4 Day Working Week Trial Starts Today - Will It Work?

[MOIC]

70 companies will be trialling a 4 day working week for 3000 of their employees with no loss of pay over a 6 month period starting this today (6 June). This will cover a wide range of industry sectors including technology, education & finance. The emphasis is to focus on the quality of work, rather than the quantity of hours worked and it's hoped this will have an impact on well being, a better work/life balance and greater productivity.

The trial is being held in other countries at the same time, including Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand & Israel. Previous trials in Iceland & Japan showed that productivity stayed the same or improved.

I presume there will be 2 shifts to cover the normal opening/working hours and the shift to a better work/life balance has been influenced by the Covid working patterns.

Would you consider it in your company?

Could it work in your industry or do you think it's a non starter?

 

[WaveJumper]

From some of my past experiences if companies cut out the un-necessary report writing and meetings we probably could have been working a three day week. However yes I think it could work but for many companies the change obviously has to come from the top and the belief in screwing every last drop of time out of their employees ie constant messaging and emails during time off, weekend, would be a good start the best thing for me leaving the so called 9 to 5 was throwing my mobile phone in the bin and never having to write another report on a Friday for a director just in case someone asked him a question on how the week had gone.

 

[MOIC]

From some of my past experiences if companies cut out the un-necessary report writing and meetings we probably could have been working a three day week.

Totally agree and this happens in many industries including the medical profession, where nurses and doctors are bogged down with admin work, rather than spending time looking after patients.

 

[MBE2017]

No way am I working an extra two days a week for no extra money, I have my limits.

 

[Ozzy]

When my customers decide they only need any support or service from us on 4 days of the week then I'll happily consider it. Until then I have a business to run and staff jobs to keep secure and stable.

 

[UKSBD]

It really is open to exploitation by bad employers.

Similar to the old job and finish in building trade
Employees think it is great and they benefit initially

Long term the employers see the difference in work rates. the faster work rates become the norm and the job and finish is the same as a full day.

One of my old employers favourite tricks was telling the younger lads it's job and finish on a job that chances are wouldn't be finished that day no matter how much faster they went.

Here you go lads, get that 40 ton of gravel moved and you can go home early - 5 lads working flat out for 4 hours, working though break to get off 5 minutes early

This trial could do the same.
The employers will see what the staff can actually do and that gradually becomes the norm, with bosses saying you were OK doing that during the trial why are you so much less efficient now?

 

[MOIC]

The employers will see what the staff can actually do and that gradually becomes the norm, with bosses saying you were OK doing that during the trial why are you so much less efficient now?

Interesting take. Would employers be so cynical?

 

[UKSBD]

Interesting take. Would employers be so cynical?

If they see their employees comfortably doing something in a time period, that time period determines the rate, when the trial finishes and they go back to 5 days a week will that rate remain?

 

[MOIC]

If they see their employees comfortably doing something in a time period, that time period determines the rate, when the trial finishes and they go back to 5 days a week will that rate remain?

That's the point of the trial, there is no difference to their salary when they go down to 4 days. They will earn the same as they did working 5 days.

 

[UKSBD]

Interesting take. Would employers be so cynical?

You can imagine cleaning agencies employing cleaners on minimum wage

Expected rate is to clean 8 rooms a day

Employer: You are expected to clean 40 rooms a week, 8 rooms a day, 5 days

Employee: If I clean 10 a day can I only work 4 days?

6 months later - Expected rate is to clean 10 rooms a day

 

[UKSBD]

That's the point of the trial, there is no difference to their salary when they go down to 4 days. They will earn the same as they did working 5 days.

Yes, but will they be expected to work as efficiently when the trial finishes and they go back to 5 days - big win for the employers

 

[MOIC]

Yes, but will they be expected to work as efficiently when the trial finishes and they go back to 5 days - big win for the employers

How will employers win financially? They'll be paying the same with the benefit of having an employee with a better work/life balance. After the 6 month trial they'll be back to working 5 days, as normal. If they then decide to move forward with the 4 day working week, then it stands to reason that lower productivity will not benefit either party.

The employer is (in effect) paying for 5 days work and is offering the employee to do the work in 4 days with the same pay. It has to work for both parties. If either side tries to outdo the other, then they'll go back to the status quo.

