I swapped to a 4 day week (with relevant pay cut, which certainly made it easier to justify with my employer) in order to finish my MSc without burnout and it's changed my life. The entire balance of the working week has changed - 4 days is almost a 50-50 split which makes an enormous difference to your psychology (0.57:0.71).
My employer has stated they've not noticed any change in productivity either, including on the day I'm off (I do a video handover and notes every Thursday for the rest of the team) - which I partly credit with the fact I no longer can justify "oh I'll just leave that to tomorrow" + feeling energised come Monday after 3 days of my own time.
I really would struggle to entertain changing back to 5 days now.
I see the 4-day week as a desirable perk that may be available within high-performing organizations. Modifying pay is probably more a bargaining chip for ICs who are working 4 days when others are not.
Outside of knowledge work, the 4-day week appears where demand outstrips supply. It's pretty common for dental offices, an one example, to work 4 days _just because they can_. The bos can pay themselves several hundred thousand dollars a year and pay their staff competitive salaries without giving up their long weekend plans.
tbh I was surprised to hear it myself. I work in an agency for a client 100% of my billable time. I don't work on Fridays where I certainly would've continued my day-to-day tasks. I'm kind of a tech lead on things (it's a little fuzzy) so as long as I've got things stacked up enough for the rest of the team and people are unblocked, work continues. I think they meant it in a "we haven't had to slow down or get blocked" sort of way.
I think it mainly speaks to the fact that "most stuff is not actually critical". So people have adapted accordingly and the work that needs to be done, is done, and that which isn't so pressing can wait.
I did the same as you and it felt so good. I did a break on the Wednesdays and it was perfect. I really felt way better just because of this break every 2 days. Don't know about the productivity though.
I’m on a mailing list from fourdayweek.io and they managed to find a few companies to feature every week. No one that I’ve been excited to work for, yet, but YMMV
Overtly advertising it? No. Hasn't stopped me (and quite a few others) from getting 4 day weeks out of them.
The trick is being senior enough (or in demand enough) that you can get one company to agree to a 32h week for you (and be willing to walk - I've interviewed with very interesting companies who weren't willing to consider it, and so we ended the discussions).
Once you have it in some form or another, you're good. It's just a condition of employing you, early in discussions with other companies.
I'd love to learn the secret incantation from "senior enough" employees who have managed to negotiate these kinds of things. I've been at it for 25+ years and only managed to negotiate pay (never large increases, and not from many companies). When it comes to your terms of employment like hours, vacation, benefits, sick time, and so on, it's always "The boilerplate employment agreement is written by god and cannot be changed by mortals. Sign it unmodified or GTFO!"
At least in my experience, it really helps to have one senior person lead the way.
Our company hired a greybeard with a rock solid condition of his employment being a four day work week. After that, it was much easier for "normal" employees to switch to it since management was familiar with the idea and saw that he was a very productive employee.
I switched to four day work weeks when I was 29 (based on his example) and have been very happy with it.
That's the secret. Being willing to GTFO if they don't meet your terms. And being good enough at what you do that they're willing to meet your terms.
My current employer, on initial contact, wasn't willing to consider fully remote and 32h/wk. Then a year later, they came back and were willing to talk because they'd been trying to find someone with my skillset locally.
I've heard of small/medium software companies doing it. Apparently it's a lot easier to arrange in smaller companies, and the economics for the business can be great if they're the only ones in the area offering it.
For example, if a divorced guy gets his kid on Friday and Saturday every week, it turns out getting every Friday off is a super-valuable benefit for him, and now you can hire a $120k programmer for $70k.
My previous employer (in the UK) where I worked for 11 years happily let me work compressed hours (ie 35 hours in four days) and had every Friday off, with occasionally working a Friday by agreement if it was absolutely necessary, and I'd usually take the following Monday off in lieu.
Only left them due to compulsory redundancy due to cost cutting.
In the Netherlands this is completely normal for most types of jobs, 48% of the workforce works less than 36 hours. Are you looking for anything specific?
If investors still expect the same returns, four-day work week being in effect a labor cost increase will be a no go. And before you mention “productivity”, keep in mind that from the looks of it, AI and tech driven productivity gains go to shareholders, those owning the IPs and the means of production. Yes you can push laws to push companies, but then you are over regulating your country and that too is problematic.
It’s not a simple problem. Heavily regulated places like the EU don’t grow as fast. Non growth is problematic too since we need to still help millions of people out of poverty in a sustainable way. There is no free lunch and simplistic solutions like four-day workweek don’t address the full problem.
I've begun to think that a shorter workday is as important as a shorter work week. Doing gig delivery for ~3 hours a day, 7 days a week has been less taxing, emotionally and physically, than 7 hours (+lunch, +commute) on a standard work week waging for a retailer, at ~80% of the take-home. I imagine my current set-up would be better than divvying up that 20ish hours over 4 days. But obviously a similar take-home with the same or fewer days would be even better.
And, of course, pay is important, too. I'm only able to do this by walking the TOS knife-edge, and it would be nice if I could make something similar with a "real" job instead. America's workers, in general, should be getting out far more than they do.
Considering the opposition to working from home from some parts of (USA) society, I have trouble seeing this get widely adopted. At least in the short to medium term.
The anti-WFH people appear to fall into 3 camps: landlords and property owners, middle management who believe people are not as productive or efficient at home. And, as pointed out in a reply, there's also the group who believe that face to face communication is more agile and fosters more innovation.
Perhaps one question to ask is: who will lose money and/or power due to this move?
Somewhat offtopic: How has WFH been treated in European media? Has it been much the same as the USA?
I'm not even in the anti-WFH camp, but notice you've selectively omitted the most sympathetic camp (what is this argument tactic called? Strawmanning?). People who think teams will be more agile and innovative when they can have impromptu face-to-face conversations. I personally think that's true, but not a big enough deal to make me favor RTO. But it's not good to summarize an issue in such a way that the other side sounds like greedy bastards and yours sounds eminently reasonable.
Hasn't it been disproven now though? My employer at the time during lockdown saw productivity and collaboration increase, and they are a mostly agile approach organisation.
And there are many companies large and small with mostly or fully remote teams delivering complex projects every day as we speak.
Whilst I'm sure there are edge cases where that face to face actually is essential, the idea that for teams to be agile, innovative and collaborative they must physically sit near each other has been shown to be unnecessary...?
