Question

In the spring, a consultancy published the results of a six-month trial of the four-day working week involving sixty firms. Participating employees kept their full salaries while working thirty-two hours instead of forty. Of the sixty firms, thirty-eight reported that output was essentially unchanged, fourteen reported an increase, and eight reported a decline. Staff turnover fell at more than half of the firms, and sick leave fell at forty-four. The report’s authors describe these figures as “decisive”. Critics are less certain. Every participating firm volunteered, and several had already experimented with flexible hours; a sample so self-selected, they argue, tells us little about how a bakery, a hospital or a call centre would fare if the shorter week were imposed. The authors concede the point but note that none of the eight firms reporting a decline abandoned the experiment. Whether that reflects satisfaction or merely the cost of reversing a contractual change is a question the report does not address, and one that only a longer trial, with a randomly chosen control group, could settle. The critics’ main objection to the trial is that its sample

Accepted Answer

may not represent firms that did not choose to take part

Answer

excluded firms that had tried flexible hours before

Answer

included only firms in the service sector

Answer

was too small to produce a reliable average

The critics’ main objection to the trial is that its sample

«Мәтінмен жұмыс» тақырыбынан тағы