The Tribune

By MALCOLM STRACHAN

THERE has been much talk in the past week of a suggestion that the government is reviewing the possibility of bringing in a four-day working week – but among that discussion, there has been very little analysis of how such a thing would actually work.

First thing first, this is an idea that has been tried out in various parts of the world already – a trial in Iceland for example between 2015 and 2019 was reported by researchers to be “an overwhelming success”.

That trial saw people move from a 40-hour week to a 35 or 36-hour week, and led unions to negotiate new working patterns. The bulk of the workforce ended up moving to shorter hours for the same pay or would have the right to do so.

One of those researchers, Will Stronge, at UK-based Autonomy said: “It shows that the public sector is ripe for being a pioneer of shorter working weeks – and lessons can be learned for other governments.”

There have been trials elsewhere too. After Iceland’s success, Spain piloted a four-day working week, in part because of the impact of COVID-19. New Zealand has given it a try. The Dominican Republic is experimenting.

Pertinent to our climate concerns, a report by the 4 Day Week campaign in the UK suggested shorter hours could cut the UK’s climate footprint. That makes sense. Fewer days means less commuting, for starters. Perhaps less energy used in offices.

Not all trials mean fewer hours, though, some just pack those extra hours into fewer days. So perhaps you work ten-hour shifts or 11-hour shifts for four days instead of eight-hour shifts for five.

Where there is a reduction in hours, the idea is that the reduction comes hand in hand with an increase in productivity. There’s something called the 100-80-100 model. It suggests you get 100 percent pay for 80 percent of the time, in exchange for 100 percent productivity.

As you can imagine, skepticism abounds – and not just from employers.

Let’s start with customers – how many times have you been trying to get hold of, say, a government office by phone, or perhaps a bank, only for the phone to ring and ring and never get answered? Now imagine that with working hours cut by a fifth.

Employers too have their doubts – particularly those who have staff where presence is as important as productivity. If you run a shop, you need a staff member on duty for customers, right? Anyone who has worked in retail knows there are times when there can be long gaps in the day, but you need someone there regardless for when a customer does come in.

And, let’s face it, as an employer, well at least a good one, you know your staff. Some go above and beyond. Some barely do the minimum. What guarantees are there that those doing the minimum will raise their game and actually increase their productivity? Or will they just clock in and clock out and do no more than they are, possibly for less time?

In business, you might have lots of high ideas, but the bottom line is right there for a reason. You’ve got to make your money to exist. If you get 100 percent from someone for 80 percent of the time, well then your bottom line stays as it is. If you don’t, well, that’s a worry.

Some jobs lend themselves more naturally to such a working environment. Some jobs are, simply put, more flexible than others.

In The Bahamas, there has been a mixed reaction so far.

Taxicab union leader Wesley Ferguson stirred up plenty of reaction by suggesting the idea of a four-day week is “laziness”. He said that people already “goof off with the five days that they have”. He added: “When you add up all the hours that they goof off, it’s about two days out of five, so they account for about three working days. What it does is add costs to a person who has a business because his business has to be open during the hours he determines are necessary for him to survive.”

He pointed out that such a system would not affect self-employed taxi drivers, who work “seven days a week and by choice”.

Over at the Bahamas Electrical Workers Union, president Kyle Wilson asked how it would work, pointing out laws about overtime and how it would affect industrial agreements, and asking what about teachers, police, and so on.

Leo Rolle, CEO of the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation, also expressed doubts, saying “physical presence does not always equate to productivity” and saying he felt that such a move would not work in our service economy – though he did welcome the thought of some sectors perhaps trying a pilot.

Over at Super Value, president Debra Symonette suggested food store chains were not suitable for a four-day week.

Surprisingly, at least to me, Robert Sands, president of the Bahamas Hotel and Tourism Association, said he saw “no real difficulty” with such a move. He said: “In my opinion, it can work if persons work their 40 hours in ten hours per day. For quality of life issues for people with young families, having three days off makes a lot of sense in a world where family issues are not as strong as in the past.”

Of course, any such implementation that comes in is not just for the current generation of workers – but for the future staff as well. The initial move would be a change for the current staff, but the default for those coming in. Would they come in on four days pay or five days pay? Would this stifle prospects of pay rises for current employees?

And speaking of employees, the move to a four-day week often causes concern for those too. People worry about what it will mean for pay, for the stability of their job, about what it might mean for promotion prospects if they choose to work four days instead of five, how their workload will be able to be balanced, and more.

If all of this tells you that there is uncertainty in the air about such an idea, you would be right. It might well be to the benefit of a number of people, but it’s going to need a lot more detail before people can really understand what is being proposed, and which style of four-day week we are talking about.

It might of course just be a summer kite, being flown to talk about while nothing else is going on with the House of Assembly in recess. I wouldn’t hold my breath on expecting anything to be implemented in this Parliament. The government saying it will consider something usually means it’s not coming any time soon. I’d bet if anything it will wind up as a manifesto pledge for the next election campaign – at best.