't mean that my customer doesn't want to schedule a meeting or call me on the phone, or that people stopped sending me emails that needed attention, or there might be training from the head office folks or whatever, so Fridays were often only half-off, or I'd sleep late and do email around noon. But still, that meant that I really did get my Saturday off :-)
Re:Getting Customers to leave you alone Fridays (Score:5, Insightful)
Leave the computer and phone off, if you're going to take the day off, especially if you've notified people in advance. I say if you're taking the day off, take the day off.
Re:Getting Customers to leave you alone Fridays (Score:4, Insightful)
exactly, they wouldn't let you beer it up during work ours, so don't let them put your work during your beer hours!
Re:Getting Customers to leave you alone Fridays (Score:4, Interesting)
This seems to be a very American (and Japanese) phenomenon. In Europe, it wouldn't even be legal to offer only 10 days of vacation time in many countries (possibly all of them, these days). Here in the UK, for someone working in a typical developer or sysadmin role in IT, I'd say somewhere around 25 days +/- 2 is fairly typical, plus the 8 public holidays (which is fewer than most other European countries get).
Some employers do say you lose whatever vacation allowance you don't use by the end of each year, but in reality only the kind of poor managers and die-hard workaholics who think employees who don't take vacations are more productive seem to fail to use up their allowances under these circumstances. IME, it's fairly typical for decent employers to set a cap of, say, 5 days rolling over: this avoids long-term employees building up a huge vacation allowance, but allows some flexibility and avoids everyone taking off half of December and leaving the office near-empty just to use up all their remaining leave.
Re:I worked 9/80 for 4 summers (Score:5, Interesting)
As for management respecting the day -- that's like any off-day. You have to enforce it yourself. I've been asked to work on my 9/80 day, and never had a problem agreeing to it. I just swapped it for a different day. Management loved my flexibility (in when I took a day off).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would always make plans well in advance and make sure that my supervisor knew not only that I had plans, but how much money I had invested in them. The implication was always there -- if your action deprives me of my ability to execute this plan, I am going to charge you the amount noted. I never had to play that card, but that's because I think the strategy worked to secure my days off, either when I had 9/80 or when I was simply planning vacation time.
I'm seriously considering to write into my next co
Re:I worked 9/80 for 4 summers (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, 9/80 is great. I hired on with a company about a year ago that had just switched to the 9/80 system. There were some issues as everyone adjusted, but it's been great since. I like it so much, I'd view a typical 5/40 as a negative for any future employers.
I found that I didn't miss the extra hour during the week, and the Friday off is great for sleeping in, doctor appointments, or for random things that can't be done on the weekend.
My employer doesn't typically pull people in on the off Friday, but I imagine it happens every once in awhile. Although, I'm sure this varies greatly by company.
Overall, I'd say it's nothing to be scared of as long as the entire company embraces it. It's when portions of the employees are working regular weeks and some are on 9/80 that things tend to fall apart.
Re:I worked 9/80 for 4 summers (Score:5, Informative)
And I could make a nine-day vacation on 36 hours vacation time, as long as I picked an off Friday week for the vacation.
I can only remember once I had to work on an off Friday in a couple years there. And I got the following Monday off that time.
it sucks (Score:5, Informative)
My company does it - and yes frequently we get hosed out of our day off OR have to travel on our day off. It is inconvenient to many of our customers and I spend a lot of time on my off Fridays checking my e-mail for potential issues. It is not much of a day off. We USED to have a 4-9-4 work week, where we worked 4 nine hour days and half days (4 hours) on Fridays this was AWESOME and I loved it - 9/80 is bogus IMHO
Re:it sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
If you let your boss walk all over your schedule, he's just going to assume you don't mind and keep doing it.
If I had this arrangement and my boss pulled this, I'd start looking for a new job, while cutting back my hours in general so losing the day off doesn't give the company more of my time than I'm supposed to be giving.
