"write it into their contract that they agree not to work a second job on their day off."
In particular due to the exact language ('day off' vs. 'days off') -- If an employee's schedule is Mon-Thu, are they free to work the weekends at another job (but not the Friday), or is all moonlighting prohibited?
Are they free to work on their own projects on their off days?
If I'm showing bias, I apologize, but I'm a little bit offended that an employer would attempt exercise control over what their employees do in their off time. I'm not saying it isn't ever justified, but if the requirement is that they only work 4 days a week, then they're free to do what they will with the fifth, unless the assertion is that they're actually 'working' five days a week, and are just ordered to relax on the fifth day.
This seems a bit silly. The employer's objective is to spend capital on keeping employees extra- rested and extra- content, in order to maximize productivity and minimize turnover. If you try to nerd your way out of their plan, they'll meet the objective some other way; for instance, they can simply demand that everyone show up to the office on day 5.
A 32 hour work week is such a huge benefit that I can't imagine anyone actually working on such a team trying to subvert it. It's totally reasonable to have side projects and even to work a second job. I think a reasonable person stuck in the situation of wanting a second job while working for the 4-day company would simply leave the team.
I don't want to argue in multiple threads, but you may well have clarified one thing for me, in that it's a 32 hour work week. Honestly, I was thinking it was a 4 day work week of 10 hour shifts, which I generally prefer as it keeps me from having to break when I'm in the middle of something.
Still though, you really brought your argument home when you said that (paraphrasing) "If you don't accept the trade, you shouldn't work there," because that is absolutely right. But... is it fair? If my company imposed a 'no alcoholic beverages allowed on weeknights', it's the same sort of proposition, and you're free to accept or decline it as part of the job offer, but does that make it RIGHT?
I don't mean to imply that Carsonified is doing anything illicit, or immoral, and I'm sure they have great reasons for it -- but without knowing exactly where the line is drawn, it's hard (for me) to say.
From my reading, it's a 40-hour workweek in which the last 8 hours are paid rest. If they weren't paid, they would have no legal basis for banning the workers from working on Friday.
However, the workers may do as they like over the weekend--including working.
That simply isn't true! Even in California, where anti-moonlighting clauses are very difficult to enforce, there are circumstances (conflict-of-interest being an important one) where you can't work two jobs. In many other states, all anti-moonlighting clauses are considered "reasonable" restrictions on your right to work.
Sorry for the stridency, but the logic that carries you to that conclusion is dangerously faulty. The law simply doesn't see most employment, by default, as an exchange of a set number of hours for a set amount of money. The enforceable parts of your contract can make the situation far more complicated than that. For examples, see: intellectual property and trade secrets, noncompetition, conflict of interest, overtime for salaried exempt employees, anti-moonlighting, accidentally representing your company on Twitter, and so on.
This stuff is very relevant to startups, as it's an easy way to torpedo yourself before you even pick a name for the company.
True, but in a salaried job in the UK, it's typical to include those hours in your total (though not if you're paid by the hour). At least in my experience. So if you're "at work" 9-5 M-F, that's still a 40 hour work week.
Status quo for a "40 hour week" at my current employer is 8-5 M-F with an hour lunch. I tried it for six months and decided it was a bad idea.
I was able to renegotiate things to 9-5, but my manager acted like it was this really unusual request and wasn't I lucky that they were willing to let me work "less than 40 hours."
That left me wondering, what do other people consider full time in this industry?
Depends on the place -- at least where I've worked around here, lunch breaks have largely coincided with either individual preference, and the proximity to nearby (fairly quick) eateries.
If you're in a part of town, for example, where it takes a 10 minute metro ride to get to the nearest restaurant, it seems illogical to enforce a half hour lunch.
Prohibiting what I do on my day off sounds restrictive and unfair.
Being paid to relax actually sounds quite nice.
Not sure it needs to be in a contract though; surely you should be judged on your performance at work (whether it is 4 or 5 days) and not external factors.
I agree, and if I worked there I would completely ignore that clause. I wouldn't even worry about lining through it before I signed on. If they want me to give up my ability to make more money with my time, they can bloody well pay me for it. It's unconscionable and I'd like to see them try to enforce that clause on an employee who decided to do additional work.
Depending on the venue, moonlighting clauses range from almost completely enforceable (MA) to almost (but not entirely) nonenforceable (CA). Overshadowing all legal issues specific to moonlighting is "at-will employment", the standard in practically the whole of the US, which allows a company to fire you without cause.
