Companies that tried the 4-day workweek loved it

[FireLane]

This story doesn't belong in the Mustachianism Around the Web section, because it concerns w*rk and that's not what Mustachianism is about. Even a good job is still a job.

Still, pretty cool stuff:

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/27/1234271434/4-day-workweek-successful-a-year-later-in-uk

In 2022, 61 companies moved their employees to a four-day workweek with no reduction in pay.

They began it as a six-month experiment. But today, 54 of the companies still have the policy. Just over half have declared it permanent, according to researchers with the think tank Autonomy, who organized the trial along with the groups 4-Day Week Campaign and 4 Day Week Global.

...Improvements in physical and mental health, work-life balance, and general life satisfaction, as well as reductions in burnout, have been maintained over the past year, says sociologist Juliet Schor of Boston College, who's part of the research team. Workers report higher job satisfaction now than before the trial began.

"The results are really stable. It's not a novelty effect," she says. "People are feeling really on top of their work with this new model."

Similarly positive results are emerging from other four-day workweek trials, including in the U.S., Schor says.

The companies that committed to four-day weeks found ways to make it work. Some of them give all their employees the same day off. Others allow flexible scheduling, with different employees taking different days off, or taking two half-days, or working five days a week but with shorter hours.

They found ways to save time: fewer and shorter meetings, better planning around travel, and other efficiencies, so there was no loss of productivity. They benefited from better morale, less absenteeism and better employee retention. Of course, employees loved it. Most of them said they never want to go back to a 5-day week.

It just goes to show that, in lots of industries, there's no actual business need for a five-day workweek. It persists out of tradition and habit. When employees don't have enough actual tasks to justify 40 hours in the office, the leftover time just gets filled up with pointless meetings and other busywork.

It's good news that more companies and more people are realizing we don't have to live this way anymore. I switched to four-day weeks the last few years of my career, and I loved it. It's a much more civilized way to live. Of course, retirement is better.

[simonsez]

I assume this means 32 hours instead of 40?

Even if not, if the job allows flexibility with hours, sure, it's wonderful.

I've had a flexible schedule (still 80 hours every two weeks) that started several years prior to COVID (maybe 2014 or so) and I don't think the genie is going back in the bottle.  Personally, I still work 5 days most weeks (usually set it up with 5-6 hour Fridays or will work more elsewhere in the pay period to have a longer weekend without dipping into vacation) but we have many on our team that do not regularly work 5 days in a week.  The only rule we really have is that you work 10a-3p on the days you're scheduled to work, and as a result, that's the only window we schedule meetings.

My job is not salaried or open-ended with time and timesheets are still based on 80 hours (for FT, we have PT employees as well) in a 2 week window.  I could opt to go to 32/64 (and may do so at some point in the future) but I'd get paid based on the hours.

[Nutty]

We asked to go on rotating schedules with 4 - 10 hour days.  The president's reply was why would I give up that 5th 10 hour workday every week?  Yes, we were salaried and no I don't work there now.  Just took me too long to figure a few things out, but I did.  Lots of long hours.

[Villanelle]

I think the question about whether this is 32 hours or 40 is hugely important.  My former employer offered 9/80s as far back as at least 2007, and likely earlier.  (They may have also allowed 4/10s.  Not sure.) Sure, people liked it. (I think you had to work there 2 years before eligible.) But that misses the point that employees can *and will* get the job done in 32 hours instead, if you let them.

To me, the point isn't so much about schedule flexibility as it is that companies did this went to 32 hours and didn't see a meaningful decrease in productivity.  And they also saw less absenteeism and better retention.  In other words, they saw no real downsides and significant upsides.  Not with flexibility, but with actually expecting people to work less. 

Forty hours isn't necessary to keep up with the competition or get done what needs to be done.  Employees will find ways to be more productive if they need to.  And they will be happier while they do it. 

