As described in this posting, it's ridiculously vague, and as I said above, I'd like to see someone try to enforce it. What if I want to mow my lawn on Friday? Is that acceptable? What if I want to mow someone else's lawn as a favor? What if I want to mow someone else's lawn and they pay me even though I'm not running a lawn-mowing business? What if, instead of mowing someone's lawn I help them out by reinstalling some software or configuring their home network? What if I do a good enough job that they recommend me to a mutual acquaintance? To someone they know from their work? To others in the neighborhood? There's a huge range of options that this paints over, and the devil's in the details. As they've described their policy of "giving back" Friday, it could be interpreted as not letting their employees do anything except lay in bed because, damnit, they need to know their employees are resting like the owners intended.

Frankly, I'm not convinced you're seeing the implications to such a vague policy.

And frankly, I think you're missing the atmosphere in which the policy is offered. I think the kind of place that is willing to offer you a 32 hour week with a day off is the kind of place that's not going to be overly concerned about slicing and dicing the policy to the finest point.

It strikes me that a place this good-natured wouldn't split hairs.

While I generally agree, without seeing the contract, I'm left wondering exactly where the line is drawn. I accept that, since I'm not being offered an employment contract at Carsonified, it's perhaps none of my business, and that's fair -- but mostly I'm curious about the verbiage on the 'day off' bit.

Seriously, how do you argue with this even a little?

Virtually every other employer in the world will fire you instantly for working a second job during the day on Friday, as an extension of the rule that requires them to fire you for going fishing during the day on Friday. It is beyond reasonable for an employer to require you not to work a second job on Friday in exchange for the day off. So far past reasonable I can't imagine it ever coming up the real world; team members at the 4-day-a-week would probably quit before alienating the company.

A four day work week is just a huge, generous benefit.

I didn't necessarily say that I was arguing. I mean, it's perfectly within their right -- but, where it's generally more acceptable to allow moonlighting on the proverbial Saturdays and Sundays, if they're advertising Friday as a 'day off', then I should be free to do the same.

I completely agree with your assertion that it's their right to request you not to, and I can certainly understand the logic of it, specifically in trying not to attract people looking to do the minimal work effort so that they can reap the benefits of another paycheck.

Regardless, I have questions. If the Friday is a 'day off', then how is it different than Saturday and Sunday. Do they also insist that you not have a second job on those days? What specifically does it prohibit? Can I work on an open source project? Can I boostrap my own projects? What if they become successful?

I was really hoping somebody from Carsonified could speak to this really, and not trying to start an argument, but I do have my own take on things -- I'd just love to know more.

When a company gives you Sat. and Sun. off, they're doing it because it's the normal thing to do -- it's not even a decision. When a company gives you Friday off, they're doing it because they've calculated that it will enhance their business somehow. If you come along and decide to treat the day as if it were a normal day off, you're missing the point.

It's like if a company gives you free sodas, it's not the same thing as a Coke van on campus giving out free twelve-packs, you're not supposed to load your backpack full of sodas every afternoon when you leave work, just because they're "free".

I don't know if it's actually like that at all, but that's exactly why I'm trying to get more insight on the policy.

I work better in bursts. Telling me to go home so that I can be well rested is a detriment to how I generally work.

The question revolves around whether it's my time or it isn't. If it is, then why put constraints on it? If it isn't, then tell me. Either way, I believe it's a fair negotiation, honestly, I'd just like to know where the actual boundary is.

Speaking only for myself, if I started a company that offered a 4-day work week, and a candidate told me they intended to spend that time freelancing, "NO HIRE".

So, where do you draw the line between 'spending that time freelancing' and 'spending that time programming to become a better programmer?'

My major gripe with it is that I'd rather have a flexible schedule that allowed me to work when I was in the zone and rest when I was weary. I understand that, from an employer's perspective, it's hard to monitor, and especially hard to make sure that you're "getting your money's worth" to a micro-manager, but if the core philosophy is that they want me to be highly productive and well-rested, those ideals are somewhat at odds -- at least for the way I work.

I'd much rather spend 14 hours non-stop on something if I'm making progress on it, and rest when the task is finished than be arbitrarily asked to stop for whatever reason. This doesn't burn me out in the least. Doing that non-stop definitely does, but I generally allow myself time to reset between tasks, when I'm less likely to forget things, or lose track of where I was in the code.

You have a counterpart in management somewhere, with the same mindset about work rules, and he is the reason his team can't have a 4-day work week. No offense.

None taken.

At my last gig, I was management. My program manager hated it, but I refused to care who was coming in late and who was leaving early. It wasn't a terribly large team, and it was quite easy to know who was performing, and who wasn't. As we were meeting all our deadlines, and I never felt like I was being taken advantage of, I never saw it as an issue.

My program manager, on the other hand, firmly believed in the 9-5 mentality, even when it was clearly not working for our team.

Before that, I worked at a job where I was free to come and go as I pleased, so long as the work got done. The work got done, generally ahead of deadline. Admittedly, I was the only 'developer' on that team, but with careful hiring, and a slow evolution toward freedom, things were a-okay. When I left there for greener pastures, we'd had consecutive years in which each year was better than the last, dollar-wise.

To beat the horse dead, you really got it right the first time, in that I'm free to take or leave the offer. I'd just really like to understand it better. The 32-hour week isn't for everybody. 4 10 hour shifts isn't for everybody. 5 8 hour shifts isn't for everybody.

I'm sure it seems that I've made a mountain out of a molehill, and perhaps I have, which is ironic, since it doesn't really reflect what I'd want out of a job -- it's just confounding to me that they would say 'four day weeks are the norm', but then follow that up with 'well, it's really a five day week, you're just not allowed to do anything on the fifth.'

I think we're running out of arguing room, so I'll finish by saying that really, I don't disagree with you in theory, or even in practice. It is perfectly within their right to structure their work weeks however they choose, and it is perfectly within the right of potential hires to take or leave potential offers from Carson and crew, and it is perfectly within the right of Carson to not hire people who would like to use their off-time to stay sharp. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't take the job at Carsonified (I've heard great things about Bath, England, as well as that team) -- it just means I'd have questions if I saw that in my contract.

Since nobody from Carsonified has chimed in here to clear it up my hypotheticals, I'll save any further ponderance for the unlikely event that I'm ever presented with such a contract.