But anyway, I question how this works if you're salaried. At my company we're just expected to get our work done, and for many people here that means working 9- or 10-hour days as a matter of course with a normal 5-day work week. I guess in a company where you -- for example -- do a lot of government contracts this might work, since you're usually expected to account for the time that you've worked on various projects for billing purposes.
Lost sleep? (Score:3, Interesting)
I interviewed at a large defense contractor, the office I interviewed at did a 9/80, it sounded great at the time and still does. As for lost sleep... seriously... you work 9-9-9-9-8, 9-9-9-9-off. I doubt the extra hour a day will kill you. If it does, just eat through lunch.
Re:Lost sleep? (Score:5, Funny)
If it does, just eat through lunch.
Nonsense! Why would lunch be for eating?
Re:Lost sleep? (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer to lunch through work myself, ymmv.
Re:Lost sleep? (Score:5, Funny)
just eat through lunch
This statement is baffling on so many levels.
Re:Lost sleep? (Score:5, Insightful)
not baffling, depressing. That working through lunch has become a standard...
4/10 is easier (Score:5, Insightful)
You get every friday or monday off depending on the stagger. The idea of 9/80 bothers me. There is a point of no return for employees. If you are going to work like that, you should make sure and take two one hour breaks a day.
Re:4/10 is easier (Score:5, Interesting)
I did both 4/40 and 9/80, and I tell you, the first extra hour isn't that noticeable, but going from 9 to 10 hours a day sucked. It means either you arrive at 6am so that you can leave at 5. If you can't get there until 9am, have fun working till 8pm...
I'm back to working 5/40 now, and do indeed miss the 9/80 schedule. One of the best things was the regular 4-day holiday weekends. The accounting calendar was usually arranged so that Fridays off fell before Monday holidays like Memorial Day, etc.
4-10s are the shit (Score:3, Informative)
The company I work for runs 4x10 as the "regular" workweek for most of engineering and production. Friday (the usual day off) counts as an overtime day. Non-exempt people get time and a half, and even the salaried people get straight time for that day.
I usually come in for a half day every Friday and pick up a few extra hours (business needs permitting, of course), though sometimes I'll sleep in an hour or two first--I usually show up around 615 the rest of the week. It still gives me an afternoon off to
Just a second, here... (Score:5, Funny)
... Are they hiring?
Re:Just a second, here... (Score:4, Insightful)
That depends... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, my wife works a 40 hour week that's supposed to be 4 days per week, 10 hours per day. Usually that translates to 8am to 7pm daily. She say's she'd never go back to 5x8.
Unfortunately we car pool to work, so I work 8 to 7 as well. And then I usually put in 4 or 5 hours on Friday, and a few hours each on Saturday and Sunday. The difference.... You guessed it. She's in an hourly position that isn't exempt from overtime rules. I'm in a salaried position that is exempt from overtime rules. And to top it off, she makes about 20% more than I do because she is in an industry that competes to get workers. I'm in an industry that has more workers than it can afford.
All in all 4-5x9 probably works OK, and if you're in an urban area, it's 10% less time that you'll sit in traffic. Maybe more because you either be commuting early or late. If the extra hour in the work day is cutting into your sleep, your commute is way too long. If it's cutting into your TV watching, then get TiVo and watch on your new day off.
Crises (Score:5, Insightful)
If your manager pulls you in to cover a crisis, you need to demand flex time (a different day off next week) or overtime.
Or, send them an invoice from your consulting firm for about six times whatever your daily rate is.
Re:Crises (Score:5, Funny)
Or, send them an invoice from your consulting firm for about six times whatever your daily rate is.
Yeah, that way you'll have a lot of time to look for a new job.
Re:Crises (Score:4, Interesting)
why is "more money for more work" such a taboo? really?
My experience (Score:5, Informative)
I worked for the same company but different location under a flexible hour system where the only requirement was that I met the 40 hrs per week. It made things much more difficult to free up space on the weekends, but allowed me to be more available during the week.
It's just preference.
MIB (Score:5, Funny)
Get out now (Score:4, Insightful)
While it is not a bad idea in and of itself, changing work schedules to some bizarre non-standard system is usually a sign that the company management is trying to squeeze more work out of you. First they change the schedule to give you more work per day, then they will ask you to work more days.
