|
> For example, they could divide the shifts in half and decrease the chances of getting COVID19 for everybody. That's one of the proposed alternative means of organizing that I've heard. Some of the criticism against it I've heard are the overhead logistically, like the follow up from one shift ending to the next beginning can slow things down. The other criticism I've heard is that the people currently working in those essential jobs don't want to let them go, even partially. There's a human instinct at play, those surplus are their retirement fund, they don't mind working the 40h a week to build it up. Another challenge is education and training, we didn't plan for this, we trained 5 people in essential work, and 5 other in non essential work, so its not like the other 5 can just pick up the work immediately. I also heard some of the opposite happening, with Covid, essential workers are choosing to reduce their own shifts, to protect themselves, and that now causes a lack of surplus, because we reduced production from pre-Covid. Mixed with the lack of availability in people who have the training to take over their "missing shift", its a problem. I still personally think it could be a good idea. As we drive up efficiency more and more with the use of technologies, automation, better techniques and processes, we'll just more and more face this problem, Covid or not. The 5 needed to produce for 10 might become 1 needed to produce for 10. I think we could solve the above problem if there was a political will and a populace movement behind it. A good variant I've heard on it is to make the work week 10 day long, and split shift 5/5. So people work 40h on and take 40h off. That reduces the shift switch overhead, while still allowing two people to contribute to any given job. |