20% paycut for 4-day weeks?

[ditheca]

I have an opportunity at work to cut back to 32 hours a week instead of 40. My benefits won't be affected, but my salary would drop 20%.

It seems awfully extravagant to "pay" for so much free time. On the other hand, we've been maxing our tax-advantaged investments for 10 years -- cutting back now should have minimal impact on our finances.

Not sure what I'd do with the extra time. A more interesting part-time gig/job, write a book, code a video game, volunteering, new hobby? Do I need to commit to a plan before I pull the trigger on more leisure time?

Also concerned that while I'll have permission to off one day a week, my overall responsibilities may not decrease much. I'd hate to take a big pay cut if it comes with the expectation that I'll be just as productive in four days as I am now in five. My boss is aware that could be an issue, and thinks he can temper his expectations. I'm not convinced.

[dandarc]

If you're not convinced that your boss can handle it appropriately, that's something that should give you major pause. If you do go through with it and the workload does not decrease accordingly, are you willing to leave?

Coming up on a year from going from full-time salaried to 24 hours per week hourly at a previous gig. The job is as good or better than it has ever been for me, but I've also managed to do way, way too much volunteering in the new-found free time. That was one big reason I wanted to cut back, but I managed to say yes to far, far too many things over recent months. Volunteering is taking so much mental space that I'm actually wondering if I should have just stayed full time with the built in reason to say no to everything. But then I realize this is an opportunity to learn how to create and enforce some boundaries, so I'm going to try and stick it out and cut back on the volunteering.

I guess one thing I'd do over is writing down a firm commitment to keeping some of that newly found free time fully free - I feel a lot better if I have at least one whole day every week where I can literally do nothing at all. When I first cut back to part time that day was Fridays, but in the intervening months, things have crept back in, both intentionally and not to where it is a problem again.

[reeshau]

Are you actually working those hours, or do you also put in casual overtime?  If the latter, I'd be highly skeptical.
Will you be a rare exception at your company?  Is the day off a "no meeting" day for everyone else?  Or will you be out of the loop for missing it?  (And so, perhaps leading to less productive.  Maybe more productive, for missing meetings!)
Will you lose any benefits at 32 hours?  Seniority?  Bonus payment?  401k contribution?  Right to transfer to a full-time position?

Will it actually be Monday or Friday you get off?  What about paid holidays on those days, then?

Lots of things I can imagine, but I bet you will find things to do--*good* things to do--with that time.  And forgive yourself if you take some weeks or even months to just chill a bit.  Especially heading into summer.

[seattlecyclone]

It seems awfully extravagant to "pay" for so much free time.

Nice thing is that you might not be paying as much as you think. Due to progressive taxation a 20% cut in your base pay will likely cut your take-home pay by less than 20%, and if you add in the benefits that aren't changing your total compensation will be going down by an even smaller percentage. As long as you're actually able to ensure that you'll be handed 20% less work, your pay per hour will be going up, and your free time will be going up. Having done this before myself, it can definitely be a very positive thing.

[bacchi]

If MegaCorp offered this, I would've been first in line.

[Villanelle]

I once did something similar, though it was for a different job rather than a change to the current one.  And I only had every a day off every other week.  It was a 10% decrease in time but not a 10% decrease in pay because I got more per hour.  But I'd have made the choice even if it was a full decrease in pay, knowing what I know now. It was amazing to have that one day a week to run errands and do other things that are much less busy on a week day than a weekend. I was surprised at just how much of a difference it made in my QOL.  I didn't do anything hugely significant with the time like code a video game or learn a new hobby. I did read more, and spend a bit more time on my writing, but not in a really intentional way.  Mostly, I was just happier and less stressed. I felt like weekends were for truly relaxing and recharging, rather than Ikea trips and grocery store runs and post office errands.  All that, for 10% less work.  I'd have done it for a full 10% pay cut.  I'd even have done it for a slightly larger cut, theoretically. 

Are you hourly or salaried?  It sounds like your boss is at least aware that he is going to have to change expectations.  If you general respect him and feel like he is a reasonable guy who respects you, I think it would be worth the risk if you are hourly.  If you are salaried, it is more complicated. 

[ixtap]

It seems awfully extravagant to "pay" for so much free time.

