Beyond these considerations, the pandemic altered how society felt about the work/life balance with some effectively demanding to work (more) from home, work less hard or, in a good proportion of cases, leave the workforce entirely.

With a redefinition of the importance that individuals attach to workplace flexibility and benefits, employers wanting to recruit in a tight labour market need to consider how they use the tools at their disposal, of which the four-day week is one.

The four-day working week defined

To describe the four-day week, Lucy Gordon, a director at Walker Morris, uses the example of the notional full-time employee who traditionally works five eight-hour days a week. They would simply reduce their hours to work only four eight-hour days a week instead (totalling 32 hours), while still receiving their full-time, 40-hour week salary.

“The rationale,” she says, “is that employees working those hours will, so the hypothesis goes, give the same level of output as an employee working a five-day week.” She adds that the concept of the four-day week shouldn’t be confused with compressed hours – where the usual 40-hour week is worked over four days.

The concept of a four-day working week isn’t new. Throughout the last century, many, including economists, psychologists, philosophers, politicians and others, debated a reduction in working hours. Indeed, in a speech in 1965, Richard Nixon, then the nation’s vice president, called for a four-day working week to improve American families’ lives. At the time he said that “our hope is to double everyone’s standard of living in 10 years”.

But while talking about the four-day week, Gordon notes that it was only at the beginning of the 20th century that the UK ended the then traditional six-day working week. But times have changed and as Gordon comments, “the pandemic was a catalyst for accelerated changes to the world of work, causing both employers and workers to reflect on what they value most”. She says that for many, “removing the commute and spending more time with family and pursuing hobbies and interests resulted in a paradigm shift towards more flexible ways of working; remote, hybrid, flexible, part-time, and so on”. In her view, the four-day working week was, perhaps, an obvious next step.

And that step was tested over a six-month period from June to December 2022 in a trial that was organised by campaigning group 4 Day Week Global. Of the 61 participating companies, 56 decided to continue with their four-day working week for the time being, including 18 that made the change permanent.

For and against

So, why, given the status quo, should employers consider moving to a four-day working week? In answer, Kash Dosanjh, an associate in the employment law team at Wright Hassall, cites findings from the UK’s four-day week pilot that “some of the most extensive benefits of shorter working hours were found in employees’ well-being. ‘Before and after’ data shows that 39% of employees were less stressed, and 71% had reduced levels of burnout at the end of the trial. Likewise, levels of anxiety, fatigue and sleep issues decreased, while mental and physical health both improved”.

Gordon too points to a wide range of benefits such as improved staff health and wellbeing, no loss in pro- ductivity – or even an increase in productivity – significantly improved staff retention rates, the ability to attract the best talent, lower rates of sickness absence, the promotion of equality – as women and those with care responsibilities are more likely to remain in full-time employment, and a reduction in the carbon footprint of the workforce and business.

She quotes other benefits from the trial support: “Participating companies were satisfied with productivity and business performance; sick days fell by about two-thirds; and 57% fewer staff left the companies taking part, compared with the same period a year earlier.”

But it’s not all a bed of roses. Dosanjh points out that critics of the four-day week have “voiced concerns that where weekly working hours are not reduced proportionally to match the four-day working week and the requirement to work longer days may increase stress for some employees”. He explains that in circumstances where hours have been proportionately reduced, “employers may still see resistance from some employees who do not wish to reduce to a four-day week. This may be due to concerns regarding workloads on the remaining four-day weeks, or other personal considerations”.

And then there’s the need for employers to give sufficient consideration to the continuity of their business, including the ability to provide an acceptable service level throughout reduced staffing on one or more days of the week. As Dosanjh points out: “It may not, for example, be acceptable for some businesses to close entirely for an additional day of the week or operate on reduced staff on a rota basis.” 

Making the move

So, where an employer is considering moving to a four-day working week, what practical and legal issues should they be thinking about?

The first issue that Gordon says must be reconciled is the type of four-day working week that is to be adopted. On this she comments that “it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that a four-day working week simply means ‘Fridays off’. But that policy won’t suit every industry, departmental structure, company culture, and so on”.

Dosanjh makes clear that expectations in relation to productivity and any amendments to targets or similar should be explained clearly from the outset in order to manage the expectations of the employees involved. “This should minimise concerns relating to what is expected of employees following the changes whilst ensuring that business continuity is protected.”

But as for the various options, Gordon details three:

• A ‘staggered’ model where everyone works four days a week, but staff take their new day off on different days each week, making sure the company is still operative over the usual five working days.
• A ‘decentralised’ model. In larger organisations, it may be more appropriate to devolve the decision to department heads, who decide what works best for their team. But the company will have to make sure it’s able to justify differences, as departments seen to have more flexible policies are likely to create friction.
• An ‘annualised’ model where staff work an average number of hours a week equivalent to four working days a week, annualised across the year. This is likely more appropriate for seasonal businesses with peaks and troughs in workload throughout the year.

