The four-day week is family-friendly, promotes health and productivity, which in turn increases profits. Pilot projects in Europe are said to have proven this. Working time expert Zander disagrees. The studies would be presented in an “undifferentiated” manner, he says to ntv.de and forced experiments with the model are dangerous for many companies.
ntv.de: The four-day week has become a real hot topic in Germany. This week IG Metall caused an outcry again. What do you think of the initiative?
Guido Zander: I don’t agree with the suggestion. I’m not against a four-day week, as one of many options it can be a good thing. But the point is, in order to implement this – with full wage compensation and largely without losses – certain requirements are necessary and they differ in individual companies and industries. IG Metall represents employees at high-performance car manufacturers, but also at suppliers who have the tightest margins. I think it’s very daring to demand a four-day week for everyone across the board with full wage compensation and an additional 8.5 percent more wages on top of that.
The four-day week is not a panacea?
The problem is that the very undifferentiated media representation always gives the impression that a four-day week can be implemented in every company without any loss. It is usually assumed that this would result in more sales. Apparently studies have proven this. In fact, that’s not true at all. The union probably got the wrong impression here.
Is it realistic that the four-day week could be rolled out on a large scale, as some now fear?
If politicians decide that at some point and write it into the working time law, that can of course happen. However, the fact that the four-day week is a very rigid model speaks against this. Flexible models, perhaps with a reduction in working hours, would help many companies make progress. I also lack awareness of the economic situation here. In my opinion, the four-day week simply cannot be implemented in many companies, especially in shift operations, without sacrificing productivity; for quite a few it would be a real death knell.
Well-known economists such as Michael Hüther and Bert Rürup are bucking the general trend and calling for people to work more, not less. We would risk our prosperity, they say. Is that so?
What I find just as problematic is when people like Hüther stand up and say that we all have to work 42 hours a week again. In shift work, 42 hours definitely leads to a significantly higher sickness rate. That means the two extra hours would quickly be eaten up again. The problem today is linear thinking: two more hours bring so and so much more productivity. This is simply wrong and just as fatal as the assumption that with a four-day week the increase in individual productivity is always higher than the loss of capacity and that the whole thing is definitely financially viable.
This seemed to be the case in the pilot projects…
In the British and Icelandic case studies that existed, working hours were reduced from 40 to 36 hours. Productivity naturally increases. But if you reduce it from 36 to 32 hours, this effect is no longer as great. At some point, rest is no longer enough to compensate for lost capacity. The problem is not the four-day week itself, but that companies have to be able to manage something like that and be able to afford it, at least with full wage compensation.
In your book “The Truth Behind the Hype: Miracle Cure Four-Day Week” you criticize the fact that certain assumptions about the four-day week have taken on a life of their own. Let’s do a fact check: Does the four-day week help against the shortage of skilled workers and does it make employers more attractive, as is often claimed?
Working time expert Guido Zander is a partner at SSZ Consulting and author of “The truth behind the hype: the miracle cure 4-day week”.
(Photo: Guido Zander)
You have to look at the issue of a shortage of skilled workers on two levels: one is the economic level, the other is the company level. From an economic perspective, I believe that the four-day week with full wage compensation would actually worsen the skills shortage if the loss of capacity cannot be offset by increased productivity. Apart from that, there would then no longer be any competitive advantage for individual companies.
That would actually be a zero number. But companies are supposed to benefit…
From a business perspective, a sole proprietorship will of course have an advantage in recruiting over companies with a five-day week. If 40 hours are spread over four days instead of five, the question arises in many professions – for example where there is heavy physical work – as to whether this is still attractive. Most people always think that a four-day week means a reduction in working hours with full wage compensation. However, most implemented four-day weeks only have weekly working hours spread over four days.
The topic is discussed very emotionally. You constantly read and hear that no one wants to work anymore. Younger people in particular would avoid it. Do you agree?
So here too, I think a little differentiation is needed. I don’t think you can throw a blanket blanket over any generation and say you’re all lazy. In every generation there are quitters and people who are willing to perform. But what you have to realize is that younger people reject shift work, night work and work on weekends. If they are presented with a shift schedule during a job interview, then they will leave. At least that’s what our customers tell us. To be fair, it must also be said that many manufacturing companies still work 38 or 40 hours a week, which really makes them sick. We regularly speak to employees from such shift companies, who sometimes have 20 years of shift work under their belt. There are people sitting in front of you who look 15 years older than they are.
How will the world of work continue to change, especially in light of booming AI and ChatGPT? Is the ten-hour week perhaps already on the horizon – at least for some people?
In the end, even mechanical automation did not result in any less work. It just created other jobs. We will need fewer workers through automation and AI. But we will then have another problem: simple jobs in production will disappear in the medium term, while at the same time the demand for electricians, mechatronics engineers and similar professions will increase enormously. This poses a problem: the higher the qualification, the less people want to work in shifts. But automation requires highly qualified people to look after the machines 24/7. So I don’t think AI will solve our problems.
So more flexible working hours, not the four-day week, are the miracle cure and the answer to all problems?
Reducing working hours in shift areas must become an issue. As an example: If you shorten your working hours to 36 hours and a four and a half day week, then you theoretically have a four day week every other week and therefore flexibility. An additional shift can be scheduled without overwhelming people. And people can trade with each other because they have a day off every two weeks. If you don’t want to have the day off that day but want it on another day, you can swap. This means that there is the necessary flexibility for both the employees and the employer. You have higher employee satisfaction without having to work a four-day week. By the way, the successful case study from Great Britain was never a test of the four-day week, but rather a test of an average of 4.5 day weeks. Flexibility works everywhere. In contrast to the four-day week.
Diana Dittmer spoke to Guido Zander