Nice thing is that you might not be paying as much as you think. Due to progressive taxation a 20% cut in your base pay will likely cut your take-home pay by less than 20%, and if you add in the benefits that aren't changing your total compensation will be going down by an even smaller percentage. As long as you're actually able to ensure that you'll be handed 20% less work, your pay per hour will be going up, and your free time will be going up. Having done this before myself, it can definitely be a very positive thing.

Moreover, there is no cut to benefits, so the % lost is even lower depending on those actual benefits.

[never give up]

It seems awfully extravagant to "pay" for so much free time.

In a nutshell you've just described exactly what FIRE is. You're completely correct. It's extremely expensive to pay for free time in terms of the opportunity cost of earnings we forego. When someone retires two years, five years, ten years, twenty years early, think how much earnings are left on the table. We do this though because we value the time more than we value the additional money. I love this concept because it strikes hard at the very core of what we define as enough. That 'enough' word is the antithesis of modern consumer driven lifestyles and it is vital for anyone pursuing FIRE to define what 'enough' means for them. Without grasping this concept, we have no hope of understanding our relationship with money and consequently we'll be unable to home in on a FIRE target number.

I can see part time work being a major part of my transition from full time work to full RE. However, I do feel I will require a few things to be in place for it to make sense:

1. Not feeling trapped in that particular job. If it doesn't work out, if more than the four days worth of hours are required can I walk away? I don't want to do five days work for four days pay. It has to be genuinely a four day job.

2. My stash needs to have 'enough' that the four day week aligns with my overall FIRE number.

3. Management relationship needs to be good and a level of trust is very much required on both sides.

I really hope it works out for you. I believe in the right circumstances part time work can produce many of the benefits of RE, health, developing other interests etc without the concern over markets, valuations, SORR, and the instant disorientating contrast of transitioning from saving hard to drawing down.

[PoutineLover]

I used to work 4 days and I loved it. I was offered the opportunity for 5 so I took it because I'm still early career and could use the money, but the work life balance was so much better.

Instead of wasting a weekend day, I could get chores and errands done on Friday and have a whole weekend off. Anytime I wanted to go away for a weekend, it was a long weekend. Appointments were easy to schedule, stores were open all day.

Highly recommend, if you can afford the pay cut and you're at a stage in your career where it makes sense.

[dhc]

I’ve been doing this for a few years, although in my case I had a specific plan for my weekday off. It’s great, but worth noting that at this point going back to 5-day weeks would be pretty tough for me to handle, which probably limits my options if I wanted to switch companies or roles. It’s sort of reverse hedonic adaptation. Every year I consider whether it still seems worth the pay differential to have that extra day, and so far it always has.


If you have the choice of days off, my favorite is actually Wednesday. It means never having more than 2 work days in a row!

[Blissful Biker]

In my experience of working 4 days a week the actual pay cut is only about 10% as opposed to 20% because
- lower taxes based on a lower salary
- Canada generally has a Stat holiday every month, so I get paid for 5 days while working 4 days one week a month

I am happier, healthier and more productive working 4 days a week.  I encourage you to go for it.

[simonsez]

It seems awfully extravagant to "pay" for so much free time.

If you're only working 40 hours per week instead of 48, are you feeling extravagant about not picking up OT or a side hustle as it stands currently?  Why not work 60 hours a week until you drop dead?  That way you're not wasting any time at all like these retired suckers being bums and not earning.  Life is all about maximizing your net worth at the expense of everything and everyone else.  ;-)

On a serious note, why not try the 4 day weeks out and see how you feel?  You can monitor in situ how it affects all aspects of your life (not just the pecuniary ones) and then a few months down the line weigh the pros and cons and see how you feel about longer term solutions.

[mozar]

This doesn’t help you right now, but California is considering making a law to require 4 day workweeks and making it illegal to decrease pay. So if you’re on the fence, the work world is starting to change anyway.

[Villanelle]

This doesn’t help you right now, but California is considering making a law to require 4 day workweeks and making it illegal to decrease pay. So if you’re on the fence, the work world is starting to change anyway.

Would that be 4 ten hours days, or would they actually be decreasing people's working hours? 

[RWD]

If you have the choice of days off, my favorite is actually Wednesday. It means never having more than 2 work days in a row!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALaTm6VzTBw

[Sanitary Stache]

I am in the end stretch of a limited part time work arraignment I negotiated for 24 hours per week.  My supervisor claims to not have noticed a difference in my availability and my absence at certain meetings has only highlighted the value my contribution provides.

