Essay

Supporters of the four-day week argue that the five-day pattern is a leftover from the industrial age. Trials suggest that many employees can produce the same output in fewer hours, largely because a shorter week forces organisations to cut pointless meetings and distractions. The benefits for workers are obvious: more time for family, rest and learning. Less obvious, perhaps, are the gains for employers, who report lower staff turnover and fewer days lost to illness. A rested workforce, in other words, is not a luxury but a sound investment.

Enthusiasm for the four-day week tends to come from office workers whose output is hard to measure and whose hours have always been somewhat flexible. For nurses, bus drivers or shop staff, a shorter week means either fewer services or more staff, and someone must pay for the latter. There is also a danger that squeezing five days' work into four simply intensifies the pressure, leaving employees more exhausted, not less. Rather than impose a single model, we should give workers a genuine choice over how and when they work.