Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Businesses

Science Confirms What We All Suspected: Four-Day Weeks Rule (theregister.com) 150

Posted by BeauHD from the working-less-works-better dept.
A six-month international study found that a four-day workweek with no reduction in pay significantly improved employee well-being, job satisfaction, and sleep quality, with burnout dropping most among those who reduced their hours by eight or more. "The results indicate that income-preserving four-day workweeks are an effective organizational intervention for enhancing workers' well-being," the researchers said. The Register reports: The study, reported in Nature Human Behaviour, was designed to test the effects of the four-day workweek with no reduction in pay. It relied on a six-month trial involving 2,896 employees in 141 organizations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, and the US. The researchers compared work and health-related indicators -- including burnout, job satisfaction, and mental and physical health -- before and after the intervention using survey data. A further 285 employees at 12 companies did not participate in the trial and acted as a control.

The researchers noted that the study was limited in that companies volunteered to participate, and the sample consisted of smaller companies from English-speaking countries. More extensive government-sponsored trials might help provide a clearer picture, they said. While several factors may explain the effect, one possibility is "increased intrinsic motivation at work," the study said. "Unfortunately, [we] cannot assess [this] due to data limitations." "Despite its limitations, this study has important implications for understanding the future of work, with 4-day workweeks probably being a key component. Scientific advances from this work will inform the development of interventions promoting better organization of paid work and worker well-being. This task has become increasingly important with the rapid expansion of new digital, automation, and artificial general intelligence technologies."

Science Confirms What We All Suspected: Four-Day Weeks Rule More | Reply

Science Confirms What We All Suspected: Four-Day Weeks Rule

Comments Filter:

  • The more the better.

    And I'm not above writing up self-serving opinion polls dressed up as science to snow you into giving it to me.

    • Free shit like stock dividends?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It benefits the company too, they have better staff retention and general well-being.

      If it's free stuff you are concerned about though, presumably you work 7 days a week and never go on holiday. Or is it just that there is a certain level of acceptable "theft" from the company that you deem to be fair?

  • If 4 is better than 5, surely 3 is even better! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Tuesday July 22, 2025 @06:48PM (#65537856) Homepage

    Well duh, so people got to take off an extra day each week, with no reduction in pay. Who wouldn't want that?

    How was productivity affected? Did they get "just as much" work done in those four days?

    • The Rich sucked up all of the money in the last 40 years, with great productivity gains, while the minimum wage barely budged. If you are Rich, and looking long term, I humbly suggest that you spread the wealth out and share some of those productivity gains with the Middle Class in America. A strong middle class gives you the tools to become Rich.

      • While CFR laments growing income inequality, if you look closely, even they admit that *all income groups* have made gains in the last 40 years. https://www.cfr.org/background... [cfr.org] And by the way, almost nobody makes minimum wage. Even Walmart employees make at least $15 per hour.

        • Right. As long as everyone makes a little more progress then inequality does not exist. Besides those poor people are taking the cookies that are rightfully yours.

          • I don't deny that inequality exists. I deny that inequality is evil. Inequality is literally what motivates people to strive for more. It's a feature, not a bug.

      • barely budged??? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tiqui ( 1024021 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2025 @07:46AM (#65538888)

        Let's see here... In the 40 years you cited, the minimum wage went from $3.25 to $20 and you dismiss that?

        Remember: the so-called "minimum wage" is not supposed to be the wage a head-of-household takes home and uses to provide for a family. It's a starter wage intended for highschool and college students and others who are getting their first jobs in fast food places and grocery stores etc. It's a wage for unskilled people who are developing some work experience and a few skills that will, in turn, help them move on to better paying jobs with more responsibility. There was a moment in one of the "town hall" discussions leading up to the 2008 election where a guy asked then-candidate Obama for help making it so that he could support himself (and a presumably a current or probably future family) on his burger flipper job at McDonalds... and when I saw this I knew we were in trouble. This guy clearly did not understand that he needed to develop some skills and MOVE ON, freeing up that job for some other newbie. There need to be entry level jobs for people just starting out, and some jobs simply do not add enough value to justify a wage fit for a family to live on.

