Ask HN: Would you rather work 4 days per week for 80% salary?

85 points by philmcp ↗ HN
I run www.4dayweek.io (Software Jobs with a better work / life balance) and recently I've talked to 100+ companies trying to convince them to offer their job listings on a 4 day work week (e.g. 32 hours) - for many companies they simply aren't interested.

Here are some common responses:

- We are a start up working hard to launch so it wouldn't work for us. I read this as: "we've advertised this as full time, but really it's 24/7"

- It would require too much effort to change our current culture. I read this as: "it's the way we've always done it, so no thanks"

- "We are only looking for full-time employees". This is the most common response. I always find it interesting when companies who struggle to attract top talent don’t consider offering a benefit such as a 4 day week. The law of diminishing returns means there is little difference between the output in a 4 vs 5 day week. This is also due to Parkinson’s Law.

If there was a financial incentive, however, I feel many of these companies would be more inclined to offering a 4 day week.

So my question is, if you weren't able to get a 4 day work week job (e.g. 32hrs) on a full salary, would you accept a small reduction in salary? Or would you instead stick to 5 days @ 100% salary?

I've also created a poll on Twitter asking this [1]. So if you have a moment to give your honest reply, I'd really appreciate it. It may help me convince more companies to offer their roles on a 4 day work week - there are huge benefits for both employers and employees imo.

I personally believe that working 4 days per week doesn't equate to 80% output, more like 90%, and therefore I feel the salary should reflect this. However, in order to normalise the 4 day week, I feel that a small salary reduction might be a good first step.

[1] Link to the poll: https://twitter.com/philostar/status/1393199633543966723

122 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 208 ms ] thread
I'd be fine with 4 days / week for 80% salary.

I don't expect too many employers would be happy with 100% of the overheads (health insurance, office space, administration) for 80% of the productivity.

Its not like its actually 80% productivity. Work time usually does not equal productivity time. In most cases, it would probably be 95% productivity for 80% salary with the mentioned 100% overhead
I work a 4-day week myself, and I'd guesstimate my productivity more at around 85-90% of a 5-day week. Friday afternoons were always pretty low-productivity as it is, and working only 4 days a week is WAY more motivating than a full 5-day grind, so the other days become more productive on average.
> I've talked to 100+ companies trying to convince them to offer their developer roles

I wouldn't be happy if I heard that some random person is contacting my employer to change the contract and payment structure at the company I work for. Advocating for yourself is one thing, cold calling companies and potentially affecting people that never asked for this is just wrong. Even if it's just to offer it as an option and it doesn't sound compulsory in your pitch.

I hope that some unfortunate person with a couple of kids and a mortgage who is just getting by doesn't get get a 20% pay cut because of your actions.

I don't get what's in it for you but you're either underestimating the potential damage that you would do if you were successful, or you simply have bad intentions with this.

I'm not saying "change your entire process". All I'm saying is:

If you are struggling to hire (good) developers, consider offering what the majority of them want, but few companies offer. The quality of candidate will increase as you'll have a "competitive advantage" over other companies.

My personal preference would be to see (all) developer roles offered as both 4 days @ 80% and 5 days @ 100% i.e. the candidate can choose. This is very common in Switzerland

> consider offering what the majority of them want

It's a big assumption that you know what the majority of developers want. And advocating for people who have never asked for your help is both arrogant and immoral in my opinion.

I'm not advocating anything for the current employees, I'm only advocating this for new employees. I think this is where we have gotten confused so I'll update the original post.

Also I'm currently running a poll and the majority of people so far (84%) would prefer to either work 3 days @ 60% or 4 days @ 80%. This has also been shown to be the case in my larger studies [1].

[1] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/0...

Most working class people I know in the UK can't get enough hours to get by, and you're suggesting we slash them by 20%?
This is an extremely strange criticism. Unless you have some kind of strong union or co-op situation, as an employee you have almost zero control over the contract and payment structure at your company, and management’s decisions around it are influenced by factors as varied as “their spouse’s wishes” or “something they heard Elon Musk say on a podcast” or “a Tony Robbins quote on LinkedIn”. Having someone cold-call with their ideas isn’t any different from the other capricious reasons your management can change your working conditions.
It's very straightforward.

1. I work for a company and I want to get paid more, not less.

2. OP is contacting companies and asking them to move to a model in which they pay less. (Even if the rate is the same, the absolute amount is less)

3. From the previous two points it follows that I don't agree with what OP is doing.

Someone who would like to take a pay cut for a 3-day weekend every week would disagree. Doesn't make OP's actions wrong—just different perspectives, I guess. (What if someone convinced your company to give you a raise and require you to work Saturdays?)
> What if someone convinced your company to give you a raise and require you to work Saturdays?