I embarked on the part time schedule to complete a bathroom addition project at my house.  Being able to approach the addition project with enough time to do it all myself has made the work a whole different level of enjoyable.

The reduction in pay in my situation isn't sustainable for ever.  But I hope to find a way to make it the norm.

[dhc]

If you have the choice of days off, my favorite is actually Wednesday. It means never having more than 2 work days in a row!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALaTm6VzTBw

That’s fantastic! And yes, exactly that.

[BigEasyStache]

I dropped to 32 hours/week about a year ago.  Didn't really need the extra 20% and having every Friday off was great for my mental health.  And if you're company handles it like mine there's an extra bonus when you get paid holidays.  For example, we are paid for Good Friday, so that week I only need to make 24 hours (3 days).  Every paid holiday reduces my 32 hour week by 8 hours. And that is sweet!

[seattlecyclone]

My employer at the time only gave paid holidays if you were otherwise scheduled to work on that holiday. Put your day off on Wednesday and you get basically all of the holidays covered.

[RyanAtTanagra]

I’ve been doing this for a few years, although in my case I had a specific plan for my weekday off. It’s great, but worth noting that at this point going back to 5-day weeks would be pretty tough for me to handle, which probably limits my options if I wanted to switch companies or roles. It’s sort of reverse hedonic adaptation. Every year I consider whether it still seems worth the pay differential to have that extra day, and so far it always has.


If you have the choice of days off, my favorite is actually Wednesday. It means never having more than 2 work days in a row!

All of this, except for which day off :-)  To me, 3-day weekends every week are magical.  If I were forced to either switch to Wednesday off, or go back to full time and get my 20% back, I'd go back to 5 days.

I also had a specific plan for my day off, though I'm not sure that's incredibly important.  Unless you're the type that doesn't know what to do with yourself on the 2 days you already get off, in which case a 3rd probably isn't going to add much.  But if you always find yourself, come Sunday, wishing for another day, then I say yes, for the love of god, anyone considering it and able to, just do it.

I decided to do it because I'd been saving for ER for 15 years, and was at a 75% savings rate and questioned why I was working more than I wanted to.  My workload was light enough that I knew I could do it in 32 hours, and dropping a day was the first time in 15 years I'd gotten to see the fruits of all that savings.  Haven't regretted it, though taking a 20% pay cut right before the pandemic, which impacted our business and cancelled bonuses which involved another 20% pay cut, then shortly after I that went from living on a boat to buying a house, with all those increased expenses.... I've definitely felt the money squeeze for the first time in 10 years, and questioned the 4-day thing.  But even after all that, I really don't want to go back to 5 days.  I'm looking for a new job because I expect to get laid off in the next couple years, but it's hard because no one's going to hire @ 32 hours.

[Villanelle]

When I was working part time, I was paid for paid holidays on a % basis, or I could make up the hours.  So if I worked 80% FTE, then I was paid for 6.5 (got the benefit of rounding since everything was in 30 minute increments minimum, IIRC). for that Monday holiday.  If I worked my 3 other days at the usual 8 hours, then I was paid less that week (30.5 hours instead of 32), or I had the option of making up that extra 1.5 if I wanted to.  That always seemed perfectly reasonable to me. 

[Syonyk]

I have an opportunity at work to cut back to 32 hours a week instead of 40. My benefits won't be affected, but my salary would drop 20%.

Do it.  I've been doing 32h weeks for nearly six years now, and I cannot speak highly enough of it.  Three day weekends every week, plus extra long weekends often enough, and the ability to do far more around the house and property than I would otherwise.  I live rural on what was a bare lot, so there's no shortage of things to work on, maintain, improve, etc.  Current project is a 600 sq ft Trex deck, then maybe some stairs on the other side of the house to replace the increasingly inaccurately named "temporary" stairs.  The local school district is also only on 4 day weeks, so Fridays match their time off, which means we can do stuff on a family for the long weekends easily, or just head somewhere fun on a Friday and skip the weekend rush.

Your salary drops 20%.  This trims off the highest tax bracket.  Your benefits remain the same.  And you have a 50% improvement in weekly days off.  It's worth it.  Do it.

