Reforming the Working Week

Is a Four-Day Week Economically Viable and Politically Feasible?

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the average weekly hours for full-time workers in the UK is 36.3 hours. This value has remained fairly stagnant since 1992, when ONS records began for this metric, wavering between 36 and 39 hours per week. Amidst the plateauing of weekly working hours in the UK, calls for a four-day work week has significantly increased. The concept is based around the 100:80:100 model: employees maintain 100% of the output they would produce in normal hours in 80% of the time for 100% pay.  

There is a consensus that the four-day work week benefits employees. For instance, a study done by the think tank Autonomy of 61 firms of various sizes and sectors found that 39% of employees reported lower stress, 71% less burnout and 60% found it easier to manage care responsibilities. This is supported by a 2021 study by Henley Business School and a 2022 study by researchers in the UK, US, Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand  with themes of better physical health and wellbeing consistent. The evidence for a reduced working week benefiting employees is substantial, hence the growing support for the movement. 

The evidence related to reduced working hours being beneficial to businesses is also fairly convincing. One way businesses gain is reduced staff turnover. For instance, Autonomy’s study found resignations fell 57% after adopting a four-day week. Autonomy’s research also found that on average, annual company revenues rose 1.4% under reduced hours. The findings of Autonomy are reinforced by other researchers such as Henley Business School, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Maintaining the same output per worker despite reduced hours is vital for the implementation of a four-day work week, as business owners are the group who are the most sceptical. Findings across pilot programmes support the view that productivity can be maintained, but sector specific data is needed to illustrate where reduced hours are feasible. 

European data shows an interesting relationship between weekly working hours and productivity. The Netherlands, Austria, Norway, Germany and Denmark are examples of high-income European countries with average working hours below 34 hours per week in 2024. The Netherlands is as low as 32.1 hours, resembling a comparable number of hours to a four-day work week. Yet all of these countries maintain a higher GDP per hour worked than the UK measured at purchasing power parity (PPP). These countries aren’t necessarily achieving higher productivity because they work fewer hours but demonstrate that long working hours are not imperative for strong productivity.  

The claim that workers are more productive under reduced hours can be justified. Trials of reduced working hours at South of Scotland Enterprise find that sick days for psychological reasons drop 25.7% while mental health and work-related stress reduce 18.4% meaning employees are more present and focused on the clock. Furthermore, the same trial found that the share of workers feeling very satisfied with their work rose from 4% to 84%.

All of these factors combine to make workers more engaged and efficient in the workplace. For instance, a study done of the South Cambridgeshire District Council, who trialled and have since adopted a four-day week in July 2025, noted that most services maintained the same level of quality or improved. This supports the view that reduced hours are not guaranteed to reduce productivity. In the right environment and implemented effectively, reduced hours can actually play a role in increasing productivity. 

Given the compelling case for the four-day week, you would expect that the leadership of the Labour government would embrace these developments. On the contrary- senior Labour Party officials have been vocal in their opposition to any notion of a four-day week. 

Notably, the aforementioned South Cambridgeshire Council has been criticised. Despite positive reports, Housing Secretary Steve Reed criticised the move, citing it is ‘not in line with government policy’ and ‘decreases in performance’, contrary to most evidence. Downing Street themselves have also officially ruled out introducing a four-day week. This highlights Starmer’s caution to be associated with a controversial and bold policy such as this.  

Yet support for the four-day work week from within Westminster has come primarily from members of Labour. In Early 2025, more than a dozen MPs backed a proposed amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, calling for the government to look into how the UK could make changes to current working hours. The amendment was tabled by Labour MP for Bootle, Peter Dowd and supported by 13, mostly Labour MPs. Furthermore, Labour MP for Ribble Valley, Maya Ellis, supported the movement explaining that it is ‘win-win’ for all.

In December 2025, she called for a debate in parliament on the matter. However, there has been no such debate. At a time of significantly waning internal support for Starmer in the Labour Party, exploring a four-day work week could be effective. Through this he could attract support from the left of the party who have felt disillusioned during his premiership. 

Support for a four-day working week is not just confined to MPs. Autonomy also found that of Labour voters in the 2024 election, 72% support a reduced working week with no loss of pay. Interestingly, the movement has cross-party support. The study finds that the over 50% of the  supporters of all the major political parties bar the Conservatives support the government moving to a four-day work week by 2030. Hence addressing calls for reduced hours could be a means for Starmer to regain popularity from a range of undecided voters, so could bear fruit electorally. It would be important to highlight that output can be maintained, with potential for this to be a policy described as ‘rewarding laziness’ by the right of politics. 

It is arguable that a four-day work week may not be a sensible policy for the current Labour government. The policy could see opposition from business leaders potentially offsetting any gains made in the electorate. Many may deem the current set of evidence that reduced hours don’t hurt productivity insufficient. Thus introducing a four-day week may risk capital flight or a hesitation to invest in UK business. However, with more research and trials, the suggestion that productivity is not reduced by fewer working hours will become more reliable.  

Importantly, supporters of the four-day work week recognise that it is not viable in certain industries. For example, healthcare, transport and hospitality may require 24-hour service, making implementation logistically difficult. Therefore, introducing the four-day week is not a comprehensive method to address working hours for all, but can be effective when targeted at specific industries. 

Nevertheless, through a multi-stage plan, the rate of adoption of the four-day work week could increase and become normalised in British working culture. An initial step would be to fund trials within the certain areas of the public sector. Increasing the amount of data available for the results of trials would give British employers a clearer picture of potential benefits- particularly regarding productivity, with it being the main cause of scepticism. In the longer term, the government could phase in the entitlement of workers in certain sectors for reduced working hours, such as 32 hours per week without reduced pay. Assuming there is consensus that reduced working hours are economically viable, this would be the most permanent solution.  

The four-day week is certainly worth exploring for Labour. Firstly, there is growing evidence that it can benefit employees and employers. Enhancing the research done around this issue is essential to uncover the extent to which productivity is affected. Secondly, it would be popular with the general public, especially the left so could be prudent to at least associate with the movement. As other European countries show, lower hours are not destined to ruin productivity, hence moving to reduced hours is possible for this Labour government who are in desperate need of support from their traditional voter base.