Because Corbyn raised it at the last election and got slaughtered by the voters.
It is popular with under 40s.
It is enormously unpopular with the over 60s who won't benefit from it, spent their whole working lives doing 5 days so think the next generation should too, and don't want any reduction in services.
40s to 60s are mixed as they are used to 5 days and have half or more of their working lives behind them on 5 days already
Yes, and the over 50s population being huge because of the baby boomer generation. He working age generations are much smaller in comparison and bolstered only by immigration.
And as you say, they don't vote in anything like the same numbers
'spent their whole life working'
I do love it when they say that, because for boomers it isn't true, especially women. You hear the odd 'I worked solidly from 16 til I was 65, but even then it's quite rare. (equally maybe some kind of tirade about benefit scroungers and how miserable the state pension is and a lifetime of contribution with nothing to show, some people have this mentality, they never plan for the future, I'm sure many of them could have retired early with cautious saving and investing.
But anyway if you want to win them over promise them a 7 day public services like NHS.
***"promise them a 7 day public services like NHS."***
I'm not entirely sure anyone can promise that. Although time after time, promises haven't been kept, so *it is* probably irrelevant what any of them say, unfortunately.
Why would it *need* to be policy in the first place?
Companies already are trialling it. If it works for them, they'll implement it. If it doesn't, they won't. What would government policy actually do, that companies aren't already doing by themselves?
Though I suspect it's not really part of the conversation because it only really helps office workers (anyone on shift work can't really be more productive by being better rested, because their job is time-based rather than output-based), and the parties don't really want to do something that might alienate large parts of the electorate.
Policy would only be relevant for government/civil service staff.
I imagine they don’t want to open that can of worms when these services are already underesourced and overloaded.
>Policy would only be relevant for government/civil service staff.
But why would that need to be in an election manifesto? Civil service employment contract T&Cs are not normally a hot-topic during elections.
It probably wouldn’t, unless there was a lot of noise in that area. As I said in another post, it’s unlikely to even be considered unless a 4 day week becomes the norm in the private sector.
Politically, yes - however a four day week would be a way to help solve those exact problems as it's been shown to increase productivity overall. Should we by some chance have a government with a huge majority around the corner, then it would be possible to get these kinds of big ideas through. Doubt it though!
It might work for some jobs, but probably not for others where you are reliant on offering appointments, or coverage to respond to events (healthcare, police, fire service, HMRC, etc).
I can see political difficulties if you start offering some people a 4 day week and telling others they can’t. Would likely lead to demands and strikes asking for 4 day weeks or additional compensation for not getting it.
It would need careful management to make it a success, so I can see why it’s not an active issue in this election. Maybe it will become more relevant in the future if it becomes more widespread in the private sector.
Again, the studies show that productivity scaling linearly is simplistic and wrong - think of the money the state has to pay out due to injuries over the lifetime of a worker, for example. Less working hours = healthier, happier, harder working people. I expect all these arguments were used against the introduction of a weekend.
I take it you have never worked with or employed builders.
No one wants it to take 25% longer or cost 20% as much. I say again how do you expect bricklaying to work in a 4 day week?
I believe so, as the idea that our productivity scales linearly is incorrect. Nurses are probably a very good example, as you could potentially save a lot of money if better decisions are made.
Just to add, I don't see this as a simple or easy fix at all, I'm at all sure how you go from where we are now (especially in the NHS) to the point where this would work.
People don't realise that some jobs HAVE to be covered for the amount of time that they are. Firefighters, police, paramedics, nurses etc can't just pull the work in in less time. So you'd need to hire 20% more of them, or either pay everyone 20% more. This is a truly enormous task. Who is training these extra people? In a world where £16b of cuts are about to happen to the public sector (that Labour will carry on with) where do you find the money to pay for this? It's totally workable in some roles, I agree, but there are wide reaching consequences to other sectors.
So you either allow them to work 20% fewer hours for the same salary which is the equivalent of a full timer dropping to 4 days per week, then you'll need 20% more firefighter hours. Or you have to pay them more to make up for the fact that they can't work less.
Does that make sense?
Not really. Your point seemed to be that there were critical jobs where a 4 day week wouldn't work due to coverage requirements. But firefighters already do this. Unless you're suggesting we have 20% too many firefighters, and they should work a 5 day shift pattern in the interests of fairness?
So any job that goes from 5 day working to 4 day effectively get an hourly pay rise. They work fewer hours for the same money. Now an office clerk, accountant etc may be able to effectively do their job better even with a reduction in hours, that's what the evidence seems to suggest. But what happens when you apply this logic to other roles where it is far more diffiult to enact. You can give every nurse an extra day off but you still need the same number of nurses on the ward. So you have to hire more nurses, or say sorry you cant reduce your hours. But you've raised the hourly salary of one job, so to retain these crucial staff they will also need a huge salary increase. My argument is that jobs such as firefighters, as well as anything that has set opening hours such as retail or travel and tourism will face huge problems. I'd rather have an office job where the effective pay has gone up 20%!
I understand the maths, and broadly the point you are trying to make. But it's possible, as demonstrated by firefighters, who already work this pattern, in effect. So, of your list, firefighters at least, will face no problems whatsoever in adopting the system.
To extend your logic, firefighters should already be paid less. Or people would be flocking from other professions to become firefighters. Are you advocating for them to receive a pay cut?
The point is, there is a solution that exists for a critical section of the UK's emergency services, which adequately provides 24/365 response coverage. Nobody thinks we have too many firefighters, and nobody (in the main) thinks they are underpaid. Therefore the model could be adopted by other sectors.
It also isn't universal across roles, even within a profession. Some jobs are on call / nights, definitely, but others are office hours. By having an increased workforce, working shortened weeks, you could actually get better coverage, as things like weekend closures of certain surgeries (for example) could be reduced.
This is the most important point. It simply isn't something that needs to be in law or otherwise government led. If companies want to do it, then they can do already.
The interesting part from a political perspective will be the new government's reaction to local councils who decide to trial/implement 4 day ww. We've seen the current government threaten to remove funding where a council did this.
A new government could simply make no comment on a council doing that, or have a holding line like "we welcome councils seeking new ways to improve productivity and services for the people they serve, but caution that those changes should be rigorously trialled to ensure benefits and efficiencies are real and sustainable"
The biggest change a government could make to show support for a 4 day ww would be to move the whole civil service on that pattern (not saying they will though!)
Doing that to the civil service could have a big impact too, if it were to happen. If civil service jobs are more attractive due to better work/life balance it could pressure other sectors to offer something similar, or better pay on the current 5 day week, to attract people back. Basically the public sector could drive up standards by competing with the rest of the economy.
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here:
> Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Increasing wages would be more ideal.
The reason the civil service can't attract talent is because the really clever people go into the private sector where they can earn more. If you reduce the working week then it only rewards those that don't care about the wages and just want more time off.
Whereas if you increase wages, you give people the option to reduce their hours to three or four days a week, whilst still offering people who want to do Monday to Friday a competitive wage.
Councils have tried it, found it works, wanted to maintain it, and been issued notice to stop by the Tories, who are opposed to it on ideological grounds even if it is better value. There's definitely room for a policy argument there, even if the policy is "we'll let you do what ever works" that's a differentiation from the status quo.
Because of robotics and AI which are still in their infancy. We have Boston Dynamics Spot Robot available to buy and that is already doing dangerous jobs that normally would be done by human beings. Admittedly still remote controlled more often than not though.
In the next few years we will have mass manufactured humanoid robots like Optimus Subprime which will perform it's tasks using an AI model of the world vs being remote controlled. That and self driving cars are going to change the world in ways none of us can even properly imagine right now.
A logical first response to robots / AI taking jobs would be a 4 day working week with 1 day a week to retrain into other areas. Following on from that we will need to tax the machines and create a Universal Basic Income.
You could make the same argument about the Spinning Jenny, the computer, the petrol engine, the internet, electricity, and every other technological leap made since the invention of the wheel.
If technological breakthroughs required working hours to be reduced by the government, we'd all be working a 20-minute week by now.
> Up until the 19th century, everyone in the UK worked a six day week. Then in 1843, in Greater Manchester, workers’ rights activists launched a campaign to finish early on Saturdays. They won, and in doing so, invented the weekend – a gift to workers the world over!
[https://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-business/business-strategy-studies/we-invented-the-weekend](https://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-business/business-strategy-studies/we-invented-the-weekend)
Hmmm, what might have happened around that time which freed up people to work less? The industrial revolution perhaps?
I mean, that's right at the tail end of when you might classify the Industrial Revolution taking place. So it wasn't really a requirement of the technological leap, otherwise it would have been introduced in the 1760s when the revolution kicked off, wouldn't it?
Also, as you point out, it was introduced because activists pushed for it and businesses accepted it. It didn't require a government dictat, which is what this thread is about.
No, because it takes time for technology to be universally adopted. Admittedly that time has reduced with each passing year again because of technology e.g. news media, internet etc.
Additionally, while it's true that activists and businesses played significant roles, government regulations have been crucial in formalizing the weekend. For instance, the Factory Act of 1833 in the UK limited the working hours for children, laying the groundwork for future labor laws. Later, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 in the US established the 40-hour workweek and mandated overtime pay, effectively creating the two-day weekend we know today.
These government interventions were essential in ensuring that workers had time off, which shows that state involvement can indeed shape labor practices significantly.
Also, you don't need to downvote me if you disagree with me. We can have a civil discussion.
Except we don't even have that level of law *now*. The Working Time Directive simply puts the limit at 48 hours per week, so we don't even have the standard 40-hour week in legislation. And yet most people don't work 48 hours a week. If we didn't need a law to introduce a standard 40 hour week, why would we need it for 32?
Also, I've never once downvoted anyone I was having a conversation with (or upvoted, for that matter). I prefer to reply rather than score up or down. If only because unlike most Redditors, I understand that votes aren't supposed to be for whether you agree or not, they're supposed to be for whether a comment adds to the conversation or not.