        Boosting the minimum wage is nothing but an inflationary act. Mandating that somebody pay more for a job than the value that job provides causes one of three things: [1] The job will go undone, [2] The job will be done illegally with workers paid under-the-table, or [3] the job WILL be done at the higher wage and then workers just above the old minimum wage will demand an increase since they are suddenly at or below minimum, and then the ones above them will demand raises, and as this propagates the prices for products and services must rise, etc and in the end everybody is back to where they were (relative to each other) but all the prices are higher and the unit of currency is worth less than it was. Sound familiar? Yeah, the basic economic laws are as inviolable as the laws of physics.

        Raising (or even HAVING) a minimum wage is great politics; it makes ignorant people temporarily happy and get them motivated to vote for some candidate. Over the long run, however, its only real impacts are to encourage illegal actions in employment (hiring of illegal workers, un-taxed under-the-table payment, etc) which actually hurt average workers, and to be a driver of inflation. This is why the minimum wage is never enough and there are ALWAYS calls to make it higher - it's simply economically IMPOSSIBLE to ever make it high enough. Over time, the economy will adjust to any change in it, and everything will drive the numbers so that the minimum wage is a starter wage that will not support a family. The era of it acting to help employees in inescapable company-run coal mining towns is as long gone as the 1930s and just as likely to return.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Khyber ( 864651 )

          "It's a starter wage intended for highschool and college students and others who are getting their first jobs in fast food places and grocery stores etc."

          LIAR.

          https://www.lowellsun.com/2017... [lowellsun.com]

        • Let's see here... In the 40 years you cited, the minimum wage went from $3.25 to $20 and you dismiss that?

          Taking credit for the wealth building power of inflation? Also what brand of crack are you smoking to get a minimum wage of $20/hr anywhere? The Federal minimum wage is just $7.25 and the highest of any state is $16.25.

          Lets see here - it is better to use a longer time scale as 1985 was after high inflation in the late 1970s and a restriction on minimum wage increases (to fight inflation, you see) led to a serious erosion of minimum wage salaries.

          A better comparison is to use a 50 year time line. In 1975 the

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Usually these studies find no reduction in productivity. Sometimes they also find that customers like the work done for them more.

      • The time period for these studies is usually a few months. In that time, the newness of a four-day work week don't really wear off. If four day weeks were to become the norm, people would adjust to the new normal, and continue to goof off just as much as they did with the five-day week.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Altus ( 1034 )

          So clearly the answer is 6 day work weeks, you will be 20% more productive for your corporate masters.

    • The real question is will that be with zero income or some form of basic income.

      How many will be affected?

      How do you pay for the subsistence income?

      A tax on AI transactions and robots?

      Business won't take a tax standing up. They'll fight it tooth and nail.

      We could lose our democracy and the right to vote because of the power of businesses.

      Will it be a benevolent dictatorship, or one which culls people when they can no longer deliver value to businesses?

      • Did you take me seriously? Apparently. No, I don't believe a four-day work week is somehow better than five. We all need to work to live. UBI cannot ever work, because money has to come from somewhere. As your parents likely taught you when you were young, money doesn't grow on trees. That's still true.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

          because money has to come from somewhere.

          Taxation would seem to be a possible source. Do you not think taxation exists?

          • Taxation of what income? Taxation of the money the government is handing out to people as UBI? How does that work?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Altus ( 1034 )

              Income tax is not the only kind of tax

              • That's true. But it all comes from one place (our bank accounts) and goes to one place (the government). It doesn't matter how you label the tax, it's a tax, a flow of money from us to the government. So this point doesn't change the math *at all.*

        • The money for ubi comes from the same place welfare money comes from. We just pay ubi instead of welfare.

          • Welfare comes from the taxes of people who are *not* on Welfare.

            UBI doesn't have that option, because *everybody* is by definition, on UBI.

            • That's your definition of ubi. That would be stupid because then prices would go up by that much. UBI can only work if it ensures a person a minimum salary enough not to blow their budget and then taper off as they start to work and make money exceeding that minimum level.

              • OK so your definition of UBI is not "universal" (which is what the U in UBI stands for).

