Research from the University’s School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research (SSPSSR) has shown how a national four-day working week can positively impact workers and their families’ wellbeing, improve social cohesion and reduce social inequality.
In a paper published by the Journal of Social Policy, Professor Heejung Chung from SSPSSR discusses how a shorter working week can help tackle issues by giving workers the ‘right to time’, shifting a balance between work and non-work activities in daily life. She suggests that a four-day week:
- Reduces social inequality as a long-hours work culture is at the core of labour market inequality – especially pushing women out and penalising part-time working women
- Can help address the wellbeing of families, as time with parents can support children’s emotional, psychological and cognitive development
- Enables people to spend more time outside of work, which means society can start valuing contributions made by individuals in ‘non-paid work’ e.g. volunteering
- Enhance social cohesion, as long-hours work culture can relate to stigmatised views about the unemployed and workers working flexibly etc.
- Can help those with other responsibilities to access the labour market
Several organisations are due to take part in the UK trials of a four-day week pilot programme from June-November 2022. The four-day week pilot is a movement set to shorten the working hours of full-time workers without a reduction in pay. Yet, Professor Chung cautions that company-led approaches could result in more segmentation in society and that intervention at a state-level would instead provide a nudge for companies to value workers’ time and efficiency.
Professor Chung said: ‘Without a national move towards a four-day week, long-hours work culture will continue to result in many societal costs. State-level interventions can adequately help to address some of the key challenges we face as a society.’
The research paper titled ‘A Social Policy Case for a Four-Day Week’ is published by Journal of Social Policy. doi: 10.1017/S0047279422000186