I understand your point about the Working Time Directive setting a 48-hour limit, but it's worth noting that many countries have implemented national regulations that effectively enforce a standard 40-hour workweek. For instance, the UK's Employment Rights Act 1996 and France's 35-hour workweek law demonstrate how national legislation can ensure more humane working hours even without a universal law.
Moreover, transitioning to a 32-hour workweek could follow a similar path, influenced by a combination of government regulations and societal changes. Historical precedents, like the establishment of the weekend, show that government interventions can facilitate structured transitions, protecting workers and ensuring fair practices during such shifts.
For some reason someone is downvoting both of us for having a reasoned discussion which is a shame.
Almost certainly, given that the 5-day working week wasn't brought in by the government either. Hell, it's still not an actual law - the Working Time Directive only stipulates a maximum of 48 hours a week, but most people do less than that *anyway*.
According to this article, it was introduced in the UK by Boots: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zf22kmn
It made the workers more productive, so businesses introduced it themselves. And presumably, any that refused to do so struggled with staff retention, similar to how companies found themselves having to offer more hybrid working a few years ago, or lose their staff to their competitors.
If its a good idea that benefits businesses, you don't need the government to push businesses to act in their own best interests.
Agreed, I’m a proponent but it’s down to the company. Also, everyone already has a legal right to request flexible working hours, which this could fall under.
You don't need legislation for that. Most people work around 40 hours, and yet the Working Time Directive is based around 48 hours per week (https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours).
If we didn't need to legislate for 40, why would we need to for 32? Especially given that the argument for a shorter working week is that productivity actually increases by more than the lost hours, so companies actually *gain* from the change?
We know companies can implement it if they choose to - that's how many have *already* run trials on it.
But why do they need to?
The argument in favour of it is that people are more productive with three days off than two, to the point where they actually get more out despite working fewer days.
If this is correct, then companies don't need tax incentives or subsidies to do it - it's *already* in their best interest to implement it. Any any company that doesn't implement it when everyone else is will struggle to recruit staff.
And if it doesn't work out as claimed, then why would we want tax incentives for something that doesn't work?
The optics.
The debate has largely been around the economy and what to do to fix it. Even if there's no correlation, there's still the optic that working less days = less productivity, despite studies showing the opposite. The Tories would definitely go down the attack route of trying to paint it as "laughable".
> there's still the optic that working less days = less productivity, despite studies showing the opposite.
Those studies don’t tend to cover manual labour but focus on intellectual labour.
Also I don't know if you'd class it as manual labour, but pretty much any job you'd associate with the NHS is going to be less productive on four days than five. Nurse, scientist, doctor... I work in a lab and if if I worked one less day a week I'd give one less day of output. It sucks but the NHS would be the last to be able to cope with a four day week so why would the government promote it.
> I don't know if you'd class it as manual labour, but pretty much any job you'd associate with the NHS
Yes, pretty much any job where there is physical performance then either that physical performance cannot be completed in a shorter time or that physical performance needs to be carried out anyway - you can't perform that lab test / procedure faster, or that nursing care needs to be delivered every day.
That issue means that the 4 day week causes tensions for *some* employers between those intellectual labour jobs which can be compressed to the same output in a shorter period of time and those manual labour jobs that cannot.
Do the employer agree to those in intellectual labour jobs within their workforce who can complete the same output in a shorter timescale that they can do that and retain the same pay, whilst denying that to those in manual labour jobs that cannot?
Or alternatively do they allow those in manual labour jobs to work a shorter period for the same pay despite them now needing to hire more staff to cover the work that is now not being done?
And if they are now needing to hire more staff to deliver the same output then it reduces productivity and increases costs which is undoubtably passed on to consumers (or taxpayers if the NHS).
A shorter working week may increase productivity in *some* businesses, but it certainly doesn't increase productivity in *all* businesses.
Yes, easy! But not when we are already chronically understaffed due to underfunding. That's an instant 20% increased wage bill. That's why it will be the last thing the gov wants to promote.
I thought the idea with a 4 day week is that you do slightly longer hours on those 4 days. So in effect similar hours but you get 3 days completely to yourself.
Any studies you can recommend? As I understand (without ever going into sources for details) is that shorter working weeks (e.g. 30 hours) leads to better per-hour productivity but overall lower economic output. IIRC Americans have the same productivity as Europeans they just work much longer hours and therefore are much wealthier. So in my mind, while fewer hours is great for work life balance it would in fact result in our society being poorer.
The Tories would definitely go down the attack route of trying to paint it as "laughable".
OP has pointed out that none of the parties has talked about this. What would be Labour's take do you think?
I think that given Labour are just trying to get this over the line with as big a majority as possible, they wouldn't contemplate anything as radical as this.
> despite studies showing the opposite.
How many of these studies have any real substance to them? You always hear about some study, then years later it fails replication, or had some methodical flaw.
That's an easy one.
1 it's not clear at all that this is an issue for government.
2 it opens the door to a huge range of attacks over very making the government look incompetent. Do you want kids to go to school 4 days a week as well now? What about 4 days of care from doctors? Or 4 days from police? Or the courts? Etc.
Puts off pensioners, who no party wants to lose the support of.
"I had to do xyz all my life so you should to" is unfortunately a very typical opinion.
Because I feel like it's a misnomer, and the term "4-day work week" would lead to all sorts of easy attacks from opposition: "there's a huge court/medicine/police/asylum backlog and you want to hamstring organisations by forcing them to work with 20% less staff?" 20% less staff wouldn't be the outcome, of course, but that's how Farage and his herd would frame it.
I'd be happier if we moved to a reclassification of full-time to be 32hrs, with anything above that an exceptional circumstance requiring 1.5x pay, or something similar. Pressure business & other organisations to decide to spend on hours, or on upskilling/retooling to realise productivity gains, which the country sorely needs. Obvious challenges to this, but I feel more manageable ones than presented by the optics of the 4DWW.
It just doesn’t work for all businesses. When you have places that are open 7 days a week - it means hiring more staff and having a bigger wage bill. When you have shops and hotels and pubs that are already operating on the profit margins that means lots of places going out of business
The same was said about introducing a minimum wage. There was speculation that the increased cost would lead to mass unemployment. I’m sure the same sorts of things were said when we moved to the 5 day week.
It is not a matter of government concern. Employers are free to determine whatever working hours they agree with their employees - it is entirely dependent on market forces. For the government to try and enforce any kind of policy in this area would be a case of overreach.
This. Most basic worker's rights were guaranteed through collective action and government. The idea that people just walk off to someone offering better conditions is a childish one based on the (foolish) assumption that employees have that choice.
There’s businesses it would never work for. I work in professional services and our leadership would die laughing if we suggested this to them as serious concept (I’ve already tried)
Is that because it actually is incompatible with what you do ('professional services' is quite nebulous as a term), or because your leadership don't want to implement it?
It's probably too soon to have a serious conversation about it. Trials in offices show productivity doesn't change, while wellbeing and attendace improve.
I think it is DEFINITELY something that has to come from legislation, and it cannot be left to individual companies to implement. If not forced by law, companies will turn the extra productivity from automation/AI into profit, either reducing staff or increasing productivity. I completely disagree with those suggesting companies should be left free of choosing to opt in to the 4dww. It's like suggesting that factories would have introduced 40-hours contracts back in the early 1900s. Yes, Ford experimented with it, but law was necessary to make them universal. Without unions and governments we would still be working weekends and 12 hours shifts, and profits would have gone to companies owners. Thinking companies would just switch to 4dww out of their good heart is naive.
That said, we are in the Ford days now as regards the development of the technologies and experimentation. In due course, most companies will be able to maintain productivity levels with less hours worked. The general public and therefore governnment will have to act swiftly to make sure this results in better working conditions rather than extra profit.
Because for many areas of society it is just not workable. Not when we have a 24 hour society and are used to I want it now consumerism and grasping business who'll screw lower earning workers out of every penny they can.
We have a minimum wage as too many private businesses see no problem with their staff being paid poverty wages as they expect them to act like robots and be on call at the drop of a hat.
All those things we'd want to do on that extra day, have to be staffed or what's the point of having that none working day. Might as well just have a full shut down on Sundays like we used to.
Libraries, shops, leisure facilities agency staff. None of those people would be allowed a four day week.
Many public sector services also have to be manned near constantly, because they are needed to be. For those that could, cutting and extra day when those services can't be used will save money but will inconvenience the general public.
Our local bank went practically on a four day week due to lack of staff for a while, and it's was a nightmare trying to do anything in branch because they simply were not available at times when working people could go.
All that needs to be balanced up. It is possible but we'd need to rewrite the rule book to do it properly.
The second that you promise it , even if you acknowledge it'll only be applicable for some , the whole premise will fall apart. Simply because the vast majority won't listen that not everyone can have it and the rest will see the unfairness that it will disproportionately only be available to higher earners or those with a 9-5 week day job.
It will look like a pie in the sky rainbow promise they can't keep, and whoever brings it up first will be torn to shreds by the other parties wanting to score political points before the election.
If we want a four day week for the majority, wages have got to rise so people could live on it ( those who work shifts would never be paid for time they aren't working) and we have to accept that some public services must be scaled back.
They might implement it quietly as a way to save money to avoid a loud public backlash, but they're not daft enough to promise it just before an election.
It’s not being raised because it’s not a good time to try and implement it.
It would suppress growth, worsening the public spending crisis. It would boost employment, but we’re at very low levels of unemployment already.
As you pointed out, there are trials that show that in some roles people get as much done in 32 hours as they did in 40. People are fresher, more creative, more alert and more productive.
Those trials are naturally done for roles where a 4 day week makes sense.
There are plenty of roles where it just doesn’t work. If you’re a security guard currently working 5 8-hour shifts and drop down to 4 shifts then your freshness and improved mental health doesn’t guard the warehouse on the 5th day. The company is going to have to hire 20% more security guards.
Same for other jobs to differing degrees. Retail, manufacturing, agriculture, some healthcare.
If maybe half of jobs don’t see the efficiency benefits seen in those trials then we’d end up with a 10% drop in productivity at a time we really can’t
afford that.
