Six versus Four-Day Workweeks – Conflicting Trends across Europe
Against the backdrop of an ageing workforce and skills shortages, Greece introduced new legislation earlier this Summer that allows for a six-day workweek for certain businesses. Effective from 1 July 2024, it applies to employees in certain industrial and manufacturing sectors and – with some exceptions – shift workers in businesses that operate on a 24/7-basis. While the Greek government has tried to emphasise that this is “an exceptional measure” that “does not affect in any way the established five-day working week”, the move has provoked much debate and is in stark contrast to the trends and discussions in many other European countries regarding the feasibility of the four-day workweek.
This article outlines the evolution of workweek structures in Europe, provides an overview of the legal framework in the EU and the UK, and highlights recent developments and future prospects in workweek models and working hours regulation.
The Rise of Alternative Workweek Models in Europe
In Europe, Belgium is leading the push for the four-day workweek with employees having the right to work a full week in four days without any reduction in salary. While the weekly working hours remain the same, workers can choose between a four- and a five-day week. Meanwhile, companies in countries such as Germany, Portugal and Spain have begun piloting four-day workweeks.
An already completed UK trial from 2022 was hailed as “extremely successful” with the majority of companies – more than 90 percent of the participating businesses – deciding to keep the four-day week policy after the trial period. The trial was based on the 100-80-100 model: this means workers got 100 percent pay for working 80 percent of their previous hours in exchange for a commitment to maintain 100 percent productivity. Most employers saw their productivity levels maintained and observed improvements to staff retention and employee well-being as well as a decrease in the number of sick days. However, the businesses featured in the trial only represented the following sectors: marketing and advertising, finance, digital manufacturing and food retail. Other sectors, particularly those requiring a seven-day-a-week presence such as emergency services, logistics and public transport networks, might be less conducive to a four-day week.
Whilst there are different approaches to adapting the workweek to the economy of today, and industry-specific labour market contexts as well as cultural sensitivities to be considered, at the core of the matter appears to be an interest in flexibility. Businesses and employees alike seek to tailor workweek structures to meet their unique needs.
Moreover, the four-day workweek is being considered as a potential solution to the crisis in German car manufacturing. IG Metall, Germany’s largest industrial union, has proposed a four-day model to avert plant closures and mass redundancies, emulating a similar switch made in the mid-1990s when Volkswagen successfully preserved tens of thousands of jobs.
The Legal Framework in Europe: Current Landscape and Future Prospects
The European Union’s Directive on the Organisation of Working Time (Directive 2003/88/EC) provides the regulatory framework for EU countries and lays down minimum safety and health requirements specifying the right to fair and just working conditions in Art. 31 II of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). It sets the maximum average working time to 48 hours per week (Art. 6 lit. b of the Directive), prescribes a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period (Art. 3) and an additional minimum weekly rest period of 24 hours for each seven-day period (Art. 5). Furthermore, the Directive includes minimum standards for night and shift work, as well as annual leave requirements.
The EU’s regulatory framework on working time allows for a great deal of flexibility in workweek structures. Recital 15 of Directive 2003/88/EC even emphasises a desire for flexibility even within the provisions of the Directive itself. Member states, therefore, have significant leeway when drafting national laws on working time, making a six-day workweek model in principle compatible with the Directive.
Greece’s new law sets a maximum 48-hour workweek, aligning with EU labour regulations by permitting the maximum working time allowed by the Directive. Under the new legislation, businesses may introduce an additional eight-hour workday per week, with no additional overtime beyond the eight hours allowed that day. Importantly, this extension to the workweek is voluntary and requires employee consent. Critics, however, argue that in practice, employers wield considerable power in individual negotiations and could potentially make employment contingent on an employee's willingness to work a six-day week.
In Germany, meanwhile, the legal framework goes beyond the Directive’s limits on weekly working hours. Specifically, standard daily working time is regulated under § 3 German Working Time Act (Arbeitszeitgesetz - ArbZG), which stipulates that working hours must not exceed eight hours per day from Monday to Saturday. Nonetheless, this can be extended to up to ten hours per day, provided the working hours are balanced over a specified period. Over six calendar months or 24 weeks, the average working hours must not exceed eight hours per day. Notably, under § 7 Working Time Act, parties to a collective bargaining agreement have the option to adapt the Act’s basic standards, such as maximum working hours, extension of working time and balancing period and minimum rest periods, to meet the operational requirements of their sector. The German government has made a manifesto pledge to enable more flexible working arrangements, including certain exceptions to the daily working hours limit. It remains to be seen whether changes to the German Working Time Act will be enacted during the current legislative period, which ends in 2025.
While discussions are ongoing, the desire for greater flexibility in designing the workweek of today is clear. In a highly digitalised and global economy, for some businesses workload has become less predictable. Moreover, employees could benefit from the implementation of working hours structures that address the childcare challenges and promote better work-life-balance through workweeks that meet their personal needs. This might involve moving away from the standard eight-hour workday as a legal framework and instead prioritising flexibility in working time regulations while preserving workers' rights.