It seems awfully extravagant to "pay" for so much free time.

Sorry to be trite, but do you live to work, or work to live?  Have you structured your life around all the expensive luxury goods, or around something different?  If you'd do exactly what you do for work in your free time, and the money goes into the "must have" luxuries you read about in various "Things you can spend money on!" magazines, well... I don't know what to tell you.  Keep working, earn that money, vacation... wherever that happens to be.

We've structured our life as a family around less of that, and so the lack of extra income doesn't make a big difference.  We spend substantially less than comes in on regular spending, and the surplus time and money goes to things like decks, camping, a side business I'm funding R&D on right now, being able to be generous with our time and money, etc.

Not sure what I'd do with the extra time. A more interesting part-time gig/job, write a book, code a video game, volunteering, new hobby? Do I need to commit to a plan before I pull the trigger on more leisure time?

Sleep in, wake up, make coffee, sit outside with a good book and drink the coffee, go inside, make some bread, toss it in the oven, clean the kitchen...  go build something with random scrap lumber.

If your job doesn't drive you nuts and covers your expenses, go find something interesting and enjoyable.  Reject the whole "hustle culture" thing in which you have 10 "things you're working on" at any given point.  If you've got the cash for your desired lifestyle (which can be adjusted on either side - our truck is old enough to drink and the car's almost a teenager), don't worry about trying to turn the extra time into money.  Enjoy it.  If you find something you're good at that's profitable, so be it, but don't force it.

Also concerned that while I'll have permission to off one day a week, my overall responsibilities may not decrease much. I'd hate to take a big pay cut if it comes with the expectation that I'll be just as productive in four days as I am now in five. My boss is aware that could be an issue, and thinks he can temper his expectations. I'm not convinced.

Depending on what your work is, "Time in seat" may or may not correlate to productivity.  I've occasionally tried to force solving hard problems with extra butt-in-seat time, and it rarely works.  Take the weekend off, split some wood, beat on rocks, build a deck, change oil in stuff... and I'm reset and often able to solve things on Monday that were driving me nuts on Thursday.

Try it.  Worst case, you can just go back to 40h, right?

[less4success]

Also concerned that while I'll have permission to off one day a week, my overall responsibilities may not decrease much.

This was pretty much my experience dropping from 5 -> 3 days per week, doing project-based work at MegaCorp. For shift-based work, decreasing hours seems like a great idea, but if you're coordinating with a team that works 5 days per week, I wouldn't do it if you're anywhere close to FIRE (unless you really like your job!).

In my case (close to FIRE), I kind of wish I had just either kept working full-time for a bit or immediately FIREd, instead of having several months of lower pay without drastically reduced expectations. The additional hit to the (roughly) 25% of my pay that was performance-based (and compared against everyone who worked the usual 5 days per week) meant I actually took closer to a 50% (gross) pay cut (although my net pay per hour went up substantially thanks to progressive tax brackets).

Tangentially related: I'm curious if a 50-50 job share (with a reliable coworker who is similarly looking to downshift) would have worked out better.

[lutorm]

Also concerned that while I'll have permission to off one day a week, my overall responsibilities may not decrease much.

This was pretty much my experience dropping from 5 -> 3 days per week, doing project-based work at MegaCorp. For shift-based work, decreasing hours seems like a great idea, but if you're coordinating with a team that works 5 days per week, I wouldn't do it if you're anywhere close to FIRE (unless you really like your job!).

In my case (close to FIRE), I kind of wish I had just either kept working full-time for a bit or immediately FIREd, instead of having several months of lower pay without drastically reduced expectations. The additional hit to the (roughly) 25% of my pay that was performance-based (and compared against everyone who worked the usual 5 days per week) meant I actually took closer to a 50% (gross) pay cut (although my net pay per hour went up substantially thanks to progressive tax brackets).

Tangentially related: I'm curious if a 50-50 job share (with a reliable coworker who is similarly looking to downshift) would have worked out better.

You're saying your performance-based pay decreased more than 40%, because before they thought you were doing a good job and now they don't?