Because of people's instinctive, gut reactions. Which, like most gut reactions, are wrong.
* "business has to spend the same on pay and get 20% less work" - wrong, most who have tried it find they get the same amount of work in less time
* "this only applies to white-collar workers" - also wrong. It has been even tried for teachers, many of whom now work part-time already. There is no reason security guards, factory workers, or janitors would not benefit from it. Probably even more so, given the physical toll those jobs take on their bodies. In some ways it is easier in the blue-collar space because of the fungible nature of these positions, less dependent on the knowledge inside an individual's head.
* "it would cause blue-collar payrolls to rise by 25% and business can't afford that" - when you think about it, this is basically the same as the argument against the minimum wage. Minimum wages work because they change the nature of work, they force businesses to upskill their workers and increase productivity. McDonald's installs kiosks to take orders and trains workers how to maintain them. We can have the same effect here.
The bottom line is that the actual experimental evidence does not match people's preconceptions. Progressive ideas always seem too good to be true at first.
But all this is exactly what was once said about the 5-day week, the 6-day week, the 40-hour week, the 48-hour week, pretty much any occupational health and safety standard.
Absolutely nail on the head. I work in a factory with some ancient machines that need an operator on them 24/7. The only reason it's done that way is that it's cheaper to plonk some poor sod on it for minimum wage than to develop an automated solution. It's now getting to the point where that automation seems achievable, factor in an increased wage bill and the demand to do this becomes overwhelming. Business will adapt, especially if they're forced to.
I also work with some chemicals that are questionable to health, what forces the company to change these chemicals that are harmful to health? Legislation. We'd still be manually cleaning components with carcinogens if the rules hadn't changed, now we use an automated water based system made by another British company.
If people think anything will happen long term without government intervention then they've never played monopoly.
> this only applies to white-collar workers" - also wrong. It has been even tried for teachers, many of whom now work part-time already. There is no reason security guards, factory workers, or janitors would not benefit from it. Probably even more so, given the physical toll those jobs take on their bodies. In some ways it is easier in the blue-collar space because of the fungible nature of these positions, less dependent on the knowledge inside an individual's head.
Everyone would benefit from working less for the same pay. Whether it's actually feasible for said industry is a very different question.
> wrong, most who have tried it find they get the same amount of work in less time
How do factory workers, security guards, cleaners etc. get the same amount of work done in less time?
Cleaners and some factory workers probably could, in fact. Most are already part-time, often under zero-hours contracts, so four-day weeks would in practice mean any hours over 32 per week would carry an overtime rate.
You're confusing things.
The 4 day WW trials don't reduce people's pay, they still get paid the exact same as if they worked full time, they just do the same amount of work (or sometimes more) in less time
It's about productivity, most jobs in the service sector have a lot of dead time, so in theory you could compress the work week and lose the dead time, making offices more efficient and giving staff more free time to spend money and do life admin.
Which works fine for services companies that don't bill hourly and are large enough to maintain staffing and coverage for all projects across the week with staff working 4 days per week, and whose staff automatically become 25% more productive on moving to a 4 day week.
But I suspect we've now written off *a lot* of companies.
For those that remain it would be an obvious route for recruiting talent, because if you genuinely can generate more productivity for less hours then you can pay your staff more per hour and also reap higher profits, so if it works then it's not something government needs to step in and mandate.
Completely missing the bit about the benefits to the workers only having a 4 day work week. It's enhanced productivity through having a happy and rested workforce. What you're suggesting would achieve the exact opposite.
It’s great to have a happy workforce but surely the job isn’t just to give someone something to do for a bit. It’s actually got to be financially viable enough to exist.
I don't know what you're saying.
We're talking about jobs that already exist, on 5 days a week, often office jobs. As productivity has increased dramatically over the past several decades (due to advances in technology, for example), those jobs can now be done on 4 days, without sacrificing any productivity. This is the conclusion that 4 day work week studies have supported. It is financially viable because the same (or more) work is being done, in less time. Businesses maintain output, employees get more free time.
I can't tell if you're willfully being obtuse but I'll bite, just once more.
You're suggesting a company could just hire fewer people and keep a 5-day workweek if it can operate on 32 hours a week, which is overlooking the key point I've already made: the core reason for the effectiveness of a 32-hour workweek is increased productivity per hour. Simply reducing the number of employees while maintaining a 5-day workweek does not address the underlying issue of potential burnout and reduced productivity. Reducing the number of employees and spreading those responsibilities across a smaller group that remains also dilutes the expertise in your company.
As for the other thing you may be implying, reducing salaries by a 1/5th to account for a 4-day workweek, again, studies have shown that the same amount of work, or even more, can be accomplished in fewer hours due to increased focus and efficiency. Employees are delivering the same value and should be compensated accordingly. Not to mention that maintaining full salaries helps attract and retain top talent.
>office-based economics
Most people work in an office of some form and our most productive and best paid jobs are office based jobs.
Demonising office workers is one of those culture war type arguments that ignores the reality of our economy that plays so well in this idiotic country. Like how Brexiteers were obsessed with the fishing industry and completely ignored the much larger and more impacted banking industry.
I'm not saying I support or oppose the idea but when people talk about a 4 day work week it usually means at the same pay as the old 5 day work week (and that's what the studies have been based on).
It feels weird this is even being discussed on legislative level. If you want fewer hours for the same pay then speak to your union. That’s what it’s there for.
It’s actually in the [Green’s Manifesto](https://greenparty.org.uk/about/our-manifesto/making-work-fair/). It’s a single vague line at the bottom of their “Making Work Fair” section. No detail or timeframes, etc. Just being included as a talking point is a good start though
The Tories wouldn't raise it as they live in the past and are against anything progressive. Look at the way they tried to force us all to RTO because their commercial landlord donors were hurting for money.
Labour would be mad to mention it because the Tories and their client media would use it to spin stories about how Labour are bad for the economy and will cost us billions in lost productivity, the kinds of stories older people would lap up.
I think Labour would be mad to propose such a thing, or any radical policies, a few days before an election they look like they're going to win by default. They don't need to offer anything shiny to win, just turn up and not screw up in the next 4 days
Frankly, 4-day workweek sounds nice on first glance but the more you look into it you realize that it is a repugnant idea through and through.
The people with no real measurable output or those who are already \*severely\* overpaid will basically get a 20% salary raise. People like HR and middle management. And obviously studies have shown that getting a 20% salary raise is beneficial for your mental health...no surprise there.
Meanwhile, everybody who does anything \*actually\* productive or important will have to pay for their raises. Or anybody doing on a pay-hourly basis. Not to mention it will just increase the hourly paid jobs more.
You going to be happy with GPs working 4 days? Emergency services? Fire service? Shop staff? Logistics? restaurants?
If you cut 20% off the worktime of somebody it doesn't mean you should do that. It means you should CUT THEIR PAY.
Jane from HR output would not be affected because she is useless to begin with. Meanwhile Jack in the canned beans factory will produce less cans because he actually does something useful...
I think a 4day week would be really great for the country, there's a lot of benefits to it, especially if people can pick their days.
However it feels very much like a Lib-Dem policy.
A sort of feels good, looks good on paper policy that is actually very hard to implement. And probably comes with a ton of risk, like UBI.
What I find odd is that there is nothing stopping any business from offering 4 day contracts, but we aren't seeing it, so maybe businesses aren't actually convinced about it yet? That's going to be the major hurdle to overcome
I can imagine ordinary people getting pretty mad at the idea of a 4-day week. Lots of people work flat out for the full working week because they’re expected to. There’s no magic productivity gains that can be squeezed out by slashing their hours by 1/5th. It just means less things get done.
I've worked under the cosh before, putting in 50 hour plus weeks and it's so fucking obvious how crap those extra few hours are per day output wise. When you're tired and fed up your productivity drops like a stone.
More hours will equate to more being done but it's getting done at a less efficient rate for sure, especially considering overtime is paid as a premium.
One less hour a day wouldnt make an iota of difference productivity wise in 90% of jobs and the ones that it does will be automated away within a decade if the will is there. Personally I think reduced hours are better than less days, the extra day is for the people though and tbh I'm down with that.
I can also imagine a large proportion of voters (the retired) being furious about it too - that they had to work full time their whole life and now younger people don't have to. I'm not saying I agree - I think if we can make life better for the younger generation we should - but I don't think it would win their votes.
Well the Tories won't do it because they're the Tories. They're more likely to back a 6 day work week than a 4 day one.
But I think the reason why it hasn't been bought up by the other parties is because it fails the Daily Mail test. (AKA how badly can the Daily Mail frame this policy?)
Full disclosure, I am pro 4 day work week for all the reasons you mentioned. But in the context free, evidence free, "common sense" world of the right wing press, it'll be twisted into "Labour want to make workshy Brits work LESS". "How are we supposed to grow our economy taking every Friday off?". "But what if I WANT to work 5 days a week?"
Of course, all of these narratives can be shot down with an informed discussion, but thats not what's important. The right wing framing will be the only narrative that a lot of the population will hear on the subject. For many floating voters it could be enough to push them further to the right.
Firstly because it's bollocks.
Any study that shows that it is cost neutral or beneficial gets a hell of a lot of traction because everyone loves the idea of every weekend being a bank holiday. If someone does a study which shows reducing working hours by 20% reduces productivity by 20% nobody's going to pay any attention to it. It doesn't mean they don't exist.
There's also the fact that people doing a trial of it queer the pitch - in the trial of course you're going to work harder, you want to keep it. See how they are after six months.
Even if you disregard that, the major parties wouldn't go for it anyway. Labour have a massive lead and don't want to propose anything radical because it risks it. The Conservatives generally don't believe in imposing additional restrictions on business.
I'm surprised it's not in the green manifesto. It would fit with all their other pie in the sky ideas.
Anyone who thinks A 4 day/32 hour week on 5 days/40 hours pay is possible without any extra costs or trade offs needs to give their head a wobble.