And to this list Dosanjh adds what Gordon alluded to earlier: extending working days for the four-day week, effectively ensuring that employees work the same or similar hours to those worked during a five-day week, but over the course of four days.

Contracts and detail

While it may seem that most employees would surely leap at a move to a four-day week, not all will want to change. This means that the employment contract is central to the move and in particular, whether it allows for a change to a four-day working week.

As Dosanjh says, “businesses must consider the current employment terms of their employees and remain mindful throughout of the need for employee consent – in writing – to any amendments to them”. He continues by noting that employers need to think about business requirements and how they may impact upon the amendments made; whether the business requires cover throughout the week, or whether the whole business will be closed for one additional day per week.

Beyond that is the fact that some employers may wish to remove or reduce certain benefits to reflect the reduction in working hours. However, Gordon points out that even a broadly positive change to employment terms can still amount to a breach of contract.

So, as with any substantive change, it makes sense to Gordon to trial a four-day working week to begin with to ensure that it works for the business and workforce. And Dosanjh thinks the same, adding that “if a trial is to be conducted, its parameters and duration should be considered and communicated to employees from the outset”.

Indeed, Gordon sees serious risk in a poorly run trial and potential for “an employee relations disaster should the employer decide to move back to a five-day model at the end of the trial period”. This is why she says that the employer should set out clear, transparent, measurable and appropriate objectives that will need to be met to justify keeping the model. Fundamentally, she says that care should be taken not to tie the business into making the four-day working week a permanent fixture, even if the objectives are met.

Another concern will be overtime arrangements and how the shift to a four-day working week affects staff. “Thought,” says Gordon, “needs to be applied to covering the risk of employees essentially just working their previous ‘fifth’ working day through overtime, which could be more costly.” She says that depending on the organisation’s business model, if employees regularly receive overtime, the move to a four-day working week may not be appropriate.

Then there’s the matter of part-time employees and how the four-day week interacts with them. 

Dosanjh warns here that care should be taken to ensure that part-time workers are not treated unfairly during any trial and/or permanent change to a four-day week. As he says, “there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all approach that works for all businesses. Some employers may consider that part-time workers can be excluded from arrangements however, in order to ensure that employees are treated equally, employers may prefer to offer alternative solutions”. He’s referring here to the usual working week for part-time staff being reduced on a pro rata basis to reflect the same percentage reduction as that offered to their full-time colleagues. 

This is a line taken by Gordon who poses a number of questions: “Would staff now become full-time with the accompanying benefits, or would they reduce their hours further? What about other part-time staff?” She says: “This is an area where employers will need to be particularly careful because of the obligation not to treat part-time workers less favourably.”

Lastly, Gordon draws attention to what happens to annual leave. She says that employers need to reflect on entitlement and if it’ll be reduced as a result of the change, and whether employees receive a day in lieu if a now normal day off falls on a bank holiday. “Tight drafting,” as she says, “will be crucial here.”

It should be said that Dosanjh does feel that “in reality, many employers may determine that no amendments to overtime, benefits and holiday need to be made” leaving employees to continue to accrue holiday on a pro rata basis, taking into account the reduction in working days.

Policies are clearly central to finding solutions. And so, Gordon’s advice is to “undertake a thorough policy review to identify any clash between policies/benefits and the change to a four-day week”.

But Dosanjh reckons that ultimately, employers should adopt an approach that works both for them and employees alike with “equality of outcome for full-time and part-time employees remaining a primary consideration”.

Summary

There’s nothing wrong in wanting to implement a four-day working week. Indeed, it can be both good for the soul and the organisation. However, it does raise a number of questions and issues that need resolving, none of which can be sidestepped if an employee-relations disaster is to be avoided. 

Around the world

Belgium Belgian employees recently won the right to perform a full work week in four days instead of the usual five without loss of salary. Introduced in November 2021, the law allows employees to decide whether to work four or five days a week. But this does not mean they will be working less, they will simply condense their working hours into fewer days.

Scotland In Scotland, a government trial is due to start, possibly in 2023, while Wales is also considering a trial. Under the plans for Scotland, workers will have their hours reduced by 20%, but won’t suffer any loss in compensation.

Spain In 2021, the Spanish government agreed then to invest €50m (£42.8m) in a three-year, four-day work week trial programme. Approximately 200 companies and 3,000-6,000 employees are expected to participate. Employees will work 32 hours a week without a pay cut.

Iceland Between 2015 to 2019, Iceland conducted the world’s largest pilot of a 35 to 36-hour work week (down from the traditional 40 hours) without any calls for a cut in pay. The pilot was dubbed a success by researchers and Icelandic trade unions negotiated for a reduction in working hours. The study also led to a significant change in Iceland, with nearly 90% of the working population now having reduced hours or some other accommodation.

New Zealand In New Zealand, 81 employees working for the consumer goods giant Unilever are currently taking part in a year-long trial of a four-day work week at full pay.