Listen to the audio version of the article
A few days ago the short week entered the evaluation process in the Labor Committee of the Chamber, where three opposition bills on the short week are being examined. While we await the outcome of the cycle of hearings in which the social partners will be heard, the companies that have already innovated by introducing the new organization in agreement with the trade unions, the world of academia and the associations, the AIDP, the Association Italian for personnel management, surveyed over a thousand human resources managers to understand how their evaluation is evolving. Can we go from 5 to 4 working days a week? What are the benefits? And the problems? Concentrating the work in four days, with the same hours and salary, is easier said than done: there are no standard models that can be suitable for all companies that have different sector and contractual specificities and so the best way seems to be be experimentation. However, over half of managers see the issue as an opportunity.
The reasons of managers in favor of a 4-day week instead of 5 …
53% of personnel managers say that it can be done and that organizing work over 4 days instead of 5 could bring many benefits to workers. There is no shortage of those who have doubts, who are 40%, and those who are against, who are a small minority, 6%. Among the reasons indicated by managers who are in favour, there are the possibility of improving work-life balance, as stated by 79%, the increase in psycho-physical well-being of which 46% speak and the improvement of motivation at work as says 27%.
… and the reasons for the contrary
If instead we go to test those who do not agree, for 50% the measure is not compatible with the economic and productive situation of our companies, for 37% there is a difficulty in organizational implementation and for 20% it would imply between 9 and 10 hours of daily commitment. Because it goes without saying that the reasoning is done with equal hours, not with reduced hours. Among those who expressed a partially favorable view (40%), it should be defined, as was done for smart working at the time, a measure of productivity based on performance, with guidelines defined by national bargaining (for 41% ), beyond the preliminary assessment of economic sustainability (for 34%) and difficulties in organizational implementation (for 25%).
The main road of experimentation
A standard model that could be good for everyone, according to the president of the AIDP, Matilde Marandola, would seem very difficult to identify, especially since each sector and each company has peculiarities and also very specific contracts: «The theme of the introduction of the week short evidence, to date, lights and shadows. If on the one hand, as can also be seen from our survey, the positive effects on workers in terms of better balance and quality of the work-life relationship would be evident, in addition to the impact that this would have in terms of greater productivity, on the other aspects of a remunerative and organizational nature that this solution would entail are still to be evaluated. Therefore, although culturally we are in favor of the short week, it is always important to understand and listen to the situations of individual companies and individuals. A standard decision that is the same for everyone could have negative repercussions on motivation, retention and the economy. For these reasons, the path of experimentation is the main one to verify and test the real and virtuous feasibility of introducing the so-called short week. A solution which the AIDP also looks at with balance and interest given the great social and economic impact it would have”. From the survey it emerges that the best way to implement the short week in your company, according to 62% of human resources managers, would be experimental solutions. Bargaining should then enter the game: 33% at company level and 24% at national level. One manager in four (26%) says they are in favor of maintaining the same salary but reducing the days, while 8% say they are in favor of partially reducing the salary in proportion to the days worked. 20%, on the other hand, hypothesizes maintaining the same number of contractual hours but reducing the days.