I'm sure there will be many scenarios, and that's perhaps the point of the trial.

FWIW I think 4 days will be the norm within 5 - 10 years.

 

[Financial-Modeller]

...The emphasis is to focus on the quality of work, rather than the quantity of hours worked...

This makes sense, but surely that is the task/point of management anyway.

Not sure why it needs a new 4-day week format to improve quality of work.

 

[UKSBD]

How will employers win financially? They'll be paying the same with the benefit of having an employee with a better work/life balance. After the 6 month trial they'll be back to working 5 days, as normal. If they then decide to move forward with the 4 day working week, then it stands to reason that lower productivity will not benefit either party.

The employer is (in effect) paying for 5 days work and is offering the employee to do the work in 4 days with the same pay. It has to work for both parties. If either side tries to outdo the other, then they'll go back to the status quo.

I'm sure there will be many scenarios, and that's perhaps the point of the trial.

FWIW I think 4 days will be the norm within 5 - 10 years.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that it is open to abuse by bad employers

see my cleaners example.

If a cleaner gets quicker because they think they will be paid the same for working less time, the employer sees them happily working at a quicker speed and that becomes the speed they are expected to work at (for the same hourly rate).

The employer gets 50 rooms cleaned a week instead of 40 for the same wages

 

[simon field]

Deleted

 

[MOIC]

The employer gets 50 rooms cleaned a week instead of 40 for the same wages

Although the scheme is being trialled in various industries, it will work in the majority of cases, perhaps not where 'piecework' is involved. I would hope in your example, the cleaner would have the option of working 4 days for 4 days pay, or 5 days for 5 days pay, if the employer was looking to exploit them. There will always be exceptions to new ideas working.

 

[MOIC]

This makes sense, but surely that is the task/point of management anyway.

Not sure why it needs a new 4-day week format to improve quality of work.

In trials that were done in Iceland & Japan it showed that working 4 days a week generally increased productivity as the employee was benefiting from a work/life balance.

I think since Covid people are more focused on a better work/life experience, so this can be beneficial to both parties with the employer having a happier workforce as well as increased productivity. Let's see what the current trials show in December, when they're due to finish. I'm sure the participating countries will have slightly different results and views moving forwards.

 

[Excel-Expert]

Unless the experiment is over a long period (several years) the results will be fairly meaningless. At first, workers will increase their productivity in those 4 days because it benefits them, but over time people will slip back into their normal level of productivity. It is only human nature. No doubt there will be a small increase in productivity due to the work/life balance being improved but I very much doubt it will balance out the missing 20% of the week.

If your business's turnover relies on the productive output of your workers, it cant work without costing your business. How do you make your workers work 20%-25% harder constantly to make up for the missing day? There are companies all around the world looking for that secret sauce.

It reminds me of the scene in the US Office where Michael introduces a movie morning and claims it increases productivity. When asked how it works he claims his staff have to work harder to make up for the missed time.

 

[Graham Tyers]

We're just being prepared for the power going off one day a week.

I'm going to buy me a donkey and cart now to get ahead of the rush.

 

[Adam Le Grand]

It goes without saying that there will simply be some industries that will not be able to switch over to a 4 day working week but over all it is a big yes from me, I most definitely think a 4 day working week can work.

There are Scandinavian countries that have been doing this for a little while now and their productivity have in fact increased.

It would be a funny one within our company as it would likely be a split. Finance and admin could very easily switch over to a 4 day working week but due to demand the warehouse would likely have to stay on a 5 day working week. The only way that will change is if the likes of Amazon switch to a 4 day working week and peoples expectations change, I can not see this happening though. Especially as the likes of the Royal Mail are looking to start delivering on a Sunday so if anything the eCommerce industry is being pushed towards a 7 day working week.

 

[Adam Le Grand]

How will employers win financially? They'll be paying the same with the benefit of having an employee with a better work/life balance. After the 6 month trial they'll be back to working 5 days, as normal. If they then decide to move forward with the 4 day working week, then it stands to reason that lower productivity will not benefit either party.