In this economy, they know you don't have anywhere to go, so unless you fight back against this or leave for a new job altogether, you're going to get screwed. Ask them if they've been considering offshoring the IT department. I'd be willing to bet that within the next year they are looking to thin the local IT staff to a skeleton crew and then migrate the servers over to India where they can do your job for a third of the cost.
I love it. (Score:5, Informative)
I've worked for two consecutive companies with 9/80. At the first it was optional (but most people did it) at the second (current one) it is pretty much mandatory.
Let me tell you.... it's awesome.
Having a 3-day weekend every other week outweighs any perceived negatives. It gives you the ability to leave on a trip on a Thursday night... spend 3 days somewhere and still make it back for work without taking any vacation.
To answer your questions:
- I was wondering how this has been implemented in other companies.
For both of my companies you work 9 hours a day except the friday you work you only work 8 hours. Then you get every other friday off.
- Is your system flexible?
At the first company it was... you could choose which friday you wanted to start your 9/80 schedule on... so half of the people were gone every other friday.
At my current job it's not... everyone has the same friday off. I see the benefits of both. Personally, I really enjoyed fridays at my previous job... when (at least) half the people were gone I could get a lot of work done.
Both places I worked for have been flexible in your start time in the morning... meaning I can go in early and still get off early to get stuff done... which leads to:
- Do you find time to get personal stuff done during the week?
Yes. If I really need to get something done after work then I'll go in early. If I'm there by 7:00 then I can get off around 4:00 to 4:30... leaving plenty of time.
- Is Friday good for anything other than catching up on lost sleep?
Yes. You can use it for weekend trips like I mentioned above. Also, it's a great time to catch up around the house (mending fences, etc.). Finally, it's also a great day to get grocery shopping (and similar) done because most people are working...
I use the day a lot of different ways... and I do often sleep in a bit... but never sleep the day away!
- And perhaps most important, do your managers respect the off-Fridays, or do they pull people in on a regular basis to handle 'crises?'"
Has never happened to me. Like I said.. at my current job the friday off is mandatory. They actually turn out the lights and turn down the air-conditioning, etc. They really expect no one to be there.
But... I know my jobs are normal (I'm a research scientist at laboratories) so YMMV.
In conclusion... it can only be a good thing... go for it!
Friedmud
Re:I love it. (Score:5, Interesting)
The only issue that has ever come up is:
1) When a customer comes in, and we have to come in on our day off
and
2) Because of the increased rest on a three-day weekend, people use less vacation time, resulting in the office being virtually deserted in December.
Seriously... (Score:5, Funny)
...this is what Ask Slashdot has been reduced to? Asking how a rather small change to a weekly schedule might work out?
Future Ask Slashdots We Can Look Forward To:
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Funny)
* "I'm thinking of switching from a soft toothbrush to a medium-soft. How has that worked out for you?"
A: You should really try one of those electric toothbrushes.
* "I'm considering moving my sock drawer from the top right to the top left drawer. Can anyone tell me the pros and cons of each arrangement?
A: Have you considered moving the sock drawer to a closet in the bathroom? This would allow you to put on your socks while you are still warm instead of having to freeze your toes off on the way back to the dresser.
* "We're moving to a new home and are having a family meeting this Thursday to evaluate hanging toilet paper so that the next sheet is over versus under on the roll. I was wondering how other readers have approached this decision?"
A: Under. What kind of barbarians do you live with?
* "I'd like to set my USB to automount to a fixed drive letter when I plug it into my Windows XP laptop. I'm considering J:, P:, and possibly Q:. What do you all think? Should I look at M: as well?"
A: Hello, McFly! Use the U: drive.
Sheesh!
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
Under!? Over! It's closer and easier to get to! When it's under, it's right against the wall and harder to grab at. Plus, it's easier to roll down than up, so if you can't see the end, you can get it easier.
Seriously, what's this world coming to?