So, if you're moonlighting at an unrelated tech company in California, you're probably fine. But if you take an off-hours job in the same industry as your employer in New York, you can probably be fired.
Generally, a prospective employer who says "we have a four day work week, but we only want team members who are going to work this one job" seems to me to be offering a fair trade. If you find those terms unconscionable, you shouldn't accept a job there.
As described in this posting, it's ridiculously vague, and as I said above, I'd like to see someone try to enforce it. What if I want to mow my lawn on Friday? Is that acceptable? What if I want to mow someone else's lawn as a favor? What if I want to mow someone else's lawn and they pay me even though I'm not running a lawn-mowing business? What if, instead of mowing someone's lawn I help them out by reinstalling some software or configuring their home network? What if I do a good enough job that they recommend me to a mutual acquaintance? To someone they know from their work? To others in the neighborhood? There's a huge range of options that this paints over, and the devil's in the details. As they've described their policy of "giving back" Friday, it could be interpreted as not letting their employees do anything except lay in bed because, damnit, they need to know their employees are resting like the owners intended.
Frankly, I'm not convinced you're seeing the implications to such a vague policy.
And frankly, I think you're missing the atmosphere in which the policy is offered. I think the kind of place that is willing to offer you a 32 hour week with a day off is the kind of place that's not going to be overly concerned about slicing and dicing the policy to the finest point.
It strikes me that a place this good-natured wouldn't split hairs.
While I generally agree, without seeing the contract, I'm left wondering exactly where the line is drawn. I accept that, since I'm not being offered an employment contract at Carsonified, it's perhaps none of my business, and that's fair -- but mostly I'm curious about the verbiage on the 'day off' bit.
Seriously, how do you argue with this even a little?
Virtually every other employer in the world will fire you instantly for working a second job during the day on Friday, as an extension of the rule that requires them to fire you for going fishing during the day on Friday. It is beyond reasonable for an employer to require you not to work a second job on Friday in exchange for the day off. So far past reasonable I can't imagine it ever coming up the real world; team members at the 4-day-a-week would probably quit before alienating the company.
A four day work week is just a huge, generous benefit.
I didn't necessarily say that I was arguing. I mean, it's perfectly within their right -- but, where it's generally more acceptable to allow moonlighting on the proverbial Saturdays and Sundays, if they're advertising Friday as a 'day off', then I should be free to do the same.
I completely agree with your assertion that it's their right to request you not to, and I can certainly understand the logic of it, specifically in trying not to attract people looking to do the minimal work effort so that they can reap the benefits of another paycheck.
Regardless, I have questions. If the Friday is a 'day off', then how is it different than Saturday and Sunday. Do they also insist that you not have a second job on those days? What specifically does it prohibit? Can I work on an open source project? Can I boostrap my own projects? What if they become successful?
I was really hoping somebody from Carsonified could speak to this really, and not trying to start an argument, but I do have my own take on things -- I'd just love to know more.
When a company gives you Sat. and Sun. off, they're doing it because it's the normal thing to do -- it's not even a decision. When a company gives you Friday off, they're doing it because they've calculated that it will enhance their business somehow. If you come along and decide to treat the day as if it were a normal day off, you're missing the point.
It's like if a company gives you free sodas, it's not the same thing as a Coke van on campus giving out free twelve-packs, you're not supposed to load your backpack full of sodas every afternoon when you leave work, just because they're "free".
I don't know if it's actually like that at all, but that's exactly why I'm trying to get more insight on the policy.
I work better in bursts. Telling me to go home so that I can be well rested is a detriment to how I generally work.
The question revolves around whether it's my time or it isn't. If it is, then why put constraints on it? If it isn't, then tell me. Either way, I believe it's a fair negotiation, honestly, I'd just like to know where the actual boundary is.
Speaking only for myself, if I started a company that offered a 4-day work week, and a candidate told me they intended to spend that time freelancing, "NO HIRE".
So, where do you draw the line between 'spending that time freelancing' and 'spending that time programming to become a better programmer?'
My major gripe with it is that I'd rather have a flexible schedule that allowed me to work when I was in the zone and rest when I was weary. I understand that, from an employer's perspective, it's hard to monitor, and especially hard to make sure that you're "getting your money's worth" to a micro-manager, but if the core philosophy is that they want me to be highly productive and well-rested, those ideals are somewhat at odds -- at least for the way I work.
I'd much rather spend 14 hours non-stop on something if I'm making progress on it, and rest when the task is finished than be arbitrarily asked to stop for whatever reason. This doesn't burn me out in the least. Doing that non-stop definitely does, but I generally allow myself time to reset between tasks, when I'm less likely to forget things, or lose track of where I was in the code.