I think back to all the bullshit meetings.  I think back to spending time on message boards (not this one, but only because I hadn't found it yet when I was working full time. ) I actually repeatedly asked for more work and it mostly fell on deaf ears.  I took longer lunches than technically allowed many days.  I walked across campus when a phone call to a professor would have worked. Allowing me to go down to 32 hours would have changed nothing about the work I did, other than making me more likely to stay at that job.  (I left when DH and relocated, so that wouldn't have changed.)

[GilesMM]

We had 9/80s since the 90s in most of our locations around the world.  Everyone was happy with this flexibility. There was a frequent complaint that only 1/4-1/3 of the office was in on any given Friday (instead of half) because many of those who were supposed to work that Friday took vacation or were "sick".  The good news was no meetings on Fridays, so one could typically get a lot of work done.

[Ron Scott]

So long as we don’t get wack government mandating it (did those people ever actually “work”?) I’m all for doing it where it works.

I know a number of nurses who do back-to-back 3-day shifts and swear by it. Some don’t tho…

[elysianfields]

So long as we don’t get wack government mandating it (did those people ever actually “work”?)

@Ron Scott remember that there are government employees, including yours truly, active in this forum.

While some colleagues resemble your remark (YMMV), I can tell you that the care and feeding of USG computer systems, some of which drive $millions in fund collection, require ongoing and diligent effort on the part of my team and me.  Taxpayers are realizing excellent ROI on those efforts, IMNSHO.

To the thread subject, in one overseas posting the work required 80/9.  Since I lacked annual leave, I generally worked 88/10 and stacked the days off for vacation, which I found exhausting and wouldn't select now.  Fortunately, the work environment no longer requires this.

I'm not sure that 32/4 would work in our environment, as there are just too many priorities which we would necessarily drop.  But if it works for your organization and focuses people's work toward similar and quicker results, go for it.

[InterfaceLeader]

I have worked a 4 day week and the impact of that extra day is huge, much more than what it seems like it will be. I would happily sacrifice salary for fewer hours, but employers don't seem to want that.

I think if you can split jobs into two you actually get huge benefits in terms of cover for sickness and holiday, less knowledge loss when someone resigns, less downside if you recruit someone and they're not a good fit for the job... it's a simple way to reduce risk. It's also great if you don't have the workload to offer someone full time, but you still have a need for a specific skill set -- it's basically the fractional employee model writ large.

[ixtap]

Megacorp has kind of nudged this way. Return to office seems to have stabilized at 4 days a week. The expectation is that folks are working from home on Friday, but some work shorter Fridays.

[Dave1442397]

I worked 4x10 at a job back in the early 2000s. It was nice having a three-day weekend.

The company got sold and the first thing the new CEO did was go back to 5x8 days.

As someone stated above, they know that people will typically (be at) work more than eight hours, so they can get all those extra hours for free.

[johndoe]

How can an author make this article without being clear if the total hours worked varied?! Ugh.  If I'm reading it right it says they're more efficient,  but not as productive ( i.e. produced 40 widgets/40 hr and now produce 35 widgets/32 hr)  To me, if a person could be just as productive with fewer hours... well either that role or that employee aren't great!

I've tried a variety of 5x8, 4x10, 4.5x9 and feel like 4x10 isn't ideal.  To me, my brain starts to want a break before 10 hr so those evenings feel "wiped out". Then on the day off I seem more lazy.  The 4.5x9 seems a good balance IMO.  (This coming from a cubicle dweller who ideally spends 75% time problem-solving individually)

[InterfaceLeader]

How can an author make this article without being clear if the total hours worked varied?! Ugh.  If I'm reading it right it says they're more efficient,  but not as productive ( i.e. produced 40 widgets/40 hr and now produce 35 widgets/32 hr)  To me, if a person could be just as productive with fewer hours... well either that role or that employee aren't great!

I've tried a variety of 5x8, 4x10, 4.5x9 and feel like 4x10 isn't ideal.  To me, my brain starts to want a break before 10 hr so those evenings feel "wiped out". Then on the day off I seem more lazy.  The 4.5x9 seems a good balance IMO.  (This coming from a cubicle dweller who ideally spends 75% time problem-solving individually)

It's based in the UK, so assume a 37.5 or 40 hour week over 5 days was reduced to a 30 or 32 hour week over 4 days. That's what is commonly assumed when you refer to a 4 day week here.