No, it hasn't. And there isn't much serious work being done on it afaics, but lots of anectdata and politics.
I think it is clear that it is possible to build productive fully remote teams, for at least some applications. It's not clear if it's optimal, or how broadly it applies in terms of applications or people.
People exist who basically can’t think in writing, on their own. They need someone actively working with them, in conversation, to put their thoughts together coherently—and, sometimes, for them to be able to understand others, as no amount of carefully and thoughtfully composed prose will get ideas into their heads without misunderstanding. IME they’re well-represented in management and other leadership. Not the majority, but there are lots of them. Some make it all the way to the top.
I get why such folks might hate WFH, especially if they believe that their personal difficulties are more common than they are, so others must not be able to function as remote workers, either, and especially that people couldn’t possibly efficiently come up with and refine ideas under remote work.
I'm from Norway, the response here is pretty much:
Left: "Sounds like great idea, we must conduct trials!"
Center: "It sounds interesting, but we need more data blablablah"
Right: "A four-day week will never work, and people must put away that ridiculous idea. We (Norwegians) already work too little compared to the rest of Europe."
We oscillate between center-left and center-right every 4/8 years, so I'm not sure I have high hopes for this becoming a thing anytime soon.
The (political) right here is especially prone to knee-jerk reactions when it comes to anything related to labor and commerce, no mater what research says.
Suggesting a fourth category, in which I consider myself and know I have plenty of friends and colleagues:
When you don’t have the space at home for a proper office, so you end up with something that is ergonomically suboptimal and makes a mental shift between ‘home’ and ‘work’ harder. When I’m already balancing my effort carefully to not end up spending more energy than I can recover week by week, asking for WFH without also cutting work days is something I find draining.
The “it’s great, but not for me”-crowd. Forcing people into the office or out of the office is the employer drastically changing the terms of the employment, and should at least be done over an extended period of time or in consultation with the affected employees (not including exceptional circumstances such as when it was part of the temporary efforts to dampen the pandemic).
I am very much in the “anti-WFH” camp, in the sense that I would never work for a company that is primarily remote.
I would gladly sign up for a 4 day work week. In fact, a 4 day in-office hybrid model would be perfect. As long as the work place policy involves no meetings or messages on that single remote day.
I've "corrupted" (from the point of view of GDP productivity and such) a lot of people into asking for (and mostly getting...) a 32h/week work schedule.
I've been doing it for almost 8 years now, and at this point, it's simply a non-negotiable in any sort of employment discussions (that, and not carrying a pager). I work Mon-Thu, 8h/day, and I'm generally unreachable Fri/Sat/Sun (doesn't mean I won't put in a long week on rare occasions, but think "once a year or less" sort of frequency). The work/life balance is far better, and it aligns better with my family (the local public school is only Mon-Thu as well).
Just ask about it. I know some people who've managed full pay for 80% hours, but generally "80% pay for 80% hours" is entirely reasonable too, and I've found (as a rather extreme DIY sort) that the extra money isn't missed, because I have more time to do things myself on the weekend. I can practically spend quite a few Fridays a year doing major DIY work, and come out ahead.
I genuinely cannot say enough good things about it. Try it. You won't miss 40s.
> it aligns better with my family (the local public school is only Mon-Thu as well)
This is interesting and makes me think the answer to the title's question is public schools. Most Americans are not in a position to individually ask their employer for a 4-day week, but if the local school system does it, suddenly there's a unified block of thousands of people who really need Friday off to take care of their kids.
I had actually never heard of this but according to NPR it's fairly common already:
> Seven percent of school districts in the U.S. are now just four days long. In Missouri, it's 30% of districts. In Colorado, it's 67%.
Interesting. I hope the 4-day school week doesn't exacerbate the education / illiteracy crisis that we are already seeing in America. Not sure if less time in school would help with this, though difficult to comprehend the nuances associated with experiments like this until the data is available.
In general, I don't think it's "less time in school" - our local school days are a bit on the long side (for my kids, it's about 7AM to 4PM counting the bus ride), and the year extends further into the summer than a typical school year does. It's just fewer days in school any given week.
Data is available and the results seem mixed and difficult to interpret so far, here's an article with links to a bunch of studies: https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-seven-new-studies-o.... It seems like most studies find either no effect on academics or a small negative effect, and sometimes positive social effects like reduced bullying. One point I found interesting:
> The four-day work week is an attractive work perk in rural America that may lure better teachers.
This makes sense but obviously would disappear if the four-day week became widespread.
The simple fact of the matter for many students (In America at least) is that it's not a lack of time in class that's leading to a lack of education. One of if not THE primary function of primary school in America today is to be a place for kids to go while the worker bees go to work now that its no longer socially acceptable for kids to run free.
I think most people think school is like pokemon training, where X minutes = Y XP, and more minutes in class = more XP, thus leading to higher-level students.
I remember when I was in school we missed a few extra days from snowstorms, so they added several minutes onto the school day to "make up for the missed time". It was so obviously stupid then, but no school administrator listened to me, because what does a high school kid know?
> I think most people think school is like pokemon training, where X minutes = Y XP, and more minutes in class = more XP, thus leading to higher-level students.
To be fair, most people think this is how productivity works in any domain. It's certainly true if your job is to turn a hand crank all day producing widgets and under the assumption that you have equal energy throughout the day (but even accounting for that you still get the effect that more time = more widgets). But that most certainly is not true in the modern world and definitely not with any task that requires creativity. I'm actually more shocked at how many developers believe this considering I think we've all been in plenty of situations where more time debugging creates more bugs and the solution is to walk away, go do something else, and come back later. Maybe the problem is simply momentum and the coefficient of status stubbornness.
It’s hard to measure education service quality at the scale of an entire province or state.
We use proxies like standardized testing to avoid each school self-assessing as excellent. But tests can be gamed through cheating. States distribute funding on a literal per capita per day formula. It’s much harder to commit time tracking fraud. Incentives that encourage butts in seats of course can be gamed. Snow days are avoided through half days and NYC once had a “school day” that was just a video call long enough to take attendance.
Attendance maximizing limits flexibility and greatness in pedagogy. However it guarantees a bare minimum service level. It also aligns with schools’ secondary function as daycare.
> States distribute funding on a literal per capita per day formula.
I am not a libertarian, but it is startling to me how many offensive facets of modern life came about due to perverse funding incentives from the state. I've been reading "Deschooling Society" by Ivan Ilich, which I think only thinly supports its own premise, but the pattern he describes in which formerly citizen-led components of society are institutionalized by the government and then experience a massive decades-long degradation of quality seems to ring true for everything.
