✍️ Yes. The Radical Left Really Does Hate America...

Our Founding Fathers Warned This “Tyranny” Would Lead to the “End of the Republic.” They Were Right. [LOGO OST]( At times, our affiliate partners reach out to the Editors at Open Source Trades with special opportunities for our readers. The message below is one we think you should take a close, serious look at. [divider] A shorter workweek is being hailed as the future of employee productivity and work-life balance. Is it that easy to make work better? W When Koray Camgöz was granted a four-day workweek, the benefits seemed numerous. The new schedule forced the London-based PR officer to organise his time better. He was still able to meet deadlines and stay on top of to-do lists, while enjoying an extra day off each week. Most importantly, for the recent father, he was able to spend more time with his child. His day off rotated between Tuesdays and Wednesdays. In an always-on environment, he still had to be on call for emergencies on his day off, and also had to work longer hours on his working days to compensate. “It blurred the lines between home and work,” says Camgöz. “On a Sunday evening, I’d go through my workload and allocate my time as best as possible.” But he says any trade-off was worth it. “I was grateful to be able to spend time with my son I wouldn’t otherwise have been able to. And it eased financial pressures: just that extra day at home meant I could save £400 a month in private childcare.” However, some senior team members who preferred a conventional schedule were less happy with his working pattern. “I felt it was going well – but that feeling wasn’t matched by my line manager,” says Camgöz. “Professionally, they were seeing less of me, so they thought they were getting less from me.” In the absence of clear feedback, he ended up unsure as to where exactly he stood. Six months later, when he was offered a promotion, there was a condition; he had to return to a five-day schedule. Since the pandemic brought unprecedented change to the world of work, there’s been considerable discussion around the four-day workweek. Touted as a panacea for burnout and work stress, businesses and even governments have been experimenting with the idea; preliminary results suggest potential benefits include better work-life balance and improved wellbeing – at no cost to employee productivity. But while a workday is chopped from the calendar, the workload, in many cases, remains the same. Faced with a tighter schedule, workers often must adapt to new practices and longer hours. And, as Camgöz found out, a rapid shift to a new working model can throw up issues – particularly if not everyone’s fully on board with the change. That means that while the four-day workweek could bring many positives, for some, there might also be unexpected consequences. How the four-day week evolved Debates over the length of the workweek are nothing new. In 1926, the Ford Motor Company standardised the Monday-to-Friday pattern; beforehand, the common practice was a six-day workweek, with only Sundays off. A common mistake is a company saying, ‘We’ll start this on Monday and figure it out as we go along’ - Alex Soojung-Kim Pang “Henry Ford’s theory was that [working] five days, with the same pay, would increase worker productivity, in that people would put more effort into the shorter workweek,” says Jim Harter, chief scientist for workplace management and wellbeing at US analytics firm Gallup, based in Nebraska.. The theory was largely proven correct: in the decades since, the five-day workweek has become common practice. By the 1950s, however, there were calls from labour unions to introduce a four-day week. “People began projecting, if we take out another workday, it’d be even better,” says Harter. But take-up of the four-day workweek has remained slow: by March 2020, a Gallup study of more than 10,000 US full-time employees showed only 5% worked a shorter week. However, the pandemic has caused a rethink for some leaders: there has been a huge uptick in the number of four-day workweek trials and announcements. “Recent changes to work have accelerated the four-day movement,” says California-based Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, programme director at non-profit organisation 4 Day Week Global, which advocates for a shorter workweek. “The pandemic has made it clear we can change how we work very dramatically; the Great Resignation has seen companies look to new recruitment and retention tools.” There are different four-day workweek models: from cutting one workday, reducing working hours and being paid the same wage; to intense working hours, where five days’ worth of work is crammed into four longer shifts. The former set-up is generally the goal; achieved by a combination of the introduction of new tools and operating practices that boost efficiency and result in a rise in worker wellbeing that fuels productivity. But without carefully planned operational changes in place, there is greater risk the latter situation can happen instead. “A common mistake is a company saying, ‘We’ll start this on Monday and figure it out as we go along’,” adds Pang. “That can create big problems down the line.” Both Jennifer Shepherd and Andy Illingworth say that the extra day off they now get is enormously valuable to them (Credit: Jennifer Shepherd (L) and Andy Illingworth (R)) Both Jennifer Shepherd and Andy Illingworth say that the extra day off they now get is enormously valuable to them (Credit: Jennifer Shepherd (L) and Andy Illingworth (R)) How five days’ work goes into four In recent months, as leaders have made some