You have a counterpart in management somewhere, with the same mindset about work rules, and he is the reason his team can't have a 4-day work week. No offense.
At my last gig, I was management. My program manager hated it, but I refused to care who was coming in late and who was leaving early. It wasn't a terribly large team, and it was quite easy to know who was performing, and who wasn't. As we were meeting all our deadlines, and I never felt like I was being taken advantage of, I never saw it as an issue.
My program manager, on the other hand, firmly believed in the 9-5 mentality, even when it was clearly not working for our team.
Before that, I worked at a job where I was free to come and go as I pleased, so long as the work got done. The work got done, generally ahead of deadline. Admittedly, I was the only 'developer' on that team, but with careful hiring, and a slow evolution toward freedom, things were a-okay. When I left there for greener pastures, we'd had consecutive years in which each year was better than the last, dollar-wise.
To beat the horse dead, you really got it right the first time, in that I'm free to take or leave the offer. I'd just really like to understand it better. The 32-hour week isn't for everybody. 4 10 hour shifts isn't for everybody. 5 8 hour shifts isn't for everybody.
I'm sure it seems that I've made a mountain out of a molehill, and perhaps I have, which is ironic, since it doesn't really reflect what I'd want out of a job -- it's just confounding to me that they would say 'four day weeks are the norm', but then follow that up with 'well, it's really a five day week, you're just not allowed to do anything on the fifth.'
I think we're running out of arguing room, so I'll finish by saying that really, I don't disagree with you in theory, or even in practice. It is perfectly within their right to structure their work weeks however they choose, and it is perfectly within the right of potential hires to take or leave potential offers from Carson and crew, and it is perfectly within the right of Carson to not hire people who would like to use their off-time to stay sharp. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't take the job at Carsonified (I've heard great things about Bath, England, as well as that team) -- it just means I'd have questions if I saw that in my contract.
Since nobody from Carsonified has chimed in here to clear it up my hypotheticals, I'll save any further ponderance for the unlikely event that I'm ever presented with such a contract.
I'm wondering where you draw the line of what is considered moonlighting - do you mean absolutely any paid work whatsoever?
What if it's nothing at all to do with their job?
What if the tech guy wants to work in a dog pound for the day off, or the marketing girl wants to instruct surfing?
Is it "any paid work at all"? What about unpaid/volunteering?
What possible reason could they have given to order him to stop?
And what would give them the right (or make them think they had the right) to do it in the firstplace :/
After participating in Rails Rumble a couple of years ago a fun idea I haven't been able to shake is if it'd be possible to work 20 hours a day Saturday and Sunday and then take M-F off (plus, you'd have less online distractions during your "workweek," since it'd be everyone else's weekend).
M-F off is highly overrated if one's passions involve other people. I have it any time I want. Unless the people important to you also have free time at 2 PM on Tuesday, it turns into lots of fungible book-or-gym time, and the little old ladies at the gym will ask you why you aren't at work.
I think it's funny a lot of comments are saying they would be angry about not being able to work on that Friday. I'm not particularly sure why you would be upset if your employer offered to pay you 40 hr/week salary and only expected you to work ~32 hours.
They place value in that day assuming you will use it to rest. Working on it would be counter productive to what they see it being useful for.
Loss of momentum. When I'm coding, and I'm on a tear, I generally won't stop for drinks, food, or any other outside distractions. It's this exact reason that I abhor the cubicle culture so much, as it tends to invite distractions, generally when I'm in the midst of my greatest productivity.
If I'm on a roll with something, I don't want to chance that I'll come back from a three day weekend every week and have to remember where I left off, or spend that time trying to get back in the groove.
One of the best places I worked (now defunct) allowed for you to work hours per week -- if you worked over, you were credited it for the next week. It was great to crank out marathon sessions, and then, between projects, you could take the remainder of the time off, to rest. So if I spent 7 days straight on a project, I could take 4 days to rest and be 'neutral' on my schedule balance (assuming 8 hour days).
I can definitely see this side of the complaints. The side I was arguing against was everyone's outrage that you couldn't just use Friday to moonlight.
By induction you should be able to get your entire week's worth of effort done in an hour if only you put yourself under enough pressure. As you can see, there is a flaw in this argument.
