Is a Four-Day Working Week the Secret of Happiness?
Finland’s new prime minister has recently proposed the idea of a four-day working week. It sounds quite glorious, doesn’t it? Reducing the length of the working week has been shown to boost productivity. When, in August, Microsoft Japan tested a four-day week, productivity shot up by about 40%. One Melbourne organisation found a six-hour working day forced employees to eliminate unproductive activities such as sending pointless emails, sitting in lengthy meetings and wasting time on the internet. British businesses that have successfully switched to a four-day week include Elektra Lighting and Portcullis Legals.
A survey by one British workers’ organisation found that only 45% of employees want a four-day week. However, according to a study by Henley Business School, 77% of workers said a four-day week improved their quality of life. When the city of Gothenburg in Sweden introduced a six-hour day for some nurses, the nurses became healthier, happier and more energetic. Reducing working hours is also good for the natural environment. A shorter working week could lead to a significant cut in our carbon footprint as employees produce less carbon emissions getting to work, use fewer resources at work and have more time to cook and shop instead of buying takeaway food delivered in plastic containers.
Although a shorter working week has many benefits, it is not a magic solution. The Wellcome Trust backtracked on plans for a four-day week, saying it would be “too operationally complex”. Gothenberg dropped its six-hour-day experiment because of increased costs. In general, bosses tend to worry that a shorter working week will create staffing challenges and make it harder to serve customers, while employees worry that working less will make them look lazy.
These
challenges are not impossible to face, though. Indeed, reduced working days are
nothing new. Since the industrial revolution, the number of hours worked has
been falling. When working hours in Britain were cut from about 54 hours a week
to 48 hours a week in 1919, it had no effect on productivity and
competitiveness. Kellogg’s, the US cereal manufacturer, successfully operated a
six-hour working-day policy for many years in the middle of the 20th century.
It was only dropped because management wanted the firm to have work practices
like other companies. It is entirely possible to be happier, more productive and
environmentally friendly at work. It sounds too good to be true, but it could
soon be the norm.
6
Jan 2020, The Guardian (Adapted)
Question 1 [2 POINTS] Indicate whether the following statements are TRUE or FALSE and write down the sentence or the part of the text that justifies your answer. No points will be given if the evidence is not correct.
1.
Finland has already implemented the four-day working week.
FALSE: Finland’s new prime minister has
recently suggested the idea of a four-day working week.
2.
One of the surveys mentioned said that less than half of those asked would like
to
make
this change.
TRUE: A survey by one British workers’ organisation found that only 45% of employees want a four-day week.
3. The average number of hours worked weekly in
Britain increased in 1919.
FALSE: When working hours in Britain
were cut from about 54 hours a week to 48 hours a week in 1919,
4.
Kellogg`s changed their policy so as not to be different from other companies.
TRUE: It was only dropped because management wanted the firm to have work practices like other companies.
Question 2 [2 POINTS] Choose and answer only TWO of the following questions in your own words according to the text.
1.
What are the advantages to a shorter working week according to the text?
A shorter working week improves productivity considerably because workers make better use of their time. It is also reported to improve people’s lives and make them healthier. It is even said to be good for the environment as it reduces pollution.
2.
Why have some companies and organisations rejected or changed their minds about
this issue?
Implementing a shorter working week can be difficult to do and can be more expensive for the companies. There could be problems with finding staff and with dealing with clients successfully. Some companies are also worried about being different from the norm and appearing to be lazy.
3.
What different information does the text give about working habits in the UK?
IDEAS:
• One British survey says that 45% of people favour a shorter working week.
• A Henley Business School study found that over three quarters of workers think a shorter working week would improve their life in general.
• The British working week became considerably shorter – from 54 to 48 hours in 1919.
Question 3 [1.5 POINTS] Find words or
phrases in the text that correspond to the words given. You only need to have
five correct answers to get 1.5 points.
1.
Wonderful (Paragraph 1) GLORIOUS
2.
Workers (Paragraph 1) EMPLOYEES
3.
Less in number (Paragraph 2)
FEWER
4.
Employers (Paragraph 3) BOSSES
5.
In fact, actually (Paragraph 4) INDEED
6.
Completely (Paragraph 4) ENTIRELY
Question 4 [1.5 POINTS] Choose the correct option - a, b, c or d - for each question and COPY both the letter and the sentence that follows onto your answer sheet.
1.
Thanks to the changes made in Gothenburg, nurses said...
a. ...they felt better both physically and emotionally.
b.
...they felt better physically but not emotionally.
c.
...they did not feel better either physically or emotionally.
d. …they
felt better emotionally but worse physically.
2.
The text says that people who work fewer hours per week...
a.
...are likely to buy more prepared food.
b. ...are unlikely to buy more prepared food.
c.
...are unlikely to do more cooking at home.
d.
...are unlikely to change their eating habits at all.
3.
The Gothenburg project did not continue...
a.
...because it was difficult to implement.
b. ...because it proved more expensive.
c.
...because customers complained about the service they received.
d.
...because the workers became lazier.
No comments:
Post a Comment