pilot schemes permanent, employees have now become familiar with the pros and cons of the four-day workweek. Jennifer Shepherd says switching to a shorter workweek has been “transformative”. Her Durham, UK-based employer, fintech firm Atom, introduced its four-day workweek in November 2021 for all its 430 employees. “Fridays are now a special day I spend with my one-year-old daughter,” she says. Andy Illingworth, of design agency Punch Creative, based in Leeds, UK, who has been doing the four-day workweek since 2020, also values his extra day off highly. “Friday afternoons aren’t historically the most productive,” he says. “Now, on a Friday, I can pursue hobbies, play tennis and take long walks. It also gives me more time to build up skills and ideas that I can bring fresh on a Monday morning. I wouldn’t want to go back to a five-day workweek.” Yet both Shepherd and Illingworth are aware that getting all their work done in four days, rather than five, can come with a cost. Illingworth’s mandated office hours are now longer by 90 minutes each day from Monday to Thursday. “I work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a 30-minute break in the middle,” he explains. “We’ve had to cut our lunch hour in half. But I feel fresher, more focused and productive working for four days solidly.” Shepherd, meanwhile, is adapting to a more intense rhythm of working. “There are still occasions when I panic mid-Thursday afternoon and remember I no longer have another day’s work to complete everything,” she says. “But I now use my time more efficiently. I can work when it’s most convenient: once the children are in bed I can log on and get some ‘deep work’ done while my inbox and chat messages remain blissfully silent.” We’ve had to cut our lunch hour in half. But I feel fresher, more focused and productive working for four days solidly – Andy Illingworth Gallup’s research similarly finds both positive and negative impacts of working a shorter week. While employee wellbeing rises and burnout reduces due to a four-day workweek, active disengagement also spikes: workers who are already feeling disconnected from their company become more likely to drift further away if they work fewer days. Some workers may resist having a compressed workweek, with potentially longer hours and fewer breaks, imposed on them by an employer. Others may already be working at full tilt, meaning a shorter workweek could make their workload less manageable. “There are some employees who’ll end up trying to cram more work into four days where they previously had greater flexibility to work across five days,” says Harter. “If you get to Thursday afternoon, still haven't finished your work and everyone else has gone home, that can create stress and resentment.” Pang says a potential pitfall with the four-day workweek is the impact on teamwork: employees are so focused on getting their tasks done in the tighter timeframe that it extinguishes the spark of collaboration. “Offices can end up feeling like ghost towns,” he adds. However, Illingworth believes such “minor teething problems” can be corrected over time. “Our workplace still has a lively atmosphere,” he says. “Rushing to complete a job on a Thursday afternoon isn’t a regular occurrence.” For some, working four longer days that buy an extra day off each week will be well worth the trade-off (Credit: Getty) And sell more flight tickets carriers do. Passengers crisscross the globe four billion times annually. Each can pick from over 22,000 routes flown by over 25,000 commercial jets that collectively account for over 42 million flights. That puts total miles travelled in the air globally in the trillions, a potential gold mine for frequent fliers often courted by carriers. Today, banking air miles also no longer requires getting in the air. In fact, it is estimated that over half of all such miles are earned through non-flying related activities. This is because airlines have formed lucrative partnerships with third parties: credit card companies, car rental agencies and hotel chains, to name a few. Some campaigners and researchers have called for a policy that amounts to the very opposite of frequent flier rewards – a 'frequent flier levy' (Credit: Getty Images) Some campaigners and researchers have called for a policy that amounts to the very opposite of frequent flier rewards – a 'frequent flier levy' (Credit: Getty Images) But does earning these miles make people fly more? It turns out that snapping up miles is one thing, using them, another. This disconnect may seem surprising, but "breakage" – industry parlance for miles that go unused – does occur. North American airline trade body, Airlines for America (A4A), declined to comment on the prevalence of breakage in the industry. However, global consulting firm McKinsey has calculated that up to 30% of all air miles go unused: it estimates that over 30 trillion frequent-flier miles are currently sitting unspent in accounts (enough to give a free one-way flight to almost all of the roughly four billion passengers that fly in a year). There are several reasons for this breakage. Sometimes miles expire. Sometimes flyers don't have enough miles to get somewhere they really want to go. And when they do have enough miles, finding "reward space" – airline seats that can be booked using those miles – can be a challenge (more on that later). Flying first or business class may have a far larger carbon impact than flying economy as it occupies more space on the plane, meaning more emissions per person Likewise, when miles are used, flyers now have more choice of what types of rewards to splurge