The recent increase in the number of schools going 4-day is mostly a teacher attraction and retention strategy. There’s an ongoing severe teacher shortage, and poor rural districts in states with low average teacher pay are catching the worst of it (for obvious reasons). The alternative is the school district basically collapses from lack of staffing, or else has to come up with a bunch more money. It may or may not harm educational outcomes (I’d guess it tends to, personally) but they’re not doing it because they think it’ll help vs a normal 5-day school week, rather, because the alternatives are (to them) much worse.
Expect various other mitigation strategies to creep their way into nicer and nicer school districts, as the crisis worsens. That, or we’re gonna have to increase teacher pay a ton (good luck). I expect private tutoring services to positively boom over the next decade or two, as lower-than-usual SES families turn to them just to get back to the level of education they used to get “for free”.
Well, yeah, to some extent most (not all) “shortages” are just things becoming more expensive than one wishes to pay. Unfortunately, teacher pay’s being stagnant (plus it took a huge hit, in relative terms, over the pandemic) and working conditions declining have been trends for long enough that a bunch of teachers have left with no plans to return, and the “pipeline” has finally caught on that the career—even if you really, really want to teach kids—kinda sucks a whole bunch now, such that teacher training programs have seen a large drop in enrollment. Higher pay will indeed go a long way toward fixing the problem, but only at a significant lag—this is on track to continue for years even with big pay bumps now.
I definitely didn’t mean to, like, blame teachers for this situation, though, so I apologize if I gave that impression. It’s definitely a matter of pay and work conditions. But, it’s gonna take a while to fix even if we throw money at it immediately, and I’m not seeing much of that yet :-/
> doesn't exacerbate the education / illiteracy crisis that we are already seeing in America.
My personal belief is that this is due to different factors and that it is quite a complex problem that is worsened by oversimplification. Notably that all measurements are quite fuzzy and there's incentives to advocate the metric that suits ones bias rather than account for the fuzziness of the metrics.
I think what's good about the American education system is that we aren't test focused and that we don't have a singular exam that is critical to one's future success. I think this encourages creativity, which is necessary especially in STEM fields and especially as we move into the modern era with AI. I also think test based systems (as you may see in most of Asia like China's Gaokao or Korea's Suneung) put far too much pressure on memorization (lack of generalization) and are especially stressful to children's mental health and takes away from all the soft skills that one learns in schooling (and is especially important). I think it's important we have many opportunities for people to recover from mistakes or environmental situations that these tests do not account for and is likely a bigger problem for western societies and especially American culture.
But the big thing is that there's strong evidence that a child under 10 can learn calculus. I'm not saying we need to do that, but certainly we can put more onto our children who are far smarter than we give credit to. But we may need to radically think our education program to perform such feats at scale. I do think there is a danger to solve "no student left behind" through decreasing standards rather than creating more nuanced educational methods and metrics (we see this even in other countries too). There are certainly larger incentive problems too. Such as in the modern world it is actually a rational decision for these children to desire to be "YouTube Stars" rather than say an engineer and that's not resolved by mocking them but being realistic about the risk reward environment we've created and our social devaluation of these jobs. This is a cultural phenomena that the Asian cultures seem to have solved where performing well in school is considered cool, but there are so many cultural aspects at play that this is hard to disentangle and pinpoint what exactly would be the way to create a similar phenomena in the west. Most certainly we need to disregard all parental sentiment of "well I didn't learn this when I was in school" if we are to operate on the premise that our society gets smarter as the world gets smarter because this should instead be seen as an expected result that is desired. But that may have political ramifications that adds to the complexity.
> though difficult to comprehend the nuances associated with experiments like this until the data is available.
I think, unfortunately, this is one of those many situations where we're never going to have sufficient data until we take a leap of faith. There's far too many issues where if we wait to act on experimental data that we'll wait till the ends of time because performing such experiments are difficult to do and especially in a controlled way. Even more so considering the difficulties in decoupling extraneous variables from the system and finding the key causal ones. In the real world you kinda just have to make that leap at times and be willing to revert if it is a mistake rather than doubling down and also be willing to consider colliding variables being adequate explanations for lack of success rather than the variable that was actively modified. (Fuck, experimentation and evaluation is hard. I really wish this was better recognized. The world is fucking fuzzy and we're fucking dumb)
All of this is of course my opinions and I'm explicitly not adding sources to claims because I'm not trying to sound authoritative here but rather thinking aloud to p...
Senior enough, and skilled enough in particular low level arts, that I can set my own terms.
And I do "weird low level crap." Generally if I'm interacting with the kernel, it's from below. Think introspection, emulation, hypervisors, "state analysis of a running kernel," firmware weeds, security analysis, etc.
If you know a bitter mid-to-late-40s sort who's been in the deep weeds and the security weeds long enough to carry a powered off flip phone and genuinely hate what we've done with computers, imagine that, and you're pretty close.
If you're doing interesting, deep level work, I've found I'm a lot more productive when I spend my weekends doing "literally anything but computers." I'll typically spend Thursday afternoon curled up with some datasheets or architecture references related to my current project, and let my mind chew on it over the weekend in the background, while I'm doing other stuff. The distance from the problem allows a fresh perspective, and I not-really-joke that a lot of my most clever solutions to a problem came while I was banging on rocks or running a chainsaw.
But I've also built the habits, over the years, of trying to make sure I have way more than just work going on in my life.
I'd wager the majority of software developers do not code at all outside of work hours, and the vast majority do not code more than an hour or two per month on average.
The "constantly coding on side projects" developer is pretty rare, in my experience, but tend to bubble together. (in startups, cooler tech companies or in the "innovation teams").
> Guess, if you have an itch, could fill it with open source projects instead.
Somewhat related, but I do wonder what this community will look like once humans enter a post scarce (or mostly) world. Which a 4 day weekend seems like a step in that direction. Along with the other aspects of what humans will do with their new found free time. Which seems especially interesting in a consumer based economy.
We seem to be going in the opposite direction of a “post scarce” world where everything is getting more expensive and most people I know are working longer hours or multiple jobs to survive.
Yeah and I don't understand why. Like we even have the old saying "9 to 5" but who works a 9 to 5 job? That used to be literally the hours which included the lunch break. I only know 8-5 or 9-6 jobs being the norm. And it's weird that we have this codified in our language but no longer in reality without any clear justification. I feel like a fast one was pulled on us here.
