|
Feature Story: Four Day Work Week
The four-day work week has been a strongly debated topic for a few years now. There are definitely potential advantages to implementing this practice, as in an appropriate work environment, compressed work arrangements provide an opportunity for enhanced productivity and operational performance; it’s popular with employees and offers cost saving measures for employers and employees. However, a four-day work week does have inherent risks to productivity if management, supervision and planning are not effective.
A compressed work cycle arrangement allows for employees to retain their hours and employers their production time. The application of a four-day week as opposed to a nine-day fortnight means one less work break for morning tea and lunch per fortnight (50 minutes or .83 hours).
The most obvious advantage of a four-day work week for employees is the work/life balance it offers. This arrangement allows time for personal appointments or activities to be carried out without the need to take time off work. A four-day work week also provides an opportunity for staff to work a secondary job, partake in other regular activities or partake in overtime work as an income supplement. The opportunity to have a three-day break also assists with fatigue management if the staff member decides to engage in none of the above.
A four-day work week also offers recruitment and retention opportunities for employers and could reduce absenteeism due to the aforementioned improved work/life balance and fatigue management. Employers could also reduce costs with a four-day week arrangement. This benefit is more pronounced for an outdoor workforce as less frequent travel means reduced fuel costs, maintenance costs and potentially reduced procurement costs.
Employers also see a positive advantage for outdoor crews as plant servicing and maintenance can occur on RDOs. This ultimately reduces the amount of downtime and improves productivity. This maintenance can also occur in workshops rather than in the field which can further reduce costs and assists with compliance in relation to environmental requirements.
So, what are the risks?
Unplanned downtime.
Under a compressed work cycle, the loss of a day has a more serious impact on productivity than a non-compressed arrangement. In a compressed four-day week the loss of a day means losing 25% of available work time when under a regular five-day week 20% is lost. One of the most inevitable disruptions being public holidays. Particularly those that fall on a set day each year (i.e. Australia Day) which has the potential to fall on a day mid-week.
Of course, public holidays are foreseen time losses and can be mitigated by effective scheduling and strong management. Unforeseen time loss is harder to mitigate. For example, wet weather is often disruptive for outdoor crews, however extreme weather such as flooding can also affect indoor staff. Unforeseen absenteeism (sick leave, emergency/personal leave, etc) can also be disruptive, particularly if illness is spreading around the workplace. Operational equipment being out of order can also cause a greater negative impact under a compressed work arrangement.
Ineffective management.
As hold ups on the job under a four-day week are more critical than in other circumstances, there is an enhanced need for management, planning and supervision to be effective and to ensure that work proceeds without interruption. This risk can be mitigated by instilling a strong management, healthy work culture and ensuring performance is reviewed regularly in order to identify opportunities for skill development.
Overall, a four-day week has potential benefits for both employees and employers in the appropriate work environment under ideal conditions. However, these arrangements do not suit every individual and may not be workable in all circumstances.
If Council is considering compressed work arrangements, we suggest that the impact and suitability for the workplace be investigated thoroughly prior its introduction or conducting trials.
|
