A Hundred UK Companies To Adopt Four-Day Working Week With No Pay Cut

[Hydrogen]

Have you ever dreamed about a three-day weekend all over the year? For some workers in the United Kingdom, it is becoming reality. As The Guardian reported this Monday, a hundred UK companies have signed up for a permanent four-day working week for all their employees with no loss of pay. This movement represents a revolution within Britain’s labor market.

2,600 workers

The 100 companies employ 2,600 staff, which represent a small percentage of the UK’s working population. However, the 4 Day Week Campaign group hopes that it can become a trend soon.

According to The Guardian, supporters of the four-day week say that the five-day pattern is a hangover from an earlier economic age. For them, a four-day week would drive companies to improve their productivity. Also, they believe that the policy has proven a useful way of attracting and retaining employees.

The two biggest companies that have signed up are Atom Bank and global marketing company Awin. With 450 employees each, those companies have been accredited by the four-day week campaign.

Wellness and wellbeing

In an interview with the Guardian, Adam Ross, Awin’s chief executive, said adopting the four-day week was “one of the most transformative initiatives we’ve seen in the history of the company.

“Over the course of the last year and a half, we have not only seen a tremendous increase in employee wellness and wellbeing but concurrently, our customer service and relations, as well as talent relations and retention also have benefited,” he told the British media outlet.

The Guardian also revealed that the UK campaign is also coordinating the world’s biggest pilot scheme for about 70 companies.

This project aims to employ about 3,300 workers, to adopt the four-day week in a trial with researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, Boston College and thinktank Autonomy.

Increasing momentum

Joe Ryle, the UK campaign’s director, said there was increasing momentum in the adoption of the four-day week, even as companies brace for a long recession.

“We want to see a four-day week with no loss of pay become the normal way of working in this country by the end of the decade so we are aiming to sign up many more companies over the next few years,” he said.

Most of the companies that have officially adopted the four-day week are in the services However, the campaign said that some manufacturing and construction employers had also signed up.



https://news.yahoo.com/hundred-uk-companies-adopt-four-120000418.html

....


Nearly everything relating to the UK in news cycles has been doom and gloom for the last few years now. It was surprising to see optimistic UK headlines: 4 day work week with "no loss of pay" rollout. Of course this is available on a limited trial basis for only 2,600 employees.

Given recent trends where many believe billions in student debt should be forgiven by governments with no fallout or damage to the economy and financial insitutions. Does it make sense to rollout a 4 day work week without cuts in pay? Or without businesses sustaining significant losses. Where does the money come from. Is it a good business model for the future.

The american equivalent to this would probably be efforts to raise minimum wage or to unionize large corporations like amazon or apple. Its difficult to tell which direction public opinion is leaning. Or whether people are taking steps to learn more about business and finance to help them support what is best for them.

[Zlantann]

Given recent trends where many believe billions in student debt should be forgiven by governments with no fallout or damage to the economy and financial insitutions. Does it make sense to rollout a 4 day work week without cuts in pay? Or without businesses sustaining significant losses. Where does the money come from. Is it a good business model for the future.

A four day work weeks makes a lot of sense to the workers but it would affect many companies negatively. At least workers would have time to take care of their non-formal lives which is important to their family lives, health and wellbeing. But this policy would affect the production output of most firms and will adversely affect their profitability. A reduction in work hours should be balanced with pay cut except the promoters of this policy have the intention of supporting the affected firms financially. Also this policy shouldn't be forced on the firms in the UK but should be optional except the government want to pay for the companies' losses.     

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I didn't read the article, but I'm assuming all of it is here, and I'm wondering if workers' hours per week are going to be reduced or if they're going to be kept the same but with longer shifts per day. 

Either way, I've worked 40 hour weeks spread out between both 4 and 5 days, and I much preferred only having to work 4 days even if I had to work 10 hours/day.  It's definitely nice to have three days off a week.  I assume the UK workers are going to be putting in fewer hours, else there wouldn't be a news story about it, and if that is indeed the case more power to them.  Most people in this world are worker bees (myself included), and a lot of us hate our jobs, our bosses, coworkers, and/or the company we work for.  With technology being as advanced as it is, a lot of work could be done by robots--and should be if it isn't already.

