Four in five against four-day week on lower pay

Four in five UK workers would be against a four-day working week if it meant taking a pay cut – especially those in routine and lower-paid roles.

According to the Social Market Foundation (SMF) think-tank, only 11% of workers would be happy to take a pay cut in order to work less, while 80% would be opposed to it.

Most of those happy to sacrifice pay for more leisure time were white collar workers and those in jobs with top salaries.

Some 15% of people in professional occupations and 14% of managers, directors and senior officials supported reduced working hours and pay, but 17% of sales, customer service and elementary employees wanted to work more hours.

Campaigners for a four-day working week favour reducing working time to 32 hours per week, which they believe will boost productivity and improve workers’ mental health.

The SMF said that the prospect of a shorter working week – which is being considered by the government’s Flexible Working Taskforce – risks being seen as an elitist and white collar office perk by large parts of the workforce.

Its report, A Question of Time: Current working hours, preferences and the case for a four-day week, finds that 27% of employees currently work 32 hours or less – mainly in the hospitality sector (42%).

People were significantly more likely to work 32 hours or less per week if in the lowest pay quintile (50%), as well as being more likely to work part-time (46%).

“A four-day week which boosts productivity and worker wellbeing is something that businesses and policymakers alike should be striving for. We need to carefully identify which parts of the economy are best placed to trial shorter working hours and do so in a way which does not make working less a cultural dividing line,” said Jake Shepherd, a researcher at SMF.

“These findings emphasise that both promises of the four-day week – the cut in working hours, but also the maintenance of income – are what makes it an appealing prospect for workers.

“This presents a problem for campaigners: if they wish to make the scheme as attractive as possible then they need to explain who, if not workers, will bear the cost.”

The report says that while most workers would work fewer hours if the government legislated for a four-day working week, gains in leisure time would not be shared evenly. This is because those who have the most to gain from such a policy because they currently work long hours are among the most privileged in society – including the higher paid, the white ethnic majority and men.

“By contrast, relatively disadvantaged workers are more likely to work less than 32 hours – as such, many of them will see underemployment as a greater issue than overwork,” it says. “In theory, a four-day week could bring such groups benefit if it leads to a redistribution of work from those who have too much to those who have too little – but this is not straightforward to achieve.”

The report suggests there are five ways that the four-day working week could work:

• Ensuring that output among employees working shorter weeks is increased, which would help cover the costs of a reduction in working time. This would mean that paying workers the same income, even for less work, would be economically possible.
• Offering reduced working hours in exchange for lower pay.
• Businesses take on the costs of paying workers the same for fewer working hours, even if they do not see an increase productivity. This would likely mean reduced profitability.
• Passing the costs of a shorter working week onto consumers.
• Offering government subsidies to help businesses manage the risk and increase in labour costs. In Spain, the government is providing €50m in funding to allow companies to trial reduced hours with less risk, covering the costs for a company at 100% during the first year, 50% during the second year, and 33% during the third year.

Trials of reduced working hours in Iceland were recently hailed an “overwhelming success” and around 86% of the country’s population now working shorter hours or covered by a right to request shorter hours.

The SMF report concludes that the four-day working week is in need of further exploration.

“In our view, the four-day week as a select privilege is better than no privilege at all. There are swathes of the workforce that would benefit from shorter hours, and it would be perverse to deny them that until every firm or worker is able to benefit,” it says.

“In rolling out a four-day week, it makes sense to prioritise those businesses and sectors where both workers’ need and firms’ capacity to adapt is greatest. The hope is that such an approach can help demonstrate the advantages of a shorter work week and build a beachhead of support as a first step towards a broader coalition behind the policy.”

HR business partner opportunities on Personnel Today

Browse more HR business partner jobs