Hi Ho, Hi Ho

Blog Note: The following would not necessarily work for every commercial enterprise--at least, not without a lot of reconfiguration. And I am not referring to those whose work involves saving lives or building infrastructure. I'm thinking more along the lines of those who found Office Space a little too familiar.

The 8-hour workday was fought for through the latter part of the 1700s, and through most of the 1800s, in various parts of the developed world. The slogan for the cause: "Eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest." (Of course, this is down from 10-16 hours of work per day of often very physical labor in the poor working conditions imposed by industry.) Nowadays, not everything is done painstakingly by hand; we have automation and office-specific software to streamline workflow; and (possibly because of all of that) we seem to consider it some kind of badge of honor to put in more than the standard 8 hours a day--wow, you must be very important--though what it really means is that you have little or no life beyond work. And some people thrive that way, and that's great.

For the non-workaholic set (life-aholics?), every once in awhile MSN or somebody will release a poll that asks how much people screw around at work. The results often come back averaging about two hours per day spent on non-work related activities in the office.

From a friend's personal experience, a request for reduction of hours met with resistance from a manager who likes to have his underlings in the office just in case he needs them, and who, though making quite a bit more money in his 8 hours (for no billable work), believes truly that if he can't reduce his hours, no one should. Precedence aside, if that's what he wants, maybe he should reduce his hours.

Some people are naturally very fast learners and workers, and are therefore most productive on a shorter day. Why? Because if they know that time at work is limited, they are more apt to plow right through it and not watch the clock, no longer needing to fill the extra time surfing online, or talking on the phone or in the hall with a co-worker. In order to fill an entire day without the extracurriculars, they would have to slow their work pace considerably or twiddle their thumbs, which would be mind-numbing beyond measure. It's like being punished for your efficiency.

A shorter workday is not for everyone, and not everyone would want it anyway. In regards to fairness, fine. Make 6 hours standard full-time, and you can work more if you need to. (To avoid killing the budget, keep overtime pay, if applicable, at beyond 8 hours.) Another idea: For those who have been at your company for 7 years or more, offer them either an extra week off or a reduced workweek.

If someone can deliver the same quality work in fewer hours, why wouldn't a company want to save a little cash by letting them work a shorter day or fewer days per week? No, really, I'm asking.