Happier employees with better mental well being, lower absenteeism and more time for family or personal interests. This is the A side four day work week a model that is gaining traction in Western economies and that governments are testing through pilot programs to see how scalable it is.
Yet behind the light there is a B side. A set of risks that could derail the ideal of fewer hours and more free time. Experts consulted by El Períodico de Catalunya of the Prensa Ibérica group point to higher stress levels, a greater burden on women as caregivers, and concerns about a potential hit to company competitiveness as the main dangers of the approach.
In Canada there is a historical move toward a compact work week as a model to pace the economy. The government, through the ministry of industry, has piloted approaches to pay the same wages while employees work 32 hours a week, testing viability and the impact on productivity and morale.
Early international examinations of such experiments in both private and public sectors have highlighted benefits for workers and for organizations that adopt them. A review of 33 firms across six countries that reduced weekly time by one day yet maintained salary showed a marked drop in absenteeism by about 30 percent and fewer car trips by about an hour per employee each week. It also noted a notable decline in reported burnout among staff. Other positive signals included improved perceived well being and greater time for other activities.
Despite these gains the data also point to limited adoption by Catalan firms. Industry leaders and unions indicate there is little interest among the business community to join a government pilot program or to be seen as a candidate for participation at this stage.
In Spain Catalonia has in some ways led the way with the four day week. Tapla Industries experimented with moving the work week to Monday through Thursday in 2018. After two years, the company decided to maintain the same number of working hours but compress them differently, resulting in a three day weekend for employees. The aim was to balance hours and downtime, and the outcome was a partial shift rather than a wholesale reduction in hours.
Montse Ramon, head of strategic planning, told El Periódico de Catalunya that the model was continued five years later and that both the company and the staff were satisfied. The approach has helped Tapla reduce downtime in production and cut costs in a climate of rising energy prices, with gas up robustly and electricity costs climbing sharply. Productivity rose and employees enjoyed a longer weekend while maintaining output levels.
Nevertheless the example also shows the caution required for expansion. A similar SME that could have joined the ministry program declined to participate. The result was a stable period where pay did not rise but hours could be controlled with savings passing through to customers through pricing considerations. In such cases the business case hinges on whether the savings offset the needs of customers and competitiveness remains intact.
Hard to return
One of the principal concerns for companies is the risk of reversal. The government pilots typically maintain salary while reducing the work day but if the program ends, compensation schemes may be limited and the same legal protections can be costly for both sides. Experts argue future pilots should clarify how a company can exit a program without triggering expensive consequences and what justifications would allow a smooth return to prior conditions.
Zata, a consulting firm from Alicante, stood out as an early European example of a four day week. The firm initially moved to a compressed schedule for most staff and after three years most workers had shifted to a four day pattern with slightly longer days. The experiment into the mechanism of long work days revealed a selective adoption where not all employees chose the schedule and a growing portion continued with traditional hours. The company noted that flexibility was essential because some staff preferred shorter weeks while others valued the extra day off less because of family or personal commitments.
According to the CEO of Zata, the aim was to provide a choice that allowed staff to maintain balance and to step back when needed. The broader government model remains a 32 hour week as the central target but the longer workdays carry their own risks including stress or a sense of being overwhelmed for some workers. A gender perspective also matters particularly for households with caregivers and dependents. The common pattern of childcare and eldercare means reducing weekly hours may create shifts that affect women more than men, potentially increasing home duties even with shorter hours, according to a respected sociology professor from the Autonomous University of Madrid.
Bureaucratic complexity
Time is tight for firms that want to participate in government piloting. The next round opens in May with a deadline for submissions set a few weeks away. A special advisory service through a leading employers association is ready to guide interested companies. Some managers report inquiries but very few firms are actively pursuing participation at this stage. Officials stress that the process requires alignment with worker representatives and that upfront investments in research and consulting come with no guarantee of selection.
Unions and business associations describe a context of high uncertainty that makes a radical organizational change difficult. The window to apply closes soon and observers highlight the need for clear evaluation criteria and predictable pathways for companies to join, stay in, and if needed gracefully exit the program. The process aims to balance company loyalty, worker protection, and the interests of the public administration to ensure that the move benefits the broader economy and the workers themselves, with careful attention to fairness and implementation clarity.