A four-day workweek could soon become a reality for many employees as the government moves closer to making flexible working a default option.
Under proposed reforms, bosses who reject requests for compressed hours or other flexible arrangements will have to justify their decisions. This means that employees may be able to work their regular hours over four days instead of five, enjoying an extended weekend without a reduction in pay.
The potential benefits of a shorter workweek are widely debated. Proponents argue that fewer working hours could boost productivity, foster a more focused and energised workforce, and provide a better work-life balance. However, critics warn that the system could easily be exploited.
Employees may feel pressured to squeeze five days’ worth of work into four, leading to longer, more stressful workdays, with little improvement in overall productivity or mental health.
 |
Get our essential daily HR news and updates. |
Compressed hours
In sectors that are already highly competitive, the introduction of compressed hours could backfire. A study by California State University found that working overtime often reduces productivity, raising concerns that longer workdays could result in burnout rather than efficiency gains. Some companies, such as Asda and Morrisons, have already scrapped their four-day week pilots after employees reported exhaustion from extended shifts and difficulties managing childcare and school pick-ups.
Women may be disproportionately impacted by these changes. According to the Trades Union Congress (TUC), women are three times more likely to work part-time than men, often to manage family responsibilities. While a compressed workweek could, in theory, equalise pay by offering full-time wages for four days of work, studies suggest that women may not benefit equally. Research conducted in Germany between 2003 and 2011 found that men continued to receive pay raises after switching to flexible hours, while women did not.
“Always being on”
There are also concerns that a culture of “always being on” may develop in workplaces adopting a four-day week. Professor André Spicer from Bayes Business School warns that employees might feel pressured to accept longer working days as a trade-off for the shorter week, leading to an unhealthy work environment. Even with policies like the “right to disconnect,” it is unclear how these protections will work for employees who have agreed to longer hours over fewer days.
While Labour is pushing for more flexible working arrangements, including the possibility of a four-day workweek, the party has made it clear that it has no plans to force employers to adopt this model. Instead, the aim is to give employees the right to request flexible hours, with employers only able to refuse if it is not “reasonably feasible.”
The debate over a four-day week is likely to continue as more countries and companies experiment with the concept. Trials have been held in countries such as Iceland, Japan, and Belgium, with largely positive results. However, the long-term success of such schemes will depend on how they are implemented and whether they can truly benefit both employees and employers without leading to unintended consequences like burnout or reduced productivity.
Amelia Brand is the Editor for HRreview, and host of the HR in Review podcast series. With a Master’s degree in Legal and Political Theory, her particular interests within HR include employment law, DE&I, and wellbeing within the workplace. Prior to working with HRreview, Amelia was Sub-Editor of a magazine, and Editor of the Environmental Justice Project at University College London, writing and overseeing articles into UCL’s weekly newsletter. Her previous academic work has focused on philosophy, politics and law, with a special focus on how artificial intelligence will feature in the future.
- Amelia Brand
- Amelia Brand
- Amelia Brand
- Amelia Brand
