Usually it's a split in the middle of the week or something, for example my manager doesn't work tuesday's, it's his "papadag" as he then spends time with his kids and don't have to send them off to day-care or get a nanny.
Another colleague of mine dropped his contract from 40 hours a week down to 32 hours so he would have an extra day to work on his music career and an upcoming album.
Obviously these arrangements will affect your salary as you work less.
I'd much prefer increased flexibility over less hours.
For single parents going from 40 to 32 hours per week can be a net-neutral operation from a money perspective. The various tax breaks will increase with just about the same as your net salary drops. In rare cases you'll even end up with net a bit more than before. Going from 32 to 24 might still be the same, below that the balance shifts and you end up with less.
I just ran the numbers with one of my employees in NL and we came to this exact conclusion so she decided to work one day less. In countries with a strong social net the equation is not always as simple as time*hourly rate, your situation should be taken into account as well.
brb talking to the boss.
The research here also says that the 32 hours can be just as productive as the 40.
Would they still get one if the daycare was cheaper and with plenty of room for everyone or would they prefer the salary increase?
I think the dad does 3 days and the mum does 2 days. They have found it worked for them and they can share the joy of looking after their kids on a weekly basis. They still do the 8hr/day for 5day/week. In this way, they are having vatertag and muttertag every week.
I don't really find this obvious or self-evident. One of my very biggest complaints about the economic climate today is that all of the productivity gains go to the owners, and very little to workers. If I as a worker am producing more, it follows that I should be working less, or paid more (which amounts to the same thing.) to do otherwise eliminates jobs that would otherwise need to be done, and takes advantage of workers.
The solution to this is to become an owner. Now, creating and operating a company is probably harder than working for it, for it it weren't, why wouldn't people just become owners if it pays better?
If there is such an obvious imbalance, why doesn't everyone just quit and start their own company?
Your point would make some sense if all owners of companies bootstrapped them from startups, when in reality they were likely just someone who was otherwise wealthy and became owners once it was already a successful company when the original owners already cashed out (or passed on, depending on the age of the company).
Being able to work 4 days instead? A god-send. I couldn't think of anything I'd like more. Thankfully, my current job gets me part of the way there -- I work 4 days in the office and one day at home (where I do just as much work but either condensed or spread out during the day depending on the current project workload).
It will be interesting to see what differs from 8-hour days, both in free time, shopping, traffic, and more.
Imagine that the 6-hour day is successful, and we can make shifts. Some people go to work from 8 - 2, others from 12-6. That could lighten some traffic jams I venture.
That's only assuming there are no constant(independent of how long he work) costs to employ someone. In many countries it's not true.