The main reason is economic profit of any venture can go to pay 3 things:
1. capital invested (having an inventory of things, having done the R&D, having built an expensive factory, just represents existing wealth and assets (not money!!))
2. labor (the people involved)
3. rent (for the land used)
With technology, and there is no indication AI is any better, capital owners get more and more of the profit of any venture. If anything, its point is to reduce the dependence on labor. So you have more people, competing for fewer spots, and you can get away with paying them less. The lower bound for what you could pay labor is just barely enough, so they keep having enough kids to provide future workers. If you start with a glut of workers, then it is a dark situation (which we are already living in, how many people can afford to have kids?)
Any world that includes a scarcity of a necessity will have people trying to outcompete their peers for said necessities. Right now that's housing, for the most part, and sometimes health care. Sure you could ask for a 4 day week, but someone else will work 5 so they can outbid you on a house.
You've definitely simplified the problem too much. This only works under the assumption that everyone is making the same amount of money for the same amount of time and are interested in the same housing. In the extreme case, clearly any software engineer could take a 20% pay cut and still be able to out bid someone who works in fast food but got a 20% raise by working a 6th day.
Human preference is also wildly variable. I don't buy the constant "I'd rather not live in a city" argument that we hear because people could in fact do that, but there are plenty of preferences that people do make and it isn't like housing in fungible.
The simple model won't get us very far in estimating the actual effects and likely will actually make us make the wrong conclusions. Plus, there are solutions to many of the housing problems (which also is non-singular).
Yeah, I get that. But I think the system is much more complex than that and it is necessary to have a better model to make successful predictions. I certainly don't think what you're saying is a bad place to start, but rather that we need to acknowledge the limitations and that it is a start.
If it were possible, economists would have a better reputation. That being said, the idea is not flawed, until there is a plenty of necessities, markets and the individuals in them, will continue to compete for them.
That's great for 9 to 5 type jobs, but some work just needs to be done outside office hours and on weekends. We have teams in other countries to help with time zone cover, but that can only get you so far.
I negotiated a 4 day week as well and won't go back either. You cant beat having a three day weekend and Fridays off. A co worker does the same but takes Mondays off which works for his family better.
I would also like to try a split week: work mon-tues, off wed, work thurs-fri, off sat-sun. This way you have a mini weekend giving you two "friday nights" and there's no weekly gauntlet to run.
I tried a split week with a similar rationale, it wasn't that great. Too hard to get momentum, either at work or at home. I also tried Mondays off instead of Fridays, but for cultural (US) reasons, 3-day weekends with Fridays off is what seems to work best for everyone involved, including people who are working 5-day weeks alongside you.
Also note that federal holidays are often on a Monday, so having Mondays off reduces the number of holidays you have. You of course should get your 4-days/week and those holidays, so you should take an extra day off in that case, but the optics of that don't really work. (Maybe this is because those federal holidays are the minimal concession we have towards "people shouldn't work 5 days/week every week).
the primary issue I see with this is for things where unfinished work results in something going from being finished the next day to blocked from Thursday until Monday. Some small question or task that could be done in 5 minutes but now has to wait that entire time. Just not going to work for many businesses
This is a non-issue. I have no issues with helping with a task on Thurs 5:35pm or even 6pm if it will unblock some people. It rarely happens though if your team and organisation are properly managed.
You are making up an imaginary issue here I think. Fine if you said it would take 5 hours but come on...5 min task?
I'd be tidally fine working 40h a week in four 10h days. A whole new free day is such an improvement that longer hours on other days can't hope to outweigh it.
I am far, far, far more productive in a 15-25 hour week than I am in a 35-45 hour week. Every hour past 30 is diminishing returns for focus/knowledge work.
I'm currently working 32h/w and will possibly need to start job hunting for remote. I was prepared to go back to 40h but... I really don't want to. It was life changing.
Wondering if I should just hunt for 32h/w offers, if I could potentially miss on great 40h opportunities, etc. What's the success rate of asking for 32h/w in offers not advertised as such?
None of my 32h/wk arrangements have been listed as such.
If it's an interesting 40h position, talk to them and put 32h as one of your non-negotiables in early conversations. Some will tell you they're not willing to consider it, and the conversation is done. Some are willing to consider it.
Do we really need another slap in the face to "employees that have to move muscles" - if 4 to 20x pay, working from home wasn't enough, now they only work 4 days a week!!
Yes those people read reddit, hackernews and other sources.
edit: OK - didn't notice this was for "employees that move muscles" Carry on then
The article started by talking about UAW negotiations—it's about "employees that have to move muscles".
Not that it matters. "We shouldn't try to improve things for one set of people if things are bad for a different set of people" is an incoherent and toxic attitude regardless of context.
Once when buying a house, I had to go through a lengthy paperwork process with someone who worked a three-day week, and it was an infuriating experience.
They wanted a great deal of documentation sent by post, and their three day work-week meant they'd ask me on Tuesday for some piece of documentation, I'd mail it the same day, and by the time it arrived they'd left for the week so I couldn't expect a reply until the next Tuesday at the absolute earliest.
I sure hope any move towards shorter work weeks doesn't turn into an excuse for lengthy bureaucratic processes to become even lengthier.
The Netherlands is arguably one that heavily embraces the 4-day workweek. In this country, employees can request a shorter work week (4 days) for proportionality less wages (so eg for 4 days get 80% of wages).
More than 80% of working moms utilise this option and around 10% of dads. [1] Among my friends I have parents where both of them work 4 days, taking the 5th day off on separate days, and their kid goes to daycare 3 days a week.
Note that most government subsidies (for childcare) are set up to encourage working at least 32 hours per day.
Lazy ass. Back in my day, before walking up hill both ways to school, we had to wake up before we went to sleep and our parents would kill us every night!
In the Netherlands, they're also looking at high labor immigration, and a (probably at least in part) related housing shortage. There are real questions about the sustainability of this part-time "culture".
I used to work for a Dutch bank (in London) ~20 years ago and pretty much all of our colleagues in The Netherlands worked a four day week although with full pay and hours, just working longer days over the four day week.
In France primary schools are traditionally off on Wednesdays and when I was there it wasn't uncommon for mostly women to have that arrangement: 80% pay but Wednesdays off.