I would personally take a raise + extra work. But I would never presume that I have things figured out to the point where I make a website and starting contacting companies so I can push my personal preferences as the clearly superior model for people I've never met in my life. Which is what OP is doing. That's what doesn't sit right with me.

That's fair, but also norms won't change until someone does decide that they've figured out something better. We only have the 8-hour workday that we take for granted today because people advocated for it in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
In software, there's quite a few other questions to answer first.

Will you be on call?

Whats the culture around "off-hours" contact?

How often if ever does crunch happen? Will the company pay more after 32 hours?

What percent of my time is expected to be in meetings vs getting things done, and how much do you expect to be done?

I have worked at places with all fridays off during the summer. We did all our releases on time even though summer was usually the biggest time. 4 days really doesn't seem to make much of a difference at all. Fridays are so often either no meeting days or at least not important ones. Overall, I absolutely have taken a paycut for legitimate work life balance increases, and I prefer to work with others who would as well.

I agree with your assessment. I am on call for a week once every few months. Sometime it’s light and still get work done other time all we do is field calls and put out fires. Normally we work 40 hours, sometimes more sometimes less. Saying I was only going to work 32 hours and not be available 1 day a week would not work very well. I suspect the employer would win by paying you less but the employee would end up working the same, sometimes more sometimes less. At the end of the day the work needs to be done no matter how long it takes. But I also work 2 jobs full time analyst / programmer and TA CS courses so I might just be an outlier. I make enough to only work 1 job, but I like helping students. The extra money does help and I would not do it for free. So short answer is NO I would not work 4 days a week for 80% pay.
One workplace had an official 7.5 hour workweek, or 37.5 hours. That made it super common for people to take half days or full days off on fridays. We got everything shipped, and salaries were competitive but not absolute top. It was nice, and lots of A tier people working in comfort.

Then new management came in and started forcing everyone to crunch every week until almost all the engineers left.

Since I would be more productive, I would rather expect 120% for 4 days...
I don't think startups really care about saving 20% on salaries - I think if we're going to get 4-day workweeks the argument needs to be around attracting candidates, and pointing to improved productivity. It's mind-boggling to me how companies are like "there's no qualified candidates", and at least superficially they trip over themselves for "diversity" candidates to make their numbers look better, but they're unwilling to change anyting to attract candidates who have lives outside of work. There's 100% a pool of people who could do amazing work who don't get a chance because startups have this brutal monoculture that excludes them.
As someone who is actively hiring, can you elaborate a bit? What are the worst aspects of this monoculture that a company that is just now establishing its culture can focus on avoiding?
Leet code challenges - you are not Google. Offices in super expensive locations (get out of cities and provide WFH for those who wish to stay!). Uber cosmopolitan politics shoved down everyone's throats. Many things
> Uber cosmopolitan politics shoved down everyone's throats.

What’s a specific example of this?

- Management proselytizing Black Lives Matter.

- Official company polls asking if I have been vaccinated. Particulars of my health status are none of their business.

- Mandated diversity, inclusion, and equity training.

- Statements from the C-Suite about the Derek Chauvin trial.

Wow man sounds awful. I’d hate to know that my boss is against cops killing people.
Strawman argument. Disliking BLM does not mean disliking black people (this is only an argument intolerant people make to shut up the opposition).
The offices are usually based in the areas where the founders live. The founders typically live in expensive locations because that’s where the funding is.

You’re setting yourself up to be a second class citizen from the get go unless the founders move.

You may as well just ask for people founding businesses to be remote first to begin with. That’s an easier ask than asking people who are founding businesses to setup remote offices and treat those people nicely. I’ve never seen it done.

I haven’t experienced any politics being shoved down my throat. But, idk, I am accepting of people and somewhat tolerant of others beliefs (white supremacy isn’t one I am tolerant of though...). So, there is that.

Do you support the All Lives Matter movement?

Frankly, so much is thrown into the "white supremacy" tent these days, the fact that you mention that outs you as an intolerant leftist.

It’s a strawman argument. All lives matter isn’t a movement - it’s divisive rhetoric used to disenfranchise black lives. What has come out of the all lives matter movement? Are all people suddenly going to be lifted out of poverty from it? Are there any specific goals of the all lives matter “movement”? Nope. There aren’t. It’s rhetoric and you’re playing into the game of a politician... but ok. Think you’re smart and that I’m intolerant or something - I’m sure that works well for you.

Ain’t no one showing up to AIDs walks or walks for the cure and saying, “but you know, all viruses/cures matter, guys. Let’s walk for all.”

"All Lives Matter" is not divisive, it's superlatively inclusive. People who say that, myself included, are opposed to unjustified killings by the police regardless of the victim's race. If you think that being opposed to the police using unnecessary force against Hispanics, whites or Asians means I've "disenfranchised blacks", that's just more evidence of your intolerance.
> But, idk, I am accepting of people and somewhat tolerant of others beliefs (white supremacy isn’t one I am tolerant of though...). So, there is that.