It's a bit funny to talk about "expectations" as if the company expecting you to do more than you can accomplish in the time you work somehow compels you to work more. I mean, it would be a very rare company who would not like you to do more work for no additional pay... I've been working 50% for a year now and frankly I don't care much if they "expect" me to do more work than I do. Yeah, my raises are probably suffering but I've already taken a 50% pay cut and, by definition, the reason I've gone half time is because I value time more than money. It's really just a matter of setting boundaries and holding the line of "if you require this to be done on a time scale that my work schedule does not allow, you'll have to give it to someone else." If they weren't willing to have me work half time, they should have denied my request. Even though my work is an epic workaholic place, I've so far not encountered any real pushback.

[less4success]

Also concerned that while I'll have permission to off one day a week, my overall responsibilities may not decrease much.

This was pretty much my experience dropping from 5 -> 3 days per week, doing project-based work at MegaCorp. For shift-based work, decreasing hours seems like a great idea, but if you're coordinating with a team that works 5 days per week, I wouldn't do it if you're anywhere close to FIRE (unless you really like your job!).

In my case (close to FIRE), I kind of wish I had just either kept working full-time for a bit or immediately FIREd, instead of having several months of lower pay without drastically reduced expectations. The additional hit to the (roughly) 25% of my pay that was performance-based (and compared against everyone who worked the usual 5 days per week) meant I actually took closer to a 50% (gross) pay cut (although my net pay per hour went up substantially thanks to progressive tax brackets).

Tangentially related: I'm curious if a 50-50 job share (with a reliable coworker who is similarly looking to downshift) would have worked out better.

You're saying your performance-based pay decreased more than 40%, because before they thought you were doing a good job and now they don't?

Sort of. To clarify: before (when I was full-time), they thought I was doing an excellent job; after (when I switched to 3 days per week), they thought I was doing an adequate job. It's possible it was a coincidence, but I ended up quitting shortly thereafter, so I'll never know for sure.

Edit to add: part of the difficulty was indeed managing expectations (e.g. saying "I don't have time to do that thing you're asking because I work less than everyone else" or "I can't meet that deadline because I'm literally not working until Tuesday"), but part of the difficulty was unique to being a part-timer at a full-time company, e.g. getting filled in on stuff that happened on my two days off (every week), missing impromptu (in-person) meetings/discussions, replying to all the emails I got when everyone except me was working, and so on. It was like an extra, invisible workload that I only recognized in retrospect.

Glad to hear that your experience has been positive! It seems like my experience was atypical.

[Runrooster]

Also concerned that while I'll have permission to off one day a week, my overall responsibilities may not decrease much. I'd hate to take a big pay cut if it comes with the expectation that I'll be just as productive in four days as I am now in five. My boss is aware that could be an issue, and thinks he can temper his expectations. I'm not convinced.

Have there been other 80% employees before you?  I agree that bosses find it difficult to temper their expectations.

My experience is with actuarial study time.  I worked for a federal agency with a huge actuarial employee base, but few people passing exams, which are standard in the industry and extensive.  My specific manager hadn't had a single student before, and was herself an auditor without a similar exam path.  When I took my first exam, she thought she was giving me 3-4 hours of study time, and there was a big brouhaha when I clarified with the  Chief Actuary that, no, I was getting 100, and because I delayed taking it until the end of the fiscal year, that was a huge portion of my time.  This amount was actually written into the collective bargaining agreement, so it's part of my pay.  This then went up to 132 hours for the upper level exams, which, twice a year, added up to about a full day off every week for 8 months.  That's a lot of time, basically she should have expected me to be a month behind, or given me one or at least half less of a project.  Managers made zero adjustment to my expectations, and I ended up basically working extra hours, lost some hours, and then quit to get the later hours paid out.  I was unhappy, they were unhappy, it was a disaster.

[dhc]

A flip side anecdote to the worries about variable comp: because I am quite efficient, and because I’ve found I’m able to be almost as productive in 4 days as in 5, my variable comp has remained high (albeit, with an 80% multiplier, just like my base salary). If you ask me, my employer is getting an excellent deal (more than 80% of my productivity for just 80% pay), but because I value that extra day more than the 20% off pay, and because I’m still eligible for full benefits, I also feel I’m getting a good deal. Sure, I could probably feel bad that my “pay per productivity unit” or whatever is lower, but I’d still rather work 4 days than 5.


This likely varies greatly by person and role. My role is such that most of my value is not directly related to literal time spent working.