However, they also traditionally had school on Saturday, right? For some reason, that made me irrationally upset when I thought of my kids going to school on Saturdays. I get the argument behind it (it let's the parents take care of things outside of work), but it seems like it also would prevent family outings.
Best I can tell, most schools no longer have classes on Saturday, but they do have Wednesday morning at least. And, at least at my daughter's school, most are there (or at another _recreation center_) in the afternoon.
The outrageous cost of daycare means that as a young parent switching to 32h, you're giving up 20% of your pay but saving a few hundred euros a month in daycare costs. So the pay cut ends up being closer to 10%, depending on their income.
Then the kids grow up and go to school and the parents, if they have enough money, have essentially no incentive to work more hours.
1) Due to AI advancements, companies and business models are going to be disrupted. The last thing a firm wants is to work 4 day / week when competition can do 60 hour per week and leap frog them (including crushing them) at a crucial period.
tl ; dr -- we are entering a crunch mode for many firms (vs stability where we can think of these luxuries)
2) US is already facing labor shortage in many critical fields esp human services. A 4-day work week faces massive inflationary pressures. Again, when we enter deflation we can think of 4-day work week. A classic example would have been 2008/09 when unemployment touched 10%
3) AI will make people who work 70 hour per week even more productive. So in knowledge work roles, firms may opt to have one 70 hr extreme workaholic vs 2 32 hour people
I know sensitive topic to HNers who downvote just because they don't like the message
Four hour or four day? Both are terms that have been tossed around, though this is discussing four day (which you then discuss as 32h weeks later).
> AI will make people who work 70 hour per week even more productive. So in knowledge work roles, firms may opt to have one 70 hr extreme workaholic vs 2 32 hour people
Have you ever had to debug code from people at the wrong end of a 60-70 hour week? For a while, I had a coworker who tended to to this sort of thing, and I eventually started looking at the relevant commit messages. If they were incoherent, expect the code to be "not even wrong" grade interesting - you basically had to re-write it to get it do what it was supposed to. The sort of people who enjoy 70h grinds also seem to not particularly enjoy writing tests.
Supermajority of people would probably enjoy 4-day work week, but there needs to be a giant push from the labour side. All the needs of "big companies" and such theoretically could be ignored, if such supermajority stuck together, and pushed through legislations. But I fear, this push will resonate with the word "unionization", killing all the efforts, since there is a hate towards such movements.
There was a survey showing that a lot of Americans believe the recent inflation will be over once prices go back down to where they were in 2020. They, and you, are in for an unpleasant surprise.
If people were able to choose to work M-Th or Tu-F I will suggest that productivity will skyrocket given that people will have one day they work where some percentage of their co-workers don't. Fewer meetings and more working time will make up for the fact that some questions will have to wait one business day.
I really miss some empirical economics and management research during that 4-day workweek debate. Most of the debates come from parties with a vested interest in them. What makes me more curious is: what is going to be the minimum or maximum performance time offset in terms of competitiveness that the companies will need to overcome to adopt or not?
Has anybody tried a 3x12h? I think I'd get just as much done and be way happier. I hate the commute, the meetings, the office bullshit. I just want a long list of tasks, some drum and bass music, and a fresh pot of coffee. Let me do 3 heavy sessions a week and give me freedom to be human the rest of the time.
I don’t know how anyone could function like that. I’m a zombie after a hard 6-7. I can keep staring at the screen and poking at the keyboard, but
Nothing of value is getting accomplished.
I know a guy who did and he hated it. 9 to 9 at the office, going to the gym afterwards was out of the question and he was eating a lot of crap from the vending machines.
> Between the rise of generative artificial intelligence this year and the reckoning of work-life balance that came with the Covid-19 pandemic, efforts to shorten the workweek have accelerated.
It's not clear to me how these things are connected. How does generative AI make it necessary or feasible to shorten the work week? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to try it, but I don't get the sense that generative AI has made people 20% more productive across the board. In certain cases, sure, but I'm skeptical about making that claim for every member of a large-sized company.
We could say "it's okay to be less productive but have a better work-life balance", and that's fine, but it doesn't explain the quoted sentence.
A 4 day work week makes a lot of sense to me but I think it will be even more useful if the 3rd day doesn’t just mean a longer weekend.
One of the best uses of the 3rd day off would be being able to do things that are usually closed on a weekend (doctor visits, bank transactions, etc). So if we implemented a 4 day workweek by simply adding Friday to the weekend we would lose this benefit.
What inthink would be great is if we keep the 2 day Sat/Sun weekend and then add a rotating 3rd day off, where some people take Monday, some Tuesday, some Wednesday, etc off.
I've done this for 12 years now, at 3 different employers, first and current one for proportionally less pay, middle one was full hours compressed into 4 (not as good). Its a no-brainer. We tech workers are well rewarded. Most white collar westerners are more starved of time than of money. Extra day off means more time to spend with family, do hobbies etc. Employer definitely gets more than 80% out of me as I'm more rested. Pay hit is less than you might think because the last 20% is taxed more heavily than the first 20%. (due to the first X amount being tax free). Can save money by cooking from scratch more, shopping around for things. I'm not very practical or good at fixing things - if I was I'd probably save even more.
Those who don't at least have home office and/or can freely decide when to work.
I'm a freelance technical writer, and I don't get more than one draft/outline done a day. I work 3-5 days a week, but never more than 5h. When I'm done with a bigger task for the day, the following work won't be as good. It only works if I'm really hyped for the next task.
It won't happen until we eject the gerontocracy from Congress. So, probably not in our lifetimes. It will become a norm to see sitting Congress persons in wheelchairs with oxygen tanks and freezing in speech. AI lol? These people don't get AI any more than my parents. They want to fund wars abroad and think houses cost $200k. They are completely out of touch.
For the US the biggest impediment is healthcare is based on a per employee charge, not per hour charge. So there's this perverse incentive to extract every possible hour of labor from an employee, even with overtime at time and a half, to defray another fixed cost.
Without public health care and the subsequent lifting of healthcare costs from employers back over to a progressive tax system, I can't see the 4 day week being widely adopted.
Is that really the case? I was under the impression that part-time jobs in the US such as retail, food, etc. were so common precisely because part-time employees do not receive the same benefits (health insurance, retirement, PTO) as full-time employees.
Under the Affordable Care Act employees that work more than 30 hours per week (or 130 hours per month) are considered full time and require health insurance.
