Abstract
The paper presents empirical findings deriving from two recent research projects that study how implementation of a 4-day work week alters working life among employees in two Danish municipalities (Gleerup; Meldgaard Hansen; Lund, 2023). The model used in both cases is a so-called compressed work week, with 4 longer workdays followed by Friday as a new day off. Based on extensive qualitative data, collected from 2019-2023, this paper aims to explore the gendered dimensions and effects of such new work arrangements.
The two cases form part of a current international labour market trend to test a 4 day work week (Autonomy 2023, Campbell 2023). Among other things, 4-day work weeks, are thought to improve work/life balance, creating more ‘free time’, and helping especially workers with caring responsibilities (e.g. for children or parents) achieve more time for these purposes. Some proponents of the 4-day week further argue that this working time model may increase gender equality in the workplace, and challenge gender norms more broadly, by promoting a more even distribution of unpaid domestic labour between men and women (e.g. Ibrahim & Davidson, 2023). However, our studies illustrate that increased work/life balance is not an automatic effect of implementing a 4-day work week, and that gendered norms and practices continuously shape employees’ experiences and strategies in relation to the new working time model.
Firstly, our analysis explores how experiences of work/life balance are affected, when a 4 day work week is implemented in a ‘5 day society’ (Travis 2010). We unfold how the new rhythms of the workplace create a new form of asynchrony, interfering with the rhythms of everyday life. And we examine how these changes are dealt with and evaluated differently, by especially employees with caring responsibilities.
Secondly, we focus on the innovation that Friday as a new and permanent day off represents. How do men and women view and use the ‘free time’ that suddenly appears while partners work, and children are in schools and institutions? Does this new organisation of work promote more ‘gender-equal’ practices at work and at home, or do they rather increase existing experiences of time traps and guilt in a working life where timescapes (Adams 1998) are already too complex to navigate?
We conclude by pointing out why gender perspectives on 4-day work weeks should be explored more carefully in future research, in order to grasp broader long-term implications. We propose some theoretical approaches that might stimulate new insights in the wake of the new experiences.
The two cases form part of a current international labour market trend to test a 4 day work week (Autonomy 2023, Campbell 2023). Among other things, 4-day work weeks, are thought to improve work/life balance, creating more ‘free time’, and helping especially workers with caring responsibilities (e.g. for children or parents) achieve more time for these purposes. Some proponents of the 4-day week further argue that this working time model may increase gender equality in the workplace, and challenge gender norms more broadly, by promoting a more even distribution of unpaid domestic labour between men and women (e.g. Ibrahim & Davidson, 2023). However, our studies illustrate that increased work/life balance is not an automatic effect of implementing a 4-day work week, and that gendered norms and practices continuously shape employees’ experiences and strategies in relation to the new working time model.
Firstly, our analysis explores how experiences of work/life balance are affected, when a 4 day work week is implemented in a ‘5 day society’ (Travis 2010). We unfold how the new rhythms of the workplace create a new form of asynchrony, interfering with the rhythms of everyday life. And we examine how these changes are dealt with and evaluated differently, by especially employees with caring responsibilities.
Secondly, we focus on the innovation that Friday as a new and permanent day off represents. How do men and women view and use the ‘free time’ that suddenly appears while partners work, and children are in schools and institutions? Does this new organisation of work promote more ‘gender-equal’ practices at work and at home, or do they rather increase existing experiences of time traps and guilt in a working life where timescapes (Adams 1998) are already too complex to navigate?
We conclude by pointing out why gender perspectives on 4-day work weeks should be explored more carefully in future research, in order to grasp broader long-term implications. We propose some theoretical approaches that might stimulate new insights in the wake of the new experiences.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Publikationsdato | 15 aug. 2024 |
| Status | Udgivet - 15 aug. 2024 |
| Begivenhed | 11th Nordic Working Life Conference: Nordic Working Life at a Crossroad - Roskilde University, Roskilde, Danmark Varighed: 14 aug. 2024 → 16 aug. 2024 Konferencens nummer: 11 |
Konference
| Konference | 11th Nordic Working Life Conference |
|---|---|
| Nummer | 11 |
| Lokation | Roskilde University |
| Land/Område | Danmark |
| By | Roskilde |
| Periode | 14/08/2024 → 16/08/2024 |
| Andet | Nordic Working Life at a Crossroad? “This will be the overarching framing of the 2024-version of the Nordic Working Life Conference. Societal developments are reconfiguring taken for granted elements of working life and working life studies: Technological developments with for example AI and platform work, new valorizations of work as when the less work movement meet workfare, and macro developments such as labor shortage and new ways of organizing work-capital relations. What happens to the workplace, traditionally a cornerstone of both development of and research on working life in the Nordic countries, when faced with these and other developments? What does it mean for workplace learning, collectivity, and democracy? What happens to the content and conceptualization of work, let alone professionalism, meaning and identity? And where does it leave industrial relations, collective rights, and labor market policy? |