The employer is (in effect) paying for 5 days work and is offering the employee to do the work in 4 days with the same pay. It has to work for both parties. If either side tries to outdo the other, then they'll go back to the status quo.

I'm sure there will be many scenarios, and that's perhaps the point of the trial.

FWIW I think 4 days will be the norm within 5 - 10 years.

I have been a big advocate of the 4 day working week since Iceland (the country, not the shop) trialled it back in 2015 with great success. The main benefits seemed to be;
- Higher staff retention which had productivity and overhead benefits
- Savings made due to utility costs being significantly lower over the year
- Positive local environmental impacts
- Project completion schedules decreased
- Significant decrease in sick days taken as staff had better physical and mental health
- Improved customer service leading to greater customer retention

I believe following ongoing trails in Iceland something like 80%+ of Iceland's workforce switched to a shorter working week.

You could argue that there is absolutely no comparison as Iceland has a population of less than 500,000 compared to the UK which is significantly larger but I would say that an 80%+ uptake is a strong enough case study to say it certainly can work.

 

[Adam Le Grand]

It really is open to exploitation by bad employers.

Similar to the old job and finish in building trade
Employees think it is great and they benefit initially

Long term the employers see the difference in work rates. the faster work rates become the norm and the job and finish is the same as a full day.

One of my old employers favourite tricks was telling the younger lads it's job and finish on a job that chances are wouldn't be finished that day no matter how much faster they went.

Here you go lads, get that 40 ton of gravel moved and you can go home early - 5 lads working flat out for 4 hours, working though break to get off 5 minutes early

This trial could do the same.
The employers will see what the staff can actually do and that gradually becomes the norm, with bosses saying you were OK doing that during the trial why are you so much less efficient now?

The employers will see what the staff can actually do and that gradually becomes the norm, with bosses saying you were OK doing that during the trial why are you so much less efficient now?

Is this necessarily such a bad thing? If this trial highlights that a lot of businesses have got a load of lazy staff that are quite happy to stretch four days worth of work over five days then it might just make them think twice about employing them. If the employees slip straight back into spreading what was 4 days work over 5 days then that is just bad work ethic.

That is a massively broad brush statement. I am sure there will be some industries whereby trying to fit 5 days worth of work into 4 will mean working the employees to the bone which will just unfortunately mean that they don't join the 4 day working week. On the flip side though there will be a great deal of businesses that will be able to very successfully switch to a 4 day working week.

 

[Excel-Expert]

The Iceland experiment was more about reducing working weeks from 40 hours down to 35 hours, which meant some people could organise their week around 4 days. It wasn't really about losing a working day. Wired did a closer look at the study in Iceland and the caveats in the report are fairly substantial.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iceland-four-day-work-week

 

[Adam Le Grand]

The Iceland experiment was more about reducing working weeks from 40 hours down to 35 hours, which meant some people could organise their week around 4 days. It wasn't really about losing a working day. Wired did a closer look at the study in Iceland and the caveats in the report are fairly substantial.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iceland-four-day-work-week

Cheers, I'll take a read. Always good to get the bigger picture.

 

[SillyBill]

Tried a 4 day week but longer hours (so 5 days hours compressed into 4), 2 shifts. Went back to 5 days a week, it became a pain to manage the 2 shifts. And we found absences hit us harder as instead of losing 8 hours when someone pulled a sickie, we now lost 10 hours. And it didn't improve sickness. And it can't improve productivity if you are already in an environment where X widgets per hour is a known outcome in an optimised process, if doing 20% more hours in a day, we expect 20% more widgets...This is in a production environment. The talk of the 4 day week seems to assume everyone works in an office where the brain decides whether it can be bothered to produce anything at all during a given day.

I am also sad to say that in my experience of doing anything to try and "improve" employee wellbeing at the factory floor level then within weeks the "benefit" of having done so is replaced by a strong entitlement culture developing and actually expecting more and more flexibility. We rolled back as it became apparent we were running the business for the lifestyle of staff as opposed to the needs of our customers. We've dangled every carrot there is over the years, from generous holidays, bonuses, flexible shifts, good pay, you name it. None of it makes much of a productivity difference bar increasing your costs (and headaches), this assumes you are managing the business well in the first place. Pay peanuts, get monkeys. Pay cashews, get fatter monkeys.