on. Rather than only locking in free travel, the sole "go-to" for travellers of yesteryear, other choices now abound. Passengers can opt for hotel nights, electronics, gift cards or even football shirts. And then of course there's what many travellers consider the biggest attraction: upgrades to premium cabins on an airplane. With enough miles on hand, you can move from the back of a jet to the front: from a place where cuts, squeezes and exasperation are the norm to a space where courtesy abounds, champagne flows freely and Michelin-starred meals await. Flying first or business class, however, may have a far larger carbon impact than flying economy as it occupies more space on the plane, meaning more emissions per person. The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) estimates that flying premium leads to emissions per passenger two to three times greater than flying in economy, depending on the type of aircraft. In sum, though, not all miles are used, not all miles are used to fly, and when they are, they are sometimes used to make flying more comfortable (versus securing a spot onboard). Passengers crisscross the globe four billion times annually, putting total miles travelled in the air globally in the trillions (Credit: K V Weel/Getty Images) Passengers crisscross the globe four billion times annually, putting total miles travelled in the air globally in the trillions (Credit: K V Weel/Getty Images) Airline execs seem content with doling out miles. But how do they feel about people redeeming them? If each passenger cashed in on their unspent miles, carbon emissions would jump. But those trips can only be taken if miles can be redeemed without restrictions (e.g. for any flight, at any time, without any additional fees). And airline execs make sure that's almost never the case. The reason? Fare-paying passengers are more valuable to carriers than freeloading flyers. If an airline thinks a seat can be sold for more than the miles equivalent, it will make trading miles for that seat hard, if not impossible. Data backs up this sentiment. Over time, the share of flights paid in miles has fallen and a recent experiment from CBS News in the US found no seat availability for miles in key markets for 45 days straight. Carbon Count The emissions from travel it took to report this story were 0kg CO2. The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per page view. Find out more about how we calculated this figure here. Carmichael says he supports flights that do fly being full rather than having lots of empty seats, since it's more efficient. But "how that is achieved fairly without stimulating demand for flying" requires more scrutiny, he says. Work is also needed to see which miles and rewards schemes incentivise extra flying, he adds. Carmichael and others also stress the need to reduce energy-intensive activities like flying altogether. The International Energy Agency, for example, has pointed to the need to reduce demand for flying through measures such as taxes on flights, as part of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. Some campaigners and researchers have called for a policy that amounts to the very opposite of frequent flier rewards – a "frequent flier levy" whereby the more someone flies, the higher a tax they have to pay on each flight. But could air passengers ever go along with measures to reduce flying? Lucia Reisch, a professor of behavioural economics and policy at the University of Cambridge, thinks so. "The past years have seen a general tendency of consumers to be more interested in and engage more in sustainable consumption," she says. Alongside taxes or regulations, so-called "soft policy tools" – like simply providing people with information or nudges towards flying less – are one way to do this, she says, and "can be very successful, effective, [and] are often highly accepted". Frequent flier programmes might seem like an obvious target, but in reality, their contribution to aviation emissions is small compared with the emissions reductions we need. Ashley Nunes is a research fellow at Harvard Law School. He's 100% right. “They’re looking to destroy the country,” Trump warns as he calls out the threat from the Left. He even states they are a greater threat to America than hostile foreign nations. Unfortunately, he’s right. And President Biden confirmed how far they are willing to go when he wrote Executive Order 14067. It was just signed into law without the approval of Congress or the American people, and it’s leading toward a future that is so aggressive even the left-leaning Newsweek warns it’s… “The End of American freedom.” Freedom of speech … gone. Freedom of religion … gone. Freedom of self-defense … gone. [Go here to get the full story.]( [Betrayed]( Regards, [Aaron James Signature] Aaron James CEO, Banyan Hill Publishing [divider] From time to time, we send special emails or offers to readers who chose to opt-in. We hope you find them useful. Email sent by Finance and Investing Traffic, LLC, owner, and operator of Open Source Trades To ensure you keep receiving our emails, be sure to [whitelist us.]( This ad is sent on behalf of Banyan Hill Publishing. P.O. Box 8378, Delray Beach, FL 33482. If you would like to unsubscribe from receiving offers for Alpha Investor Report, please [click here](. This offer is brought to you by Open Source Trades. 221 W 9th St # Wilmington, DE 19801. If you would like to unsubscribe from receiving offers brought to you by Open Source Trades [click here](. © 2023 Open Source Trades. All Rights Reserved[.]( [Privacy Policy]( | [Terms & Conditions]( | [Unsubscribe](