Assuming you get double time for working Sunday, you could just work Sunday and any three of the normal week and get your four day week without any change.

But what business that hired you full time because they need you full time would let you do that?

Also, there isn't any reason a current full time person couldn't just move their weekend. They could request to work Sunday to Thursday. Make the request based on the fact they'd like to have a day at work with no distractions. Keep the employer happy by not requesting any weekend pay loading.

So flexibility in contracts is all I'm asking. And this same flexibility for everyone. And everyone actually USING this flexibility.

ie. What Howard just brought in with the work place reform.

I guess I feel all dirty now.

It occurs to me that my four day working week concept is nothing new. It is effectively:

1. Everyone is a contractor.
2. Everyone arranges as part of their contract to only work four days a week. Or to take that amount of time off as leave at various points during the year.

Contractors do not get public holiday pay or annual / sick leave. They are paid a loading that takes this into account. A loading that is worth about getting paid five days for working four.

So most contractors already do point 2. The pros and cons of being a contractor vs. full time have been long discussed and are not very interesting.

And if you believe the studies, the trend in business these days is to hire contractors instead of full time workers.

If you think in terms of long term contracts (signing for multiple years) there isn't much difference between full time and contracting. Full timers get Annual Leave / Sick leave etc. but contractors get paid extra to cover that. Contractors "don't get job security" but this is only due to the cost of paying out left over Annual Leave entitlements (and Long Service). They're less expensive to fire. There is no reason the law couldn't be changed to allow contractors the same Long Service and Redundancy penalties and notice as full timers. And a long term contractor is just as expensive and difficult to replace (interview process, lost knowledge) as a long term full timer.

Isn't a full time job just a contractor job with no end date?

Contractors have to look after their own superannuation and tax, but they typically go through a third party to arrange this. Again there is no reason an employer couldn't be allowed to do this, like they do now for full timers.

I remember reading recently that there is work being done to give many of the rights above (redundancy payments etc.) to contractors.

So assuming contractors got all of the rights and benefits full time work got, ignoring leave, the only real difficulty they have is budgeting and putting money aside so they can take long holidays if they wish.

So the real core of the concept is making four days a week as standard and giving workers flexibility on which four days they work. And giving contractors similar rights to full time workers.

I was mostly interested in the changes to society that abolishing Saturday and Sunday as the default weekend would cause.

Maybe this has already halfway happened?

[See my story on the four day week, please comment]

You get some interesting articles when searching for the four day week concept on Google.

Most are talking about the threat of some schools having to move to a four day week due to staff shortages, or the general concept of the four day schooling week. I see no reason why my idea couldn't support five days a week of schooling, however I see a lot of benefits to having a four day week of schooling as well, particularly if the four day working week was brought in. Schooling is one issue I haven't fully thought out though.

Another talks about companies offering a four day week. However they are offering 10 hour days. My idea is less hours for the same pay (minus some existing benefits).

Update: Some extra notes on this concept and my realisation this is nothing new.

---

The suggestion:

• Full time workers no longer work Monday to Friday with the weekend off. They work "four days a week".
• Workers would get the same pay they get for a five day week.
• The concept of the weekend (as in Saturday and Sunday) will be abolished.
• Annual Leave and (paid) Public Holidays will be abolished.
• Workers will have freedom of when they work. They could work one day on and one day off. Or have a three day "weekend". There would need to be some concession to the requirements of shift workers (customer service and retail for example).

Getting paid five days for working four acknowledges the penalty rates usually paid for working weekends and the pay usually received on Annual Leave and Public Holidays.

This is paid for by removing day based penalty rates (weekend work no longer exists). Penalty rates will still be paid for overtime (if you work more than 8 hours a day) and will be strongly enforced by law.

The concept of a day off for Public Holidays will remain as they often serve an important social purpose (such as Labour Day and what it is there to remind us of). However you will not get penalty rates for working on a public holiday and you must still work at least four days a week. Employers will be requested to ensure their employees do not work on Public Holidays. If you do work a public holiday you will receive a day off in lieu, not extra pay.

That is, if you're not working, you're not getting paid.