 

[MOIC]

And it can't improve productivity if you are already in an environment where X widgets per hour is a known outcome in an optimised process, if doing 20% more hours in a day, we expect 20% more widgets...This is in a production environment.

Agree, it can be difficult to work in a manufacturing industry, where there are only so many widgets that can be produced if there's a need for machinery, components and an assembly line.

It will be interesting to know if any of the 70 companies taking part in the trial, are in the manufacturing industry.

 

[Adam Le Grand]

Tried a 4 day week but longer hours (so 5 days hours compressed into 4), 2 shifts. Went back to 5 days a week, it became a pain to manage the 2 shifts. And we found absences hit us harder as instead of losing 8 hours when someone pulled a sickie, we now lost 10 hours. And it didn't improve sickness. And it can't improve productivity if you are already in an environment where X widgets per hour is a known outcome in an optimised process, if doing 20% more hours in a day, we expect 20% more widgets...This is in a production environment. The talk of the 4 day week seems to assume everyone works in an office where the brain decides whether it can be bothered to produce anything at all during a given day.

I am also sad to say that in my experience of doing anything to try and "improve" employee wellbeing at the factory floor level then within weeks the "benefit" of having done so is replaced by a strong entitlement culture developing and actually expecting more and more flexibility. We rolled back as it became apparent we were running the business for the lifestyle of staff as opposed to the needs of our customers. We've dangled every carrot there is over the years, from generous holidays, bonuses, flexible shifts, good pay, you name it. None of it makes much of a productivity difference bar increasing your costs (and headaches), this assumes you are managing the business well in the first place. Pay peanuts, get monkeys. Pay cashews, get fatter monkeys.

Some really interesting points brought up, an interesting read. Definitely a few outcomes that I wouldn't have considered.

 

[Newchodge]

I would like to have seen a better controlled experiment with more options. I believe the current trial is 4 days instead of 5, with the working day remaining the same length (so 20% loss of working time). What about 5 shorter working days, or 5 days compressed to 4 with the same total hours. That's off the top of my head. I am sure there are other alternatives. A trial to compare the different working patterns would be far more useful.

 

[Excel-Expert]

I would like to have seen a better controlled experiment with more options. I believe the current trial is 4 days instead of 5, with the working day remaining the same length (so 20% loss of working time). What about 5 shorter working days, or 5 days compressed to 4 with the same total hours. That's off the top of my head. I am sure there are other alternatives. A trial to compare the different working patterns would be far more useful.

I would like to have seen a more independent experiment as well. It is being spearheaded by an organisation called "4 Day Week Global" which has teamed up with a couple of universities. The organisation seems to have a bit of a track record of spinning results (they are one of the ones that spin the Iceland results)

They pick out all the benefits and promote them, but skim over things like productivity loss and costs.

 

[Adam Le Grand]

I would like to have seen a more independent experiment as well. It is being spearheaded by an organisation called "4 Day Week Global" which has teamed up with a couple of universities. The organisation seems to have a bit of a track record of spinning results (they are one of the ones that spin the Iceland results)

They pick out all the benefits and promote them, but skim over things like productivity loss and costs.

I read the wired article that you posted. Definitely adds a very different spin on the data.

I think the issue is and this can be applied to a lot of situations at the moment, people seem to have become fixated with getting a definitive answer, everything has to be a one size fits all solution otherwise it is shelved.

To me it seems very obvious that there are some industries that would be able to very easily switch over to a 4 day working week and there are others whereby switching to a 4 day working week would either be practically impossible or an absolute nightmare.

Why can't the two possibilities coexist? In my head there is literally no difference between the matter of a 5 or 4 day working week and 9 until 5 and shift work, or day shifts and night shifts.

If it works for your business go for it, if it doesn't then don't.

Prime example our business made the decision a few years back to got from a typical 9 until 5 to a 07:30 until 16:00. It worked for a lot of our customers, it worked for the staff and they got a longer evening, no brained, we just got on with it and made the change.