It then comes down to a question of whether to keep paying existing employees their regular salary, and I suspect a lot of companies might have a problem with that.

[Darker45]

A four day work weeks makes a lot of sense to the workers but it would affect many companies negatively. At least workers would have time to take care of their non-formal lives which is important to their family lives, health and wellbeing. But this policy would affect the production output of most firms and will adversely affect their profitability. A reduction in work hours should be balanced with pay cut except the promoters of this policy have the intention of supporting the affected firms financially. Also this policy shouldn't be forced on the firms in the UK but should be optional except the government want to pay for the companies' losses.     

At this point, this experiment has probably not yet arrived at a definite finding. This experiment has been done across the globe: UK, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Iceland, and some others. If I'm not mistaken, results vary. But the overall goal here is not centered on the workers' well-being alone. It doesn't stop there. After all, the workers' well-being will definitely affect their performance at work.

If workers are overworked, suffering from fatigue and burnout, unhappy with their jobs, it would result into poor production, poor quality, errors and mistakes, wastage, and so on. Resignations, absences, and leaves will be common. But if you've got a strong and happy working force, it will definitely result into a better and faster production. So this is thought to be a win-win situation.

[shogun47]

I didn't read the article, but I'm assuming all of it is here, and I'm wondering if workers' hours per week are going to be reduced or if they're going to be kept the same but with longer shifts per day. 

Either way, I've worked 40 hour weeks spread out between both 4 and 5 days, and I much preferred only having to work 4 days even if I had to work 10 hours/day.  It's definitely nice to have three days off a week.  I assume the UK workers are going to be putting in fewer hours, else there wouldn't be a news story about it, and if that is indeed the case more power to them.  Most people in this world are worker bees (myself included), and a lot of us hate our jobs, our bosses, coworkers, and/or the company we work for.  With technology being as advanced as it is, a lot of work could be done by robots--and should be if it isn't already.

It then comes down to a question of whether to keep paying existing employees their regular salary, and I suspect a lot of companies might have a problem with that.

"They argue that a four-day week would drive companies to improve their productivity, meaning they would achieve the same output in fewer hours."

It is, as OP said, also said that there won't be any pay cut. I would say it really depends on the industry whether it is possible or not. There are sometimes just some logistical hurdles to cut a week down from five or even more days to less days, respectively. The articles I just went through mostly refer to the well-being aspect and the chance to attract new talent.

I have seen articles in the past for such initiatives for other countries as well, and I recall that it was often said that the work would still have to be done for the week. So to say, the deal being that if the work is done on Thursday, people can take Friday off. This would go into the direction what you mentioned, work 10h/day if you please and then take three days off. Whenever possible, I would advocate such a model as well.

I have been in a job where I was completely free to choose to work between 6 hours and 12 hours a day. That was back at the time when I was in my early 20s. A certain goal was set for the week and we were free to choose (unless there was an urgent deadline) how to go about the workload for the week. 6 days were possible, starting as early as 5 AM and finishing as late as 9 PM. Of course one could argue that the productivity decreases when working days get longer and longer, but first, you can really get used to it as you know that we are just talking about a three day work week potentially and you have plenty of time to recover, if necessary. And second, it really depended back then on the work that needed to be done. We had a mix of less intellectually exhaustive work (engineering experiments where stuff just had to be prepared according to plan), and more exhaustive stuff (actually coming up with the plans). I can tell you that most of the people arrived at 5 AM in the morning and left at 5 PM in the afternoon and still had a happy face. It was such an amazing and diverse group that I was working with back in the days. Very well educated mothers who could organize a nanny for their children much easier (because just three days a week), lots of students who were literally able to take a 70% job besides their studies (that was how I got started, but I went full time), but also lots of engineers in their 70s who weren't able anymore to go a full and stressful distance.

