|
My wife has a theory that I tend to agree with. If people were given the choice of working from 9-3, 5 days a week, they would get the same amount of work done, be able to drop off and pick up their kids at school, and have more time at home with family or just have time off to themselves. They would be happier overall and therefore better equipped to do their jobs. Like Banshee above, and I'm sure like many more of us, a lot of workers spend their time at work doing things that aren't work. So if you had a more favorable schedule where you only were required to physically BE at work for say 32 hours instead of 40 per week, would you be able to get the same amount of work done? I suspect that for many of us the answer is yes.
I fully recognize that there are jobs where this idea does not apply. Clearly, if a factory worker is on an assembly line making parts at 30 units per hour, cutting the shift by a hour or two hours would translate into making that many fewer parts. Likewise, a cashier at a retailer can't just leave early or people won't be able to ring out.
I guess the question becomes, does a 40+ hour work week lead to the demoralizing of the workforce and ultimately destroy a good work-ethic? To paraphrase Office Space: Do we only work hard enough to avoid getting fired?
__________________
---
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein
---
|