Inspired by the realisation that energy consumption can be checked by reducing the time spent by employees in offices, many companies have adopted strategies like reducing the number of days in a month. However, some people feel that such a plan can have a negative impact on the performance of businesses and the welfare of employees.
Firstly, there would be a substantial reduction in expenses in terms of electricity consumption, water usage and fuel costs. Moreover, with the reduced working hours and longer leisure time it is likely that the productivity of employees would improve, compensating for the hours lost. For example, the number of days in a week has been reduced from six to five in many government posts in India. While it has substantially cut down costs in terms of lighting and running of job machinery, the work completed in a similar duration has not been seriously affected. Similarly, the commuting of employees and movement of vehicles has been reduced, resulting in substantial fuel savings.
Secondly, critics believe that having 32 hours of job do affect output and reduce the earning capacity of employees. This would mean that losing a considerable number of man-hours at the place would affect the performance of companies. Moreover, the loss of wages due to fewer hours can discourage workers.
After considering both views, from a broader perspective, the substantial energy saving achieved by modern companies should be given greater prominence. Moreover, the drawbacks can be minimized by introducing alternative methods like telecommuting, where employees do not come to the office, but handle it from home using modern telecommunication systems.
In short, although there are minor disadvantages to this system, shorter hours can have greater benefits to individuals and society by saving the depleting resources of the world.