Why a 4-day workweek sets up an uneven playing field for workers
While workers in well-paid jobs have bargaining leverage to assert their legal rights, others in lower-paid jobs face minimal protection and risk direct exploitation in a four-day working week.
The U.K. government has announced a proposal that would give workers the right to request a four-day working week.
On the surface, it appears to be a bold step. It responds to demands—intensified by the pandemic—for a new pattern of working that gives greater flexibility over working hours. And although this specific proposal focuses on compressing usual work hours into fewer days, it speaks to the advantages of shorter hours that have become a prominent part of campaigns for a four-day working week.
Yet, there are issues with the proposal. Specifically, it is limited in its ambition and inadequate as a mechanism for normalising a four-day working week.
In one sense, a right to request a four-day working week already exists in the UK. Under legislation enacted by the last government in April 2024, workers have the right to request flexible working from day one of their employment. How far the newly proposed right to request a four-day working week will change things remains uncertain.
Currently, workers must convince employers to grant them flexible working. Under the new proposal, it is claimed employers will need to give reasons for refusing a request. Placing the burden of proof on employers may then embolden more workers to request a four-day working week.
There remain problems, however. A “right to request” is not a “right to have” a four-day week and changes in legislation may still mean that many people keep working five days. Under current laws, employers can still resist the requests of workers, if they want to.
There is also the problem of unevenness in the effect of the law. While workers in well-paid jobs have bargaining leverage to assert their legal rights, others in lower-paid jobs face minimal protection and risk direct exploitation.
The danger is that a right to request a four-day working week becomes a luxury only open to those in some professional jobs. This danger is already apparent in trials of a four-day working week that have tended to be concentrated in sectors with jobs that have relatively high wages and favourable prospects and conditions.
Workers in low-paid and insecure jobs, including in the gig economy, face almost zero prospect of reducing their work hours for the same pay.
The concern here is not just economic and social, with the benefits of a four-day working week being unevenly distributed, but also political. Hence advancing the case for a four-day working week is likely to be more difficult if it is seen as benefiting only one section of society (one that already enjoys strong rights and privileges).
The seeming role of the law in underpinning inequality in access to a four-day working week is likely to make things even worse. Again, workers without the ability to request a four-day working week due to a lack of advice, bargaining power or representation may face worsening working hours relative to their better-off counterparts.
Wellbeing considerations
Another problem is the scope for compressed hours—working a five-day week of around 40 hours in four days. Under the new proposal, workers requesting and getting a four-day working week will still be required to put in the same hours.
Longer work days may be welcomed by some—for example, they may cut down on childcare costs. But they risk undermining the benefits of a shorter working week. Indeed, they may threaten the health of workers by creating heavier work days which they need longer to recover from. At worst, a three-day weekend may be needed to recover from a four-day working week with longer days.
Perhaps an advantage of the mooted change in the law is that it prompts a broader debate on the purpose and potential of a four-day working week. It may help to bring into focus the extent to which new policies—beyond a right to request flexible working—are needed to secure a four-day working week for all workers.
If the government is serious about achieving a four-day working week to raise productivity and improve employee wellbeing, it needs to encourage trials in the public sector. A recent trial by South Cambridgeshire Council showed how a four-day working week (32 hours on the same pay) can work successfully and offers a blueprint for wider trials across the public sector.
The government also needs to target a future date, say 2040, for the realisation of a four-day working week. This could be facilitated by establishing a partnership of unions and employers to identify barriers to a four-day working week and ways to overcome them.
Pathways to a four-day working week must address issues of inequality. It is important that low wages are addressed alongside work-time reduction. Making a four-day working week viable for more workers will inevitably require higher wages including a higher minimum wage.
A four-day working week can help respond to the problem of low productivity and address issues of climate change while improving the quality of life. It can and must be a part of the future of work.
But it will take effort to achieve it—not least from the government—and will test the limits of the law. It will entail a reimagining of the economy and a move to a situation where work and life are experienced differently and better. In the end, we must all work to work less.
David Spencer is a professor of economics and political economy at the University of Leeds.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
(5)