I’d assume then that most part time employees work less than 30 hours a week
156 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 204 ms ] threadMy employer has stated they've not noticed any change in productivity either, including on the day I'm off (I do a video handover and notes every Thursday for the rest of the team) - which I partly credit with the fact I no longer can justify "oh I'll just leave that to tomorrow" + feeling energised come Monday after 3 days of my own time.
I really would struggle to entertain changing back to 5 days now.
Outside of knowledge work, the 4-day week appears where demand outstrips supply. It's pretty common for dental offices, an one example, to work 4 days _just because they can_. The bos can pay themselves several hundred thousand dollars a year and pay their staff competitive salaries without giving up their long weekend plans.
I think it mainly speaks to the fact that "most stuff is not actually critical". So people have adapted accordingly and the work that needs to be done, is done, and that which isn't so pressing can wait.
There's a few ways to roll out 4 day work weeks. This was probably the worst.
If you're off from (say) Thursday 5pm until Monday 9am, that's 88 consecutive hours away from work, out of a week of 168 hours. Winning!
The whole idea is to generate ~95% of value with 80% of the work time, and to split the difference money-wise.
The trick is being senior enough (or in demand enough) that you can get one company to agree to a 32h week for you (and be willing to walk - I've interviewed with very interesting companies who weren't willing to consider it, and so we ended the discussions).
Once you have it in some form or another, you're good. It's just a condition of employing you, early in discussions with other companies.
Our company hired a greybeard with a rock solid condition of his employment being a four day work week. After that, it was much easier for "normal" employees to switch to it since management was familiar with the idea and saw that he was a very productive employee.
I switched to four day work weeks when I was 29 (based on his example) and have been very happy with it.
That's the secret. Being willing to GTFO if they don't meet your terms. And being good enough at what you do that they're willing to meet your terms.
My current employer, on initial contact, wasn't willing to consider fully remote and 32h/wk. Then a year later, they came back and were willing to talk because they'd been trying to find someone with my skillset locally.
https://www.databricks.com/blog/welcoming-bit-io-databricks-...
For example, if a divorced guy gets his kid on Friday and Saturday every week, it turns out getting every Friday off is a super-valuable benefit for him, and now you can hire a $120k programmer for $70k.
Only left them due to compulsory redundancy due to cost cutting.
2. “Over regulating” my country
I wonder which I would choose.
By letting surplus value go to those who own the...
And, of course, pay is important, too. I'm only able to do this by walking the TOS knife-edge, and it would be nice if I could make something similar with a "real" job instead. America's workers, in general, should be getting out far more than they do.
The anti-WFH people appear to fall into 3 camps: landlords and property owners, middle management who believe people are not as productive or efficient at home. And, as pointed out in a reply, there's also the group who believe that face to face communication is more agile and fosters more innovation.
Perhaps one question to ask is: who will lose money and/or power due to this move?
Somewhat offtopic: How has WFH been treated in European media? Has it been much the same as the USA?
Yeah, think like how you challenge yourself in deliberate practice. Putting up a "straw man" to fight doesn't really help one learn to fight.
And there are many companies large and small with mostly or fully remote teams delivering complex projects every day as we speak.
Whilst I'm sure there are edge cases where that face to face actually is essential, the idea that for teams to be agile, innovative and collaborative they must physically sit near each other has been shown to be unnecessary...?
No, it hasn't. And there isn't much serious work being done on it afaics, but lots of anectdata and politics.
I think it is clear that it is possible to build productive fully remote teams, for at least some applications. It's not clear if it's optimal, or how broadly it applies in terms of applications or people.
I get why such folks might hate WFH, especially if they believe that their personal difficulties are more common than they are, so others must not be able to function as remote workers, either, and especially that people couldn’t possibly efficiently come up with and refine ideas under remote work.
Edited to add: I also changed the language a little bit to be more neutral.
Otherwise, why does every place insists on destroying face-to-face interaction by adopting open-plan offices where any chat is disruptive?
Mostly superfluous verb.
Left: "Sounds like great idea, we must conduct trials!"
Center: "It sounds interesting, but we need more data blablablah"
Right: "A four-day week will never work, and people must put away that ridiculous idea. We (Norwegians) already work too little compared to the rest of Europe."
We oscillate between center-left and center-right every 4/8 years, so I'm not sure I have high hopes for this becoming a thing anytime soon.
The (political) right here is especially prone to knee-jerk reactions when it comes to anything related to labor and commerce, no mater what research says.
When you don’t have the space at home for a proper office, so you end up with something that is ergonomically suboptimal and makes a mental shift between ‘home’ and ‘work’ harder. When I’m already balancing my effort carefully to not end up spending more energy than I can recover week by week, asking for WFH without also cutting work days is something I find draining.
The “it’s great, but not for me”-crowd. Forcing people into the office or out of the office is the employer drastically changing the terms of the employment, and should at least be done over an extended period of time or in consultation with the affected employees (not including exceptional circumstances such as when it was part of the temporary efforts to dampen the pandemic).
I would gladly sign up for a 4 day work week. In fact, a 4 day in-office hybrid model would be perfect. As long as the work place policy involves no meetings or messages on that single remote day.
I've been doing it for almost 8 years now, and at this point, it's simply a non-negotiable in any sort of employment discussions (that, and not carrying a pager). I work Mon-Thu, 8h/day, and I'm generally unreachable Fri/Sat/Sun (doesn't mean I won't put in a long week on rare occasions, but think "once a year or less" sort of frequency). The work/life balance is far better, and it aligns better with my family (the local public school is only Mon-Thu as well).
Just ask about it. I know some people who've managed full pay for 80% hours, but generally "80% pay for 80% hours" is entirely reasonable too, and I've found (as a rather extreme DIY sort) that the extra money isn't missed, because I have more time to do things myself on the weekend. I can practically spend quite a few Fridays a year doing major DIY work, and come out ahead.
I genuinely cannot say enough good things about it. Try it. You won't miss 40s.
This is interesting and makes me think the answer to the title's question is public schools. Most Americans are not in a position to individually ask their employer for a 4-day week, but if the local school system does it, suddenly there's a unified block of thousands of people who really need Friday off to take care of their kids.
I had actually never heard of this but according to NPR it's fairly common already:
> Seven percent of school districts in the U.S. are now just four days long. In Missouri, it's 30% of districts. In Colorado, it's 67%.
> The four-day work week is an attractive work perk in rural America that may lure better teachers.