[Ron Scott]

So long as we don’t get wack government mandating it (did those people ever actually “work”?)

@Ron Scott remember that there are government employees, including yours truly, active in this forum.

While some colleagues resemble your remark (YMMV), I can tell you that the care and feeding of USG computer systems, some of which drive $millions in fund collection, require ongoing and diligent effort on the part of my team and me.  Taxpayers are realizing excellent ROI on those efforts, IMNSHO.

I think you missed the point.

The “wack” government I was referring to are legislators not government employees: those who have the power to mandate things by law they have no business sticking their noses in—like the official length of a work week in the private sector.

I’m just as opposed to this kind of feckless meddling as I am the sick trend toward eliminating women’s right to control their own bodies, use IVF when needed, etc. Bernie Sanders is pushing a bill mandating a 32-hour, 4-day week. The wing nuts on the left and right are ruining the place IMO.

[InterfaceLeader]

I think you missed the point.

The “wack” government I was referring to are legislators not government employees: those who have the power to mandate things by law they have no business sticking their noses in—like the official length of a work week in the private sector.

I’m just as opposed to this kind of feckless meddling as I am the sick trend toward eliminating women’s right to control their own bodies, use IVF when needed, etc. Bernie Sanders is pushing a bill mandating a 32-hour, 4-day week. The wing nuts on the left and right are ruining the place IMO.

Absolutely. Bring back child labour and company towns, I say! How dare the peons think they have a right to rest!

[Ron Scott]

I think you missed the point.

The “wack” government I was referring to are legislators not government employees: those who have the power to mandate things by law they have no business sticking their noses in—like the official length of a work week in the private sector.

I’m just as opposed to this kind of feckless meddling as I am the sick trend toward eliminating women’s right to control their own bodies, use IVF when needed, etc. Bernie Sanders is pushing a bill mandating a 32-hour, 4-day week. The wing nuts on the left and right are ruining the place IMO.

Absolutely. Bring back child labour and company towns, I say! How dare the peons think they have a right to rest!

No, silly examples using extremes serve more to confuse than educate. Why do you need to resort to comparing a forced shortened workweek for grown men and women to essentially enslaving children in dangerous environments?

One group wants GOVERNMENT TO FORCE a 4-day week. Another wants them to force doctors to stop offering abortions. We suffer idiots on both sides of the aisle. It’s bad enough that they earn their living by creating fear and anger…we don’t need them telling us how to live too. But you disagree…whatever.

[bacchi]

One group wants GOVERNMENT TO FORCE a 4-day week. Another wants them to force doctors to stop offering abortions. We suffer idiots on both sides of the aisle. It’s bad enough that they earn their living by creating fear and anger…we don’t need them telling us how to live too. But you disagree…whatever.

No one is forcing anyone to only work 32 hours/week, just as no one is forcing anyone to work only 40 hours/week (in the US). In fact, for exempt employees, they're often expected to work >40 hours/week. The Sanders bill would only lower the standard work week to 32 hours rather than the current 40, which was established in the 1930s (under the same law that added child labor protections).

[InterfaceLeader]

No, silly examples using extremes serve more to confuse than educate. Why do you need to resort to comparing a forced shortened workweek for grown men and women to essentially enslaving children in dangerous environments?

One group wants GOVERNMENT TO FORCE a 4-day week. Another wants them to force doctors to stop offering abortions. We suffer idiots on both sides of the aisle. It’s bad enough that they earn their living by creating fear and anger…we don’t need them telling us how to live too. But you disagree…whatever.

The snark was unwarranted, I apologise for that.

But the private sector being regulated is not 'meddling', it's essential safeguarding. Without these laws and regulations we would not have the workplace protections we enjoy today, whether that's health and safety protections, or preventing corporations from employing children. The government at all levels absolutely should be looking at ways to protect their citizens. That's the job. (They might be bad at the job! But that's a different argument to saying they shouldn't be doing that job at all).