Toilet Paper Survey (Score:5, Interesting)
From a non-scientific poll we conducted as undergraduates, we found some interesting results:
All of the science and engineering students we asked said the next sheet should go over. All of them. (About 14 people.)
The art students' inclination (8 of 12 people) was to put it under, with the other four simply saying "whichever way it ends up - I don't even look."
"Summer Hours" (Score:3, Informative)
3x12.5 is even better! (Score:5, Interesting)
9/80 works really well (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think I would ever want to go back to a 5 day a week schedule - 9/80 is just so much better.
You also asked about whether the company respect those days off. In general they do really well with it. It is normally the employee that makes most decisions about "oh, we have some vendors coming in Monday - I will come in and just take the following Monday instead." There is almost never a "we need you to give up your day off" (I have rarely ever even heard of this happening and it certainly never happened to me).
90% of the employees voluntarily choose 9/80 (Score:5, Interesting)
My employer offers optional 9/80 schedules. I estimate that 90% of the employees voluntarily choose 9/80. It is great to have at lest 26 three day weekends every year. When holidays fall on Monday, you may get a 4 day weekend.
The off-Friday is well respected by management. The managers generally don't come in either.
An off-Friday is a great time for banking, appointments, the start of vacation, volunteering in your kids' school, etc.
Most people who choose the 5/40 schedule do so because they need to be home early to meet kids at the school bus or because the spouse works a regular schedule and they want to match schedules.
Flexibility is always good. We have core hours from 10:00 to 3:00. Some people come in very early and leave at 3:00 to minimize the time kids are home alone. It can save a lot of child care costs. Others like me regularly come in at 10:00 and leave at 7:00.
Trade-offs of a 9/80 work week (Score:5, Informative)
The company I work for just switched to a 9/80 a few months ago. We're a little different since we have a schedule A and a schedule B, so only 1/2 the people are at work any given Friday. It's had some ups & downs.
Here's what I see as the positives:
1. Having a 4 day work week every other week rocks!
2. Getting paid on the Friday where I work 5 days makes it all the more bearable.
3. Easier to get chores, errands done since everyone else is at work.
4. I get more work done during the last hour of every 9 hour day than any other hour.
Here's the negatives:
1. It's a PITA to schedule meetings.
2. Sometimes I travel and it seems to always fall on a week where I'm supposed to be off that Friday.
3. Customers are annoyed because they're not on the same schedule and aren't understanding that it won't be until Monday before I get back to them.
4. I feel like I have less time to get work done since every other week I only work 4 days.
5. More free time means I spend more money.
6. Getting to work while it's dark & leaving when it's dark is depressing.
I work 9/80 (Score:5, Insightful)
Pros:
Cons:
9/80 is best when paired with a flex time schedule so that you can move around hours when you need to. The off friday gives you an option to tell your boss "i'll work more these days or just come in friday" if you want to take a different day off instead of the off friday. Coming in on the off friday usually means the office is dead. That can be good and bad. Some people like not having anyone around because they normally get interrupted too much when people are at the office. Other people hate it because there's nobody else to kick the bucket with.
If you find you are normally working more than 8 hours everyday, 9/80 is actually a good option because you will have a decent excuse for not coming in on the off fridays and you will have to work 9 hours most days anyway. If you find you are working even on the weekends, 9/80 will have no impact on your hours.
As a single guy, I prefer 9/80. But I do know some family types that prefer the 5/40 since they really need the consistent 8 hour days to keep their family schedules synced. At first you will loath the 9 hour days because that extra hour is bigger than it looks. After a while though 9 hours will seem like nothing and the working fridays will seem really short.
I work whatever hours I want (Score:5, Interesting)
The company measures my performance by what I get done.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the time. (Not including extracurricular stuff, I do some consulting.)
I'll push it a bit for a release date, but apart from that, I don't do much over 40 hours of work. I might spend an evening logged into IRC in case anyone needs anything, but then, I might take an hour off to play with my cat.
The work gets done, we meet turnaround time commitments, the managers are happy.