This makes sense but obviously would disappear if the four-day week became widespread.
The simple fact of the matter for many students (In America at least) is that it's not a lack of time in class that's leading to a lack of education. One of if not THE primary function of primary school in America today is to be a place for kids to go while the worker bees go to work now that its no longer socially acceptable for kids to run free.
I remember when I was in school we missed a few extra days from snowstorms, so they added several minutes onto the school day to "make up for the missed time". It was so obviously stupid then, but no school administrator listened to me, because what does a high school kid know?
To be fair, most people think this is how productivity works in any domain. It's certainly true if your job is to turn a hand crank all day producing widgets and under the assumption that you have equal energy throughout the day (but even accounting for that you still get the effect that more time = more widgets). But that most certainly is not true in the modern world and definitely not with any task that requires creativity. I'm actually more shocked at how many developers believe this considering I think we've all been in plenty of situations where more time debugging creates more bugs and the solution is to walk away, go do something else, and come back later. Maybe the problem is simply momentum and the coefficient of status stubbornness.
We use proxies like standardized testing to avoid each school self-assessing as excellent. But tests can be gamed through cheating. States distribute funding on a literal per capita per day formula. It’s much harder to commit time tracking fraud. Incentives that encourage butts in seats of course can be gamed. Snow days are avoided through half days and NYC once had a “school day” that was just a video call long enough to take attendance.
Attendance maximizing limits flexibility and greatness in pedagogy. However it guarantees a bare minimum service level. It also aligns with schools’ secondary function as daycare.
I am not a libertarian, but it is startling to me how many offensive facets of modern life came about due to perverse funding incentives from the state. I've been reading "Deschooling Society" by Ivan Ilich, which I think only thinly supports its own premise, but the pattern he describes in which formerly citizen-led components of society are institutionalized by the government and then experience a massive decades-long degradation of quality seems to ring true for everything.
Expect various other mitigation strategies to creep their way into nicer and nicer school districts, as the crisis worsens. That, or we’re gonna have to increase teacher pay a ton (good luck). I expect private tutoring services to positively boom over the next decade or two, as lower-than-usual SES families turn to them just to get back to the level of education they used to get “for free”.
I definitely didn’t mean to, like, blame teachers for this situation, though, so I apologize if I gave that impression. It’s definitely a matter of pay and work conditions. But, it’s gonna take a while to fix even if we throw money at it immediately, and I’m not seeing much of that yet :-/
My personal belief is that this is due to different factors and that it is quite a complex problem that is worsened by oversimplification. Notably that all measurements are quite fuzzy and there's incentives to advocate the metric that suits ones bias rather than account for the fuzziness of the metrics.
I think what's good about the American education system is that we aren't test focused and that we don't have a singular exam that is critical to one's future success. I think this encourages creativity, which is necessary especially in STEM fields and especially as we move into the modern era with AI. I also think test based systems (as you may see in most of Asia like China's Gaokao or Korea's Suneung) put far too much pressure on memorization (lack of generalization) and are especially stressful to children's mental health and takes away from all the soft skills that one learns in schooling (and is especially important). I think it's important we have many opportunities for people to recover from mistakes or environmental situations that these tests do not account for and is likely a bigger problem for western societies and especially American culture.
But the big thing is that there's strong evidence that a child under 10 can learn calculus. I'm not saying we need to do that, but certainly we can put more onto our children who are far smarter than we give credit to. But we may need to radically think our education program to perform such feats at scale. I do think there is a danger to solve "no student left behind" through decreasing standards rather than creating more nuanced educational methods and metrics (we see this even in other countries too). There are certainly larger incentive problems too. Such as in the modern world it is actually a rational decision for these children to desire to be "YouTube Stars" rather than say an engineer and that's not resolved by mocking them but being realistic about the risk reward environment we've created and our social devaluation of these jobs. This is a cultural phenomena that the Asian cultures seem to have solved where performing well in school is considered cool, but there are so many cultural aspects at play that this is hard to disentangle and pinpoint what exactly would be the way to create a similar phenomena in the west. Most certainly we need to disregard all parental sentiment of "well I didn't learn this when I was in school" if we are to operate on the premise that our society gets smarter as the world gets smarter because this should instead be seen as an expected result that is desired. But that may have political ramifications that adds to the complexity.
> though difficult to comprehend the nuances associated with experiments like this until the data is available.
I think, unfortunately, this is one of those many situations where we're never going to have sufficient data until we take a leap of faith. There's far too many issues where if we wait to act on experimental data that we'll wait till the ends of time because performing such experiments are difficult to do and especially in a controlled way. Even more so considering the difficulties in decoupling extraneous variables from the system and finding the key causal ones. In the real world you kinda just have to make that leap at times and be willing to revert if it is a mistake rather than doubling down and also be willing to consider colliding variables being adequate explanations for lack of success rather than the variable that was actively modified. (Fuck, experimentation and evaluation is hard. I really wish this was better recognized. The world is fucking fuzzy and we're fucking dumb)
All of this is of course my opinions and I'm explicitly not adding sources to claims because I'm not trying to sound authoritative here but rather thinking aloud to p...
And I do "weird low level crap." Generally if I'm interacting with the kernel, it's from below. Think introspection, emulation, hypervisors, "state analysis of a running kernel," firmware weeds, security analysis, etc.
If you know a bitter mid-to-late-40s sort who's been in the deep weeds and the security weeds long enough to carry a powered off flip phone and genuinely hate what we've done with computers, imagine that, and you're pretty close.
When I have a long weekend, a lot of times, its 'finally, no interruptions so I can get some work done', and end up working.
Guess, if you have an itch, could fill it with open source projects instead.
But I've also built the habits, over the years, of trying to make sure I have way more than just work going on in my life.
The "constantly coding on side projects" developer is pretty rare, in my experience, but tend to bubble together. (in startups, cooler tech companies or in the "innovation teams").
Somewhat related, but I do wonder what this community will look like once humans enter a post scarce (or mostly) world. Which a 4 day weekend seems like a step in that direction. Along with the other aspects of what humans will do with their new found free time. Which seems especially interesting in a consumer based economy.
