Of Course Workers Want a Four-Day Week. Companies Should Too.
For those employees, the results of working one day less every week, with no reduction in pay, have been outstanding: 69% experience reduced burnout, 42% have better mental health, and 37% see improvements in physical health. Thirteen percent of participants say they wouldn't go back to a five-day schedule for any amount of money.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
a minute ago
- Fast Company
‘Customer satisfaction at the end of the day': TikTok users push Costco's return policy to the limit with wild refunds
Costco is well-known for its no-questions-asked return policy. Now some shoppers are taking it upon themselves to test the limits of that policy. 'Returning my slime stained carpet to Costco,' one TikTok user posted earlier this month. Costco offers customers an unlimited grace period to return most purchases for a full refund, earning the wholesaler a top-six spot among stores with exceptional return policies, according to a 2023 ranking by U.S. News and World Report. While the customer received a full refund for the ruined rug, the comments section on the TikTok video was divided. 'That's embarrassing for you,' one person wrote. 'This just seems wrong,' another added. For others, it's simply about getting their money's worth. 'I could be mad but in this economy . . . hell yeah,' one comment read. Even Costco employees chimed in. 'Our upper management has said Costco makes way too much money. [T]hey would rather take the hit than lose a member,' one wrote. 'Customer satisfaction at the end of the day.' What if the rug is in perfect condition but you just don't like it anymore? No problem. Another TikTok user returned a rug bought over a year ago because it no longer matched their aesthetic—and received a full refund. Costco's return policy is not only open-ended in terms of time frame, but it also doesn't clearly define the condition items must be in upon their return to the store. One person returned a broken couch four years after buying it. Another brought back a half-eaten chicken bake. Both were refunded in full. 'This is why we can't have nice things,' one person commented. This isn't the first time customers have pushed the policy's boundaries. One notable return made headlines in 2018 when a woman brought back her dried-up Christmas tree in January. Extreme as it may seem, the policy supports Costco's membership model. 'Kudos for Costco,' the couch-returner said at the end of his video. 'You've got me as a client for life now.' Research shows that restrictive return policies can cost retailers business, whereas positive return experiences often lead to more purchases. Still, that doesn't mean the customer is always right. Of the $685 billion in U.S. retail merchandise returned in 2024, $103 billion was attributed to return/claims fraud or abuse, according to a 2024 report from Appriss Retail and Deloitte.
Fox News
2 minutes ago
- Fox News
Could Senator Adam Schiff really go to jail over alleged mortgage fraud?
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte sent a criminal referral to Attorney General Pam Bondi in May alleging that California Democrat Sen. Adam Schiff "has, in multiple instances, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, impacting payments from 2003-2019 for a Potomac, Maryland-based property." What is the gist of the complaint? That Schiff, while representing a California district in the House of Representatives, falsely listed his posh Maryland home as his primary residence in order to get more favorable loan terms when, in truth and in fact, his California condo, which he designated as his primary residence in order to qualify for a California homeowner's tax exemption, was his real primary residence. Even worse, according to the referral, Schiff claimed his Burbank condo as his primary/principal residence in California tax filings during the same years he listed his Maryland home as his primary/principal residence on loan applications to finance that home. Schiff's response to the criminal referral and to subsequent Truth Social posts by President Donald Trump was one we often see in white collar cases. Per the senator's office, "the lenders who provided the mortgages for both homes were well aware of then-Representative Schiff's Congressional service and of his intended year-round use of both homes, neither of which were vacation homes." That's not much of a denial, senator. The question is whether you lied on these forms or not. Were your answers accurate or not, and if they were inaccurate, were the answers a mistake or intentional? The devil is always in the details in white-collar cases like this. Which representatives of which particular lenders "were well aware" that Schiff intended to use both homes year-round, and why does that matter? The issue is whether Schiff intentionally lied on federal or state forms to gain a financial advantage. If he falsely listed his Maryland home as his primary residence in order to get a lower interest rate, that matters too. (After all, similar alleged falsehoods by Donald Trump were used by New York Attorney General Letitia James to go after Trump in her massive New York state civil action.) Did Schiff lie on California tax forms to gain an exemption he was not entitled to, and, if so, does it implicate any federal criminal statutes? This is what inquiring minds want to know, and we just don't have enough information at this stage to know all the answers. Based on what we do know, how likely is it that Schiff will be indicted for violating one of several federal bank fraud statutes that potentially cover his conduct? Not very likely. Here are several reasons why: The devil is always in the details in white-collar cases like this. Which representatives of which particular lenders "were well aware" that Schiff intended to use both homes year-round, and why does that matter? This leaves open the possibility of a state of California prosecution for filing false tax returns. Would you care to place any bets on that happening? The bottom line is this: Schiff's alleged conduct may be sleazy and his explanation shifty, but a criminal charge at the federal or state level does not seem to be in the offing.
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
What Happens When Doctors Can't Trust the Government?
The other day I was talking to one of my patients about her vaccinations, and I noticed that she hadn't had a Covid-19 vaccine since the early days of the pandemic. 'The virus has changed so much since then,' I told her, 'so we recommend that you get the current vaccine——' And then I stopped dead in my tracks, the words 'we recommend' lingering in the air. This is how I'd always phrased these types of recommendations, but I was suddenly unsure of who the 'we' was. Up until recently, it meant a medical community that included not just my health care colleagues, but also the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, respected medical journals and the research community. It's not remotely feasible for practicing clinicians to review every medical study out there, so we rely on trusted colleagues and institutions with the relevant expertise to help guide us. The 'we' suddenly rang hollow. The institutions I trusted to be deliberative and evidence-based sources of knowledge that extend my medical abilities are no longer that. In the first Trump administration, despite relentless attacks from the president, the nation's public health institutions remained largely intact, if wearied. But the plunder of the second Trump administration has disemboweled them and installed fox-guarding-the-henhouse leadership. Medical professionals can no longer fully trust federal health guidance, and our patients are the ones who will suffer the most. For most of my colleagues and me, the C.D.C. and the N.I.H. were the medical Mount Olympus, the towering pillars of medical authority. Contrary to right-wing portrayals, these were not dictatorial authorities. These were earned authorities, comprising our best, brightest and most dedicated peers. The formidable talents of these doctors and scientists would have commanded enviable salaries had they taken jobs in industry, but they chose the public sector instead — something that we clinicians were forever grateful for. Were there egos, missteps and shortcomings? Sure. But by and large, the people I met who worked for the C.D.C. or N.I.H. were brilliant and rigorous, and cared passionately about the science they were pursuing. While there are some doctors who viewed our public health institutions with disdain — some of them now are running these very organizations — most practicing physicians relied heavily on them to deliver the best care possible to their patients, despite occasional quibbles. What a relief, I always felt, that there were people organizing the things I can't do — testing new treatments, conducting population studies, keeping tabs on worldwide diseases, issuing guidelines and more. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