Re:Sound better then 5/80 (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, your job sucks.
Source? (Score:4, Informative)
the countries that have higher productivity per worker than the US.
According to a U.N. report [usatoday.com] released in 2007, only Norway had higher productivity per hour worked than the U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
That could go either way, though.
I used to drive about 65 miles to work, 130 miles round trip. If I left for the day at 5:30 I would get home around 7:00-7:15. If I waited for traffic to die down and left at 6:15, I would still get home between 7:00 and 7:15. Lucky for me there was a similar effect in the morning and my employer wasn't too picky on the schedule.
80 hours (Score:5, Funny)
I already work 80 hours.
Oh wait, 9 days. Ok, I see what you mean now. I thought you meant 5.
Re:80 hours (Score:5, Funny)
I have a system where I only work 6 half days.... 12hrs each day... sigh.
Re:80 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I arranged a similar thing after the birth of my baby. It was brilliant. I changed jobs for other reasons and had to go back to the normal schedule. I miss my every other Friday off. Sometimes, I took my daughter out of day care and spent the day with her. Sometimes, I sent her to day care like normal and got chores done so that my husband and I could both have more time with our daughter on the weekend.
You already have a lot of people on this thread boasting about how many hours they work. Whatever. I have generally worked 40 hour weeks (or 80 hours every two weeks) my entire career, and I have advanced up the ladder just fine, thank you. I always get good performance reviews and good raises. Working hard and getting a lot done does not require insane work hours, and I have rarely met anyone who could remain productive for all of the insane hours they "worked". Personally, I find I can sustain crazy hours for about two weeks, and I'll do that if I think whatever crisis needs handling is worth it.
Good luck- the system will work for you if you let it.
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry. I paid my dues in construction and an iron foundry before getting a cushy tech job. Although oddly I find my software engineering job much more stressful.
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called working your way through school.
Re:80 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone needs to work 80 hours a week on average then I would say that their life doesn't have much quality to begin with. Unless by "maintain our quality of living" you mean "paying off the luxury goods and services you've purchased". But then again, as your work load stops you from benefiting from them, I seriously doubt that they do much good.
Materialism and all that keeping up with the joneses is a bitch, isn't it?
Re:80 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't agree more. A solid day's work is a noble thing but this "80 on a usual week, 100 on a bad week" is for the birds. I have no pity whatsoever unless it truly is the only job you can get or you absolutely have to have it (pays the extra $5k you need for your kids' medicine).
I've as much sympathy for the OP as I do for lawyers who put in similar hours for 10 years in order to make partner. Enjoy the $$.. you'll have no soul at the end... huh, that explains a lot.
Re:80 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, some of us [work 80-hour weeks] to maintain our quality of life in these wonderful times.
I hate to break it to you, but if you're working 80- or 100-hour weeks, you don't have any quality of life.
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Interesting)
Worse still, your employer probably isn't getting much for all your effort. I just finished a 12-month run of pretty consistent 70-hour weeks with the occasional 80- or 90-hour marathon thrown in for fun, including a (record, for me) run of 49 consecutive days worked. I was probably getting only about 1/3 as much work done per hour as I might when properly rested and working 45-50 hours a week.
Of course, I knew this at the time, too - the problem was that the alternative was taking a couple days off, which would mean that instead of getting (1/3) * (14/9) * 2 days' worth of work done in that time, I'd get nothing done. That would of course mean that when I got back I'd still have all the work that needed doing before, plus two more days' worth, and an extra 2 days' worth of schedule pressure added as well. While the first day back might be ok, I'd need to work extra hours to start catching up, and after another 12-14 hour day or two I'd be right back where I started: unproductive and working way too much, but even farther behind. It's really a Hobson's choice at that point.
Anyone can work extra time to get past a crisis or a single near-term deadline. But the constantly intensifying pressure of a looming but obviously unachievable deadline really makes scheduling your work a vicious circle. No matter how hard you work, the deadline will just keep getting pushed farther out, and there is no work schedule that would allow you to meet it. But you have to try, so you work more but get less done, and the pressure ratchets up another notch! Ugh. All you can really do is make whatever progress you can, try to stay sane, and look for any possible opportunity to dump work on others (who btw are probably just as loaded down as you are).
If you're in this spot, you have to really want to do whatever you're doing. If you don't, you should be looking for a new job and/or trying to get yourself onto the next RIF list. It doesn't really matter that "you have a family to feed" or whatever else you're telling yourself. As the parent said, you don't have any quality of life. You're just going to have to learn to get by on whatever pay is available to someone with your skills and experience willing to work hard 40-50 hours a week. That might mean less "stuff" in your life. So be it. Of course, the problem is that there are very few jobs available at all that don't require long hours; I blame the high fixed costs of hiring and compensating most developed-world workers. At many companies, these fixed costs are over 50% of total compensation cost. If employers stopped offering these large fixed-cost benefit packages, they could afford to hire enough workers to get the job done (and as a side benefit, their employees would be free to choose how to spend their money). Instead, they have an incentive to understaff and get more hours out of existing workers, amortizing all those fixed costs over a larger amount of work. And with a generally weak labour market - though frankly not nearly as bad as in 2001-2003 - they can really put the screws to you right now. A job that offers at least somewhat interesting work and mostly requires 40-50 hours a week is an absolute treasure, whatever it pays.
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Insightful)
At many companies, these fixed costs are over 50% of total compensation cost. If employers stopped offering these large fixed-cost benefit packages, they could afford to hire enough workers to get the job done (and as a side benefit, their employees would be free to choose how to spend their money).
You think management wants the situation to be this way? Management wants the situation to be like the one you describe as well, as that would make planning hiring and firing much easier. Its just that, if you stop offering things like health care and 401(k) and other side benefits, the people that apply for your open positions are the bottom of the barrel dregs that you don't want to hire.
Frankly, we're all just tiptoeing around the true elephant in the room - the fact that health care costs have grown unsustainably. If health care costs are passed to the employers, we end up with the present situation - employers are afraid to hire for fear of taking the health care costs, and ask more of their existing workforce. If we pass those costs to the employees, we'll see a dramatic rise in bankruptcies and uncollectable emergency room visits as people put off getting medical treatment until their diseases are nigh-incurable. If the costs are passed to the government, we'll either see massive tax increases, or a rise in the public debt (and a corresponding rise in interest rates).
The only real way to ensure continued economic growth (past the end of the current crisis) is to deflate this health-care bubble in a controlled fashion. What the best way is to do that is still not clear, but it is clear that something must be done before the health care industry bankrupts the rest of the economy.
Re:80 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
80 on a usual week, 100 on a bad week and 60 on a good week.
80 hours for nine days? Slackers."
OUCH!! Why would you (or anyone else) do that to themselves? I hope, at least, you are getting paid at least straight time for every one of those OT hours...??
If not, you are just killing yourself and robbing yourself of valuable hours of your life.
That's why I will ONLY work hourly....put it in a contract, I will work when needed...but, I will not work an hour for free. My time is valuable, and I will get my bill rate for every hour worked wherever I work. Doing this way...makes them also think twice about asking if they need you or not for OT. This way...I also don't have a problem with working hours around personal time off. Even if W2 hourly, you just usually have to get avg. 8 hours a day for the pay period, so if you need a day off...swing hours around the rest of the days in the billing period.
The best is when doing corp to corp 1099...where you work as you wish generally. Don't wanna work 40 hours that week? Don't. Want to work 60 the next...ok.
Seriously...I just have to believe salary is for suckers. They expect you to work over if 'needed'...but, do they happily let you leave early when your work is done? Hmm....I didn't think so.
And you can do it W2 too....with benefits if you just know to negotiate it up front with them...if that is the route you'd rather go.
I'll never work for free again...
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously...I just have to believe salary is for suckers. They expect you to work over if 'needed'...but, do they happily let you leave early when your work is done?
In a word, yes. I understand where you're coming from - managing your own time is a sweet gig. But don't be so quick to dismiss a salary scheme. When run properly, it can be pretty decent. At my office when there's not much going on, not a lot of people work 40 hr weeks. When it's crunch time, you're going to see a lot of people putting in 60 on a regular basis. Pretty similar to what you described, actually. Work gets done on time, and nobody bats an eye if you work an entire week of half days. It's all in how you execute the salary scheme. I could see it being abused, for sure, but when it's not abused, it's a nice ride.
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Insightful)
They deem me mad because I will not sell my days for gold; and I deem them mad because they think my days have a price.
- Kahlil Gibran
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Insightful)
Ya I guess, but I dare you to try and keep that up for another 15 years. Or try and have a significant personal relationship working like that...
There is no life to be head with 66% of your time at work.
So, unless that is *literally* the only thing you like... do yourself a favor and find some balance.
100 hours?! Luxury!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:100 hours?! Luxury!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:100 hours?! Luxury!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:80 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I don't believe you.
Telecommuters like to count as work every minute they have their PC.
Executives count in any minute they're awake, cause even running around with a cup of coffee or having a chat on the toilet is "work".
Regular employees count the sheer presence, regardless of standing outside smoking, drinking coffee with others (that's called meeting), or just browsing slashdot (called recherche).
If you start logging what you really do in those 60/80/100 hrs you most likely will notice that you get done no more than the average worker, eventually even less.
The only people I believe being truly working those insane hours are doctorate candidates in their final year and/or before conference deadlines.
Re:80 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
The key word here is occasionally. I'm fully aware that there are situations where you just have to kick in the overdrive and get something by insane working hours. BTDT, and more than once. It usually is, however, a sign of bad company management because they either have too much work for too few people or acquired a too big project. Bad planning in both cases. Only emergency situations justify such insane overload.
If you continue that overdrive you'll sooner or later burn out and/or start doing nonsense. Especially sleep deprivation is not exactly known for improving your work performance. Raised stress levels may lead to a temporary productivity boost, but that boost comes at a price.
Unless, of course, your job has a recreational effect on you, which is probably anything but the norm. I know a lot of people who really like their jobs (being one of them myself), but doing some hobbyist stuff, even if somewhat work-related, is something completely different than work. And neither is a replacement for sleep.
It indeed is. Usually the quote of productive work per day is much lower, about the range of 5h.
You mentioned that it's the monotony that kills concentration. True. Zombie work kills. On the other hand, you also need a certain time to adjust to a new task and get that going smoothly. Too frequent task changes (being the norm today with telephone, email, and slashdot interrupts...) will make you feel utterly busy, but in the end being highly unproductive.
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Insightful)
And you see the contradiction to my posting exactly *where*?
Excuse my frank words, but what you cited here are exactly those jobs which either create one huge pile of cow manure after the other (which is left for others to clean up), or where every food and drink intake becomes a "work meeting". Mostly both.
I do have relatives working at McK and I do know how McK sucks the life out of them, with them finding each and every excuse for why that is good. For *that*, the paycheck is not even remotely big enough. Besides, consulting firms like these are responsible for any major business fuckup: We need to outsource. No, outsourcing is wrong, we need to be fully self-supplying. We need to concentrate the company to its core business and sell everything else. No, we need to amalgamate to acquire a wide, solid base.
Not to mention those financial firms who seeingly created the current world-wide mess.
Thank you, but if that is your point pro 80-100hrs of work per week, I rest my case...
Re:80 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like you're one of the most unproductive workers I can imagine.
The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear about people working these long hours is that they're wasting a lot of time.
Re:feh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:feh (Score:4, Informative)
Offtopic (see below for on topic),
Originally the Dogcow was used for the Cairo font, and later it was printing alignment (amongst other places).
Claris likely got its name from Clarus.
On topic, :D - and that's regular hours, not crunch, which has hit the upper 120s in a week without any slashdot breaks)
My wife had a 9/80 workweek during the summers for several years and loved it. My workweek is more like 10/130 (10/120 if you subtract slashdot