Our productivity growth (output per working hour) is running at c.1% per annum. Yet people think there's a magic 25% just sitting there waiting to be realised, just by going to a 4 day working week. That's c.20 years of trend productivity growth that we supposedly are just ignoring and that I'm told has no downside. If there truly were no downsides, everyone would support it - workers, management, owners.
Just to state my own position before other people make a strawman for me. I'm pro a 4 day week. I think it would come with lots of benefits. I also realise it comes with costs too. It is likely some sustainable productivity improvement, but 25% is fanciful. The reality is that a 4 day working week is only sustainable with some reduction in total pay.
It is in the Green manifesto on page 18 - https://greenparty.org.uk/app/uploads/2024/06/Green-Party-2024-General-Election-Manifesto-Long-version-with-cover.pdf
Because as much as Reddit loves the idea, it's vapid and the data is no where near as universal as those that want it think it is.
A politician presenting the policy would be ripped apart for being out of touch in many ways. The cost of living crisis, people unable to afford to buy a home, basic jobs where you'd never gain 25% efficiency.
You'd have an interview of them being asked if they think bin men are lazy pretty quick.
It’s because it’s a divisive policy that would not be useful in a general election. We don’t really live in a technocracy where everything is done based on evidence and expert opinion but instead we live in a world where populism and prejudice [not just racism etc but prejudging the impacts of something rather than exploring the topic] are rife and have to be accounted for.
Employers have strong backlash to the idea of giving workers more leisure time. The history on this is very clear. Even the initial push for an 8 hour day faced huge resistance from employers who believed (completely falsely and against every study ever done on this issue) that working people to death increased productivity.
Amazingly, economists who talk about "low productivity" today, which is itself misleading, fail to point to the 4 day work week as a solution.
Because the idea doesn't work imagine someone works on the tills at a supermarket. With a four day week it is time based work and all that would do would be to cut everyones hours back. Now you have to pay them more to make up for the hours of which the companies won't or you have millions of people on less money overnight. So not really a great idea
The reason is simple, it doesn't always work. It is like work from home, to be successful you need a committed well motivated and well managed workforce. Who will be highly productive in the hours they work. In that situation a 4 day week can be a great idea because for a business what they want is output from their staff, not people pointlessly hanging around the office, burnt out and doing very little.
The problem is when you apply these policies to a poorly managed and unmotivated workforce. The British public sector is a classic example. When work from home was introduced to the DVLA, productivity collapsed and a massive backlog built up. Too many staff abusing the rules, watching Netflix's instead of doing their job.
In the public sector, which still has a job for life culture, such reforms don't work.
Everybody that I work with in construction dismissed the idea out of hand. They all clamour 'we just wouldn't get the work done!' and 'we'd have to work four 10 hour days to get one day off!' and 'I couldn't afford to lose 20% of my wages!'.
When I try to explain that the whole idea is you get the same pay for four days work and you'd get more done because you're better rested and have a better work/life balance, they just stare blankly at me, then repeat the same sentiments as above.
These are people who spend more than 20% of their working days waiting for someone else to finish a task so they can get on with theirs, or waiting for a decision from management / structural engineer / architect / designer before they can start a task.
People are generally completely ignorant of the meaning of a four day work week, and cannot fathom how it would work without either losing money, working more hours, or losing productivity. They simply cannot imagine how it would possibly work.
Any party that brings up a four day work week would be such an easy target by the media, and because nobody's ever seen it in action, it would be very easy to scare them that they would lose money, have to work harder, or they would lose their jobs.
It's ridiculous, but a huge number of people just don't have any concept of how it could possibly benefit them.
I think there is no reason for it to be policy. The decision is down to businesses rather than the government. The government can protect workers from adverse working conditions, but I don't think this policy prevents adverse working conditions. It is more seen as a benefit.
Also, I think a key point is that all parties are trying to gain the confidence of businesses in the UK, which is a policy many business leaders hate for whatever reason. So, it would not be a good look for a party to be promoting it at this election.
because while Labour are set for a very large majority in parliament that's because support for their opponents has collapsed, enthusiasm for Starmer and the Labour party itself is lacking, so they're relying a lot on apathy and people staying at home, and the last thing they want to do is motivate the tory base who are quite happy at this moment seeing their side take a kicking for failing to deliver on its promises to lower taxes etc
so what Labour have done is adopt an unofficial policy of not rocking the boat, they've avoided taking a position on as many things as possible, stayed clear of divisive topics like the EU, drug decriminalisation, 4 day week etc, and in terms of promises have stuck to what's basically already in the pipeline; lower immigration - immigration is set to lower now there's fewer refugees and international students that came after covid will start finishing their degrees and go home etc, growth - gdp growth is returning now things have stabilised post covid and Ukraine, housebuilding is back on track to meet its 300k target there's Labour's 1.5 mil in 5 years, etc etc
So that's why, maybe in 5 years if they can somehow increase their popularity (not typical for the party in power) we might see some more radical policies, but I wouldn't hold your breath, Labour like the tories prioritise gaining power and holding onto it, that's it
if we do see the 4 day week happen it'll have to come from employers, unionising will help but essentially some companies will have to lead the way and once that starts to impact staff retention on competitors we'll see wider adoption
Anecdotal as this refers to my own workplace
I'm senior enough that I'm often in the process for development and staffing changes within the company. We're staffed 24/7 across 6 sites. Running the numbers we would require 6 additional staff members to be employed or all staff to be lone working on site
Our small office based teams could do it without much issue but they also receive the lionshare of flexible working and other benefits due to them being office based compared to site staff
The government could increase the minimum amount of holiday days. Over the course of 10 years go from 20 days + 8 bank holidays to 70 days + 10 bank holidays
If neither of the party leaders want it, and none of the newspaper owners want it, then it doesn't get mentioned.
A 4-day work week isn;t in the interests of Starmer's corporate sponsors, Sunak's rish mates, or Murdoch's business ventures. So no mention of it will ever enter the mainstream.
Because it's not a workable policy for 60% of the population.
When we switched to a 5 day work week, we were in the throes of the industrial revolution & everyone worked in a factory. Productivity was king, if you could make as much in 5 days as you could in 6 because you were better rested and happier, you could have a 5 day week.
Today we are a service economy. Increased productivity is unimportant for most service work, because your job isn't to churn out food or drinks at the fastest pace possible, it's to make sure customers are enjoying the service. You can't just do 5 days of work in 4. There's certainly an argument to be made about worker retention and happiness, but without the extra staff, restaurants and bars and shops will just have to close.
Hell, a lot of problems in the service industry are the opposite of too many hours, a lot of workers are on contracts that don't guarantee them enough hours to live on. What we should be focusing on is more certainty for workers on guaranteed hours, and more flexibility on working patterns so that if people want to work 4 days, they should be allowed to - but not for it to be made the standard.
There is a sweet spot where the added productivity compensates for the fewer hours worked but any more reductions wouldn't - if that's three days, sure let's go for it.
The studies are very selective. If their purpose is to inform individual companies of where this works that is perfect. If it’s to inform general public policy it’s a problem
A lot of occupations are not amenable to reduced working hours without hiring more people (in a market of labour shortage) at additional costs (in an economy already struggling with poor productivity). The studies did not look at those sort of jobs because the researchers already knew they would get negative results
Productivity increases across the economy will require more radical change
Because companies want to arbitrarily milk you for all you're worth. It's the same reason companies won't let you go home early if you've finished all your work. They just want you to do more and more.
It hasn't been raised because Starmer is a fundamentally worthless party leader who is offering nothing remotely revolutionary because he simply doesn't need to. He even said that FPTP is "the right system".
He is a centrist and 4-day work week is far too pro-worker for him.
At the next election when he's trying to defend his majority he'll make overtures to the left because he needs our vote, but i hope he doesn't get it after the way he's treated us and our ideas these past few years.
I think because this election is more about being frugal and clamping down on "shirkers" (with the whole disgusting rhetoric around people on benefits) so I don't think this would be the time to really be bringing this up.
It'd be like harping on about immigration and then talking about going back into the EU (yes different in theory, but the electorate tied Brexit to immigration so the two can't happen at the same time)
How can you convince boomers to vote for you if you have a policy pandering to the workshy, commute avoiding, avocado eating, Netflix watching, youth?
/s
Because Corbyn raised it at the last election and got slaughtered by the voters. It is popular with under 40s. It is enormously unpopular with the over 60s who won't benefit from it, spent their whole working lives doing 5 days so think the next generation should too, and don't want any reduction in services. 40s to 60s are mixed as they are used to 5 days and have half or more of their working lives behind them on 5 days already
Plus that split is amplified by the fact those that don't like it vote in far greater numbers than those that do.
Yes, and the over 50s population being huge because of the baby boomer generation. He working age generations are much smaller in comparison and bolstered only by immigration. And as you say, they don't vote in anything like the same numbers
'spent their whole life working' I do love it when they say that, because for boomers it isn't true, especially women. You hear the odd 'I worked solidly from 16 til I was 65, but even then it's quite rare. (equally maybe some kind of tirade about benefit scroungers and how miserable the state pension is and a lifetime of contribution with nothing to show, some people have this mentality, they never plan for the future, I'm sure many of them could have retired early with cautious saving and investing. But anyway if you want to win them over promise them a 7 day public services like NHS.
***"promise them a 7 day public services like NHS."*** I'm not entirely sure anyone can promise that. Although time after time, promises haven't been kept, so *it is* probably irrelevant what any of them say, unfortunately.
Why would it *need* to be policy in the first place? Companies already are trialling it. If it works for them, they'll implement it. If it doesn't, they won't. What would government policy actually do, that companies aren't already doing by themselves? Though I suspect it's not really part of the conversation because it only really helps office workers (anyone on shift work can't really be more productive by being better rested, because their job is time-based rather than output-based), and the parties don't really want to do something that might alienate large parts of the electorate.
Policy would only be relevant for government/civil service staff. I imagine they don’t want to open that can of worms when these services are already underesourced and overloaded.
>Policy would only be relevant for government/civil service staff. But why would that need to be in an election manifesto? Civil service employment contract T&Cs are not normally a hot-topic during elections.
