A New Way to Work? 

Schor has been recognized as a leading expert on labor since at least the 1992 publication of her book, The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, which explored the dramatic increase in working hours despite the proliferation of time-saving technologies in workplaces. She began the research behind Four Days a Week after witnessing how the pandemic caused employers to rethink just about everything. “Previously, the four-day workweek didn’t feel realistic or achievable,” Schor said. Suddenly, though, more and more companies were adopting new models of remote and hybrid work to keep employees satisfied during the labor shortages of what came to be known as the Great Resignation. “I think the common sense about the feasibility of a four-day workweek flipped,” Schor said. “More and more employers are now wondering, ‘Could this work for us?’”

To answer that question, Schor and BC Associate Professor of Sociology Wen Fan designed trial studies with an organization called 4 Day Week Global, which was founded by the New Zealand entrepreneur Andrew Barnes, who implemented four-day workweeks at his company after reading that UK office workers were productive for only a couple of hours each workday. The findings presented in Four Days a Week reflect what Schor and her team learned from 245 organizations enrolled in the study, from a 35,000-person hospital chain in New Jersey to a small craft brewery in London. Researchers used employee surveys and interviews to gather insights into worker habits and well-being. Their employers, meanwhile, provided data related to everything from company revenue to employee resignations and sick days taken.

Schor’s book uses both hard numbers and interviews with employees to tell the stories of the transformative effect the trial four-day workweek has had on workers. For instance, 42 percent of employees surveyed by Schor’s team reported improved mental health and 37 percent reported better physical health. What’s more, across all twenty well-being metrics that were assessed—including levels of burnout, stress, sleep, and life satisfaction—employees reported statistically significant improvements, regardless of gender, race, or occupation.

It turns out that employees can accomplish just as much in four focused days as in five filled with distractions, Schor said, invoking Parkinson’s Law, a labor adage that work expands to fill the time available. In exchange for their efficiency, employees who work four days a week have an additional day off they can use to run errands, attend to the household, spend time with family and friends, and see to other matters that taxed their free time before. And happier, rested employees want to stick around. “Employees are less likely to quit,” she said. “They value their jobs more. They're less burned out, so their healthcare costs are going to be lower. Those are all economic incentives for the firm.”

Schor acknowledged the skeptics who doubt that four-day workweeks could be widely adopted in the US. “Some people think, ‘This couldn’t work in America because we’re a workaholic country,’” she said. “But that’s a relatively modern development. For about a century, the US was the world leader in work-time reduction. We were first to a five-day week.” It wasn’t until the 1980s and ’90s, when labor unions saw a decline in power, she said, that working hours started increasing.

Looking ahead, Schor believes that artificial intelligence will be a “game-changer for productivity,” and strengthen the case for four-day weeks. Her book also considers whether shorter workweeks, which cut down on commuting, could curb carbon emissions in a time of climate crisis. Maybe, as Schor writes, the best argument is this: “The four-day week now feels like common sense.” ◽