The main reason is economic profit of any venture can go to pay 3 things: 1. capital invested (having an inventory of things, having done the R&D, having built an expensive factory, just represents existing wealth and assets (not money!!)) 2. labor (the people involved) 3. rent (for the land used)
With technology, and there is no indication AI is any better, capital owners get more and more of the profit of any venture. If anything, its point is to reduce the dependence on labor. So you have more people, competing for fewer spots, and you can get away with paying them less. The lower bound for what you could pay labor is just barely enough, so they keep having enough kids to provide future workers. If you start with a glut of workers, then it is a dark situation (which we are already living in, how many people can afford to have kids?)
Human preference is also wildly variable. I don't buy the constant "I'd rather not live in a city" argument that we hear because people could in fact do that, but there are plenty of preferences that people do make and it isn't like housing in fungible.
The simple model won't get us very far in estimating the actual effects and likely will actually make us make the wrong conclusions. Plus, there are solutions to many of the housing problems (which also is non-singular).
You need 4.2 40h teams of people for full coverage in a 168 hour week. You need 5.25 32h teams for the same coverage. It's not a radical jump.
I would also like to try a split week: work mon-tues, off wed, work thurs-fri, off sat-sun. This way you have a mini weekend giving you two "friday nights" and there's no weekly gauntlet to run.
Also note that federal holidays are often on a Monday, so having Mondays off reduces the number of holidays you have. You of course should get your 4-days/week and those holidays, so you should take an extra day off in that case, but the optics of that don't really work. (Maybe this is because those federal holidays are the minimal concession we have towards "people shouldn't work 5 days/week every week).
You are making up an imaginary issue here I think. Fine if you said it would take 5 hours but come on...5 min task?
Wondering if I should just hunt for 32h/w offers, if I could potentially miss on great 40h opportunities, etc. What's the success rate of asking for 32h/w in offers not advertised as such?
If it's an interesting 40h position, talk to them and put 32h as one of your non-negotiables in early conversations. Some will tell you they're not willing to consider it, and the conversation is done. Some are willing to consider it.
Yes those people read reddit, hackernews and other sources.
edit: OK - didn't notice this was for "employees that move muscles" Carry on then
Not that it matters. "We shouldn't try to improve things for one set of people if things are bad for a different set of people" is an incoherent and toxic attitude regardless of context.
They wanted a great deal of documentation sent by post, and their three day work-week meant they'd ask me on Tuesday for some piece of documentation, I'd mail it the same day, and by the time it arrived they'd left for the week so I couldn't expect a reply until the next Tuesday at the absolute earliest.
I sure hope any move towards shorter work weeks doesn't turn into an excuse for lengthy bureaucratic processes to become even lengthier.
More than 80% of working moms utilise this option and around 10% of dads. [1] Among my friends I have parents where both of them work 4 days, taking the 5th day off on separate days, and their kid goes to daycare 3 days a week.
Note that most government subsidies (for childcare) are set up to encourage working at least 32 hours per day.
[1] https://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/economy/2013/07/10/worlds...
Luxury! I used to dream of my parents killing us every night.
Best I can tell, most schools no longer have classes on Saturday, but they do have Wednesday morning at least. And, at least at my daughter's school, most are there (or at another _recreation center_) in the afternoon.
No school on Wednesdays but school on Saturday mornings is definitely not the most convenient from the parents' POV.
Then the kids grow up and go to school and the parents, if they have enough money, have essentially no incentive to work more hours.
1) Due to AI advancements, companies and business models are going to be disrupted. The last thing a firm wants is to work 4 day / week when competition can do 60 hour per week and leap frog them (including crushing them) at a crucial period. tl ; dr -- we are entering a crunch mode for many firms (vs stability where we can think of these luxuries)
2) US is already facing labor shortage in many critical fields esp human services. A 4-day work week faces massive inflationary pressures. Again, when we enter deflation we can think of 4-day work week. A classic example would have been 2008/09 when unemployment touched 10%
3) AI will make people who work 70 hour per week even more productive. So in knowledge work roles, firms may opt to have one 70 hr extreme workaholic vs 2 32 hour people
I know sensitive topic to HNers who downvote just because they don't like the message
Not sure why you had to make this about AI.
Four hour or four day? Both are terms that have been tossed around, though this is discussing four day (which you then discuss as 32h weeks later).
> AI will make people who work 70 hour per week even more productive. So in knowledge work roles, firms may opt to have one 70 hr extreme workaholic vs 2 32 hour people
Have you ever had to debug code from people at the wrong end of a 60-70 hour week? For a while, I had a coworker who tended to to this sort of thing, and I eventually started looking at the relevant commit messages. If they were incoherent, expect the code to be "not even wrong" grade interesting - you basically had to re-write it to get it do what it was supposed to. The sort of people who enjoy 70h grinds also seem to not particularly enjoy writing tests.
2) That would mean more competition for labor, i.e, if 4-day week is all you can get as an employer you take it.
3) Firms in knowledge roles want certain skills and profiles, if those want a 4-day week, then that is what will happen.
There was a survey showing that a lot of Americans believe the recent inflation will be over once prices go back down to where they were in 2020. They, and you, are in for an unpleasant surprise.
I know there are studies that show it can be better and more productive, but employers don't care. They want butts in seats as long as possible.
It's not clear to me how these things are connected. How does generative AI make it necessary or feasible to shorten the work week? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to try it, but I don't get the sense that generative AI has made people 20% more productive across the board. In certain cases, sure, but I'm skeptical about making that claim for every member of a large-sized company.
We could say "it's okay to be less productive but have a better work-life balance", and that's fine, but it doesn't explain the quoted sentence.
One of the best uses of the 3rd day off would be being able to do things that are usually closed on a weekend (doctor visits, bank transactions, etc). So if we implemented a 4 day workweek by simply adding Friday to the weekend we would lose this benefit.
What inthink would be great is if we keep the 2 day Sat/Sun weekend and then add a rotating 3rd day off, where some people take Monday, some Tuesday, some Wednesday, etc off.
Those who don't at least have home office and/or can freely decide when to work.
I'm a freelance technical writer, and I don't get more than one draft/outline done a day. I work 3-5 days a week, but never more than 5h. When I'm done with a bigger task for the day, the following work won't be as good. It only works if I'm really hyped for the next task.
Source: I maintain a page listing 120 4-day week companies. For every 10 new companies I add, 6-8 will be from these two countries.
For anyone interested:https://okjob.io/companies/
Without public health care and the subsequent lifting of healthcare costs from employers back over to a progressive tax system, I can't see the 4 day week being widely adopted.
I’d assume then that most part time employees work less than 30 hours a week