There’s a painful flip side to working a four-day week

Having enjoyed the benefits of a shorter working week for the past seven months thanks to childcare, I am not at all surprised by the countless studies showing how a four-day week makes employees happier, healthier and more productive.

The only pain – and it’s a biggie – is that shrinking hours tend to mean shrinking pay.

So how’s this for a pitch to the next prime minister: longer weekends for all, but with the major bonus of keeping a full-time salary?

It sounds like a utopia, so it’s no surprise that there’s a growing number of people gunning for the next government to make this official policy.

It’s not a complete fantasy, given that Labour remains comfortably ahead in the polls.

And it was only in 2019 that John McDonnell, the then shadow chancellor, promised that “the next Labour government will reduce the average full-time working week to 32 hours within the next decade”.

Although it was Jeremy Corbyn’s flagship policy when he was Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer’s party certainly hasn’t scoffed at the idea.

“If you can deliver within a four-day working week, then why not?” Angela Rayner, the deputy leader, asked a room full of business leaders last year, urging them to consider if such a move would be feasible.

“Wa-hey!” us office workers shout from the sidelines. A better work-life balance here we come.

As we edge closer to polling day on Thursday, calls for a four-day week have only grown louder.

One of Labour’s biggest backers Unison has urged the next government to take legal action to support an official shift to a shorter week, while 40 company bosses wrote a joint letter to party leaders last week with the same message.

I’m all for a shorter week for the companies that can manage it. But a government mandate is a different matter.

Aside from the fact that Labour insiders say there are zero plans to follow Corbyn’s proposed policy, there doesn’t seem to be enough consideration for those who would be left behind by a four-day week.

This is a perk that has been viewed through the lens of a white-collar worker.

The huge divisions in our society will only get wider if working life tilts much further towards suiting the white-collar office worker, a group already benefiting from post-Covid perks such as home working and who typically earn more.

An Ipsos poll published earlier this year found that 63pc of US employees who make $100,000 (£79,000) or more report being able to work from home, compared to just 32pc of those making under $50,000.

While the HR departments of blue-chip businesses have been hosing down their office staff with benefits ever since the pandemic, NHS rotas are now so chaotic that doctors have been asked to work on their wedding days.

The Royal College of Emergency Medicine has said NHS pressures are no longer confined to the winter as the health service is suffering a “year-round crisis in emergency care”.

Although four-day week campaigners have argued that a shorter week will stop NHS staff from leaving and improve morale, it is almost impossible to see how the idea would work in practice amid chronic staff shortages.

Far more likely to happen at least in the short-term is that office workers cash in while those we rely on the most get left behind.

Anyone who is paid hourly could find themselves with less pay and less stability.

A Welsh Government report into the four-day week warned earlier this year that the idea could discriminate against frontline public sector employees and risk “widening existing inequalities”.

The Welsh Government consultation was made up of a working group of senior civil servants and public sector bosses.

One manager said that allowing staff to have an extra day off would require them to hire an additional 179 staff on full-time equivalent contracts to maintain the same levels of service.

In the private sector, industries with a large portion of staff on their feet all day are also unlikely to find the majority of workers cheering for this.

Builders under deadline pressure have already said they would rather have flexible hours than a fixed short week.

Resentment could build in sectors such as construction if back-office staff switch to a shorter week on the same salaries, while those on the frontline continue to toil away.

The proportion of our lives devoted to work does need a rethink as robots shrink the length of time it takes to complete many office jobs.

But a government-mandated four-day week isn’t the answer.

A spokesman for the official 4 Day Week Campaign has sought to argue that claims a shorter week widens inequality is “wrong and way off the mark”, particularly as those who stand to benefit most include disabled people and those with caring responsibilities.

But the argument here is not that the vulnerable won’t benefit, more that a large proportion of frontline workers who have already missed out on various perks such as home working would once again be left behind.

There are ways to improve work-life balance in a way that includes everyone, such as encouraging more flexible hours and increasing salaries.

It is telling that Unite, Labour’s biggest backer, is focusing its efforts on improving pay for members rather than joining the push for a four-day week.

Frontline workers deserve more and there are far better places to start than enforcing a shorter week.