23rd October 2026
As artificial intelligence threatens to transform millions of jobs, should the government consider reducing the working week and sharing the benefits of higher productivity with employees?.
Artificial intelligence is creating a difficult question for governments, employers and workers. If computers and automated systems can increasingly perform tasks that once required people, what should happen to the time and money that businesses save?
One possibility is that companies use the technology to increase profits while reducing their workforces. Another is that higher productivity allows employees to work fewer hours without losing pay.
That raises an intriguing question for Britain: should the government introduce a shorter standard working week, potentially moving towards four days, as AI becomes more capable?
It is an idea that deserves serious consideration. But the economic consequences would depend on how it was introduced and whether businesses could maintain their output with fewer working hours.
The idea is not as radical as it sounds
The five-day working week was not an inevitable feature of modern life. Working hours have changed over generations as technology, living standards and employment practices have developed.
Britain has already experimented with shorter working weeks. A major UK trial in 2022 involved 61 organisations and approximately 2,900 employees. Staff reduced their working hours by 20% without a reduction in pay. The researchers reported improvements in employee wellbeing, while many participating organisations continued the arrangement after the trial.
Scottish public bodies have also experimented with a 32-hour week without loss of pay.
These trials suggest that shorter hours can work in some circumstances. Better organisation, fewer unnecessary meetings, more efficient processes and reduced sickness absence may help compensate for the lost working time.
However, there is an important qualification. Organisations that volunteer for such experiments may be better placed to reorganise their work than businesses facing tight margins, staff shortages or round-the-clock operational requirements.
A successful trial does not prove that a compulsory four-day week would work across the whole economy.
Two ways of reducing working hours
The government would face an important choice.
Under one approach, employees would work fewer hours but retain their existing weekly pay. A 40-hour week might become 32 hours, for example, without reducing salaries.
This would give workers more free time, but employers would face a higher hourly labour cost unless productivity improved sufficiently to offset it. Some businesses might recruit additional staff, reorganise shifts or invest in technology. Others could struggle to absorb the expense.
The alternative would be to reduce hours and pay proportionately. That might reduce employers' wage bills, but it would leave workers with less money to spend.
For an economy already concerned about living costs and household finances, the second approach could weaken consumer demand. Shops, restaurants and other businesses depend on people having money to spend.
If the objective is to share the gains from AI with workers, the more interesting proposition is a shorter working week without a cut in pay.
Could AI pay for the change?
The argument for reducing working hours becomes more compelling if AI delivers substantial productivity improvements.
Imagine a business that can process the same number of customer enquiries, prepare the same number of reports or handle the same volume of orders in less time because AI automates routine tasks.
The employer could use that improvement to expand production, reduce prices, increase profits or reduce the hours employees need to work.
At present, there is no guarantee that productivity gains will be large enough to support a nationwide reduction in hours. AI may transform certain office tasks while having a much smaller effect on jobs requiring physical presence, practical skills or personal care.
Nevertheless, the principle is worth examining. If technology enables society to produce more with less human labour, must the result always be greater production and higher profits? Could some of the benefit instead be taken as additional leisure time?
That is an economic and social choice, not simply a technological one.
The danger of a government decree
There would be serious risks in imposing a shorter working week on every employer overnight.
Consider a small shop employing four people. If everyone worked 20% fewer hours for the same weekly pay, the owner might need additional staff to maintain opening hours. If suitable workers were unavailable, the business could have to reduce its opening times or absorb higher costs.
The problem would be even more complicated in hospitals, care homes, public transport and emergency services, where staffing levels must be maintained at particular times.
A reduction in working hours does not mean that patients need less care or that buses can run with fewer drivers.
Some businesses might respond by raising prices, slowing recruitment, reducing investment or cutting jobs. Others might find that better-rested employees work more efficiently and take less time off sick.
The balance would differ considerably between sectors.
For this reason, a gradual approach based on evidence would be safer than a sudden universal decree.
What would happen to the wider economy?
A shorter working week could affect the economy in several different ways.
Workers with more free time might spend more on leisure, tourism, hospitality and local activities. They might also have more time to care for relatives, undertake further education or contribute to community organisations.
For rural areas such as Caithness, the possibility of people having more time for family life and local activities could be attractive. Businesses might also benefit if AI allowed them to handle administration and customer enquiries more efficiently.
However, additional leisure spending would depend on household incomes being maintained. If employees lost pay, the opposite could happen.
There is also a potential inflationary effect. If employers had to pay the same wages for fewer hours but could not improve productivity, their costs per unit of output could rise. Some might pass those costs on to customers, adding to inflationary pressures.
If higher costs contributed to inflation, the Bank of England could face a more difficult task in setting interest rates.
There would be implications for taxation, too. If employees worked fewer hours but retained their salaries, income tax receipts might be broadly protected. But if fewer hours resulted in lower output, reduced profits or lower employment, government revenues could suffer. The outcome would depend on what happened to productivity, pay and the number of people employed.
Could more people be employed instead?
One argument for shorter working hours is that employers might recruit additional people to cover the work previously performed by existing staff.
This could help distribute employment more widely, particularly where businesses have enough demand to justify additional workers.
But the idea that every reduction in working hours automatically creates an equivalent number of new jobs is too simplistic. Employers might reorganise work, automate more tasks or reduce output instead. Recruitment could also be difficult in sectors already struggling to find suitably qualified staff.
The aim should therefore be to improve employment opportunities and working conditions, rather than assume that fewer hours will automatically solve unemployment.
A better way forward for Britain
Rather than immediately legislating for a compulsory four-day week, the government could encourage further trials in both private and public organisations.
These should include large employers, small businesses, manufacturing, retail, professional services and public services. The results should be measured against clear standards, including productivity, pay, prices, recruitment, sickness absence and the quality of services provided.
Businesses benefiting substantially from AI could be encouraged to consider shorter hours as one way of sharing the gains. Other employers might need longer transition periods or different arrangements.
The government would also need to consider whether employment law, minimum-wage rules, overtime arrangements and public-sector staffing budgets required adjustment.
Most importantly, a shorter working week should not become a privilege available only to highly paid office workers while employees in care, hospitality and other essential services continue to work long hours under pressure.
The real question is how we share the benefits of progress
Previous technological revolutions have transformed working life, but their benefits have not always been distributed evenly.
AI could make businesses more productive, improve services and create new industries. It could also reduce demand for certain occupations and put pressure on workers whose skills are no longer required.
A shorter working week offers one possible response, provided the economy can sustain it. It would not eliminate the need for retraining, employment support or policies to help people move into new occupations.
Nor should it be presented as a guaranteed solution to the threat of AI-related unemployment.
But if Britain eventually reaches a point where machines can perform a growing share of the work needed to maintain living standards, there is a legitimate question about whether people should benefit through higher incomes, more leisure time or some combination of the two.
The challenge is not simply to make workers more productive. It is to decide what society should gain from that productivity. A four-day week may not suit every industry, but the prospect of technology allowing people to work less without becoming poorer is an idea that deserves more than dismissal.