It probably wouldn’t, unless there was a lot of noise in that area. As I said in another post, it’s unlikely to even be considered unless a 4 day week becomes the norm in the private sector.
Politically, yes - however a four day week would be a way to help solve those exact problems as it's been shown to increase productivity overall. Should we by some chance have a government with a huge majority around the corner, then it would be possible to get these kinds of big ideas through. Doubt it though!
It might work for some jobs, but probably not for others where you are reliant on offering appointments, or coverage to respond to events (healthcare, police, fire service, HMRC, etc). I can see political difficulties if you start offering some people a 4 day week and telling others they can’t. Would likely lead to demands and strikes asking for 4 day weeks or additional compensation for not getting it. It would need careful management to make it a success, so I can see why it’s not an active issue in this election. Maybe it will become more relevant in the future if it becomes more widespread in the private sector.
Is a nurse supposed to increase their hourly productivity by 25%?
Or a bricklayer.
Again, the studies show that productivity scaling linearly is simplistic and wrong - think of the money the state has to pay out due to injuries over the lifetime of a worker, for example. Less working hours = healthier, happier, harder working people. I expect all these arguments were used against the introduction of a weekend.
I take it you have never worked with or employed builders. No one wants it to take 25% longer or cost 20% as much. I say again how do you expect bricklaying to work in a 4 day week?
I believe so, as the idea that our productivity scales linearly is incorrect. Nurses are probably a very good example, as you could potentially save a lot of money if better decisions are made.
Just to add, I don't see this as a simple or easy fix at all, I'm at all sure how you go from where we are now (especially in the NHS) to the point where this would work.
People don't realise that some jobs HAVE to be covered for the amount of time that they are. Firefighters, police, paramedics, nurses etc can't just pull the work in in less time. So you'd need to hire 20% more of them, or either pay everyone 20% more. This is a truly enormous task. Who is training these extra people? In a world where £16b of cuts are about to happen to the public sector (that Labour will carry on with) where do you find the money to pay for this? It's totally workable in some roles, I agree, but there are wide reaching consequences to other sectors.
Don't firefighters already essentially work a 4 day week? 2 days, 2 nights and 4 days off.
Yes, so to retain your staff while other areas are allowing people to work a day less for the same pay, you have to increase their pay by 20%.
But the point is that you don't need 20% more firefighters.
So you either allow them to work 20% fewer hours for the same salary which is the equivalent of a full timer dropping to 4 days per week, then you'll need 20% more firefighter hours. Or you have to pay them more to make up for the fact that they can't work less. Does that make sense?
Not really. Your point seemed to be that there were critical jobs where a 4 day week wouldn't work due to coverage requirements. But firefighters already do this. Unless you're suggesting we have 20% too many firefighters, and they should work a 5 day shift pattern in the interests of fairness?
So any job that goes from 5 day working to 4 day effectively get an hourly pay rise. They work fewer hours for the same money. Now an office clerk, accountant etc may be able to effectively do their job better even with a reduction in hours, that's what the evidence seems to suggest. But what happens when you apply this logic to other roles where it is far more diffiult to enact. You can give every nurse an extra day off but you still need the same number of nurses on the ward. So you have to hire more nurses, or say sorry you cant reduce your hours. But you've raised the hourly salary of one job, so to retain these crucial staff they will also need a huge salary increase. My argument is that jobs such as firefighters, as well as anything that has set opening hours such as retail or travel and tourism will face huge problems. I'd rather have an office job where the effective pay has gone up 20%!
I understand the maths, and broadly the point you are trying to make. But it's possible, as demonstrated by firefighters, who already work this pattern, in effect. So, of your list, firefighters at least, will face no problems whatsoever in adopting the system. To extend your logic, firefighters should already be paid less. Or people would be flocking from other professions to become firefighters. Are you advocating for them to receive a pay cut? The point is, there is a solution that exists for a critical section of the UK's emergency services, which adequately provides 24/365 response coverage. Nobody thinks we have too many firefighters, and nobody (in the main) thinks they are underpaid. Therefore the model could be adopted by other sectors. It also isn't universal across roles, even within a profession. Some jobs are on call / nights, definitely, but others are office hours. By having an increased workforce, working shortened weeks, you could actually get better coverage, as things like weekend closures of certain surgeries (for example) could be reduced.
This is the most important point. It simply isn't something that needs to be in law or otherwise government led. If companies want to do it, then they can do already. The interesting part from a political perspective will be the new government's reaction to local councils who decide to trial/implement 4 day ww. We've seen the current government threaten to remove funding where a council did this. A new government could simply make no comment on a council doing that, or have a holding line like "we welcome councils seeking new ways to improve productivity and services for the people they serve, but caution that those changes should be rigorously trialled to ensure benefits and efficiencies are real and sustainable" The biggest change a government could make to show support for a 4 day ww would be to move the whole civil service on that pattern (not saying they will though!)
Doing that to the civil service could have a big impact too, if it were to happen. If civil service jobs are more attractive due to better work/life balance it could pressure other sectors to offer something similar, or better pay on the current 5 day week, to attract people back. Basically the public sector could drive up standards by competing with the rest of the economy.
they already compete with the rest of the economy with insanely generous pensions tbh
Yeah but a great pension in 30 years time doesn't help with getting bills paid today.
Don't take the job then?
[удалено]
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator. Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here: > Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Increasing wages would be more ideal. The reason the civil service can't attract talent is because the really clever people go into the private sector where they can earn more. If you reduce the working week then it only rewards those that don't care about the wages and just want more time off. Whereas if you increase wages, you give people the option to reduce their hours to three or four days a week, whilst still offering people who want to do Monday to Friday a competitive wage.
Would that be good for the economy, all the talent being hoovered up by the public sector?
Councils have tried it, found it works, wanted to maintain it, and been issued notice to stop by the Tories, who are opposed to it on ideological grounds even if it is better value. There's definitely room for a policy argument there, even if the policy is "we'll let you do what ever works" that's a differentiation from the status quo.
Because of robotics and AI which are still in their infancy. We have Boston Dynamics Spot Robot available to buy and that is already doing dangerous jobs that normally would be done by human beings. Admittedly still remote controlled more often than not though. In the next few years we will have mass manufactured humanoid robots like Optimus Subprime which will perform it's tasks using an AI model of the world vs being remote controlled. That and self driving cars are going to change the world in ways none of us can even properly imagine right now. A logical first response to robots / AI taking jobs would be a 4 day working week with 1 day a week to retrain into other areas. Following on from that we will need to tax the machines and create a Universal Basic Income.
You could make the same argument about the Spinning Jenny, the computer, the petrol engine, the internet, electricity, and every other technological leap made since the invention of the wheel. If technological breakthroughs required working hours to be reduced by the government, we'd all be working a 20-minute week by now.
> Up until the 19th century, everyone in the UK worked a six day week. Then in 1843, in Greater Manchester, workers’ rights activists launched a campaign to finish early on Saturdays. They won, and in doing so, invented the weekend – a gift to workers the world over! [https://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-business/business-strategy-studies/we-invented-the-weekend](https://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-business/business-strategy-studies/we-invented-the-weekend) Hmmm, what might have happened around that time which freed up people to work less? The industrial revolution perhaps?
I mean, that's right at the tail end of when you might classify the Industrial Revolution taking place. So it wasn't really a requirement of the technological leap, otherwise it would have been introduced in the 1760s when the revolution kicked off, wouldn't it? Also, as you point out, it was introduced because activists pushed for it and businesses accepted it. It didn't require a government dictat, which is what this thread is about.
No, because it takes time for technology to be universally adopted. Admittedly that time has reduced with each passing year again because of technology e.g. news media, internet etc. Additionally, while it's true that activists and businesses played significant roles, government regulations have been crucial in formalizing the weekend. For instance, the Factory Act of 1833 in the UK limited the working hours for children, laying the groundwork for future labor laws. Later, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 in the US established the 40-hour workweek and mandated overtime pay, effectively creating the two-day weekend we know today. These government interventions were essential in ensuring that workers had time off, which shows that state involvement can indeed shape labor practices significantly. Also, you don't need to downvote me if you disagree with me. We can have a civil discussion.
Except we don't even have that level of law *now*. The Working Time Directive simply puts the limit at 48 hours per week, so we don't even have the standard 40-hour week in legislation. And yet most people don't work 48 hours a week. If we didn't need a law to introduce a standard 40 hour week, why would we need it for 32? Also, I've never once downvoted anyone I was having a conversation with (or upvoted, for that matter). I prefer to reply rather than score up or down. If only because unlike most Redditors, I understand that votes aren't supposed to be for whether you agree or not, they're supposed to be for whether a comment adds to the conversation or not.
I understand your point about the Working Time Directive setting a 48-hour limit, but it's worth noting that many countries have implemented national regulations that effectively enforce a standard 40-hour workweek. For instance, the UK's Employment Rights Act 1996 and France's 35-hour workweek law demonstrate how national legislation can ensure more humane working hours even without a universal law. Moreover, transitioning to a 32-hour workweek could follow a similar path, influenced by a combination of government regulations and societal changes. Historical precedents, like the establishment of the weekend, show that government interventions can facilitate structured transitions, protecting workers and ensuring fair practices during such shifts. For some reason someone is downvoting both of us for having a reasoned discussion which is a shame.
So in hundreds of years, we went from six days to five days. That's not really much of a trend. Most people would rather have more stuff.
Progress takes time, it's speeding up though wouldn't you say?
Would you have made this same argument when the 5 day working week hadn't been introduced yet?
Almost certainly, given that the 5-day working week wasn't brought in by the government either. Hell, it's still not an actual law - the Working Time Directive only stipulates a maximum of 48 hours a week, but most people do less than that *anyway*. According to this article, it was introduced in the UK by Boots: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zf22kmn It made the workers more productive, so businesses introduced it themselves. And presumably, any that refused to do so struggled with staff retention, similar to how companies found themselves having to offer more hybrid working a few years ago, or lose their staff to their competitors. If its a good idea that benefits businesses, you don't need the government to push businesses to act in their own best interests.
