The 40-hour work week has been the standard for full-time employment in many countries for decades. However, in recent years, there has been growing debate around whether requiring employees to work 40 hours each week is still the best approach in the modern workplace.
What is the 40-hour work week?
The 40-hour work week refers to the standard number of hours an employee works per week under full-time employment. The typical schedule is 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, equalling 40 hours total.
This standard was first implemented in the United States in 1940, when the Fair Labor Standards Act established the 40-hour work week for many professions. This law required employers to pay overtime to employees who worked more than 40 hours.
The 40-hour work week was intended as a way to improve working conditions and quality of life by designating reasonable working hours per week. It provided workers with protections from excessive hours and enabled them to have evenings and weekends off.
What are the potential benefits of the 40-hour work week?
There are some advantages that proponents argue the 40-hour work week provides:
- Work-life balance – The 40-hour week allows employees time for responsibilities and interests outside of work such as family, hobbies, volunteering, etc.
- Productivity – Some argue employees are more focused and productive working 8 hour days rather than longer shifts.
- Health – The standard prevents worker burnout and allows for adequate rest and recovery time.
- Fair labor standards – The limit on hours provides workers with protections from exploitation.
- Higher wages – Hours over 40 are paid at overtime rates, increasing compensation.
Supporters of the 40-hour standard argue that these benefits have had a positive impact for many employees and should be maintained.
What are some criticisms and challenges to the 40-hour work week?
In recent decades, the 40-hour work week has come under more scrutiny, with critics arguing it may be outdated. Some key criticisms include:
- Inflexible scheduling – Some argue the rigid 40 hour schedule does not align with the needs and preferences of all workers and employers in the modern economy.
- Changes in productivity – Critics argue productivity does not always correlate to hours worked, so the 40 hour standard is an ineffective way to ensure optimal output.
- Rise of knowledge work – The nature of many jobs has shifted away from manufacturing, making set hours less relevant.
- Impacts of technology – New technologies enable remote work and flexible schedules, calling the traditional model into question.
- Increased demand for work-life balance – Many modern workers are seeking greater flexibility and focusing more on lifestyle, interests, and priorities beyond just work.
There are also some practical challenges that critics argue make the 40-hour week outdated, such as commuting times extending the workday and more employees working multiple jobs.
Is there support for alternatives to the 40 hour standard?
Due to some of the criticism around the 40-hour model, various alternative work arrangements have been proposed and tested:
- Part-time work – Working less than 40 hours per week, often with hourly wages rather than a fixed salary.
- Compressed work weeks – Maintaining 40 hours per week but compressing it into fewer workdays, such as four 10-hour days.
- Flex-time – Allowing employees to alter start and end times but maintain overall weekly hours.
- Remote work – Working outside of the office and allowing employees more control over scheduling.
- Job sharing – Two employees splitting one full-time role and hours.
- Reduced hours – Legally mandating fewer weekly hours for all workers, such as 35 or 30.
Surveys show many employees are interested in more flexibility. For example, in one survey of US workers:
Preference | Percentage |
---|---|
4 day work week | 61% |
Flex-time | 57% |
Remote work | 50% |
However, while interest is growing, adoption of reduced or flexible hours still remains relatively limited. Only around 7% of US companies offer a four day week option. Legally mandating a universal reduction in hours for full-time roles would represent a major economic shift. More research is likely needed on the ideal approach.
What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of reducing the standard hours?
There are various arguments made for and against reducing the typical weekly hours below 40.
Potential benefits:
- Improved employee wellbeing and work-life balance
- Greater flexibility for employees
- Increased productivity in fewer hours
- Promotion of gender equality if hours are reduced while maintaining pay
- Redistributes available work more evenly across the workforce
- Potential environmental benefits from less commuting and energy use
Potential drawbacks:
- Loss of wages and impractibility for some lower income roles
- Administrative and scheduling challenges for employers
- Difficulty coordinating different professions and industries
- Reduced productivity in certain sectors
- Limiting employer flexibility and competitiveness
- Potentially large impact on labor costs
There are also questions around how reduced hours could be effectively implemented:
- Should full-time be redefined legally?
- Should it be universally mandated or at employer discretion?
- Should overtime rules change?
- How would employee pay and benefits be impacted?
More research is likely needed to better understand the nuances of implementing major widespread reductions in full-time hours.
Examples of companies switching to reduced hours
While not yet common, some high profile companies have made the decision to shift away from the 40 hour standard for their employees:
4 Day Week Global
This organization advocates for the environmental and wellbeing benefits of a 4 day week. They partner with companies to run trials of a 32 hour, 4 day model.
Over 60 companies with over 2,600 employees have participated in their trials across countries like Ireland, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. On average, companies reported:
- Productivity largely stayed the same or improved in 94% of companies
- Workplace stress fell dramatically
- Ability to attract and retain talent improved
Based on successful trials, many companies opted to make the 4 day week permanent, including companies in finance, healthcare, IT, retail, and manufacturing industries.
Unilever New Zealand
The consumer goods company shifted non-manufacturing office workers in New Zealand to a 4 day week trial in 2020. Employees maintained their usual pay while working 4 days but just 30 hours per week.
After the 24-week experiment, the company found employees:
- Reported better work-life balance
- Experienced decreased stress and burnout
- Maintained similar levels of productivity and output
Based on the success, Unilever made the 4 day week permanent for New Zealand employees.
Shake Shack
The popular burger chain opened a Las Vegas location in 2022 that operates on a 4 day work week model. Employees work just 32-35 hours over 4 days rather than 40 hours over 5 days.
The company highlighted that this provides workers with:
- 3 day weekends
- predicable schedules
- higher pay on average from the reduced hours
The model is intended to attract talent, boost retention, and promote work-life balance. Early signs have been the location has seen strong applicant interest and morale from current staff.
Conclusion
The 40 hour work week has been the accepted full-time standard for the better part of a century, but may be ripe for reevaluation. While a 40 hour schedule suits some employees and employers, growing scrutiny highlights its drawbacks in work-life balance, flexibility, and productivity.
Alternative models like a 4 day week show promise from a small but growing number of companies. However, more large scale and long term research is still needed on optimal implementations that take into account both employee needs and business operations.
Rather than advocating a one size fits all solution, the ideal path forward may be increased flexibility. With more options like remote work, flex schedules, and job sharing, employees and employers can determine together what hours and structures make the most sense for their needs.
The 40 hour model may be outdated for some, but with the right policy approach, it can likely evolve into new frameworks that better serve the diverse priorities of the modern workforce. Finding the right balance between employee wellbeing, productivity, and business needs will shape the future of work.