 

[BigDreamer]

Sounds like an indirect solution to inflation if you ask me. Instead of increasing peoples wages by 20% to try meet the rising costs, have them only work 4 days and do the same amount of work, but continue paying them the old salary.

Those that can survive on that pay and enjoy only working 4 days a week will continue to do so. Those already struggling on their 5 day a week income will take the 4 day week and work a part time job on the 5th day increasing their overall pay whilst also helping with the labour shortage.

 

[Excel-Expert]

Why can't the two possibilities coexist? In my head there is literally no difference between the matter of a 5 or 4 day working week and 9 until 5 and shift work, or day shifts and night shifts.

If it works for your business go for it, if it doesn't then don't.

I think the flexibility is already happening in a lot of the businesses that can accommodate it. Most jobs seem to be 37.5 hours or less, matching what happened in Iceland. A lot of businesses have flexi-time to some degree or another and a growing number of companies will allow you to cram 5 days of work into 4 (especially in a post-Covid world). A lot of companies will also let you reduce your hours but only pay you on a pro-rata basis. So the flexibility is there and growing.

The subject of reduced hours for the same pay is a different story. No matter what job you are in, dropping 8 hours of work a week (which equates to almost 2 months over a year) and still getting paid for it, is going to affect the company's output and profitability. It is the same as giving everyone 2 months extra holiday a year.

If you have a team of 5 or 6 people dropping 8 hours of work a week, that equates to 1 extra employee for a whole year. If your place of work employs 50, 100, 500, etc people it is going to add up quickly and hurt a lot.

 

[Newchodge]

I think the flexibility is already happening in a lot of the businesses that can accommodate it. Most jobs seem to be 37.5 hours or less, matching what happened in Iceland. A lot of businesses have flexi-time to some degree or another and a growing number of companies will allow you to cram 5 days of work into 4 (especially in a post-Covid world). A lot of companies will also let you reduce your hours but only pay you on a pro-rata basis. So the flexibility is there and growing.

The subject of reduced hours for the same pay is a different story. No matter what job you are in, dropping 8 hours of work a week (which equates to almost 2 months over a year) and still getting paid for it, is going to affect the company's output and profitability. It is the same as giving everyone 2 months extra holiday a year.

If you have a team of 5 or 6 people dropping 8 hours of work a week, that equates to 1 extra employee for a whole year. If your place of work employs 50, 100, 500, etc people it is going to add up quickly and hurt a lot.

The theory is that people required to sit at their desks for 7.5 hours per day spin out the work they have to cover 7.5 hours, even if they could do it in 5 hours. Why waste that 2.5 hours?

As an example I have been working part time as a civil servant. My team and I work 4 hours in the evening. Occasionally I have also worked during the day. During the day the noise of people talking to each other is deafening. I found it extremely hard to do as much work in 6 hours, during the day, as I did in 4 hours in the evening. If you have a limited time in which to do your work it concentrates the mind.

I can understand how that would work if people have shorter working days, but I am not sure it would work as well with just not working 1 day.

 

[Adam Le Grand]

I think the flexibility is already happening in a lot of the businesses that can accommodate it. Most jobs seem to be 37.5 hours or less, matching what happened in Iceland. A lot of businesses have flexi-time to some degree or another and a growing number of companies will allow you to cram 5 days of work into 4 (especially in a post-Covid world). A lot of companies will also let you reduce your hours but only pay you on a pro-rata basis. So the flexibility is there and growing.

The subject of reduced hours for the same pay is a different story. No matter what job you are in, dropping 8 hours of work a week (which equates to almost 2 months over a year) and still getting paid for it, is going to affect the company's output and profitability. It is the same as giving everyone 2 months extra holiday a year.

If you have a team of 5 or 6 people dropping 8 hours of work a week, that equates to 1 extra employee for a whole year. If your place of work employs 50, 100, 500, etc people it is going to add up quickly and hurt a lot.

Thanks for that explanation. Makes complete sense. I see what you mean about the businesses with a large workforce, that is huge.

 

[BustersDogs]

I think it could if people change their habits. When I worked in offices, people were often on personal calls, booking restaurants, posting on forums, writing cvs. If they were able to have an extra day off with the same pay and decided to do all their personal jobs on their free day, as obviously now it's a working day at home to get things done. Yes I could see that extra 2 hours work fitting in nicely.