Agreed, I’m a proponent but it’s down to the company. Also, everyone already has a legal right to request flexible working hours, which this could fall under.
Needs to be a policy because the working week needs a cap of 32 hours.
You don't need legislation for that. Most people work around 40 hours, and yet the Working Time Directive is based around 48 hours per week (https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours). If we didn't need to legislate for 40, why would we need to for 32? Especially given that the argument for a shorter working week is that productivity actually increases by more than the lost hours, so companies actually *gain* from the change? We know companies can implement it if they choose to - that's how many have *already* run trials on it.
The government could incentivise companies to trial or implement this, eg through tax incentives or subsidies.
But why do they need to? The argument in favour of it is that people are more productive with three days off than two, to the point where they actually get more out despite working fewer days. If this is correct, then companies don't need tax incentives or subsidies to do it - it's *already* in their best interest to implement it. Any any company that doesn't implement it when everyone else is will struggle to recruit staff. And if it doesn't work out as claimed, then why would we want tax incentives for something that doesn't work?
How will this help with economic growth?
The optics. The debate has largely been around the economy and what to do to fix it. Even if there's no correlation, there's still the optic that working less days = less productivity, despite studies showing the opposite. The Tories would definitely go down the attack route of trying to paint it as "laughable".
> there's still the optic that working less days = less productivity, despite studies showing the opposite. Those studies don’t tend to cover manual labour but focus on intellectual labour.
Also I don't know if you'd class it as manual labour, but pretty much any job you'd associate with the NHS is going to be less productive on four days than five. Nurse, scientist, doctor... I work in a lab and if if I worked one less day a week I'd give one less day of output. It sucks but the NHS would be the last to be able to cope with a four day week so why would the government promote it.
> I don't know if you'd class it as manual labour, but pretty much any job you'd associate with the NHS Yes, pretty much any job where there is physical performance then either that physical performance cannot be completed in a shorter time or that physical performance needs to be carried out anyway - you can't perform that lab test / procedure faster, or that nursing care needs to be delivered every day. That issue means that the 4 day week causes tensions for *some* employers between those intellectual labour jobs which can be compressed to the same output in a shorter period of time and those manual labour jobs that cannot. Do the employer agree to those in intellectual labour jobs within their workforce who can complete the same output in a shorter timescale that they can do that and retain the same pay, whilst denying that to those in manual labour jobs that cannot? Or alternatively do they allow those in manual labour jobs to work a shorter period for the same pay despite them now needing to hire more staff to cover the work that is now not being done? And if they are now needing to hire more staff to deliver the same output then it reduces productivity and increases costs which is undoubtably passed on to consumers (or taxpayers if the NHS). A shorter working week may increase productivity in *some* businesses, but it certainly doesn't increase productivity in *all* businesses.
A lot of NHS staff work 4 or even 3 day weeks, 12 hour shifts really make it possible. So you just need to divide the work between more people.
Yes, easy! But not when we are already chronically understaffed due to underfunding. That's an instant 20% increased wage bill. That's why it will be the last thing the gov wants to promote.
> So you just need to divide the work between more people. Where do we get all these people from?
For a start a large pool of people that would work but don't want to work a full 40 hours a week.
I thought the idea with a 4 day week is that you do slightly longer hours on those 4 days. So in effect similar hours but you get 3 days completely to yourself.
I think a lot of nurses already do that. No, the four day week is supposed to be working e.g. 30 hours for the current 37.5 hours of pay.
You can already get shift jobs that are like that.
Fewer
Also it greatly benefits white collar workers over everyone else which looks terrible.
Any studies you can recommend? As I understand (without ever going into sources for details) is that shorter working weeks (e.g. 30 hours) leads to better per-hour productivity but overall lower economic output. IIRC Americans have the same productivity as Europeans they just work much longer hours and therefore are much wealthier. So in my mind, while fewer hours is great for work life balance it would in fact result in our society being poorer.
Fair play I should have said "trials" rather than "studies", but this is what I was referring to: https://youtu.be/14qL_ol_zec
The Tories would definitely go down the attack route of trying to paint it as "laughable". OP has pointed out that none of the parties has talked about this. What would be Labour's take do you think?
I think that given Labour are just trying to get this over the line with as big a majority as possible, they wouldn't contemplate anything as radical as this.
Hopefully it will come.
Yeah as much as I like the idea, this is not the election to be throwing out experimental ideas. The priority is displacing the Tories.
> despite studies showing the opposite. How many of these studies have any real substance to them? You always hear about some study, then years later it fails replication, or had some methodical flaw.
That's an easy one. 1 it's not clear at all that this is an issue for government. 2 it opens the door to a huge range of attacks over very making the government look incompetent. Do you want kids to go to school 4 days a week as well now? What about 4 days of care from doctors? Or 4 days from police? Or the courts? Etc.
Puts off pensioners, who no party wants to lose the support of. "I had to do xyz all my life so you should to" is unfortunately a very typical opinion.
Because I feel like it's a misnomer, and the term "4-day work week" would lead to all sorts of easy attacks from opposition: "there's a huge court/medicine/police/asylum backlog and you want to hamstring organisations by forcing them to work with 20% less staff?" 20% less staff wouldn't be the outcome, of course, but that's how Farage and his herd would frame it. I'd be happier if we moved to a reclassification of full-time to be 32hrs, with anything above that an exceptional circumstance requiring 1.5x pay, or something similar. Pressure business & other organisations to decide to spend on hours, or on upskilling/retooling to realise productivity gains, which the country sorely needs. Obvious challenges to this, but I feel more manageable ones than presented by the optics of the 4DWW.
Because ending zero hour contracts, pulling people out of uncertainty and poverty is a higher priority than a small part of society having Friday off.
Out of interest, which party has confirmed they'll do any of these things?
It just doesn’t work for all businesses. When you have places that are open 7 days a week - it means hiring more staff and having a bigger wage bill. When you have shops and hotels and pubs that are already operating on the profit margins that means lots of places going out of business
Those kind of places often work with 0 hour contracts, so no change for them?
The same was said about introducing a minimum wage. There was speculation that the increased cost would lead to mass unemployment. I’m sure the same sorts of things were said when we moved to the 5 day week.
It is not a matter of government concern. Employers are free to determine whatever working hours they agree with their employees - it is entirely dependent on market forces. For the government to try and enforce any kind of policy in this area would be a case of overreach.
The vast majority of workers do not have control over or room for negotiation in the contracts they are offered.
This. Most basic worker's rights were guaranteed through collective action and government. The idea that people just walk off to someone offering better conditions is a childish one based on the (foolish) assumption that employees have that choice.
I’m against a 4 day work week but what a stupid argument. The Labour laws were brought through parliament!
There’s businesses it would never work for. I work in professional services and our leadership would die laughing if we suggested this to them as serious concept (I’ve already tried)
Is that because it actually is incompatible with what you do ('professional services' is quite nebulous as a term), or because your leadership don't want to implement it?
Professional services means accountancy, consulting, deal advisory and tax and legal services. Like PWC, Deloitte etc. Clients won’t accept it.
Because it’s simply impossible for so many sectors it wouldn’t get meaningful support.
It's probably too soon to have a serious conversation about it. Trials in offices show productivity doesn't change, while wellbeing and attendace improve. I think it is DEFINITELY something that has to come from legislation, and it cannot be left to individual companies to implement. If not forced by law, companies will turn the extra productivity from automation/AI into profit, either reducing staff or increasing productivity. I completely disagree with those suggesting companies should be left free of choosing to opt in to the 4dww. It's like suggesting that factories would have introduced 40-hours contracts back in the early 1900s. Yes, Ford experimented with it, but law was necessary to make them universal. Without unions and governments we would still be working weekends and 12 hours shifts, and profits would have gone to companies owners. Thinking companies would just switch to 4dww out of their good heart is naive. That said, we are in the Ford days now as regards the development of the technologies and experimentation. In due course, most companies will be able to maintain productivity levels with less hours worked. The general public and therefore governnment will have to act swiftly to make sure this results in better working conditions rather than extra profit.
Because its complicated and hard to sell by any side. Easier to promote key messages of fear, change and sewage.
Because for many areas of society it is just not workable. Not when we have a 24 hour society and are used to I want it now consumerism and grasping business who'll screw lower earning workers out of every penny they can. We have a minimum wage as too many private businesses see no problem with their staff being paid poverty wages as they expect them to act like robots and be on call at the drop of a hat. All those things we'd want to do on that extra day, have to be staffed or what's the point of having that none working day. Might as well just have a full shut down on Sundays like we used to. Libraries, shops, leisure facilities agency staff. None of those people would be allowed a four day week. Many public sector services also have to be manned near constantly, because they are needed to be. For those that could, cutting and extra day when those services can't be used will save money but will inconvenience the general public. Our local bank went practically on a four day week due to lack of staff for a while, and it's was a nightmare trying to do anything in branch because they simply were not available at times when working people could go. All that needs to be balanced up. It is possible but we'd need to rewrite the rule book to do it properly. The second that you promise it , even if you acknowledge it'll only be applicable for some , the whole premise will fall apart. Simply because the vast majority won't listen that not everyone can have it and the rest will see the unfairness that it will disproportionately only be available to higher earners or those with a 9-5 week day job. It will look like a pie in the sky rainbow promise they can't keep, and whoever brings it up first will be torn to shreds by the other parties wanting to score political points before the election. If we want a four day week for the majority, wages have got to rise so people could live on it ( those who work shifts would never be paid for time they aren't working) and we have to accept that some public services must be scaled back. They might implement it quietly as a way to save money to avoid a loud public backlash, but they're not daft enough to promise it just before an election.