Workers can work more than four days a week. They will receive one day time in lieu for each extra day worked per week. No penalty rate. You cannot get cash for working extra, only time off. You can get cash for working overtime (more than 8 hours a day).

A few in the office suggested abolishing annual leave to pay for this (my original idea still had 4 weeks (4x4 days) off annual leave). There is merit for this idea when you consider that you could work in this system and still work a five day week. If you did this you'd save up 13 weeks off (remembering that a "working week" is only four days). [52 extra days worked / 4 day week] = 13 working weeks off.

A benefit of this system is that it should spread the load on our roads and public transport. Assuming everyone picks random days to work. I suspect though that a social new "standard" of when to work would arise.

Businesses may have to hire more people as people are working less hours, however businesses are no longer paying penalty rates. But they are paying more for each hour worked.

So, please pick more holes in the idea. Comment on your blog. If you know my email, email me.

I'm willing to accept this is a stupid idea if you can find holes. I'm too lazy to do the calculations. Think about your own job, how would this work?

Teachers? Doctors? What about the concept of being on-call? How do you think this would effect productivity in your business? Can you just hire more people or do you produce work that only one person can do and so their work will get done slower? Why is this so? Can it be fixed?

Biggest hole. You're not getting paid for the days off. You don't get paid for Public Holidays and Annual Leave. This could make budgets difficult. Full timers are very used to a steady stream of income. However there is no reason full timers couldn't be paid a set amount each month (as I am) regardless of how long they work, on the assumption they are full time and will work on average X days a year.

You'll notice above I've kept the 8 hour day. A similar issue is the standard of working 9 to 5 and the congestion this causes on roads and public transport (ie. peak hour). It is more difficult to remove the concept of 9 to 5 and allow freedom of hours (particularly in retail and other customer service). I think days-worked freedom is easier to implement. Businesses being open 7 days a week is fairly common these days. Businesses being open 24 hours is less common. Expecting employees to work late hours should require paying them extra for it. I'm willing to discuss methods of allowing complete hours-worked freedom in all types of job, however it is a different discussion to the one I'd like to have on days-worked freedom.

A new proposal in Melbourne to duplicate the West Gate [Herald Sun] with a 3+3 lane road + rail tunnel under the Yarra.

The tunnel would cost "about" $2 billion and would be tolled at about $8 a trip.

There is much support for the idea from the RACV, The Australian Industry Group and the Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They demand better links for commerce to Geelong and the western suburbs. It, or at least the concept of duplicating the West Gate, has the support of pollies on both sides.

An article I read yesterday (which I can't find now) indicated that $2b would pay for "the best public transport system in the world" with three new train lines and buses to the end of "every street". I assume that's an exaggeratation but even if it's half true it's not an opportunity we shouldn't miss.

But of course, the state government doesn't have two billion dollars. They can't build the tunnel without tolls. So they can't put two billion into public transport. Unless...

A recent study [Herald Sun] indicated 40% of people would support building major roads with tolls if it meant the road got built vs. not building it.

Would users accept a new railway to their suburb paid for by a toll (ie. a ticket outside of the normal Zone 1,2,3 system)? If it were cheaper and faster than driving, safe and comfortable I think they might. I haven't heard anyone bring it up.

Unfortunately we're all in love with our cars. To lure people away from cars we need to make public transport better. If it costs the same to take PT to work as it does to drive it's like paying the same to download an album as you pay for the CD. You get much less for the same money, people will laugh at you.

There is no arguement to say driving is cheaper. Owning and using a car to get to work costs much more than taking public transport. So, other than cost, what would get you to take public transport? Why don't you take public transport?

The only arguements I've heard that have no answer for are:

• Safety when getting home late. Even if every station had full security and staff, you still have to walk to the station from work late at night. This arguement was from someone with their own secure car park in the building they work in.
• I hate people and I don't like being squashed up with them, I want to go to work in my own comfortable seat

But... our roads are almost full, and our public transport system is almost full. We've got to apply a major fix to one of them right now or... or what?

Disclaimer: I take the train to work and own a home close to public transport. It is in my interest to ensure public transport remains viable.