I worked at a startup that did a four day work week. It was awesome for the most part. The problem is, they would rely heavily on the four day work week to be able to pay less in salary, which is completely fair and very worth it to a lot of people. The issue came in when they pretty much explicitly told people they were expected to work on Fridays anyway, defeating the benefit of the four day work week, but allowing them to keep salaries lower and put "four day work week" on job listings.
They've threatened to get rid of it multiple times, claiming it's still a trial period (over a year of having it), which is fine, but they don't mention that it's a trial at all to new hires. I know a lot of the company that would leave in a heart beat if they got rid of it since it was a such a big part of why they chose the job.
I left, got a more interesting job that paid a lot more and they kept trying to get my to stay by referencing the unlimited PTO they gave me but I didn't use (less than a week taken in two years) and the four day work week that I hadn't taken advantage of since I joined. Needless to say, I got a big raise and I work the same amount that I did before.
An extra day off is absolutely additional compensation and is worth a significant amount. It's just that in my (small sample size and limited) experience, it's used as a crutch and there were pretty much expectations that you work on that extra day, negating the time off. I hope most other four day work week companies don't do this and I just had a bad draw, but that's my anecdotal experience.
Sounds like that was simply not actually a 4-day workweek company! My experience working 4-day workweeks (Thursday evening desktop goes off, corp phone gets left at desk) is brilliant, especially mixed with full remote, I would likely give up more than 20% of my salary to have this permanent 3-day weekend! (Shh, don't tell HR)
Honestly I think I may be even slightly more productive, but whatever, I make more than I can spend, I don't think any amount of money would make me work 5 days/week (I mean that quite literally, unless it was maybe for a couple months, and in the 1e6 ballpark, my time on earth is just too valuable to me).
I'm guessing this comment is along the lines of "companies don't pay for healthcare in Europe, so this doesn't apply", but there are other sources of overhead. Anything that is not a profit center is a cost center; buying you your workstation and software, having HR around to resolve disputes between employees, etc. Those things still happen in Europe.
Well it's good to hear that it's done properly else where! I absolutely agree with the salary difference. I'm early enough in my career (no spouse or children either) that I'm willing to spend more time for more compensation, but I can see myself valuing that extra day off way more in the future as well.
I tried multiple times at multiple companies to negotiate an additional month off per year in exchange for a 15% decrease in compensation. I pointed out that giving me 8% of a year off for a 15% decrease in compensation was a pretty good deal. Nobody ever bit, unfortunately. Not even any counters.
This sounds like a very bad implementation of 4-day work week and is not representative of my 4-day work week arrangements at my current and previous employers. It's a shame this comment is top of the comments because 4-day work weeks are so gosh darn amazing for employees (and probably employers too!)
Slightly off topic but do unlimited PTO plans compensate employees if they don’t take a certain threshold of time off? If not, unlimited PTO just sounds like a scheme to penny pinch employees.
This is exactly the problem with unlimited PTO. It makes employees to feel guilty about taking time off and allows employers to avoid paying out unused time off when they leave.
Not stupid at all, it sounds wacky. It goes hand in hand with my four day work week really requiring Friday work. At this place, it was frowned upon and straight up said during a company all hands meeting or two that taking time off was heavily discouraged at a time when the company needed as much productivity as possible.
We offered unlimited PTO, which I've found to just be a way to sound really great but in reality they can block PTO if it's over a given amount and look down on you for taking that PTO. It's never an explicit "you will not get a promotion", but you'll get less opportunities, potential for promotion, and such as you're not seen as a "team player" like they bring up during the all hands. It's a crappy thing.
Should I have just taken my time off anyway? Maybe. Working somewhere where you have an actual set amount of PTO has never brought that negative stigma with it. I'm not surprised if this isn't common for unlimited PTO companies, but I've read that the reason companies offer it is because employees take less time off on average.
They've threatened to get rid of it multiple times, claiming it's still a trial period (over a year of having it), which is fine, but they don't mention that it's a trial at all to new hires. I know a lot of the company that would leave in a heart beat if they got rid of it since it was a such a big part of why they chose the job.
I left, got a more interesting job that paid a lot more and they kept trying to get my to stay by referencing the unlimited PTO they gave me but I didn't use (less than a week taken in two years) and the four day work week that I hadn't taken advantage of since I joined. Needless to say, I got a big raise and I work the same amount that I did before.
An extra day off is absolutely additional compensation and is worth a significant amount. It's just that in my (small sample size and limited) experience, it's used as a crutch and there were pretty much expectations that you work on that extra day, negating the time off. I hope most other four day work week companies don't do this and I just had a bad draw, but that's my anecdotal experience.