From what I can tell, our productivity level back at the time was always on point. I did that job for almost 10 years and then I went abroad. I have ever since been a strong proponent for way more flexible working hour models. Application numbers for that company always were through the roof back then and the diverse set of people on my team also showed that there are crazy different circumstances people are coping with, and they have all been willing to work hard, but had to sort out all kinds of problems in order to make their weekly schedule fit their life circumstances. Children, taking care of parents ( for example on dialysis days, their own health issues, studies, shared custody, desire for individual freedom, time consuming/extravagant hobbies, etc. the list goes on).

Most people really aren't lazy. Many bosses who complain are also often not very good at defining goals and the respective guidelines. Defining goals and guidelines can actually be a hard thing, it is not always trivial. All too often the blame for lack of success is shifted onto the workforce. The company I worked for back at the time had frequent meetings involving their employees with the objective to improve the definition of goals. After some time everyone developed a feeling for the time and effort that is probably required to get to a certain desired point/output. Of course it didn't always work out perfectly and we needed more time and those who were able pulled off way more hours a week then, but even then our boss paid the extra hours in many of the cases unless we really fucked up.

If the system and the whole environment is set up the right way, and a way that allows for the system itself to evolve over time, flexibility can be an enormous contributing factor to productivity.

[electronicash]

its probably to cut energy cost also.
most companies wants their employees to work like slaves to the extend of not paying their over time. an employee to these companies need to work long hours a day to achieve the same productivity the company expect. this is a time for observing the employees who isn't working well if they have yet not lay off.

[xSkylarx]

It is not applicable to health care companies since they need to be up 24/7 and they are serving people. But let's say other companies—well, it is a good idea on this, but I am sure that a lot of owners and bosses wouldn't agree to this since it would be a loss for them. However, this would have a significant positive impact on employees because they would have more rest and productivity that they could bring to the company. Well, this is still in the trial period, but still, I am hoping to see this soon and also experience this one since the two-day rest day is very short for me.

[rokok lokal]

If they work four 10-hour days instead of the five eight-hour days today and the Employee will be paid the same amount they are currently earning and there will be no reduction in salary I don't think there is a problem. more time at home and less time at work, the most important thing is that the ultimate goal of the company where we work can be achieved at the end of the year.

The biggest cash flow at the beginning of the month is mostly from the salaries of workers, both government employees, private and other institutions because all of them prepare their primary, secondary and other needs at the beginning of their salary.

[noorman0]

I wouldn't say not a bad decision. At least these companies have made thorough calculations to stable performance and results if it is assumed that they will only cut less productive working hours or actually these companies are gradually reducing dependence on human workers.
The article doesn't talk about working hours anyway.

[franky1]

i have seen many businesses that pay 40 hours of labour. but where workers had to be in the office 15mins before shift and stay 15 mins after shift to do things like morning briefings and tidy up work area so that it does not disrupt the actual "business opening times" meaning workers lost out on half an hour of unpaid life. also their lunchbreaks of 30min-1 hour were unpaid.

this meant they were at their workplace for 9 or 9.5 hours of the day but only paid 8 hours a day

so shifting to a 10 hours day fully paid is not much of a lifestyle change for those workers on their workdays to be at workplace for 10 hours and paid for 10 hours. and getting a weekday off in exchange.
..
as for costing this change of routine:

you will find that in a course of a year, the amount of time someone goes sick. or takes a day off because they have a maintenance guy /delivery coming around to their house during the week. or having a doctors appointment or taking kids to the dentist.. soon adds up

this includes the extra payment to employ a "temp" when too many are off at the same time

by not having to rely on "temps" and having less days off for random reasons.. it balances out

