
Gothenburg's six-hour work day experiment hangs in the balance - ptaipale
http://www.thelocal.se/20160421/gothenburgs-six-hour-work-day-hangs-in-the-balance
======
socalnate1
"Deputy Mayor and Moderate party spokesperson Maria Ryden, who is one of the
politicians behind the motion told The Local she felt it was "unfair" to
continue the project, because it was not sustainable in the long term.

"We might as well stop now," she argued."

This is nuts, don't they understand the point of a test?

~~~
ptaipale
I read it: outcome of the test has been seen already, and continuing it is
just unfair to others.

(The outcome being that yes, people who can work shorter hours for same salary
are of course happier, but the benefits do not outweigh the higher employment
costs.)

~~~
bobwaycott
Well, to be clear, there is disagreement on whether the benefits outweigh the
higher employment costs. Seems this is really an attempt to avoid having to
deal with a broader discussion about how to make these benefits available to
everyone.

I read it: handwringing over it being "unfair" that some people in a test
group are happier than their peers, and an ideological opposition to
entertaining the thought of extending this happiness any further.

~~~
ptaipale
Since there is a very real cost increase in arranging care with six hour
workday instead of ~8 hours -- you need to hire more people to do the work --
this is not just about ideological opposition; it's about economics, its about
efficiency of the public sector.

------
settsu
"...a second high-profile trial in Gothenburg, at a surgery unit at
Sahlgrenska University hospital, also recently reported increased productivity
and a reduction in sick leave, although labour costs have gone up there too."

The issue in both cases is, understandably, labor costs. But couldn't the data
be interpreted as indicating that labor cost savings are realized by lowering
quality of care?

I mean employee health and well-being may not be the concern of the
organization but clearly they could be connected directly to the bottom line.
Burning through employees entails not-insignificant costs even in industries
composed primarily of un-/low-skilled labor, does it not?

------
fsloth
I'm glad they actually tried this. I'm still pretty sure 6 hour workdays make
sense - but not in every profession.

~~~
giarc
This trial is in nursing, I think it makes sense in this role. I work in a
hospital and many nurses are on 12 hour shifts. Knowing many of them, after 2
or 3 days of 12 hour shifts, they go home and need a day or two just to
recover. Shorter shifts would definitely improve this.

However, the biggest issue is labour and associated costs. If you did 6 hour
shifts, you would like need more staff and that means more pension costs, more
benefit costs etc. But I guess this is why they are running the trial.

~~~
mason240
> Knowing many of them, after 2 or 3 days of 12 hour shifts, they go home and
> need a day or two just to recover. Shorter shifts would definitely improve
> this.

Many shift work people like the ability to do their full work week in 3.5
days, and have a 3.5 day weekend.

I had a similar schedule when doing restaurant work: 2 - 16 hour days followed
by an early 8, with the next 4 days off. It's a lot more efficient than 5 - 8
hour days.

~~~
giarc
The nurses might like it but management might not. Long shifts would likely,
as the article points out, result in more sick time. Then you are paying for
the staff's sick time and also overtime for the person that is covering. In
addition, long 12-16 shifts likely result in higher work place accidents and
workers compensation claims.

A very complex situation obviously.

------
yason
What I gather from the article is that one of the parties, more on the right,
called for ending the experiment. Parties call for things all the time.

I would assume this is just a public outcoming: to stop the trial would
probably need a similar vote from the same council of people who voted to
start the trial.

