T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
2794.1 | well yeah, but... | SPEZKO::DICKINSON | | Mon Nov 22 1993 13:47 | 5 |
|
Nice work if you can afford it.
|
2794.2 | | ASDG::FOSTER | Like a Phoenix Rising | Mon Nov 22 1993 15:49 | 7 |
|
But I guess that's just it. There are probably PLENTY of people in
Digital-US who COULD afford to live on less, and who MIGHT like the
opportunity to work a shorter week or a shorter day.
But if that option isn't discussed, we'll never know, will we!
|
2794.3 | Something's wrong with this picture | TOOK::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Mon Nov 22 1993 15:52 | 9 |
| re: .0
> involving salary cuts averaging about 7 percent for people
> choosing a four-day week.
What's missing here? Reduce the workweek by 20 percent but the payroll
by only 7%? Can't be right, can it?
-Jack
|
2794.4 | Another way to prolong the inevitable | AKOCOA::BBARRY | So, when will THEN be NOW? | Mon Nov 22 1993 15:52 | 6 |
| I believe 'job-sharing' already exists here in U.S. We have a few
people in Acton doing it. On the other hand, I feel it is just
adding insult to injury. A very slow bleeding, rather than a fatal
blow.
/Bob
|
2794.5 | Speculation on 7% cut for 4 days | CARROL::SCHMIDT | Music's written by living composers | Mon Nov 22 1993 16:29 | 18 |
|
Re: .3
Yeah, I noticed that too, the 7% salary reduction for a 4-day
week. But like Will Rogers, I only know what I read in the
papers.
Speculation-alert: Maybe that was meant to be an incentive,
or maybe each 4-day workday is a bit longer.
Maybe someone in the company knows the details.
I'd still consider the key word in that plan to be "option",
meaning "voluntary". Involuntary work-sharing wouldn't work.
Peter
|
2794.6 | About 1/2 of them... | DIODE::CROWELL | Jon Crowell | Mon Nov 22 1993 17:21 | 10 |
|
I've known many folks here at Digital-US that have worked far less than
four days in a five day week. They retained 100% of their salarys!
Ken Olsen was reported to have been asked; "How many people work at
DEC?" He responded;
"About 1/2 of them..."
Jon
|
2794.7 | | HAMIS3::VEEH | uncontaminated by cheese | Tue Nov 23 1993 01:53 | 11 |
| As far as I know, the French Government pays the companys parts of the money
which will be saved for not paying people unemployment money. Therefore the
20% workreduction vs 7% wagereduction might be the answer. At the end of it,
the government is paying the people for working less to save jobs.
In Germany we have the same discussion. VW (Volkswagen) is planig a 28hour
week by paying the staff about 20% less. Unions and the SPD (opposition party)
are claiming to pay the staff parts from the unemployment money which will be
saved in not laying off 30.000 people from VW.
Stefan�
|
2794.8 | WORLDWIDE working time reduction is a must! | KBOMFG::KUISLE | | Tue Nov 23 1993 04:02 | 18 |
| From a global point of view (let's have a look from a space ship) the worldwide
reduction of working time is the only chance for humans to survive in long term.
The reasons are the increasing productivity, the increasing number of workers
and the limitation of resources!
But the mess is that no SINGLE country and no SINGLE company can afford a
working time reduction, because it's products are getting more expensive
than these of the competitors.
Currently the companies in the rich countries bypasses their cost problem
through production in cheap salery countries. But who will buy the products
in the near future, if the workers who are producing the things do not earn
the money to buy them?
So, what can we do?
Bernhard
|
2794.9 | | BHAJEE::JAERVINEN | Ora, the Old Rural Amateur | Tue Nov 23 1993 05:14 | 21 |
| I think .7 is right - under certain circumstances the French government
subsidises the employer so that the salary cuts are smaller than the
cut in the working hours. The idea behind this is that paying the
subsidy is much cheaper than taking care of the unemployed. Also, if
I'm not mistaken, the current working hours in France are now 39/week,
the proposed 4-day week has 32 hrs so the cut in time is about 18%.
The Digital and HP plans have been on a voluntary basis, and I doubt
whether they've been subsidised yet.
The WV plan (nothing has been decided yet) does propose a 28 hour week
but the starting point would be a 36 hour week (maybe 35). Many
different models are being discussed, including working normal hours
and taking longer vacations etc.