Another possibility, however, is the introduction of stricter limits on working hours like the 35-hour workweek for salaried employees in France – with caveats to provide flexibility. A statutory reduction in weekly hours might be complemented by provisions for higher overtime pay. This incentive model is also seen in the Greek law: on their sixth day, workers are entitled to an extra 40 percent pay, which rises to 115 percent if the day falls on a Sunday or a public holiday.
The United Kingdom, meanwhile, has retained the Directive’s stipulations on the 48-hour weekly limit and the regulations on rest periods in the Working Time Regulations 1998. However, the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 has introduced changes to employees’ rights regarding flexible working arrangements. Although its overall impact is viewed as relatively limited, the new legislation requires employers to demonstrate greater engagement with flexible working requests and to make decisions more quickly.
It remains to be seen what further legislation the new Labour Government will propose on flexible working. Under Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership, there was no manifesto commitment similar to the 2019 pledge, when moving to a 32-hour workweek within a decade was Labour’s flagship policy. Nonetheless, new Government plans indicate that workers could be given the option to work fewer days through compressed hours, akin to Belgium’s model, thereby making a four-day workweek a realistic possibility.
The Four-Day Workweek: Operational Models and Their Implications
Recent legislative developments in Greece and Belgium reflect a growing willingness among European countries to deviate from the conventional five-day, 40-hour workweek model. Notably, Greece stands out as an absolute outlier in Europe, where there is a discernible trend towards embracing a four-day workweek. Given the positive feedback from four-day workweek trials, there is potential for European lawmakers to consider establishing a legal framework for such schedules.
Four-day workweeks can take various forms, the most prevalent being:
- 32 hours over four days: Employees work eight hours each day over four days.
- 40 hours over four days: Known as a compressed schedule, employees work ten hours each day over four days.
- Rotating four-day schedule: Employees alternate between a four-day workweek and a traditional five-day workweek.
While a compressed schedule is likely to see pay maintained, reducing the total weekly working hours can lead to one of two outcomes: either a reduction in overall pay or maintaining the same salary in exchange for a commitment to sustained productivity, as demonstrated by the 100-80-100 model featured in the UK trial.
Currently, the compressed four-day schedule is the preferred model among policymakers. However, alternative versions of the four-day workweek could become more widespread in the future.
Effective Time Recording Practices as a Precondition for Flexible Workweek Structures
In 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that member states must require employers to implement a system that measures the duration of time worked each day by each worker (ECJ C-55/18 - CCOO). A recent Commission report has highlighted that some Member States have not yet established the necessary recording obligations, while others have not correctly enforced certain requirements. Germany serves as a notable case of delayed implementation of the ECJ’s ruling. While the German Federal Labour Court has established preliminary obligations for time recording, the specifics remain to be decided by the German legislature. Particular emphasis must be placed on the precise definition of working time and rest periods for recording purposes.
In this context, it is advisable for EU employers to adopt a proactive approach and reassess their time-recording practices. Special consideration should be given to monitoring practises for employees who work flexible hours and those who work from home, as tracking daily working time and rest periods is more difficult under these circumstances.
In contrast, UK businesses are subject to less stringent time recording obligations. Under regulation 9 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, employers are required to keep records that are adequate to show compliance with the 48-hour average weekly limit and other related regulations concerning young workers and night workers. To reverse the effect of CCOO, regulation 9 was amended to clarify that records “may be created, maintained and kept in such a manner and format as the employer reasonably thinks fit”. Regulation 9(3) now explicitly states that an employer “need not record each worker’s daily working hours” in order to comply with record keeping duties.
Nonetheless, as workweek schedules evolve and working hours become more flexible, the importance of an effective and legally compliant time recording practice is expected to grow. As part of a broader initiative to better define the boundaries between work and personal life, the push for a right to disconnect – as recently evidenced in Australia and Belgium – will gain further traction in Europe and could be solidified in future legislation. Depending on the specifics of forthcoming legislation, there will be implications for the recording of working and rest hours. Therefore, businesses both in the EU and the UK are well advised to continuously review their time recording practices and explore technological solutions that aid accurate record-keeping.
Conclusion
The evolving landscape of workweek structures across Europe – with Greece introducing a six-day workweek and Belgium facilitating a four-day workweek – highlights a broader trend towards adapting work schedules to address modern economic and demographic challenges. Employers must stay up to date with legislation on workweek structures and working hours regulations to ensure legal compliance while also being adaptable to changes. Simultaneously, they should recognise the opportunities that modern workweek designs may offer. The trials, at least, have shown positive effects on productivity and workplace morale. Looking ahead, flexible working patterns will be crucial in attracting and retaining talent, thus providing a competitive edge in the business world of tomorrow.