[Chris Pascale]

Plenty of fed workers are on a 4/10 schedule and productivity doesn't suffer. If it ever does, the privilege is revoked. There's sometimes flexibility with the schedule. For example, I work 6:00-2:30, but my boss works 7:30-4:00. If she ever needs me after my shift, she can call, but she usually just emails, and has an answer in the AM.

[Ron Scott]

No, silly examples using extremes serve more to confuse than educate. Why do you need to resort to comparing a forced shortened workweek for grown men and women to essentially enslaving children in dangerous environments?

One group wants GOVERNMENT TO FORCE a 4-day week. Another wants them to force doctors to stop offering abortions. We suffer idiots on both sides of the aisle. It’s bad enough that they earn their living by creating fear and anger…we don’t need them telling us how to live too. But you disagree…whatever.

The snark was unwarranted, I apologise for that.

But the private sector being regulated is not 'meddling', it's essential safeguarding. Without these laws and regulations we would not have the workplace protections we enjoy today, whether that's health and safety protections, or preventing corporations from employing children. The government at all levels absolutely should be looking at ways to protect their citizens. That's the job. (They might be bad at the job! But that's a different argument to saying they shouldn't be doing that job at all).

Of course, but we’re not talking about health and safety protections here. We’re talking about a government mandated reduction in working hours and days worked per week.

Now someone could argue that chopping 20% off the number of hours a week Americans work will promote health and safety as the child labor laws did and without a loss in productivity…but it doesn’t pass the bullshit sniff test.

Thankfully almost no one is paying attention to Bernie’s proposed bill so we’re likely to just move onto the next issue. I hope its a more meaningful one.

[eyesonthehorizon]

No, silly examples using extremes serve more to confuse than educate. Why do you need to resort to comparing a forced shortened workweek for grown men and women to essentially enslaving children in dangerous environments?

One group wants GOVERNMENT TO FORCE a 4-day week. Another wants them to force doctors to stop offering abortions. We suffer idiots on both sides of the aisle. It’s bad enough that they earn their living by creating fear and anger…we don’t need them telling us how to live too. But you disagree…whatever.

The snark was unwarranted, I apologise for that.

But the private sector being regulated is not 'meddling', it's essential safeguarding. Without these laws and regulations we would not have the workplace protections we enjoy today, whether that's health and safety protections, or preventing corporations from employing children. The government at all levels absolutely should be looking at ways to protect their citizens. That's the job. (They might be bad at the job! But that's a different argument to saying they shouldn't be doing that job at all).

Of course, but we’re not talking about health and safety protections here. We’re talking about a government mandated reduction in working hours and days worked per week.

Now someone could argue that chopping 20% off the number of hours a week Americans work will promote health and safety as the child labor laws did and without a loss in productivity…but it doesn’t pass the bullshit sniff test.

Thankfully almost no one is paying attention to Bernie’s proposed bill so we’re likely to just move onto the next issue. I hope its a more meaningful one.

No, it just moves the threshold of full time from 40 to 32. Plenty of jobs expect you to work mandatory overtime when needed & you’ll end up unemployed if you don’t, this change would just mean they just have to pay overtime over 32 hours.

If you read the above article, it doesn’t have to pass your sniff test (needs calibration imo), it has been demonstrated that it works. People under these schedules rest enough, work faster (with fewer errors) & waste fewer hours just to prove they showed up. Dozens of companies have done this with basically unanimous results.

[Paper Chaser]

This article is more specific about hours worked:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/22/business/four-day-work-week-uk/index.html

"For six months between June and December 2022, workers at 61 organizations in the United Kingdom worked 80% of their usual hours — for the same pay — in exchange for promising to deliver 100% of their usual work."

The actual report has some interesting info:
https://autonomy.work/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/making-it-stick_-1.pdf

- 72% of the companies involved had under 50 employees
- 2 companies (7%) had over 200 employees
- 62% of companies were marketing, arts/entertainment, finance, healthcare
- 57% of employees polled were women
- 92% of employees polled were white
- Average hours worked went from just over 38/wk before the study to just over 33/wk 1 year later