In February 2015, a Swedish retirement home piloted an experiment that witnessed a switch from an eight-hour to a six-hour working day. While maintaining the same wage, the experiment investigated the improvement in quality and efficiency of care within the retirement home, and the Svartedalens experiment has demonstrated successful results. A shorter work day has allowed workers to “increase productivity while reducing staff turnover”. As previously discussed in our tutorial, one of the highest and least recognized costs for a company is the staff turnover; therefore, this shift in working days helps reduce the company’s cost. Although the cost for staff turnover is decreased, do the savings outweigh the cost for the employment of more staff needed to accommodate the extra shifts?
Cost, revenue and subsequently profit are all key figures that affect a company’s success; however, how do the employees’ wellbeing and the standard of service affect a company? Both wellbeing and service are unquantifiable, so how does a company weigh the benefits of the improvements in service and employee wellbeing against the cost of the additional employees? Although they may be unquantifiable, Toyota has correlated an increase in profits of 25% with staff making fewer mistakes. While the Svartedalens experiment witnessed success in the health care sector in Sweden, there are many challenges that may arise with a decrease in monthly income. To prevent a decrease in salary, one must compensate by adding another working day to their week; therefore, the benefits of a shorter working day may not take effect. While there are many benefits associated with a shorter working day, I believe that it may not always be a beneficial option in all sectors of work.
Referred to Article: Efficiency Up, turnover down: Sweden experiments with six-hour working day