Work four days and rest three: how and where to repeat the new work week

Earlier this year, Spanish President Pedro Sánchez announced an ambitious plan to set the four day work week and allocate 50 million euros to companies in their adaptation to this new model. But the initial euphoria dissipates in the face of questions from the actors who are essential to its implementation. Labor Minister Yolanda Díaz, for example, called the plan “rigid” and proposed that the design of the work week should have a two-way perspective: fflexible for both worker and employer. The Ministry of Industry, for its part, is pushing for the program to be linked to general state budgets, which would delay its implementation. The More Country party, the main promoter of the project, insists that this innovation would increase productivity, reduce absenteeism and improve the well-being of the population.

So far around the world, this type of change has been applied more at the corporate level than at the level of government policies. Whether or not this decision is promoted by the States, the discussion on a four-day work week is already mobilizing certain companies to question their production model. Telefónica Spain, for example, has promised that it will test the 32-hour workweek in the last quarter of 2021. In New Zealand, the multinational Unilever has decided to establish it throughout the year and if it gets good results, it will expand the system. to more than 150,000 company employees worldwide. Microsoft Japan, meanwhile, has already put the model into practice and carried out, in parallel, 40% increase in productivity and 23% reduction in electricity consumption.

One of the most studied cases is that of the trust company Perpetual Guardian. Three years ago, your CEO challenged employees to find a way to be more productive so they could work fewer hours per week. Lockers were set up for people to leave their cell phones in while they worked, and some workers began putting up posters on their desks asking their co-workers not to disturb them. The results were shocking: productivity increased by 20%, stress levels decreased by 7%, and the time employees spent browsing web pages outside of work was reduced by 35%.

The idea that we can be more productive and work fewer hours is counter-intuitive. The logic that has prevailed to date establishes (wrongly) a linear relationship between time and results, but different models of labor flexibility are already tackling this notion. “Productivity is defined by the fact that each person, given the available resources, can produce more added value. And this can be achieved both by working longer and by being more efficient. Not necessarily by spending more hours in the office, we will get more results», Explains Darío Judzik, professor at Di Tella University and CEPE researcher. A paradigmatic example is German: in 1975, German and American employees worked the same number of hours. Over time, the European country has shifted to a more flexible model and today Germans work an average of eight hours less per week than Americans. Productivity has not been affected and the country’s GDP remains among the highest in the world.

Surprisingly, a study by Vouchercloud of nearly 2,000 employees in the UK showed that the actual working time people have when they are in the office is only 2 hours and 23 minutes . Another survey by US tech company Workfront found that only 39% of the time we spend in the office (or spent, before the pandemic) is used for specific work tasks. The main distractions are social networks or news portals.

Paula Molinari, president and founder of Grupo Whalecom, an organizational change consultancy firm, is quite energetic in this regard: “Before, you had to work when you were in one place and on a schedule. It is completely ridiculous today. Work has become more related to the idea of ​​fulfilling certain tasks or objectives, and this is independent of the hours one devotes to it. In addition, reaching a goal in less time is a sign of efficiency. Now what is wanted is to evaluate people for their achievements and not for the time they spend in their chair ”.

The idea that a three-day weekend would contribute to our well-being is not disputed. But the key to this extra well-being is not just the ability to sleep or rest for more hours, but the fact that that time can be used for recreational activities. This is how Alejandro Melamed, doctor in economics and consultant on issues related to the future of work, explains: “I think that one of the advantages of the four-day work week is to promote other types of activities, with the possibility of finding new spaces to connect with passions, sport, physical activity and social gatherings. It does different activities and activates with other mechanisms”. It is also worth considering whether an extra-large weekend would encourage consumption and open up opportunities for the tourism and leisure industries.

Beyond the benefits that this paradigm would bring in human and interpersonal terms, it is possible that the environment will also benefit. The effects would be felt even in the face of less ambitious innovations: a study published by Greenpeace and based on economic activity reports from 29 OECD countries concludes that a reduction of only 10% in the number of hours worked would reduce the ecological footprint of 12.1%, the carbon footprint of 14.6% and the CO₂ emissions of 4.2%.

In March of this year, the Secretary of Management and Public Employment of the Nation Ana Castellani said that “exploring shorter work weeks is on the agenda for future discussions”. But is it realistic to think of a four-day working week in Argentina? What factors should be given for the application of this model? Judzik recalls that the success of this type of reform depends to a large extent on the work culture and the economic strength of a given country: “It is easier to apply this type of reform in countries where compliance with regulations and a collective consciousness of the push forward, where everyone must produce for the economy to move forward; on the other hand, in countries with a weaker institutional framework, the relaxation of regulations may reduce the incentives to effort or to work ”.

There are other questions that remain unanswered. One of them is whether this model can be implemented in all sectors of the economy and the a priori answer is no: “Of course, it is very heterogeneous between industries. It is not the same to apply it to construction as it is to an advertising agency or a graphic design studio which requires more creative work, ”explains Judzik. There is also the possibility that this model may be inaccessible to the most vulnerable and in need of more work, employees who work part-time and whose wages are relatively low. If those who end up accessing these benefits are only the best educated and best paid people in society, the risk would be that the four-day workweek would further widen the inequality gap.

Research from the University of Melbourne, Australia assessed the impact of a four-day (10-hour-per-day) work week on the well-being of office workers. The central conclusion is that satisfaction with this type of measure is lower if it is imposed by employers. The study highlights the importance for employees to organize their schedules and to be able to choose the type of work week they prefer. In this regard, an article in Fast Company magazine states: “Each employee is unique and has different personal situations, motivations, values ​​and needs. The only really effective alternative is to be flexible and to offer workers a range of options ”.

The pandemic has accelerated changes in the world of work and changed the way we work in very concrete ways, changes that under normal circumstances would have taken years to appear. Telecommuting has already put in place old notions about productivity and the chair hour paradigm where you have to “fit in” and work in some physical space between question marks. It remains to be seen whether when the COVID-19 challenge ends, we will revert to the old ways or whether this will open the door to deeper changes in the way we work (and, therefore, the way we live). “A world of work approaches us where there is more concentration and clearer tasks, a world with more autonomous and flexible people, but at the same time more rigorous in the achievement of objectives”, concludes Molinari.

___

This note is part of the Solutions for Latin America platform, an alliance between INFOBAE and RED / ACCIÓN