Four-day workweek: Why idea of shorter hours gains support

Jacob Turcotte/Staff

In 1930, British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that, a century hence, rising productivity would shrink the average workweek to just 15 hours. Needless to say, his prediction was a bit off.

But maybe Keynes’ ideas weren’t as far-fetched as they sound. A growing number of businesses are experimenting with a four-day, 32-hour workweek, with mixed success. Microsoft’s Japan subsidiary tried it in the summer of 2019, and reported a 40% boost in worker productivity. But when the Portland, Oregon, tech education company Treehouse tried it in 2015, the CEO remarked that the reduced working hours killed his “work ethic.”

Since then AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka proposed a “leisure dividend” to compensate workers for their increased productivity. The 2019 manifesto of Britain’s Labour Party advances a similar proposal.

Would a four-day, 32-hour workweek actually work? Many business owners, concerned with foreign competition, remain skeptical. But many workers’ advocates and environmentalists say it would be a change for the better. Even some historians, like Dutch author Rutger Bregman, say that the three-day weekend is an idea whose time has come.

Eoin O'Carroll and Jacob Turcotte

Why We Wrote This

For many people a “full-time job” provides much needed income, even a sense of purpose. But could those needs be supplied without such long work hours? It’s a long-standing question that we revisit in illustrated form.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Four-day workweek: Why idea of shorter hours gains support
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today