If I told you I was not in favor of BLM because the founders were caught embezzling funds or pushing Marxist propaganda, would that make me a white supremacist?

I do believe there is a problem with cops shooting people in the states, but I'm also not a fan of that movement being co-opted for political gain. Which is why I support the message but not the specific organization.

I currently do this, but I work all 5 weekdays. I just work shorter days Monday - Wednesday.

I love it, it is my favorite perk of the job I have. I'm able to use my afternoons to exercise, take care of chores around the house, and run errands if necessary. My night after dinner time is completely free.

Another perk that's similar but not exactly the same thing is flexible schedule, meaning if I have something to do during work, I can "make up the hours" later. This is especially powerful when you work 80% time normally.

I would say that the reason most companies don't want to do 4 day weeks is because of meeting schedules. This is why I'm here each work day; so I can be at my team standups every day.

I agree, I work part time (30hrs) at a company in Germany where "full time" is 35 hours/week, which more and more companies adopt here.

It's great. I'm done early in the afternoon and there is plenty of time left to spend with my family.

From an employers perspective, I believe there are many advantages:

- 4 day week job listings get 15% more applications [1]

- Staff will be more productive. Microsoft experimented with a 4-day work week and productivity jumped by 40% [2]

- Staff will be happier and healthier [3]

- Staff retention will improve (e.g. "Now that I'm working a 4 day week, I could never go back to work 5 days")

- Some developers would compromise salary. In our current poll 84% of people would prefer to either work 3 days @ 60% salary or 4 days @ 80% salary

- Reduced office costs (e.g. close the office 1 day per week)

- It's better for the environment (e.g. less travel, closed offices etc)

[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/four-day-workweek-res...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/04/microsoft...

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38843341

Link to the poll: https://twitter.com/philostar/status/1393199633543966723

Link to the website: https://www.4dayweek.io

Whether it's an environmental improvement depends on what your employees do on the day off. Less will be attributable to the company, but it's a giant leap to say this means it's better for the planet.

I like the references for 1-3, even if they might be cherry-picked it's still more likely to be signal than noise, but the rest seems like leaps and assumptions. There are very few companies where everyone wants to work 4 days, let alone have that day not be flexible, so closing the office for a day seems out of reach for all but the smallest businesses. Retention I'm also not so sure about, virtually every company in our line of work supports 36 or 32 hours per week and they virtually all pay proportional to hours so that's all same same.

It is doable and in some countries like Switzerland even a common practice to offer an 80% - 100% workload (if you look at https://swissdevjobs.ch/ or any other tech job board you will notice it occurs quite often)

The problem is that an 80% workload for companies also means 80% of the salary which makes sense if someone wants to work part-time, but it's not the implementation of a 4-day work week idea.

Personally, I believe a 4-day work week will sooner or later be a standard, simply because Developers (including myself) waste a lot of their daily time and by having a constrained time-frame they will also be more efficient. In the same time (hopefully) management might reduce the number of meetings forced onto the Dev team.

The reason I get burned out working 40 hours a week is because I don’t waste time when I’m working / in the office. I can’t seem to “take a break” because I’m getting paid for my time and feel guilty if I do.

I’ve occasionally seen co-workers on YouTube throughout the day, and I’m like, “wtf”.

I don’t see it penalized and I’m not their manager and I’m not tracking their output. I guess if it works for them then it works for them, and no one’s complaining, except my own pride or righteousness.

Maybe that’s what they need to handle a full time work load. But in that case it’s not really full time? It doesn’t feel right to me so at my current place I work significantly reduced amount of hours for a proportional paycut. And I only work when I’m working.

I would work 4 days per week (this is, 32h/week) for 100% salary. I'm not joking. The current 5 day/week, 40h/week is nonsense: the only reason software companies offer such a contract is because of "tradition", they are not interested in thinking about "Hey, perhaps working less than 40h/week makes us equally productive? Let's try!".

Some companies in some countries offer 7.5h/day (37.5h/week) and NOTHING bad happened. Turns out it probably improves the lives of the company's employees (which in turn, improves the company itself).

No, I wouldn't work 4 days per week for 80% of the salary. Hell, I would be more productive working 4 days per week! Why on earth would I receive less money? If any, pay me more. Obviously, this only applies to a few jobs out there (e.g., software engineering).

4 days wouldn't equal 80% of the time, you'd be expected to work extra on those 4 days and get nothing for it.
People who work 5 days aren't really working just 100%, they complain that they are asked to stay late and work weekends with little or no comp. (I.e. comp days that are more vacation days they can never actually schedule.)

It is actually easier to penalize a company that makes you work more than agreed upon when the agreement is less than 100%.