Sadly we don't have lossless compression of all inputs, merely a subset of inputs whose content is somewhat predictable. There's no way to uniquely represent all of 2^m distinct input bitstrings using 2^n outputs where n < m. In practice we assume input that's typically used has some predictable and redundant substrings, and that makes compression a win on average. But if you try to compress a high-entropy bitstring (such as comes out of a good implementation of /dev/random with noise from hardware), you will find it gets slightly larger, because the compression algorithm has to resort to supplying a literal copy of the input plus some small metadata saying it did so.
No, the difference is lossless compression algorithms have a defined lower bound on how packed the bits can get. No such lower bound has been asserted here in terms of compressing your work, just the idea that you can drop 24 hours off the end of the week with no loss of productivity. Clearly 24 hours is arbitrary, why isn't Thursday a half day?
A more sound argument would be one with actual data and measurements about how reducing the workweek affected overall productivity of the team. Without that it's just opinions and guessing.
>No such lower bound has been asserted here in terms of compressing your work, just the idea that you can drop 24 hours off the end of the week with no loss of productivity. Clearly 24 hours is arbitrary, why isn't Thursday a half day?
No such lower bound is defined, but one need not be. The OP is merely stating that the lower bound is 32 hours or less. He's not dropping 24 hours off, merely 8 (or 9, that par is unclear).
As another commentor points out, the lower bound on compression algorithms varies by input. This is likely true here, too.
The founding premise of this article is that "you get more done just before you go on holiday" which I've never noticed.
I also think it's inaccurate to assume that folks generally have "hidden capacity" that will miraculously allow them to get done in 4 days what would normally have taken 5.
All this boils down to is profit margin on your work: if you're able to build a pricing model where you bill clients enough to fund 15 people taking an extra day off per week, then you can move to a 4 day work week. If not, you can't.
I wrote this article and I'd like to comment on all the angry "I can't believe they won't let me work on Fridays" comments.
We don't have an adversarial relationship with our team. We're not checking every word of the contract and neither are they.
We're all working towards a greater goal and we're all doing what it takes to get there.
If someone wants to do some extra freelance work on a Friday, then we don't hassle them about it. However, if they do that, they're missing the entire point: they're getting paid a full salary, but only having to work 4 days a week for it.
Why not just take Friday off and enjoy it? The whole point is that a good work-life balance is healthy, fun and fulfilling.
If the money isn't good enough (even though we pay well), then maybe it's not the right job for you.
This is similar to what I went through dropping work down from 7 days a week to 6, and then to 5. Clients always appear. If they had their way, I would still be working all 7 days a week, preferably 24 hours a day.
As to those who are commenting about being "forced" to take the day off, I am not sure you are getting the point the author is trying to make. The whole point is not being burned out. Adding another job is a great way to reach burn-out faster.
Notice I say "job." In my book, this does not include hobbies. Which, to the outside observer, may look like work only because I use many of the same tools.
And if you really want to work that hard (and it was easier to get away with it when I was younger) maybe this is not the right employment for you...
FWIW. I have cycled through burn-out several times, and I prefer living a healthy lifestyle, if at all possible.
(Edited to be a bit less harsh than my first wording - Sorry).
I would honestly love to find a workplace that did this in Canada. To be fair, I'd consider moving back to the UK for that. Bath is beautiful too. I worked in Cornwall as a supply / substitute teacher for a few months. The landscape took my breath away every single day.
I feel like this is a bit optimistic. There are people who waste time in a 5 day work week environment; and those same people will waste a proportionate amount of time in a 4 day work week as well because that's just the work pace theyre used to.
I think this is a bit idealistic. Especially in the entrepreneurial world, with your mind constantly spinning on new ideas. Sometimes it can even be challenging to take the weekend off.
The one thing i just love about this is the "Do Something Cool". This is something i have tried to do even on my weekends, something as simple as take a 2-3 hour walk. Or try and get lost and find my way home.
Silly stuff like that, but the second you truly relax and let your mind wander you actually start to be MORE creative. I would love to instate something where employees must take a one hour walk a week!
You mean people don't work 7-to-12 days in a row until they crash, then take a day and a half off, and repeat the process over again? Pfft, lightweights.
In particular due to the exact language ('day off' vs. 'days off') -- If an employee's schedule is Mon-Thu, are they free to work the weekends at another job (but not the Friday), or is all moonlighting prohibited?
Are they free to work on their own projects on their off days?
If I'm showing bias, I apologize, but I'm a little bit offended that an employer would attempt exercise control over what their employees do in their off time. I'm not saying it isn't ever justified, but if the requirement is that they only work 4 days a week, then they're free to do what they will with the fifth, unless the assertion is that they're actually 'working' five days a week, and are just ordered to relax on the fifth day.