Should the standard workweek drop to 4 days?

The five-day, 40-hour week is so familiar that it is easy to forget it was a negotiated settlement. It grew out of the labour movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which fought for shorter days and a weekend. Today the argument has returned, driven by remote work, burnout, and the question of what productivity gains from technology are for.

A four-day week can mean different things. In some proposals people work the same pay for fewer hours, often called 100-80-100: 100 percent of pay, 80 percent of the time, 100 percent of the output. In others the same hours are compressed into four longer days. The two versions have very different effects on health, childcare and customer coverage, so it matters which one is being debated.

Supporters point to company trials in several countries, where many employers reported steady or better output and fewer people leaving [check: name the trials you want to cite]. They argue that tired people work slowly, that meetings and low-value tasks can be cut, and that a day of rest helps health and family life.

Critics reply that trials are run by employers who volunteer, usually in office work, and that the results may not carry over to hospitals, shops, factories or any job where someone must be present. They worry about cost, about workers compressing five days of pressure into four, and about competitiveness when other countries do not follow.

The debate is also about who gains. If productivity rises, should the benefit go to shareholders, to pay, or to time? Whatever you think, the best arguments on both sides rest on evidence about particular jobs rather than slogans about work in general.

If you take part in this debate, it helps to say which version of the four-day week you mean, which kind of job you have in mind, and what result would change your mind.