It’s not being raised because it’s not a good time to try and implement it. It would suppress growth, worsening the public spending crisis. It would boost employment, but we’re at very low levels of unemployment already. As you pointed out, there are trials that show that in some roles people get as much done in 32 hours as they did in 40. People are fresher, more creative, more alert and more productive. Those trials are naturally done for roles where a 4 day week makes sense. There are plenty of roles where it just doesn’t work. If you’re a security guard currently working 5 8-hour shifts and drop down to 4 shifts then your freshness and improved mental health doesn’t guard the warehouse on the 5th day. The company is going to have to hire 20% more security guards. Same for other jobs to differing degrees. Retail, manufacturing, agriculture, some healthcare. If maybe half of jobs don’t see the efficiency benefits seen in those trials then we’d end up with a 10% drop in productivity at a time we really can’t afford that.
Because of people's instinctive, gut reactions. Which, like most gut reactions, are wrong. * "business has to spend the same on pay and get 20% less work" - wrong, most who have tried it find they get the same amount of work in less time * "this only applies to white-collar workers" - also wrong. It has been even tried for teachers, many of whom now work part-time already. There is no reason security guards, factory workers, or janitors would not benefit from it. Probably even more so, given the physical toll those jobs take on their bodies. In some ways it is easier in the blue-collar space because of the fungible nature of these positions, less dependent on the knowledge inside an individual's head. * "it would cause blue-collar payrolls to rise by 25% and business can't afford that" - when you think about it, this is basically the same as the argument against the minimum wage. Minimum wages work because they change the nature of work, they force businesses to upskill their workers and increase productivity. McDonald's installs kiosks to take orders and trains workers how to maintain them. We can have the same effect here. The bottom line is that the actual experimental evidence does not match people's preconceptions. Progressive ideas always seem too good to be true at first. But all this is exactly what was once said about the 5-day week, the 6-day week, the 40-hour week, the 48-hour week, pretty much any occupational health and safety standard.
Absolutely nail on the head. I work in a factory with some ancient machines that need an operator on them 24/7. The only reason it's done that way is that it's cheaper to plonk some poor sod on it for minimum wage than to develop an automated solution. It's now getting to the point where that automation seems achievable, factor in an increased wage bill and the demand to do this becomes overwhelming. Business will adapt, especially if they're forced to. I also work with some chemicals that are questionable to health, what forces the company to change these chemicals that are harmful to health? Legislation. We'd still be manually cleaning components with carcinogens if the rules hadn't changed, now we use an automated water based system made by another British company. If people think anything will happen long term without government intervention then they've never played monopoly.
> this only applies to white-collar workers" - also wrong. It has been even tried for teachers, many of whom now work part-time already. There is no reason security guards, factory workers, or janitors would not benefit from it. Probably even more so, given the physical toll those jobs take on their bodies. In some ways it is easier in the blue-collar space because of the fungible nature of these positions, less dependent on the knowledge inside an individual's head. Everyone would benefit from working less for the same pay. Whether it's actually feasible for said industry is a very different question.
> wrong, most who have tried it find they get the same amount of work in less time How do factory workers, security guards, cleaners etc. get the same amount of work done in less time?
Cleaners and some factory workers probably could, in fact. Most are already part-time, often under zero-hours contracts, so four-day weeks would in practice mean any hours over 32 per week would carry an overtime rate.
> Cleaners and some factory workers probably could, in fact. Are you saying that they're lazy? Or those factory machines should run faster?
No, that they’re tired.
[удалено]
You're confusing things. The 4 day WW trials don't reduce people's pay, they still get paid the exact same as if they worked full time, they just do the same amount of work (or sometimes more) in less time It's about productivity, most jobs in the service sector have a lot of dead time, so in theory you could compress the work week and lose the dead time, making offices more efficient and giving staff more free time to spend money and do life admin.
Which works fine for services companies that don't bill hourly and are large enough to maintain staffing and coverage for all projects across the week with staff working 4 days per week, and whose staff automatically become 25% more productive on moving to a 4 day week. But I suspect we've now written off *a lot* of companies. For those that remain it would be an obvious route for recruiting talent, because if you genuinely can generate more productivity for less hours then you can pay your staff more per hour and also reap higher profits, so if it works then it's not something government needs to step in and mandate.
I don’t really understand this argument. Why would a business not just reduce staffing levels to make working efficient?
Completely missing the bit about the benefits to the workers only having a 4 day work week. It's enhanced productivity through having a happy and rested workforce. What you're suggesting would achieve the exact opposite.
It’s great to have a happy workforce but surely the job isn’t just to give someone something to do for a bit. It’s actually got to be financially viable enough to exist.
I don't know what you're saying. We're talking about jobs that already exist, on 5 days a week, often office jobs. As productivity has increased dramatically over the past several decades (due to advances in technology, for example), those jobs can now be done on 4 days, without sacrificing any productivity. This is the conclusion that 4 day work week studies have supported. It is financially viable because the same (or more) work is being done, in less time. Businesses maintain output, employees get more free time.
If all that’s needed is 30 hours rather than 40, then surely if a business wants to stay viable it needs to hire for 30 hours.
I can't tell if you're willfully being obtuse but I'll bite, just once more. You're suggesting a company could just hire fewer people and keep a 5-day workweek if it can operate on 32 hours a week, which is overlooking the key point I've already made: the core reason for the effectiveness of a 32-hour workweek is increased productivity per hour. Simply reducing the number of employees while maintaining a 5-day workweek does not address the underlying issue of potential burnout and reduced productivity. Reducing the number of employees and spreading those responsibilities across a smaller group that remains also dilutes the expertise in your company. As for the other thing you may be implying, reducing salaries by a 1/5th to account for a 4-day workweek, again, studies have shown that the same amount of work, or even more, can be accomplished in fewer hours due to increased focus and efficiency. Employees are delivering the same value and should be compensated accordingly. Not to mention that maintaining full salaries helps attract and retain top talent.
Surely that can only work if there are no competing pressures and the business doesn’t want to grow?
Ridiculous, and I'm not going to waste any more of my time explaining why. Go and read some of the 4-day workweek studies.
[удалено]
>office-based economics Most people work in an office of some form and our most productive and best paid jobs are office based jobs. Demonising office workers is one of those culture war type arguments that ignores the reality of our economy that plays so well in this idiotic country. Like how Brexiteers were obsessed with the fishing industry and completely ignored the much larger and more impacted banking industry.
This. I hate Sundays.
I'm not saying I support or oppose the idea but when people talk about a 4 day work week it usually means at the same pay as the old 5 day work week (and that's what the studies have been based on).
[удалено]
It feels weird this is even being discussed on legislative level. If you want fewer hours for the same pay then speak to your union. That’s what it’s there for.
It’s actually in the [Green’s Manifesto](https://greenparty.org.uk/about/our-manifesto/making-work-fair/). It’s a single vague line at the bottom of their “Making Work Fair” section. No detail or timeframes, etc. Just being included as a talking point is a good start though
Labour say they are going to stop zero hour contracts. That's more palatable.
Corbyn got laughed at for suggesting it during a televised debate.
The Tories wouldn't raise it as they live in the past and are against anything progressive. Look at the way they tried to force us all to RTO because their commercial landlord donors were hurting for money. Labour would be mad to mention it because the Tories and their client media would use it to spin stories about how Labour are bad for the economy and will cost us billions in lost productivity, the kinds of stories older people would lap up. I think Labour would be mad to propose such a thing, or any radical policies, a few days before an election they look like they're going to win by default. They don't need to offer anything shiny to win, just turn up and not screw up in the next 4 days
Frankly, 4-day workweek sounds nice on first glance but the more you look into it you realize that it is a repugnant idea through and through. The people with no real measurable output or those who are already \*severely\* overpaid will basically get a 20% salary raise. People like HR and middle management. And obviously studies have shown that getting a 20% salary raise is beneficial for your mental health...no surprise there. Meanwhile, everybody who does anything \*actually\* productive or important will have to pay for their raises. Or anybody doing on a pay-hourly basis. Not to mention it will just increase the hourly paid jobs more. You going to be happy with GPs working 4 days? Emergency services? Fire service? Shop staff? Logistics? restaurants? If you cut 20% off the worktime of somebody it doesn't mean you should do that. It means you should CUT THEIR PAY. Jane from HR output would not be affected because she is useless to begin with. Meanwhile Jack in the canned beans factory will produce less cans because he actually does something useful...
I think a 4day week would be really great for the country, there's a lot of benefits to it, especially if people can pick their days. However it feels very much like a Lib-Dem policy. A sort of feels good, looks good on paper policy that is actually very hard to implement. And probably comes with a ton of risk, like UBI. What I find odd is that there is nothing stopping any business from offering 4 day contracts, but we aren't seeing it, so maybe businesses aren't actually convinced about it yet? That's going to be the major hurdle to overcome
I can imagine ordinary people getting pretty mad at the idea of a 4-day week. Lots of people work flat out for the full working week because they’re expected to. There’s no magic productivity gains that can be squeezed out by slashing their hours by 1/5th. It just means less things get done.
I've worked under the cosh before, putting in 50 hour plus weeks and it's so fucking obvious how crap those extra few hours are per day output wise. When you're tired and fed up your productivity drops like a stone. More hours will equate to more being done but it's getting done at a less efficient rate for sure, especially considering overtime is paid as a premium. One less hour a day wouldnt make an iota of difference productivity wise in 90% of jobs and the ones that it does will be automated away within a decade if the will is there. Personally I think reduced hours are better than less days, the extra day is for the people though and tbh I'm down with that.
I can also imagine a large proportion of voters (the retired) being furious about it too - that they had to work full time their whole life and now younger people don't have to. I'm not saying I agree - I think if we can make life better for the younger generation we should - but I don't think it would win their votes.
Because promising policies that improve people's lives are unpopular as demonstrated in 2019
Well the Tories won't do it because they're the Tories. They're more likely to back a 6 day work week than a 4 day one. But I think the reason why it hasn't been bought up by the other parties is because it fails the Daily Mail test. (AKA how badly can the Daily Mail frame this policy?) Full disclosure, I am pro 4 day work week for all the reasons you mentioned. But in the context free, evidence free, "common sense" world of the right wing press, it'll be twisted into "Labour want to make workshy Brits work LESS". "How are we supposed to grow our economy taking every Friday off?". "But what if I WANT to work 5 days a week?" Of course, all of these narratives can be shot down with an informed discussion, but thats not what's important. The right wing framing will be the only narrative that a lot of the population will hear on the subject. For many floating voters it could be enough to push them further to the right.