..
if you can squeeze on an hour of productive work per day in the 4 day allotment. allowing staff to set a monday or a friday as their "business-week-day" day off. so that they can do things like go/take kids to doctors dentists opticians (those services never do weekend appointments)

you can save alot of days where staff just are not at work on days they should be.. which then saves on having to keep a 'temp' on the payroll handy to cover the missing staff. which saves more lost profit for company now, by not having to pay extra workers as a buffer

it also makes it handy if a worker has a 'emercency' tuesday off or a mid week sickday. the employer can then tell them to come into work on the friday-monday(whichever the extra 'weekend day' is) to make up for it
..
other employer incentives are that staff work the 5 days(or 4) but can also trade days with other workers(doing same duties)_. where if you want another day off. you trade your 1day salary(pre-tax) to another worker that wants the overtime.which again avoids the employer having to pay a premium to get a temp to fill the spot.

thus you have your 32hour week. another worker has their 48hour week. and it has not lost or caused the company any loss or cost them more.. compared to having to employ extra 'temps' to have a buffer

[Genemind]

On the other hand, in our country, some workers must work 6 days a week with required 2 hours of paid overtime a day. This may sound absurd, but it happens especially for those who are working with minimum wage. Some companies offer compressed working hours; most of them are in the BPO field. I work 8-hour shift a day for five days, and I really find it exhausting that I sometimes file for a leave mid-week just to have a little break, 2 days of weekend break is not enough  .  4 days work even if they have to add 2 more hours a day to cover the 40 hours work a week will be efficient for both employee and employers. Less tardiness for employees, cost-efficient for employers since they only have 4 days of work in a week.

[bakasabo]

If we put aside jokes about 5 o`clock tea pause as the reason why Brits work less than other usual workers, then I see only positive from four-day working week. Many office employees dont leave their work as soon as clock hits 5 or 6 o clock. Other employees, for example those who work in stores or food courts also have long working hours. So switching 8h working day into 10h working wont be such a huge problem imo.

I see only one problem - what would such companies do if their clients have five-day working week? Will they have working shifts, (like working Mon-Thu, Fri-Mon, Tue-Fri and etc) which means hiring extra employee? Or put up with loosing clients and profit?

[rat03gopoh]

I see only one problem - what would such companies do if their clients have five-day working week? Will they have working shifts, (like working Mon-Thu, Fri-Mon, Tue-Fri and etc) which means hiring extra employee? Or put up with loosing clients and profit?

If the company is oriented towards the production of goods, it isn't a problem. Making schedules between clients is actually not only limited to the company's active hours if they have special staff to handle this (generally not bound by working time).
It might be a problem if it's a service company like logistics.

[franky1]

imagine a business only operated with 100 staff 9-5 mon-friday
the shift would become:
50 staff 8-6 mon to thur
50 staff 8-6 tue to friday

where all staff are there tue-thur

there are many businesses where they do not need all staff on a monday.

for instance imagine the accounting department. doing accounts of previous days trade.
because there was no trade on sunday. there is no need for accountants on monday

take that businesses production.
because on a 2 day delivery there wont be any deliveries at weekends. they dont need to produce on a friday

thus the 50 accountants start on a tuesday and 50 production operators finish on the thursday

[bakasabo]

Then four or five day working week is very dependable from the business. If it is a production, then it might be hard for employer.

Lets take those 100 employees as an example. Hard to imagine a business, where 50 employees can afford to wait when other 50 does their job. Even if they work in shifts. They will either create less product per day, or it will be needed more days to get a final products. That is why 50/50 employee share does not suit here (if it suits, then the company does not need those 100 employees, if 50 can achieve same result). I agree that some of the work can be put on pause, postponed or a specific employee can come the other day, and etc. Lets imagine that they need only 70 out of 100 employees daily, to finish 1 product.

It looks like:

"70 employees 8-6 Monday to Thursay
70 employees 8-6 Thursday to Monday"

If company switch from 5 day to 4 day working week and work in shifts, they will need to hire extra 40 employees, but will have increase production. Here come supply and demand issues. Will produced goods be demanded?

I might not be that good at explaining, but I hope you get the idea.

[buwaytress]

Good to hear, now to pressure people in the global South to at least start making weekends off limits heh.

