Contary to popular belief, Henry Ford did not invent the 40-hour work week, yet he did popularize it.
After the industrial revolution, people were working 80 to 100-hour weeks — which is probably not far off from what many people are working now trying to make ends meet.
In 1869, US President Ulysses S. Grant issued a proclamation that promised eight-hour workdays to government employees.
Around that time, unions and activists were pushing for more reasonable work weeks and pay. The new proclamation motivated private-sector workers to fight for the same privileges.
The battle was not without casualties however, the 40 hour work week became law in the US in 1940.
Interestingly, the 40 hour work week that was once so rigorously fought for is now something that many people want to change or abandon.
It’s heavily scrutinized as being simply another cookie cutter template of capitalistic control that is outdated and unnecessary.
As businesses and governments alike test shorter schedules, hybrid work models and speed up efficiency with AI, it seems that the 40-hour week may be alive but is fading in and out of focus.
Pros of the 40-hour workweek
1. Structure, predictability, and fairness
A fixed 40-hour standard helps ensure fairness across roles, departments, and companies. It provides a stable rhythm—work, then rest—that’s deeply ingrained in global norms.
It enables consistent scheduling, payroll systems, and benefits—all designed around this benchmark.
Flexibility brings chaos. As Great Place To Work® warns, offering compressed or flex schedules can create “workplace divisions” if some roles (like devs) get Fridays off while others (like help desk) won’t.
It may also hamper customer service, collaboration and sales if people are off on different days and time.
2. Legal and logistical simplicity
Labor laws, overtime thresholds, benefits accrual are all calibrated around 40 hours. Abrupt change would require sweeping reforms, complex renegotiations, and calculating overtime for compressed days.
4-Corner Resources points out that compressed schedules can trigger overtime obligations if employees exceed daily eight-hour thresholds. This logistical inertia helps the 40-hour model persist.
3. Suitable for certain industries
For sectors demanding continuous coverage—healthcare, retail, emergency services—the 40-hour model is one of the few realistic ways to manage shifts without burning out staff or inflating expenses through overtime or temporary hires.
Some industries simply demand shifts that operate like this.
Cons of the 40-hour workweek
1. Productivity Paradox
The 40-hour week prods workers to clock hours, which does not always mean get things done. Studies show that productivity peaks much earlier than that:
- Office workers average only three productive hours each day in an eight-hour model—making the rest padding, not progress.
- The University of Iceland found that reducing hours to 35–36 didn’t reduce output and dramatically improved well-being.
- Microsoft Japan’s four-day pilot delivered a 40% boost in productivity by forcing a ruthless re-think of meetings and tasks.
2. Health Costs and Burnout
The WHO estimates that overwork kills hundreds of thousands yearly through heart disease and stroke.
Maintaining a long-standing 40-hour grind risks widespread burnout, reduced creativity, and long-term health decline for little tangible gain.
Burnout triggers other mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression, that largely interfere with motivation and focus. We can only power through for so long until we physically shut down and forced to make very difficult life changes — work-wise and lifestyle.
3. Innovation and sustainability blockers
The 40-hour model incentivizes doing more of the same. It suppresses pressure to optimize. In contrast, four-day working advocates argue it drives innovation:
- The Perpetual Guardian trial in New Zealand saw a 20% rise in productivity, lower stress, and higher employee engagement after switching to 30-hour weeks.
- A global study published in Nature Human Behaviour found that after redesigning workflows, many companies retained the four-day week. No drop in productivity was recorded and well-being was significantly higher.
- Scotland’s recent trial saw 25% less psychological sick leave and stable service delivery among public bodies that adopted a 32-hour week.
Does the 40-hour week still work?
The 40-hour week survives through legacy systems—labor law, payroll, corporate mythos. Yet empirical evidence shows it’s increasingly misaligned with modern productivity science.
White-collar, knowledge-based roles thrive on output metrics. Remote, flexible, compressed week models fit well. However, essential services and roles tied to physical presence often need more rigid coverage. This makes a full repeal of the 40-hour model unrealistic.
Rather than a universal collapse, the 40-hour week is being supplemented where possible:
The UK now has over 200,000 workers on four-day schedules, equating to 10.9% of the workforce.
Australia’s unions and Greens argue that four-day weeks (without pay cuts) are not just idealistic but are essential for future fair work in an AI-powered economy.
Not dead — evolving.
Simply put, the 40-hour workweek isn’t dead . For decades, “8 hours a day, 5 days a week” has acted as the clock of the corporate jungle.
But modern science, mental health crises, and real-world trials show it doesn’t have to be. The future of work demands efficiency, empathy, and productivity over clock-watching.
What do you think? Does the 40 hour work week need to retire?
For more articles like this, click here.
