arlier this year, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act. This legislation aims to reduce our standard forty-hour workweek down to 32, spread over four days and without a reduction in pay.
The proposed act underscores the need to modernize our labor policy to adequately meet the demands for more flexible work schedules and a healthier work-life balance. As technology advances and the nature of work evolves, so too should the amount of time we spend in the workplace.
The five-day, forty-hour workweek is increasingly becoming a relic of the twentieth century, ill-suited to supporting the well-being of workers today. Reclaiming a weekday enables workers to devote more time to other enriching aspects of life, including recreation, social connection, education, and political engagement.
Our standard workweek — established with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 — was the result of a decades-long struggle waged by labor unions fighting against grueling hours and unsafe working conditions. Driven by the plight of industrial workers toiling for 60 or even 70 hours a week, labor activists advocated for “eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, and eight hours for what you will.”
The fight was not merely about increasing leisure; it was also about securing a greater share of the surplus workers helped produce that was being hoarded by a small class of wealthy individuals.
Unions succeeded in achieving that goal with the economic boom that immediately followed World War II. Yet today, we are witnessing a troubling regression into what can only be described as a Second Gilded Age, characterized by a weakening of labor unions, a fall in the labor share of income, and an alarming concentration of wealth at the top, facilitated by neoliberal policies and the mass exploitation of the working-class.
Many workers today still endure long shifts of ten to twelve-hours, a stark reminder that the eight-hour workday achieved by the Fair Labor Standards Act is still not universally realized. In fact, a 2023 Gallup poll found that 27 percent of workers labor more than 45 hours per week, and 15 percent work more than 60. This overwork epidemic is exacerbated by the rise of psychological distress and an “always-on” culture that actively discourages a healthy work-life balance.
A report published earlier this year by the consulting firm Mercer found that over 80 percent of employees are at risk of burnout due to financial strain, exhaustion, and excessive workloads.
The Covid-19 pandemic cracked open a wider discourse about burnout, including the so-called Great Resignation, wherein disillusioned workers chose to leave their jobs due to the lack of flexibility, inadequate compensation, and limited opportunities for career growth and advancement.
The trend towards “quiet quitting,” which affected at least half of the U.S. labor force in 2022, is evidence that workers are rejecting the current model of work, which demands long hours in exchange for insufficient gains.
A shortened workweek is the key to fostering a healthier, more engaged, and more productive workforce. A recent pilot program organized by the nonprofit advocacy organization 4 Day Week Global saw nearly 3,000 workers in more than 60 companies in the United Kingdom transition to a four-day workweek and found that 71 percent of participants reported feeling less burned out. Iceland conducted its own trial and found similar improvements in life satisfaction amongst its employees, and now nearly 90 percent of the workforce have reduced hours. The success of these trials suggests that productivity need not be sacrificed for greater work-life balance. For instance, Microsoft Japan’s experiment with a four-day workweek resulted in a 40 percent increase in productivity and greater workplace efficiency.
The call for a four-day workweek is fundamentally a matter of economic justice. While worker productivity has grown by over 60 percent since the 1970s, wages have only increased by about 15 percent, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. A reduction in work hours could help address these disparities by allowing more people to share in the economic benefits of increased productivity.
There are also climate benefits to adopting a shorter workweek. A pilot program encompassing 360,000 workers in Valencia, Spain found that long weekends were accompanied by a drop in CO2 emissions. This supports previous research that a reduction in work hours cuts down on carbon-intensive commutes and enables greater energy savings. Perhaps the Paris Agreement’s goals for net zero emissions by midcentury is best achieved by granting us an extra day off.
Like their predecessors who fought for the eight-hour day, labor unions are leading the charge in the fight for a four-day workweek. The United Auto Workers (UAW) adopted a 32-hour workweek with no reduction in pay as part of their strike demands last year, and although it wasn’t achieved at the bargaining table, it remains a facet of their agenda going forward.
The AFL-CIO has committed to fighting for a shorter workweek and supports the bill proposed by Senator Sanders. This push from organized labor signals a renewed effort to address the inequities of the modern workplace by reimagining the future of work.
The five-day workweek was once an innovative reform, but it is now anachronistic in a world where the demands of modern work are increasingly out of step with the needs of workers. By adopting a shorter workweek, we can begin to address pressing issues of employee burnout, job satisfaction, and economic inequality.
This is not just about reconfiguring work hours — it’s about realigning work with its essential purpose of enhancing life, freeing up time to engage in creative pursuits, be with family and friends, and fight for a more just and equitable world.
COMMENTS