I'm in school right now, so I can't comment on this, but I would love a 4 day week with Wednesday as the extra day off. I've tried it, and it's just amazing. [1] Relevant CGP Grey video.

---

[1] https://youtu.be/ALaTm6VzTBw.

I’ve had jobs where I worked 80 hours and jobs where I worked 20 hours and they were all officially normal full time jobs. As an overtime-exempt salary worker, the official number of hours I work doesn’t matter very much. If you want to work less, just spend less time working. You don’t need to try to convince your boss to sign off on it. If your job is too hard for you to meet expectations with your preferred work-life balance, find an easier job.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Being expected to be available for work 4 days per week vs 5 days per week has nothing to do with how many hours you actually work.
I believe he is saying that most jobs say one thing about hours and then often do another thing entirely. So in that world, taking a lower paying job for a theoretically better work life balance probably isn't going to pan out.
Yeah, I think going around telling employers that you want to get paid 80% salary to work at 80% capacity is a huge mistake. You’re giving up your negotiating position and won’t get offered good jobs. You will probably end up getting paid less than half as much as you could have if you didn’t mention to your employer that you aren’t that into working. On the other hand, you can find jobs that pay really well but have a chill work-life balance.
Yes, but the main benefit of 4 day weeks is having 3 days where you can do whatever you want. It’s not about not being “into” working. Of course, the employer will want you for as many days as possible, since even if you’re sitting there doing nothing 80% of the day on Friday, why not have you obliged in case something comes up.
I worked for a small company that was affected by the post-911 slowdown and the company reduced the hours to Mon-Thurs for a year.

We had to economize a little more, but I was happy with it. I started doing side work, spent more time learning things or sometimes I would do nothing.

I'd have a hard time doing it willingly because it's not just me. But if it was forced on me, I wouldn't complain.

100%, and I agree with your interpretations. The only reason for working I've ever had is to be able to support what I really want in life: health, passions, etc. I have zero need for work for fulfillment, social life, satisfaction, or whatever or reasons people say that want to work. My biggest goal is early retirement, but working less would make the wait much more bearable.
9-80 at 100% seems easier to implement, and more representative of actual working conditions.
I made that move at the beginning of this year and it works great. Min hours is set at 24 with the flexibility to work more at an hourly rate. It's a win-win, I'm cheaper to the company, feel more free, and they still get most of my mental performance at lower cost.

A 5x6hr or 6x6hr schedule seems to work well also. SW is a mental game, and similar to learning an instrument the reps and sleep time in between matters more than giant globs of hours with declining productivity and potential bad habits/injuries due to fatigue.

No, because realistically I work 1-2 days for 100% salary.
My partner and me kinda did it: we are both at 90%, taking every other wednesday to take turns taking care of our child. It's really worth it, and the pay cut is manageable.
4 days for 80%, maybe. It depends greatly where you are in life.

But as you also state, i wonder if, due to Parkinson’s Law, that it would be mutual beneficial for all both employers – and employees – to work 4 days for 90% of the pay?

I actually do, after years of being indie developer I joined fintech company as a tech lead and am working 4 days a week for 80% of pay and spend extra day working on my farm. I do have flexible schedule, but usually take either Wed or Thu day off.

As far as I know I was first who had this arrangement two years ago, but now I see it quite common among my team. I am also thinking about lowering my work to 3 days a week for further pay reduction.

I currently work 32 hours / week at 80% pay and have done so for some time. On paper we agreed on 5*6,4 hours per week, but it is really flexibel. In practice I work somewhere between 32-40 hours a week and additionally take a couple of days off per month.

For me, it's the best arrangement I've ever had. If I don't feel like it or need to take care of some other stuff, I just work for a couple hours a day. Other times I really enjoy it and work 8-10. Additionally I get long weekends without having to use any holidays.

I also think my employer gets a better deal this way. Being productive 8 hours a day is more or less wishful thinking. I think the reality is somewhere between 4-6 hours for normal people. Hence I'm still almost as productive asif I were working 40h/week, but at 80% the cost for my employer. Everybody wins.

YES! And I have been doing it for the last 9 years.

In fact I recently went down to 3 days a week for 60% salary and that's even better (although I do use the other day for other work sometimes if it's something I'd like to do).

Main benefit has been increased time with my daughter.

My 2 cents for anyone trying it:

1) Take Monday off - everyone is still getting stuff together on Monday so it won't be so disruptive. Plus, you won't hate Mondays anymore :)

2) Be very strict with the day off. Never compromise on it, at least for the first few months. Make sure everyone understands that you are absolutely not working and cannot work that day and things will be OK. If you don't it will cause confusion and many problems.

4 days per week for 100% salary. Those 20% need to be taken from dividends of the parasitic class.