The Case for the Four-Day Working Week

The trial evidence

The most significant four-day week trial in the UK ran from June to December 2022, with 61 companies and around 2,900 employees. Participants worked four days a week (typically 32 hours) for the same pay as a five-day week. At the end of the trial, 56 of 61 companies said they would continue the four-day week, and 18 made it permanent. Researcher-measured productivity across the participating companies was maintained or improved, and absenteeism fell significantly.

The historical pattern

The current 40-hour, five-day working week was itself a radical reduction from the 60-70 hour weeks common in 19th-century industrial Britain. The reduction came in stages, driven by trade union pressure and legislation, and was accompanied at each stage by predictions of economic catastrophe that did not materialise. Productivity per hour worked has consistently increased as total working hours fell.

Where the argument is strongest

The case for the four-day week is strongest in knowledge work — where there is extensive evidence that working beyond a certain point (typically 50 hours per week) produces diminishing returns and eventually negative returns in cognitive performance. It is more complex in manufacturing, retail, healthcare and other sectors where service hours must be covered.

The honest counter-argument

The principled counter-argument to the four-day week is not that workers do not deserve more time — most people would agree they do — but that the economics do not translate equally across all business types. A software company may maintain output on four days; an acute hospital ward with fixed staffing requirements cannot simply reduce hours without reducing service capacity or increasing unit costs. Sector-specific analysis is more useful than a universal prescription.