I thought it wouldn't work for me, as being autistic I only focus on work and barely remembered I have a son (even when he was young) once I was focused on work, so I couldn't fit any more work into my day. On the other hand, I do remember frequently running out of work in one job, and getting my line manager to provide more work was really difficult - but she wouldn't let me do work for other teams. So in the end I left as I was bored for so much of the day.

So I'm guessing that companies assume people will not be working full steam ahead all day and give them only 6 hours work anyway, making it much easier to split the work into 4 days of 8 instead of 5 days of 6. The struggle will come when people do not change their habits, and still book the car in for an MOT when at work.

 

[Adam Le Grand]

I think it could if people change their habits. When I worked in offices, people were often on personal calls, booking restaurants, posting on forums, writing cvs. If they were able to have an extra day off with the same pay and decided to do all their personal jobs on their free day, as obviously now it's a working day at home to get things done. Yes I could see that extra 2 hours work fitting in nicely.

I thought it wouldn't work for me, as being autistic I only focus on work and barely remembered I have a son (even when he was young) once I was focused on work, so I couldn't fit any more work into my day. On the other hand, I do remember frequently running out of work in one job, and getting my line manager to provide more work was really difficult - but she wouldn't let me do work for other teams. So in the end I left as I was bored for so much of the day.

So I'm guessing that companies assume people will not be working full steam ahead all day and give them only 6 hours work anyway, making it much easier to split the work into 4 days of 8 instead of 5 days of 6. The struggle will come when people do not change their habits, and still book the car in for an MOT when at work.

Interesting to hear your point of view. I totally agree with your comment about a lot of people dealing with personal matters during working hours, I see and hear about it all the time. I bet if all those personal call, personal emails, personal web searches, dentist appointments etc were all tallied up over a week you wouldn't be far off a working day wasted on personal matters. Even me responding to this now is not exactly crucial to my working day.

Interestingly enough we have recently been discussing at work linking up with an autism recruitment specialist. As we deal with Pick, Pack and Fulfilment for eCommerce stores we feel that we are in a great space to recruit workers that are on the autistic spectrum. As what we do it constant from the start of the day to the end and follows very defined processes we feel the work would appeal to certain workers with autism.

 

[Excel-Expert]

The trouble is people won't shift their working ethics all that much. You will get people shifting dental appointments and things of that nature to their days off, but people will soon slip back into gossiping in the office, making personal calls etc. It is just human nature.

People do it now, and they did it when we used to work a lot more hours. If we reduce the hours again, they will still look for opportunities to do less. There is of course a number of people who work straight through the day, but they are in the minority in most offices.

There is of course another aspect to this. What about hybrid locations? e.g. a factory with office staff.
They will effectively be giving the office staff a 20%-25% pay increase while giving factory workers nothing. In this situation do you give the factory workers an increase in their hourly rates?

If they don't give the office workers a 4 day week, because of the issues it will cause with factory workers, will they still be able to attract office staff or will they all go to places that offer 4 day weeks?

 

[MOIC]

I think there's an issue in trying to compare office workers and factory workers. They will both be required to do the same hours, the potential 'loser' is the company. They will still need to create 2 shifts, whether for the office or factory (say Mon-Thu & Tue-Fri) to get the same volume of work done. If you knew that by working the full hours and an extra hour or so to get that extra day off, would the majority do so?

The ultimate benefit to the company is a happier workforce, knowing they can have 3 days off a week, even if it means working harder during the 4 days. It might work for most and the system doesn't have to be set in stone. Staff can choose what suits them better.

 

[Excel-Expert]

the potential 'loser' is the company.

Yes, they will see up to a 20% drop in their productivity with no gains or savings. All of this will be whilst in competition with companies around the world that don't adopt the 4 day week. That is a massive competitive loss - all in the hope that staff will squeeze in 2 extra hours of work a day, for 208 days of the year.

What do we do with the NHS or the emergency services? The NHS wage bill is just under £60 billion a year at the moment. How do you tell NHS staff or police to find 2 extra hours a day? Or will the government fork out another £12b to cover the shortfall in work hours?