A lot of employers are looking at the benefits of a 4 day work week for their employees. In the UK its even attracted the attention of The Labour Party, becoming part of their manifesto. The idea is that the employee works the same amount of hours, but over 4 days instead of 5 days.
I like this idea. It seems to be a win-win. The employee gains, but so do employers. Here are the benefits of a 4 day work week for the employee:
Increased happiness.
A better work/life balance.
More time with family and friends.
More time to take up hobbies, interests or even volunteering.
Better physical health – lower levels of stress, more and better quality sleep, improvement in concentration, memory and problem solving. Possible increased physical fitness due to more time for a better diet and exercise.
1Increased creativity.
Reduced risk of ‘burn out.’
A feeling of working to live, rather than living to work.
Save money due to less travel and lunch expenses.
Less time stuck in traffic on the commute to and from work. As employees will start earlier and finish later.
For Employers:
Increased productivity. Employees spend less time on non-work activities and really put their heads down to make the most of the hours they are in work.
Lower rates of sickness and a lessened length of sickness absence.
Employees that are more engaged.
Smarter ways of working developed.
Better outcomes from work undertaken.
More resilient individuals and teams that find it easier to deal with and adapt to change.
Employees give better customer service.
Improved communication and collaborative working.
Automation of some manual processes leading to increased efficiency.
Reduced estate costs – electricity only being used 4 days a week rather than 5 days.
More loyalty from staff – They’ll think twice about moving on if it means they’ll have to go back to a five day work week.
What do you think about a four day work week? Leave a comment below.
Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Article 4: Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Article 5: Right to liberty and security
Article 6: Right to a fair trial
Article 7: No punishment without law
Article 8: Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Article 9: Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Article 10: Freedom of expression
Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association
Article 12: Right to marry and start a family
Article 14: Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Protocol 1, Article 1: Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Protocol 1, Article 2: Right to education
Protocol 1, Article 3: Right to participate in free elections
Protocol 13, Article 1: Abolition of the death penalty
Article 1 & 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are not in The Human Rights Act (1998), as they are covered within the Act.
It is open to interpretation. For example, Article 12: The right to marry. Despite the Human Rights Act being dated 1998, Civil Partnerships for gay people only became legal in the UK in 2005. Gay Marriage only became legal in the UK in 2013. Prior to this the right to marry in the Human Rights Act (1998) was interpreted as only applying to straight people.
What it lacks?
With rights should come responsibilities. The Human Rights Act (1998) lacks listing responsibilities of the citizen, of local government and of national government. However you could argue that these responsibilities are covered by other UK laws.
The Human Rights Act does place a duty on Public Authorities to act within ways that are compatible with the Act, but again, this is open to interpretation.
Why?
The Human Rights Act (1998) exists to outline the rights and freedoms that every person in the UK should be entitled to.
When?
The Human Rights Act was passed through UK parliament in 1998, but came into force in October 2000.
How?
If a citizen feels their Human Rights have been denied, they can ask a court of law to look at their case. But this is a complex process and without good legal support can be difficult. This means that justice on Human Rights breeches are only challenged if people can afford good legal counsel, or are supported by certain charitable organisations that do work around Human Rights.
The Future of Human Rights?
The Government wants to replace The Human Rights Act (1998) with a British Bill of Rights. The concern is that this new bill of rights could weaken the rights laid out in The Human Rights Act and be even more open to interpretation than the current Act.
Other Content
If you enjoyed this post, you might like this other content:
