I agree, but corporate America would never go for a month off. I have an idea that is equally as unlikely... a six-hour work day.

Imagine. Arrive at 8 a.m., take a half-hour lunch, and leave at 2:30 p.m. You would skip those last, unproductive work hours at the end of the day when you're thinking about home, about picking up your kids at school, about all the shopping you'll be doing after 5 p.m. before the stores close when you should really be eating dinner with your family, etc. Golly, you might even be as productive as those fools who drudge along 8 hours a day.

Posted by: Jack Schonchin on April 30, 2002 12:20 AM

 

I wonder if this columnist is in need of any usability specialists or anything... ;o)

Posted by: Berna on April 30, 2002 08:19 AM

 

Six-hour workday. Excellent idea.

Posted by: js on April 30, 2002 02:51 PM

 

It would never work. Everyone would then factor their same behaviour into a six hour day. It is not a reaction the length of a work day, but more that it is 2 hours to going home time.

Posted by: JB on April 30, 2002 05:28 PM

 

Some people would like the time off. Not everybody. How to blend the inclinations of the live-to-work crowd with the work-to-live bunch? Organizations tend to adopt the same standards for work and attendance, it's rare that an office has some people work less hours, and others more; this can lead to feelings of inequity.

So, find a job and organization that allows for time off. Teaching, perhaps? Be your own boss, open your own business, and set your own hours?

Posted by: mcw on April 30, 2002 06:10 PM

 

JB, I disagree. By 3 p.m. I am tired and less productive. I have worked part-time before and I believe I was more productive than my full-time counterparts.

If I had 2 extra hours, my overall satisfaction with life would rise, and that would influence my work too.

I could pick up my kids up from school, take them to soccer, get a hair cut, mow the lawn, go bike riding or jog, prepare dinner, shop, run errands, and do many other things that are far more troublesome or time-consuming to do after 5 p.m. as the sun is going down. This isn't just time. We're talking 2 hours less in an office, 2 hours more in sunlight doing things you really want or need to do for you, not your employer.

Shoot, for 2 hours of my own time I'd gladly read WebWord at home instead of at work!

Posted by: Jack Schonchin on April 30, 2002 06:43 PM

 

i agree that different personality types are motivated by different means. i've always been a fan of the pay-for-performance model. sure, many jobs are difficult to squeeze into this model but i'd bet creative thinkers could make it happen and reap the benefits.

Posted by: boysen on May 1, 2002 03:16 PM

 

Here in the UK, the government are trying to introduce performance related pay for teachers. It isn't going down well. One of the elements of the equation will be the performance of their pupils in GCSE / A Level examinations. Think about it - you're going to be judged on the quality of someone else's work. Someone who may not be very bright, and that's not your fault.

Going back to the original subject of this post, I know several people who have worked in the USA, and they all say that the biggest downside was the pitifully small holiday / vacation allowance. In the UK, we get 4 to 5 weeks on average, and it doesn't seem to be doing us any harm.

Posted by: Alan Fisher on May 2, 2002 04:09 AM

 

These links via MetaFilter.com:

• 30 hour work week (yes!)
  
• Shorter work week
  
• Alternative work schedules
  
• We aren't whining, we do work too much
  
• Part-time solution and part-time problem
  

Posted by: Jack Schonchin on May 2, 2002 12:08 PM

 

This approach has down wonders for the French Economy!

Posted by: MICK on May 2, 2002 03:57 PM

 

Jack

I was just thinking about my organization where you could give an inch and they would take a mile.

And.... I guess I was coming from a single no kids perspective...after reading your reply I guess 2 hours does make a difference.

Posted by: JB on May 2, 2002 04:44 PM

 

Whaaaaa? I don't have kids. As a usability professional I have the empathic ability to look at the world from the viewpoint of other people. ;-)

Posted by: Jack Schonchin on May 2, 2002 06:20 PM

 

Dang, I finally looked at the time graph in the work too much article. It would seem, in the year 2000, Americans took an average of 12.6 days of vacation time.... whereas, Germans took an average of 75 days vacation.

I've always heard Germans take month-long vacations... I know I've encountered German tourists on every U.S. vacation I've taken. Germany's economy is going OK, right? Well, who cares, as long as the people are getting by and they're happy.

Posted by: Jack Schonchin on May 2, 2002 06:54 PM

 

Tomorrow will be the first vacation day that I have used this year...

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on May 2, 2002 10:26 PM

 

Jack,

Germany's economy is actually turning into something of a basket case. They have a high (by European standards) level of unemployment and a growing budget deficit. The problem is that most of the adverse effects of this economic decline are felt in the east (i.e. the old communist state). I'd bet good money the Germans you see on vacation are from Cologne, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Munich or one of the other wealthy (western) areas, where they can afford to take a month off work.

Posted by: Alan Fisher on May 3, 2002 04:22 AM