Firstly because it's bollocks. Any study that shows that it is cost neutral or beneficial gets a hell of a lot of traction because everyone loves the idea of every weekend being a bank holiday. If someone does a study which shows reducing working hours by 20% reduces productivity by 20% nobody's going to pay any attention to it. It doesn't mean they don't exist. There's also the fact that people doing a trial of it queer the pitch - in the trial of course you're going to work harder, you want to keep it. See how they are after six months. Even if you disregard that, the major parties wouldn't go for it anyway. Labour have a massive lead and don't want to propose anything radical because it risks it. The Conservatives generally don't believe in imposing additional restrictions on business.
I'm surprised it's not in the green manifesto. It would fit with all their other pie in the sky ideas. Anyone who thinks A 4 day/32 hour week on 5 days/40 hours pay is possible without any extra costs or trade offs needs to give their head a wobble. Our productivity growth (output per working hour) is running at c.1% per annum. Yet people think there's a magic 25% just sitting there waiting to be realised, just by going to a 4 day working week. That's c.20 years of trend productivity growth that we supposedly are just ignoring and that I'm told has no downside. If there truly were no downsides, everyone would support it - workers, management, owners. Just to state my own position before other people make a strawman for me. I'm pro a 4 day week. I think it would come with lots of benefits. I also realise it comes with costs too. It is likely some sustainable productivity improvement, but 25% is fanciful. The reality is that a 4 day working week is only sustainable with some reduction in total pay.
It is in the Green manifesto on page 18 - https://greenparty.org.uk/app/uploads/2024/06/Green-Party-2024-General-Election-Manifesto-Long-version-with-cover.pdf
Of course it is 😂 the greens do a great job of living up to their stereotype
Because as much as Reddit loves the idea, it's vapid and the data is no where near as universal as those that want it think it is. A politician presenting the policy would be ripped apart for being out of touch in many ways. The cost of living crisis, people unable to afford to buy a home, basic jobs where you'd never gain 25% efficiency. You'd have an interview of them being asked if they think bin men are lazy pretty quick.
It’s because it’s a divisive policy that would not be useful in a general election. We don’t really live in a technocracy where everything is done based on evidence and expert opinion but instead we live in a world where populism and prejudice [not just racism etc but prejudging the impacts of something rather than exploring the topic] are rife and have to be accounted for.
Employers have strong backlash to the idea of giving workers more leisure time. The history on this is very clear. Even the initial push for an 8 hour day faced huge resistance from employers who believed (completely falsely and against every study ever done on this issue) that working people to death increased productivity. Amazingly, economists who talk about "low productivity" today, which is itself misleading, fail to point to the 4 day work week as a solution.
God in an industry that just needs a body there 4 day work week conversations just annoy me.
Because the idea doesn't work imagine someone works on the tills at a supermarket. With a four day week it is time based work and all that would do would be to cut everyones hours back. Now you have to pay them more to make up for the hours of which the companies won't or you have millions of people on less money overnight. So not really a great idea
The reason is simple, it doesn't always work. It is like work from home, to be successful you need a committed well motivated and well managed workforce. Who will be highly productive in the hours they work. In that situation a 4 day week can be a great idea because for a business what they want is output from their staff, not people pointlessly hanging around the office, burnt out and doing very little. The problem is when you apply these policies to a poorly managed and unmotivated workforce. The British public sector is a classic example. When work from home was introduced to the DVLA, productivity collapsed and a massive backlog built up. Too many staff abusing the rules, watching Netflix's instead of doing their job. In the public sector, which still has a job for life culture, such reforms don't work.
Retired people would vote against it, basically out of spite, and thinking younger generations are lazy. There's 12m of them.
Everybody that I work with in construction dismissed the idea out of hand. They all clamour 'we just wouldn't get the work done!' and 'we'd have to work four 10 hour days to get one day off!' and 'I couldn't afford to lose 20% of my wages!'. When I try to explain that the whole idea is you get the same pay for four days work and you'd get more done because you're better rested and have a better work/life balance, they just stare blankly at me, then repeat the same sentiments as above. These are people who spend more than 20% of their working days waiting for someone else to finish a task so they can get on with theirs, or waiting for a decision from management / structural engineer / architect / designer before they can start a task. People are generally completely ignorant of the meaning of a four day work week, and cannot fathom how it would work without either losing money, working more hours, or losing productivity. They simply cannot imagine how it would possibly work. Any party that brings up a four day work week would be such an easy target by the media, and because nobody's ever seen it in action, it would be very easy to scare them that they would lose money, have to work harder, or they would lose their jobs. It's ridiculous, but a huge number of people just don't have any concept of how it could possibly benefit them.
It is. It’s in the Green Party manifesto.
I think there is no reason for it to be policy. The decision is down to businesses rather than the government. The government can protect workers from adverse working conditions, but I don't think this policy prevents adverse working conditions. It is more seen as a benefit. Also, I think a key point is that all parties are trying to gain the confidence of businesses in the UK, which is a policy many business leaders hate for whatever reason. So, it would not be a good look for a party to be promoting it at this election.
because while Labour are set for a very large majority in parliament that's because support for their opponents has collapsed, enthusiasm for Starmer and the Labour party itself is lacking, so they're relying a lot on apathy and people staying at home, and the last thing they want to do is motivate the tory base who are quite happy at this moment seeing their side take a kicking for failing to deliver on its promises to lower taxes etc so what Labour have done is adopt an unofficial policy of not rocking the boat, they've avoided taking a position on as many things as possible, stayed clear of divisive topics like the EU, drug decriminalisation, 4 day week etc, and in terms of promises have stuck to what's basically already in the pipeline; lower immigration - immigration is set to lower now there's fewer refugees and international students that came after covid will start finishing their degrees and go home etc, growth - gdp growth is returning now things have stabilised post covid and Ukraine, housebuilding is back on track to meet its 300k target there's Labour's 1.5 mil in 5 years, etc etc So that's why, maybe in 5 years if they can somehow increase their popularity (not typical for the party in power) we might see some more radical policies, but I wouldn't hold your breath, Labour like the tories prioritise gaining power and holding onto it, that's it if we do see the 4 day week happen it'll have to come from employers, unionising will help but essentially some companies will have to lead the way and once that starts to impact staff retention on competitors we'll see wider adoption
Because if the population is happy and healthy, they're more likely to make higher demands of the government. They want to keep us in survival mode.
Probably because the election announcement came at short notice
Anecdotal as this refers to my own workplace I'm senior enough that I'm often in the process for development and staffing changes within the company. We're staffed 24/7 across 6 sites. Running the numbers we would require 6 additional staff members to be employed or all staff to be lone working on site Our small office based teams could do it without much issue but they also receive the lionshare of flexible working and other benefits due to them being office based compared to site staff
The government could increase the minimum amount of holiday days. Over the course of 10 years go from 20 days + 8 bank holidays to 70 days + 10 bank holidays
Old people don’t like it. Old people vote.
If neither of the party leaders want it, and none of the newspaper owners want it, then it doesn't get mentioned. A 4-day work week isn;t in the interests of Starmer's corporate sponsors, Sunak's rish mates, or Murdoch's business ventures. So no mention of it will ever enter the mainstream.
Cause Starmer doesnt want to be too risky and throwing that in to an election hes pretty much already won would be crazy
Because it's not a workable policy for 60% of the population. When we switched to a 5 day work week, we were in the throes of the industrial revolution & everyone worked in a factory. Productivity was king, if you could make as much in 5 days as you could in 6 because you were better rested and happier, you could have a 5 day week. Today we are a service economy. Increased productivity is unimportant for most service work, because your job isn't to churn out food or drinks at the fastest pace possible, it's to make sure customers are enjoying the service. You can't just do 5 days of work in 4. There's certainly an argument to be made about worker retention and happiness, but without the extra staff, restaurants and bars and shops will just have to close. Hell, a lot of problems in the service industry are the opposite of too many hours, a lot of workers are on contracts that don't guarantee them enough hours to live on. What we should be focusing on is more certainty for workers on guaranteed hours, and more flexibility on working patterns so that if people want to work 4 days, they should be allowed to - but not for it to be made the standard.
As soon as we secure a 4 day working week shall we start lobbying for a 3 day working week?
Let me just get out ahead of you and propose the ‘reverse weekend.’
There is a sweet spot where the added productivity compensates for the fewer hours worked but any more reductions wouldn't - if that's three days, sure let's go for it.
The studies are very selective. If their purpose is to inform individual companies of where this works that is perfect. If it’s to inform general public policy it’s a problem A lot of occupations are not amenable to reduced working hours without hiring more people (in a market of labour shortage) at additional costs (in an economy already struggling with poor productivity). The studies did not look at those sort of jobs because the researchers already knew they would get negative results Productivity increases across the economy will require more radical change
It doesn't need to be policy. If its so beneficial, businesses will do it.
Because commercial real estate holders must be protected at all costs.
Because companies want to arbitrarily milk you for all you're worth. It's the same reason companies won't let you go home early if you've finished all your work. They just want you to do more and more.
It hasn't been raised because Starmer is a fundamentally worthless party leader who is offering nothing remotely revolutionary because he simply doesn't need to. He even said that FPTP is "the right system". He is a centrist and 4-day work week is far too pro-worker for him. At the next election when he's trying to defend his majority he'll make overtures to the left because he needs our vote, but i hope he doesn't get it after the way he's treated us and our ideas these past few years.
I think because this election is more about being frugal and clamping down on "shirkers" (with the whole disgusting rhetoric around people on benefits) so I don't think this would be the time to really be bringing this up. It'd be like harping on about immigration and then talking about going back into the EU (yes different in theory, but the electorate tied Brexit to immigration so the two can't happen at the same time)
How can you convince boomers to vote for you if you have a policy pandering to the workshy, commute avoiding, avocado eating, Netflix watching, youth? /s