Diversity and the 4-day work week; it's complicated

The four-day work week has become the corporate equivalent of sourdough starters and standing desks: everyone talks about it, nobody fully agrees on what it means, and someone on LinkedIn is definitely claiming it changed their life. But beyond the productivity charts and excited CEOs, the really important question is this:

Who actually benefits from a four-day work week?

And for many diverse groups, that extra day off is not just a lifestyle perk. It can fundamentally change whether work feels sustainable at all.

Women: freedom from burnout… or just more unpaid labour?

Women are often described as some of the biggest potential winners of the four-day work week because they still carry a disproportionate share of unpaid labour: childcare, eldercare, emotional labour, life admin, remembering where the PE kit is, and somehow always knowing when the milk expires.

A genuine reduction in working hours can reduce burnout and make it easier to balance paid work with caregiving responsibilities. For some women, that could mean staying in senior roles instead of scaling back or leaving the workforce entirely. But there’s a catch.

Research on flexible work repeatedly shows that when women gain “extra time,” they often end up absorbing even more domestic labour. The dream of a restorative Friday can quickly become:

• school admin Friday,

• cleaning Friday,

• appointments Friday,

• or “finally sort out the terrifying drawer full of cables” Friday.

Now, if you've been reading my previous blogs, you'll know that some recent findings suggest that relaxation training can effectively counter this. I would also argue that these tasks would have to be done regardless. so, without the Friday, they would have to be done on the weekend leading to even less relaxation time.

The four-day week can support gender equality — but only if the unpaid workload at home becomes more equal too.

Caregivers: finally, a schedule that acknowledges reality

For caregivers, a four-day week can feel less like a perk and more like basic survival infrastructure. Whether caring for children, disabled relatives, or ageing parents, many caregivers already work what economists politely call a “second shift.” Everyone else calls it “being permanently tired.”

A reduced-hours model can create desperately needed breathing room:

• fewer scheduling conflicts,

• less burnout,

• better sleep,

• and fewer frantic “sorry, family emergency” messages sent from hospital waiting rooms.

Importantly, the 100:80:100 model differs from compressed schedules. Four 10-hour days are not reduced work — they are simply the same exhaustion in a more concentrated format.

Older workers: working longer by working smarter

As retirement ages rise, employers are increasingly trying to keep older workers in the labour market longer. The problem is that many workplaces are still designed as though nobody has knees, caring responsibilities, or a lower tolerance for nonsense after age 55.

A four-day week may help older employees remain in work by reducing fatigue and improving recovery time. That matters not just for wellbeing, but for retaining experienced staff and valuable institutional knowledge.

Because it turns out replacing decades of expertise is expensive.

Migrant workers: the people most likely to be excluded

This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable.

Many migrants work in sectors where four-day week models are hardest to implement:

• hospitality,

• logistics,

• agriculture,

• cleaning,

• warehousing,

• and care work.

Workers on insecure contracts or visa-dependent employment often have the least access to flexibility and the least power to negotiate better conditions.

There’s a real risk that the four-day week becomes a shiny benefit for well-paid professionals while lower-paid migrant workers continue doing five or six exhausting days to keep everything functioning behind the scenes.

There is also a very real possibility of people getting second jobs within what would be their time off. Even with relaxation training, poorer migrants may not have the choice of taking 3 days off - even if they are paid for one of them.

In other words, the 4DWW could reduce inequality — or quietly widen it (not good by the way)

Disabled and neurodiverse workers: potentially transformative

For many disabled and neurodivergent employees, traditional five-day work structures are not merely inconvenient — they are exhausting.

People that manage:

• chronic pain,

• fatigue,

• sensory overload,

• ADHD,

• autism,

• mental health conditions,

• or fluctuating illnesses

often spend huge amounts of energy simply functioning within conventional workplace expectations. An extra recovery day can significantly reduce burnout and make long-term employment more sustainable. Many neurodivergent workers report better concentration, emotional regulation, and energy levels under reduced-hour arrangements.

But there is one enormous warning sign attached to the whole model:

if “100% productivity” becomes code for “do the same work at double speed,” the benefits disappear very quickly.

Nobody becomes more creative because they’re panic-slack-messaging through lunch.

So what does a fair four-day week actually look like?

The evidence suggests the most successful four-day week models are not about squeezing five chaotic days into four. They’re about redesigning work itself - fewer pointless meetings, less performative busy-ness, better prioritisation, and more trust.

That matters because diverse workers don’t all experience work in the same way.

For some people, a four-day week is a nice bonus. For others, it could be the difference between staying employed or burning out, participating fully or being excluded, and surviving work or actually having a life outside it.

Which is probably why the four-day work week debate feels bigger than scheduling.

It’s really a conversation about who modern workplaces are designed for in the first place.

References:

• Chan, X. W., & Hutchings, K. (2023). Inequalities, barriers, intersectionality, and facilitators of careers of women with disabilities: Themes and future research agenda from a scoping review.

• Grove, R., Clapham, H., Moodie, T., Gurrin, S., & Hall, G. (2023). ‘Living in a world that’s not about us’: The impact of everyday life on the health and wellbeing of autistic women and gender diverse people.

• Patterson, S. E., Freedman, V. A., Cornman, J. C., & Wolff, J. L. (2023). Work as Overload or Enhancement for Family Caregivers of Older Adults. Journal of Marriage and Family.

• Rowbotham, M., Cuskelly, M., & Carroll, A. (2011). Sustainable caregiving? Demands upon and resources of female carers of adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Women & Aging.

• Banks, J., Cribb, J., Emmerson, C., & Sturrock, D. (2025). The impact of work on cognition and physical disability: Evidence from English women. Labour Economics.

• Sang, K. J. C., & Richards, J. (2026). The working lives of disabled women. In A Research Agenda for the Future of Inclusivity in Work.

• Topp, J., Hille, J. H., Neumann, M., & Mötefindt, D. (2021). How a 4-day Work Week affects Agile Software Development Teams.

• Zastudil, C., Smith IV, D. H., Tohamy, Y., Nasimova, R., Montross, G., & MacNeil, S. (2025). Neurodiversity in Computing Education Research: A Systematic Literature Review.

• Digital Futures at Work Research Centre (Digit). The four-day week and reducing working time; Remote for All (R4All) project.