“There is no such thing as a free lunch” is an almost iconic popular phrase.
I am reminded of this when reflecting on the current trend in many countries to introduce the four-day working week.
For example, on Nov. 21, 2022, Belgium implemented a law that enables willing employees to transition to a four-day working week. Trials in the United Kingdom, Spain and Iceland have been hailed as “extremely successful.”
The purpose of the trials are to let employers and employees consider the benefits and disadvantages of a shorter workweek. They do not provide a definitive answer as to whether it really benefits all employees and the wider society, however.
This is exemplified by the Belgian legislation, which aims to introduce flexibility in the labour market, which hopefully leads to a drop in unemployment.
Indeed, as only 71 out of 100 people in the age group of 20 to 64 are employed, the reform may help combat high unemployment.
Further, employees may embrace the switch for its assumed health benefits and better work-family balance.
In Australia, the decision of a number of companies to trial a four-day work week is, potentially, as ground-breaking as the eight-hour working day achieved by the Stonemasons in Melbourne in 1856.
Is It Too Good to Be True?
The premise behind the push is simple, shorter work weeks without lowering salaries while maintaining productivity.It is, however, necessary to investigate the assumed effect of the reform.
Proponents argue it will improve the work-family balance of employees and result in greater happiness.
But what about productivity?
Such a claim is clearly contestable. On a superficial level, the four-day working week could be implemented by workers working longer hours for four days, thereby maintaining productivity.
In that case, the change will merely condense the five-day working week into four days.
Cost of Transition
Regardless of how a four-day working week was to be implemented, it is certain that it would provide the impetus to effectively reduce the working time to just 30 hours.This was recently achieved by the employees at Oxfam Australia, who now have the option of working 30 hours over a four-day working week.
Nevertheless, even if the five-day working week were to be condensed into four-days (involving more hours of work), maintenance of productivity is not guaranteed because it could be expected that a longer workday would tire an employer’s workforce.
This problem could be combated by not allowing employees to work on consecutive days but to spread their four work days over the course of week.
In Australia, the report of the Senate’s Select Committee on Work and Care, which considered the four-day working week, also recommended the adoption of a year of paid parental leave and the right to disconnect from work outside of official working hours.
The effect of these proposed workplace changes on productivity is, as yet, unknown.
The economic costs of the contemplated workplace changes, especially the four-day working week, may well be substantial.
The “there is no such thing as a free lunch” phrase and the current workplace debate are also reminiscent of another iconic statement, this time coming from former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. In 1971, he stated that “Life is not meant to be easy.”
The words missing from this phrase provide an uplifting message, which could potentially enliven the current debates on the benefits and disadvantages of the four-day working week.
They come from George Bernard Shaw’s “Back to Methusaleh” where a child is told that “Life is not meant to be easy, my child, but take courage—it can be delightful.”
The four-day working week, if implemented universally, will not be cost-free. But most employees will certainly regard it as a “delightful” reform.