                But let's go with a not-quite-universal-basic-income that you are suggesting. Let's use the most extreme case: In our NQUBI scheme, we'll just take ALL the money earned by the top 20% of income earners, and redistribute it as UBI.

                The top 20% are people who earn at least $130K per year.
                That group of 38 million people, earns about $11 trillion annually.
                Subtract the $130K we're going to let them keep (38 million x 130K = $4

    • Well duh, so people got to take off an extra day each week, with no reduction in pay. Who wouldn't want that?

      Why shouldn't they want that?

      Why shouldn't they get it?

      • There's no reason they shouldn't want it.

        They *can* get it if that's what they want. There are plenty of four-day part-time jobs. My wife has one.

        So what's the problem?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          If output is the same, why does it matter if you do it in 4 days rather than 5? And why if you produce X widgets in 4 days and X widgets in 5 days should you be paid less for working more efficiently?

          • The output will not remain the same.

            There is nothing inherent in a five-day work week, that causes people to goof around. After people get used to a four-day work week, they settle in to a similar pattern of inefficiency as before.

            Suggesting that output in 4 days will be the same as the output in 5 days, ignores reality and simple math.

    • The "researchers" never considered productivity, just measured worker happiness.

    • Why as many as 3 days a week? Wouldn't 1 day a month be so much better for employees happiness, sleep, and well being? I bet it would. Without any pay reduction, and only for select few employees of course, because if everyone starts working 1 day a month at a month's wages, prices of things would skyrocket, i.e. inflation).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
        Did prices skyrocket when the average length of the working week was reduced from 48 to 40? Long term, if automation and AI can do 90% of 90% of jobs then the issue facing us is not inflation but deflation. We're not there yet, but we could get there in a relatively few decades.

        • Long term, if automation and AI can do 90% of 90% of jobs then the issue facing us is not inflation but deflation

          It seems you have bought the hype. There are only two groups of people saying this: 1) AI CEOs, and 2) the Doomsday Clock believers. People who actually use AI, know that this is not even close to realistic.

  • I mean, yeah, no burnout is good. Employee health is good.

    but at the same time, 'productivity' does still matter. are they getting the same amount of work done in 32 hours that they used to get done in 40? If not, then this is a bad comparison because yeah, everybody does better if nobody works as much...except the company.

    somewhere there's a balance. labor found it at 40 hours and 5 days (2 days off) decades ago. if that's not the right value, fine...but just giving employees the time off without giving th

    • A key factor may simply be AI. I know that I can write code a whole lot faster, and when I am troubleshooting circuits and get stumped, AI can give me some ideas to try. So, are Rich people going to suck up all of that productivity gain? or... will the $$ and be spread around a little?

      • What? The people that pay for the tools deserve the benefit. If your employer stops you from coding on coding forms that you hand off to a keypunch operator to enter into the computer and instead buys you a computer so you can code faster on your own, shouldn't the employer get the benefit from your improved productivity? Why should he cut your working hours commensurate with your improved efficiency? Why should your hourly rate increase with proportion to your increased productivity?

        You are paid $X to prog

        • Pro tip: DuckDuckGo.com has free and anonymous AI. I ask it to code for me, and sometimes I feed code into it and it fixes bugs. I do the rest. It is free. It is anonymous. It does not suck in your companies information and use you as the product.
        • So why would they pay 40 hours when it is known human capacity is approved 30?

  • I loved a 4-day work week. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Tuesday July 22, 2025 @07:17PM (#65537950) Homepage

    I am currently retired, but for about the last two years of my working life, I worked 4 days a week, 8 hours/day at 80% of my previous salary.

    It was so worth it. The extra time more than made up for the lower income. I understand not everyone can swing this, but if you can and your employer is flexible, I strongly recommend negotiating a 4-day work week.

    • I am not sure that I ever want to be "fully" retired, but I am now working 4-5 hours a day. It makes my "nut". I can take a day or two off if I feel lazy. I still get shit done, probably more than most working full time..

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )
      I did the same, for a year and a half. I looked at it as a step towards retirement, but I was a little surprised just how much of a difference that extra day off made.

  • You don't need to hire as many employees for the same level of output if you do 996 (9 am to 9 pm, 6 days a week).