Definitely good to see more work life balance (which if done right actually improves productivity) in my resident part of the world, though freelancers still getting short end of the deal, no health or vacation or insurance benefits, no hour caps etc. Think the major fight where I am now isn't about work hours or pay but about recognising many "freelance" workers are doing as much as part timers or full timers.

Now the interesting thing, because I've worked in "Crypto" for 6 years now: majority of remote staff don't even have 40-hour contracts or employment contracts (C-levels and managers do). Think outside of FTX and those suits and ties, very few projects you do see active on CT and on this forum do it like this. Not to mention the startup/tech mentality of long work hours pretty much matched regular corporate jobs.

Time for a change?

[Bitstar_coin]

I like that, I wish the same can be applied in my country. workers will have 3 days off work to take care of personal business. This will mostly be beneficial to working mums, juggling between work and taking care of the family can be stressful but an additional 1 day can be a lot helpful.

Definitely good to see more work life balance (which if done right actually improves productivity) in my resident part of the world, though freelancers still getting short end of the deal, no health or vacation or insurance benefits, no hour caps etc. Think the major fight where I am now isn't about work hours or pay but about recognising many "freelance" workers are doing as much as part timers or full timers.

Freelancers don't get any benefit because they are not exactly employed they work based on commission and at their convenient time which is not the same as employed staff who need to work at specified working hours by the company.

[xSkylarx]

I like that, I wish the same can be applied in my country. workers will have 3 days off work to take care of personal business. This will mostly be beneficial to working mums, juggling between work and taking care of the family can be stressful but an additional 1 day can be a lot helpful.

Definitely good to see more work life balance (which if done right actually improves productivity) in my resident part of the world, though freelancers still getting short end of the deal, no health or vacation or insurance benefits, no hour caps etc. Think the major fight where I am now isn't about work hours or pay but about recognising many "freelance" workers are doing as much as part timers or full timers.

Freelancers don't get any benefit because they are not exactly employed they work based on commission and at their convenient time which is not the same as employed staff who need to work at specified working hours by the company.

That is why they are referred to as freelancers; their time is not the same as that of an employee, which is from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; their time is determined by the client, as it is mostly per project or task. However, remote workers such as virtual assistants can really benefit from this because they do the same work as employees, although remotely. I'm hoping that this has a positive impact on everyone, whether you're a freelancer or an employee, because we're all working to pay our bills. 

[goaldigger]

I wouldn't say not a bad decision. At least these companies have made thorough calculations to stable performance and results if it is assumed that they will only cut less productive working hours or actually these companies are gradually reducing dependence on human workers.
The article doesn't talk about working hours anyway.

Are they being forced to adopt here because if they don't they will face consequences?
Well, if this is good for both parties without sacrificing the whole budget of the company they its better. Just make sure that those employees will not look for other job while they are being paid during their off, many might abuse this new system so let's see how they will implement this one. This could be a good news to those who wants to spend more time with their family and balance their social life.

[stompix]

Where does the money come from.

From company losses and then from the creditors that lost their money with the bankruptcy.

What people don't learn is that some jobs do require only a few hours and should now be tied to a mandatory number of hours worked, that's why most of the companies that enroll in this program are small companies mainly involved in marketing, design, and gaming. You have to complete a project in a month that takes you 40 hours of work, it's just a waste for that guy to stay in the office doing nothing, but it's an altogether different thing for almost any other kind of job.

You can't just have the workers in a store or in a hospital or police or any other kind of job that produce things continuously switch to a lower work schedule and be paid the same stuff, it would mean hiring an extra guy to cover for the days which is basically, just give the first worked a 25% raise and that's it.
Where would the money come from when in your business model nothing has happened?
I certainly doubt that having the guy at Tesco working 32 hours and not 40 would mean 10% more shoppers  

If the company is oriented towards the production of goods, it isn't a problem.

If the median is one laptop per hour and your employee will assemble only 32 per week instead of 40 but get paid the same amount, how is this not a problem?