Anthony Veal: Not so fast -- 4 big questions about a 4-day workweek

A little more than a century ago, most people in industrialized countries worked 60 hours a week -- six 10-hour days. A 40-hour work week of five eight-hour days became the norm, along with increased paid holidays, in the 1950s.

These changes were made possible by massive increases in productivity and hard-fought struggles by workers with bosses for a fair share of the expanding economic pie.

In the 1960s and '70s, it was expected this pattern would continue. It was even anticipated that, by the year 2000, a “leisure society” would prevail. Instead, the trend toward reduced working hours ground to a halt.

Now some analysts suggest we are on the cusp of another great leap forward -- a 32-hour, four-day week for the same pay as working five days. This is sometimes referred to as the “100-80-100” model. You will continue to be paid 100% of your wages in return for working 80% of the hours but maintaining 100% production.

Glowing reports from trials of a four-day workweek suggest employers have cut hours but maintained productivity. But these impressive results don't make it clear the model would work across the economy.

Employees, unsurprisingly, were overwhelmingly positive. They reported less stress, burnout, fatigue and work-family conflict, and better physical and mental health.

More significant were the employers’ responses. They have generally reported improved employee morale and no loss of revenue. Nearly all have committed to, or are considering, continuing with the four-day-week model.

But four big questions remain.

First, are the research results reliable?

Employers and employees were surveyed at the start, halfway through and at the end of the six-month trials. But only about half of the employees and two-thirds of employers completed the vital final round. 

Second, did the participating firms demonstrate the key productivity proposition: an increase of almost 20% in output per employee per hour worked?

The firms involved were not asked to provide “output” data, just revenue. This may be a reasonable substitute. But it may also have been affected by high inflation last year.

Third, for those firms that achieved the claimed productivity increase, how did it come about? And is it sustainable?

Proponents of the four-day week argue that employees are more productive because they work in a more concentrated way, ignoring distractions. A much longer period than six months will be needed to establish if this more intense work pattern is sustainable.

Fourth, is the four-day model likely to be applicable across the whole economy?

The organizations involved in the trials were self-selected and unrepresentative of the broader economy. They employed mostly office-based workers. Almost four-fifths were in managerial, professional, IT and clerical occupations. Other sectors with different occupational profiles may find increased productivity difficult to emulate.

Only three manufacturers, for example, were included in a large United Kingdom trial. Because manufacturing has been subject to efficiency studies and labor-saving investment for a century, an overall 20% “efficiency gain” seems unlikely.

Then there are sectors that provide face-to-face services to the public, often seven days a week. They cannot close for a day, and their work intensity is often governed by health and safety concerns. Reduced hours are unlikely to be covered by individual productivity increases. To maintain operating hours, either staff will have to work overtime or more staff would need to be employed.

This does not mean the four-day week could not spread in those workplaces where productivity gains are achievable.

Those employers and sectors not offering reduced hours would find it harder to recruit staff. They would need to reduce hours, perhaps by stages, to compete. In the absence of productivity gains, they would be forced to absorb extra costs or or increase prices.

The pace at which such change takes place would depend on economic growth, productivity trends and labor market conditions.

But it is unlikely to happen overnight. And it will be accompanied by many skeptical employers.