The idea of the four-day working week has moved from a fringe experiment to a mainstream debate. Across the world, businesses and governments are trialling shorter working weeks in response to pressure from workers and the changing shape of work after the pandemic.
In the UK, which obviously included workers across England, a six-month pilot involving 70 companies and more than 3,000 workers tested the model of working four days for the same pay as five. At the end of the trial, 92% of participating organisations decided to continue with the policy.
Similar trials have taken place in Iceland, where 2,500 workers saw permanent reductions in hours, and in Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Interest is growing across Europe, with Belgium introducing a legal right to request a four-day week.
The concept can be applied in two main ways.
In the first model, staff compress the same weekly hours into four longer days, which can mean ten-hour shifts or more. In the second, the total number of hours is reduced, for example:-
32 hours over four days, with no cut in pay.
It is this second model, sometimes described as “100–80–100” (100% pay, 80% time, 100% productivity), that campaigners see as the real prize.
The demand is not appearing in a vacuum. Hybrid and remote working have already shifted workplace norms, with many staff refusing to return to five rigid days in the office.
In France, the 35-hour week has been in place for decades, while in the NHS many staff are familiar with compressed shifts of 12.5 hours. These examples highlight the tension between flexibility, productivity, and well-being.
Childcare is one of the most pressing issues in this debate. For working parents, a shorter week could ease the impossible juggle of school hours, nursery fees, and commuting. Research shows that parents across England face some of the highest childcare costs in Europe, swallowing up to two-thirds of average wages.
A genuine reduction in hours could allow parents to save on nursery days and spend more time with their children.
However, if the four-day week simply means four extended days, it could actually make the problem worse. A ten- or eleven-hour day means longer periods away from home, late finishes, and more reliance on expensive wraparound care. This would mean that parents would find childcare a difficult option to being at home for their children. Campaigner highlight that the systems need to be voluntary but is that truly possible?
So, is the four-day week a real solution to modern work pressures, or just another way of stretching staff thinner? To answer that, we need to weigh the benefits against the risks.
Pros of a Four-Day Week
- Better work-life balance and more family time
- Reduced commuting costs
- Potential for higher productivity, as seen in UK trials
- Reduced sickness absence and improved staff retention
- Potential childcare savings if total hours are reduced
Cons of a Four-Day Week
- Risk of longer, more exhausting working days in compressed models
- Some sectors may struggle to adapt without extra staffing costs
- Reduced customer or client availability in industries requiring constant cover
- For parents, longer days could worsen childcare pressures rather than ease them
- Employers fear loss of competitiveness if productivity gains don’t materialise
The first step, then, is understanding why the idea has taken hold so quickly. But the bigger challenge lies ahead: looking beyond theory and trials, what do the results actually show?
In Part 2,
We will dig into the evidence, from productivity and profitability to worker well-being. We want to see whether the four-day week really lives up to its promise?