A 35-hour workweek is a good idea?

After the 35-hour workweek comes into force, employees are to have more time to rest, spend it with family and friends, contact with nature and exercise. All this is also supposed to translate into an increase in efficiency

Good idea. You can often do as much in 7 hours as in 8.

An idea worthy of a socialist. People have a slave mentality and don't even bother to connect the dots and conclude that the more the state meddles in the economy, the worse it gets.

I worked for several dozen years in various companies and on various construction sites as a construction foreman.

We always had a 5-day, 40-hour working week in the contracts, but in reality we worked 5, 6, and even 7 days a week, 10 to 12 hours a day, depending on the needs on a given construction site.

In the construction industry, this has been the norm for many years because all delays in the supply of materials, errors in design and workmanship as well as unfavorable weather cause the construction cycle to be extended in relation to the investment completion date.

I presented here only the discrepancy between the legal status and reality.

I believe that in the construction industry it will not change much in terms of the actual working time of the workers.

It seems to me that labor productivity will not necessarily decrease, but it will have a negative impact on wages.

A 35-hour workweek is certainly a good idea because it allows you to balance work and leisure time. It provides employees with time to rest, regenerate and increases work efficiency. In addition, reducing working hours can contribute to improved health and job satisfaction for employees.

That's bad idea. Or is it about working 4 days a week until you're 70? On average, there are 250 working days in a year (currently). After 30 years of work, you "worked" 7,500 days (5/7) or 6,000 days (4/7); after 40 years you have 10,000 (5/7) or 8,000 (4/7) behind you; 50 each 12,500 (5/7) to 10,000 (4/7). So working 40 years (25 to 65) you have 10,000 working days behind you, the same as working 50 years (25 to 75) 4 days a week. You have to earn your Social Security pension somehow. Working longer certainly does not ennoble.

For some it may be worth it and for some it may not. Let's take construction workers for example, what is 35 hours of work a week? 35 hours of work per week means an increase in earnings worthy of working on a contract, including 35 hours, most companies will not pay after hours. And secondly, 40 hours of work seems to me to be the norm for everyone, regardless of the industry.

It depends on what profession.

For many blue-collar workers, such a change would be highly beneficial, as they would have more time to recover and, as a result, less health problems in the future. The state budget would benefit from lower costs of their treatment and rehabilitation. Probably, the number of sick leaves would also decrease, especially those dealt with "in the left".

The situation of employees performing light work, e.g. in the service industry, is different. In their case, shortening the working week could counteract professional burnout, which is an increasingly common phenomenon. It especially concerns people who have monotonous duties, perform repetitive tasks and do not see a higher purpose in their work. Also, a toxic environment or contact with demanding clients has a bad effect on the human psyche. The introduction of a 4-day working week could make a big difference in their situation.

We also have many professions that involve a high degree of stress and responsibility for human health and life. I mean especially emergency services, aircraft controllers and pilots, dispatchers, etc. In their case, good physical and mental condition is crucial for the proper performance of their duties. A shortened working week would certainly help them regain balance after difficult shifts. It should also be borne in mind that it is not easy to replace such qualified staff.

One conclusion can be drawn from the course of the experiments carried out so far – the level of satisfaction with life has increased for all involved. Their performance tended to increase as well, but the question is whether this was simply because the subjects were aware of the test. We behave differently when someone is watching.

I realize that it would probably not be possible to introduce such a solution for selected professional groups. Protests and demands for social justice would quickly follow. Someone would also have to replace employees during their free time, and we are already struggling to find people willing to work, especially in certain professions.

Such a larger-scale experiment could help in those countries that face high unemployment, since two goals would be achieved simultaneously: increasing employment and increasing employee satisfaction. The problem is that this is a very expensive solution, and economies with a high percentage of the unemployed usually have trouble closing the budget.

In Poland, I do not see any prospects for the widespread implementation of the 4-day working week in the coming years. We can not afford it.

I will say more - the draft law (deputy, on the initiative of the left) has already been sent to the Sejm. It will certainly disorganize the work of workplaces where this continuity must be present and employees work in 3 shifts of 8 hours each (which translates into a 24-hour day). In industries where intellectual work is required, it looks quite different. I can see for myself that problems that need to be solved creatively often come out of work with us. In the era of taking a laptop and working remotely, this is even more blurred. There are professions in which these 8 hours are only contractual, and it depends on the employee whether he can apply the principles of work-life balance.

On the other hand, a 7-hour working day seems tempting. We are often over/below an hour physically at work, but unless the deadlines are chasing, we are intellectually inefficient.

This "idea" will soon be a necessity in many industries. This has been in operation in Germany for years. Technology/automation relieves man...

The assumption is that the salary should be the same, not lower.

Yeah, that's a good idea in my opinion

Very good idea, I support it

I think that's a good idea.

It certainly did not translate into work efficiency. Rather, employers will not want to pay the same for less work done. When it comes in, people can have less than they have

Kazdy powinien regulowac swoj wymiar pracy z pracodawcą, to na jakich warunkach i za jakie wynagrodzenie a rzad nie powinien ABSOLUTNIE sie do tego mieszać.