There are many studies around which say that part-time employees tend
to be more productive, so in many cases the loss in productivity might
be less than the decrease in wroking hours. Also, many European
countries have a fairly steep tax progression curve, so a say 20% loss
in gross pay doesn't necessarily mean a 20% loss in take-home pay.
|
2794.10 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Tue Nov 23 1993 11:49 | 10 |
|
This is also a 2-year deal.
After 2 years, if you want to continue on 4 days, you have to take
the full 20% cut, or you can choose to go back full time on full pay.
I saw this first on Livewire on VTX, and it also has been discussed in
other notes conferences, so it's not "secret".
Heather
|
2794.11 | | TOOK::MORRISON | Bob M. LKG1-3/A11 226-7570 | Tue Nov 23 1993 16:31 | 11 |
| I agree, why can't we do this here? One reason that is often cited for not
putting people on reduced hours is that the company doesn't save anything per
employee on health and life insurance, which comprise a high percentage of the
total overhead per employee. Also, does the office shut down one day a week to
accommodate people on a 4-day week or do you have 4/5 of the workforce there
5 days a week? The former doesn't work if some people are still on a five-
day week, and the latter is awkward for people whose day off doesn't fall on
a Monday or Friday.
People can reduce their time to 30 hours a week (I think) and still be con-
sidered full-time employees for benefits purposes. I know of only a few people
who have done this.
|
2794.12 | From France | EVOAI2::BRUSSOLO | please run fsck ... | Wed Nov 24 1993 08:25 | 10 |
|
For the first two years ,volontary people that choose to work 4/5
days a week will get 92.8% of their full time salary.
That means 80% salary + a bonus.
After the period ,the salary drop to 80%.
This is possible because the company can reduce significantly
its insurrance contributions (that are particulary high in France).
According management ,this program has saved 92 jobs of the last
layoff.
Claude
|
2794.13 | ex | CARROL::SCHMIDT | Music's written by living composers | Wed Nov 24 1993 08:56 | 14 |
|
Yes, according to Personnel Policies and Procedures, employees
who work 30 hours or more are eligible for the same types of
benefits, although some vary. For example, full medical and
dental, but pro-rated holiday and vacation pay.
So you can make your own deal with your manager. But taking it
past the personal decision for those of us who would consider
that choice, I'd want to see it tied specifically to saving jobs
for others. This is the shining example that the plan in France
offers us, and an example for the future.
Peter
|
2794.14 | Pro-rating benefits? | 32FAR::MKELFER | | Wed Nov 24 1993 12:34 | 10 |
| Has there been any thought to pro-rating the amount of health, medical
and life insurance Digital contributes for a part time employee?
Right now if you go below 30 hours a week, you lose the major benefits
outright. It seems fairer to have the employee contribute more to
the insurance cost if he/she is working less than 40 hours. It also
may help some folks who want to work less than 30 hours but can't
afford to pay for benefits on their own.
Marie
|
2794.15 | HP program was Excellent! | ELMAGO::JGRAHAM | JERRY GRAHAM 552-2458 | Wed Dec 01 1993 09:11 | 14 |
| While working for Hewlett Packard in the early 80's I gained first hand
experience with going to a reduced number of workdays. They
implemented a mandatory plan that the entire facility shut down every
other Friday.
This was a cost reduction effort to save jobs and was in force for
about 6 months. I wasn't too keen on the idea at first but when the
program ended I sure missed that 3 day weekend every other week! This
plan did reduce costs enough to avoid layoffs at the time. The plan
was effective in my opinon becuase it was mandatory. There were no
issues with conflicting work schedules. No one had to work around
someone elses availabilty since we all had the same day off.
Jerry
|
2794.16 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Wed Dec 01 1993 09:24 | 17 |
| >. Also, does the office shut down one day a week to
>accommodate people on a 4-day week or do you have 4/5 of the workforce there
>5 days a week? The former doesn't work if some people are still on a five-
>day week, and the latter is awkward for people whose day off doesn't fall on
>a Monday or Friday.
You could use flexible working practices - where many people don't
have a full-time desk at all.
This enabled us to fit 700+ people into a building with less than 500
seats.
...................and this was on a 5-day Mon-Friday week.
It meant we could close other offices and save bulding costs.
Heather
|