Do you think working four 10-hour days saves money?

Well, in your case, they would probably be saving on air conditioning costs. Think of your own savings. If I worked a four day work week, I would be saving about $300 in daycare costs and about $40.00 in gas.

For the employee, I think there would be a large savings in gas for the car over a year's time. It would be interesting to see how many employees would be saving gas and then how many miles per employee. That could also be a savings for the environment. Even though the lights are left on, how about all the other equipment and the cost to run it. I think I would love to have an extra day off per week also.

i think that it could save money in a lot of ways. you will only need a babysitter 4 days a week instead of five. you will only have to drive to work 4 times a week instead of five. if you take a lunch to work, you will only have to do that 4 times instead of five. i think that 4 10 hour days are a lot easier. it gives you more days off during the week to do other things outside of work . i think it is a lot better

The heat does not remain on all the time. It is switched on one hour before openign and switched off one hour after office. if this additional hour can be saved or an additional day, imagine the saving in all offices of the government. It is not only the saving in the offices, the additional day people get as holiday gives them three days break at the end of the week. The will venture out on picnic and holidays thus spending more an as a result boosting the economy.

I would think it would save everybody some money, including the workers. Think about the gas you don't need to use to get to work, plus food is cheaper at home, etc.

Ya of course working for long time can help u make more money but to save the money you have to actually save it,only earning more cannot help to save money ,reducing expenses can save the money If u dont have the proper budget line ,u can never save the money ,no matter how much u earn and for how long u work so the main thing is to manage the budget.

I can see the idea working for the staff...they're getting their 40 hours in,getting paid for it,then that's an extra day they don't have to commute each week,maybe not have to put young kids in daycare..but would the buildings shut down and stand empty the other 3 days? Cleaning,maintenance,and Security crews have to do their thing too..would all the staff be working (say) an 8am-6pm workday? Or would there still be overtime?

My niece works this schedule. I do think it does cut down on costs for the employer and employees. Down where you are they use more AC than we do up north, so in the end it does even out.

Not only are they saving money by not having the lights on for 3 days, but they are saving the employees money in gas. One less trip a week can add up for alot of people. My father used to drive an hour and a half to his job every day and then back again. 3hrs on the road every day gets old. I'm sure there are several employees that live pretty far away and will like that they have to travel one less day.

Personally I would prefer working only four days and I guess it would save on transport costs etc... As far as saving for the government, I guess you are quite right, the lights heating etc... will just be on for longer during the four days so it probably wouldn't make much difference in the long run.

I can see their logic. They may not turn off the heat, but they will turn it down, and thus, save money. The lights will still be on for 40 hours a week, but chances are that no one will be in the building on Friday, and people will probably leave at the same time rather than some peopl staying later. Even in Florida, where the air conditioner is more likely to be used, they will turn it off or raise the temperature to help save money there too. Plus, a lot of workers will get more done and create less ovetime this way. Also, this would give the employees who want to seek additional employment three days a week availability for a part-time job. I used to work that kind of shift and loved it. I had a longer weekend and more time for other ventures. I think it is good idea.

Yes, I think it will save money. Even though the lights are on for two hours longer, we all know there is more electricity used turning lights off and on over just keeping them on. Mythbusters actually did a test of this. So, for them to go to four days a week makes a great deal of sense. And in terms of heat, you don't turn it off. Most companies have it set at 68 in the winter and 72 in the summer as those are the registers that maintain inexpensive electrical usage.

Save money for who? I think employees will save more time and money working 4 longer days than 5 shorter days. After all, one day less commute to office, that will translate to 1.5 to 2 or even 3 hours of free time per week. As for the company, can't see much savings if the office open for 5 days. Unless the office really closes for a day, which is less likely for government. I think it's more likely that some employees work Mon to Thurs and some work Tues to Fri, some probably enjoy a day off in the middle of the week.

I think the four day work week was meant to help the employee more than the employer. That's why the gov't is doing it because we all know the government obviously has money to burn. I think they are trying to implement plans for the heat and air to be turned down on those days and the computers and lights turned off. This may save money, but more than anything it will save energy. I don't think the savings will be that great financially.