[lutorm]

... but part of the difficulty was unique to being a part-timer at a full-time company, e.g. getting filled in on stuff that happened on my two days off (every week), missing impromptu (in-person) meetings/discussions, replying to all the emails I got when everyone except me was working, and so on. It was like an extra, invisible workload that I only recognized in retrospect.

Yes, that keeping up on emails and updates takes up a larger fraction of the work time is definitely something I've noticed as well. I've also tried to make the point that it's inefficient to put me on tasks that are short-term and require a ton of coordination with other people. However, since I've also been fully remote for over 8 years everyone's sort of used to me not being available for impromptu meetings, etc, so that's not been much of a change.

[bryan995]

I would not do it.  Just start working less, while keep the same hours/comp :)

Consider it an inflationary output efficiency adjustment

[darkskys]

Can you get a job that is results focused vs how many days a week you work? If it something you are good at and can get done in a shorter work week it might be best of both worlds.

Although if you can work out a deal with a manager and they truly keep your workload to 4 days a week then that sounds like a good idea. I plan on that at some point closer to FI.

[Zamboni]

I negotiated Wednesdays off for 20% less pay several years when my children were fairly small. Like you I kept full benefits. I still also had Sat & Sun off.

It was a mixed bag. Mostly good, though.

The good: I love love loved having Wednesday off. I didn't understand why at the time, but I think that little cartoon video nailed it. I work in a job that is pretty mentally taxing and creative, and I'm certain having that day off in the middle of the week actually made me better at my job. It gave me a needed break on the regular and also some needed me-time for low-crowd, low-stress things like grocery shopping. Getting my personal errands and chores done on Wednesday freed up the weekends more to actually enjoy myself instead of running around getting personal stuff done. My kids were in preschool and then kindergarten, so sometimes I volunteered there for part of the day, which kept me in the loop with who their friends were and such, but it wasn't a weekly event or anything. It gave me a day when my spouse was at work and I didn't have to do anything to meet anyone else's needs or expectations (unlike the rest of the week.) The introverted part of me loved just being alone to recharge. And so sometimes I was just a lump on Wednesday when I needed to be a lump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dULOjT9GYdQ

The vast majority of my co-workers were cool, and a few people told me they thought it was awesome and they were happy for me. Some co-workers who were very focused on their own jobs actually never even realized I wasn't working on Wednesdays. I remember telling one particularly productive lady about two years into the schedule about it. She invited me to lunch and wanted to go the next day (Wednesday.) Her office was right next to mine, and she still hadn't noticed I was not in my office every single Wednesday. She was just that focused on doing her own thing . . . also she was very secure about her abilities, very good at her job, and kept herself so busy with her own initiative and projects that she couldn't care less what other people were doing if it didn't affect her. Once I told her I was never at work on Wednesday, she just said "okay let's go on Thursday instead."

The bad: . . . but there was one other co-worker who really resented me having that day off. She told me point blank right off the bat that she didn't think the boss should allow it. Said other people wouldn't like that I was getting "special treatment." I told her about the pay cut and that he'd probably give her the same deal if she wanted it. But, I guess she didn't want to take the pay cut, because she never asked for that schedule, instead she just decided to try to derail it for me. Anyways, she was not officially anyone's boss but she was kind of in a self-ordained "lead without authority" position, and she started doing what she could to make it so that meetings that had previously been on other days (like one that had been on Tuesdays for years) were moved mostly to Wednesdays and then making snarky remarks about me not being there after the fact. Basically, once I started the new schedule she started taking a pot shot at me whenever she could. Whatever, b*tches gonna b*tch, I guess. I didn't care what she thought, which probably just made her madder. It didn't really affect my career in any way, but be warned that some people will be jealous and they might act like a-holes.

It kind of reminds me of a friend who recently got a new boss who didn't like that she had remote work part of each week through a schedule she had negotiated coming out of the pandemic. The nature of her work is absolutely ideal for remote work. But, at one of their first meetings, the new boss straight up told her "I don't trust people who work from home." Like, that bluntly. Then the same boss was both surprised and livid when she put in her resignation letter a few weeks later to take a 100% remote position somewhere else. Clueless.

I say go for it, but definitely do it on the down low. The fewer people at work who know about the deal, the better, probably.
 

[Paul der Krake]

I too would jump at the opportunity, but preferably a 40% cut for two days off.