    If you have unlimited payroll, then you'll have happy and productive employees on 4/10. If you payroll dominates you costs, then 996 can cut those costs dramatically. It is especially useful when ramping up a small business or when you have clients that order projects of varying size. You can temporarily throw a team on 996 to take on the big order. Instead of hiring a bunch of people then havin

    • Infosys......

      • Well, I was only considering companies that do actual productive work.
        I doubt changing the work schedule at Infosys will fix what is wrong with that company (what is it? 60+ hours typically, sometimes as much as a 100 hours?)

        • You are talking about Farmers and Plumbers?

          • Chinese assembly lines. So people that make things that Americans buy in great quantity.

            • Chinese people were buying chips and software in great quantities in the past. As for us, in America, to go back into Manufacturing....precision Manufacturing like the Chinese do now, that is is going to hurt. It seems to me that we Americans are used now to just sit at a computer, pretend to work, and mostly play on their phone. This is going to be painful in my humble opinion if Americans are going to be forced back into Manufacturing. But, that is the MAGA dream, I guess.
  • Is the grind you down so that you don't have time to become educated, develop critical thinking skills or question the system.

    So it literally does not matter what science says. The American government is currently systematically dismantling science.

    And half the people reading this voted for it.

  • From Nature [nature.com]:

    The study’s authors had wondered whether a condensed working week would add to employees’ stress. “When workers want to deliver the same productivity, they might work very rapidly to get the job done, and their well-being might actually worsen,” says lead author Wen Fan, a sociologist at Boston College in Massachusetts. “But that’s not what we found.”

    I assume that means they didn't find workers want to deliver the same productivity.

  • Works for some not for others (Score:3)

    by vlad30 ( 44644 ) on Tuesday July 22, 2025 @09:28PM (#65538150)
    I have several businesses the ones in construction where physical labour dominates you can get them to work for short periods at a cracking pace by offering days off of more money as a bonus but after 2 weeks the pace slows as physically they can't do it for long. Pacing the work is better. Its also much safer.

    The IT companies give them deadlines and if they finish early or can achieve milestones by working less days or work from home all good. However here a small percentage will start to abuse it after a while and its interesting as other workers will "report" the abuse before managers notice.

  • It's not valid to test well-being when keeping the same pay for less work, unless you like stating the bleeding obvious.

    Were a 4-day week applied globally there would certainly not be enough productivity to do this. Some jobs would stay over 80% productive, a very small amount of high-stress jobs may even increase in output. But many would be less than 80% since the overhead tasks remain the same.

    It's also invalid to test dropping pay to 80%. That would create a lot of stress on the test subjects, but were

  • As someone who already has a four day work week every other week? Itâ(TM)s absolutely fantastic. I get a day to do errands on Friday, and then I actually get a weekend. I feel much more refreshed coming back to work the following Monday. Love my job, and even if the coworkers arenâ(TM)t always perfect, I have enough energy to handle all of it just fine.

  • I read these comments and Americans seem so obsessed with productivity. Here's a tip, the places where people are happiest in the world are not the most productive in the world. Personally I worry more about my happiness than the performance of my company or my country with regards to money. Not sure how Americans get brainwashed into sacrificing themselves for the good of corporations.
  • four-day workweek usually is 10 hour days....so you aren't working any less time than a 5 day week 8 hours a day, BUT it's 1 day less at work. That is a good thing. A day off for doctor, dental visits, etc and not having to use PTO ! I used to work 12 hour shifts, 48 hours 1 week, 36 hours next week which gave me less time at work...a very good thing. Some hate 12 hours, but a plus for me when I went thru chemo for cancer and never used PTO !!
  • Stick your 996 up there where the sun never shines. Here's a hint for you and your ilk: many of us out there do not want to become billionaires, and do want to have a life outside or jobs. We work to live, we do not live to work.
  • Six months is about how long ANY change to an office environment will show a positive impact. Make the lights a little brighter, productivity goes up for a few months. Lower the lights, productivity goes up for a few months.

    Show a consistent effect over two years and maybe I'll care. Anything less is just promoting an agenda.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer

Close