Could a four-day week really work in the construction industry?

Construction workers leaving a site at dusk (Image: AI generated image by Nelson via AdobeStock - stock.adobe.com)

But ever since the Covid-19 pandemic upended the way in which people work, there has been a groundswell of opinion that says it’s not only achievable but desirable.

In fact, a pilot programme led by Boston College in the USA, involving companies in the USA, UK, Australia, Canada and Ireland held a series of six-month trials of a four-day week and reported a “high level of satisfaction” on the part of both employers and employees. It also reported improved recruitment, retention and diversity in the workforce, with the arrangement proving more appealing to older workers and women with childcare commitments.

A follow-up report on the trial, published in February this year by the Digital Futures at Work Research Centre, found that of the 61 companies that took part in the pilot in the UK in 2022 the majority (89%) are still operating the policy and 51% have made it permanent.

That’s all well and good for a 9-5 office job but can it really work in the construction industry?

It’s not impossible, says David McNeice global head of infrastructure, construction and energy at law firm DWF but the disparity between on-site workers and those based in an office presents a “unique challenge”.

“Companies would need to consider the matters faced by those in any other sector, like staggered days off, bringing in more staff to complete projects on time, and reviewing benefits for those directly employed, but also how they employ agency workers, who largely prefer five or more days a week,” he says.

That said, because of the nature of site work itself, he doesn’t see a four-day week as an inherent obstacle to it. “A lot of labour work generally isn’t carried out from 9 to 5, and most workers are paid an hourly wage, so the on-site and economic impact of moving to a shorter work week would likely be minimal,” he says.

The challenge of on-site work

For his part, Ben Webb, founder and CEO of construction consulting and support services firm Voloco, thinks that physical on-site activity would need to continue for five days a week.

“Otherwise construction programmes would be prolonged, which creates cost issues as well as the potential for consequential impacts of clients not taking delivery of finished projects as quickly,” he says.

He also thinks the fact that physical on-site work is generally undertaken by layers of subcontractors would make operations hard to control and manage.

Having site managers and supervisors only working four days a week would mean having to employ additional staff to manage five days of physical on-site activity, he points out. “The industry already operates at high risk with low returns so these costs would have to be borne by the customers. Are they ready to pay for that?”

And then there’s the question of competitiveness. In the cut-throat world of contracting, Webb sees adopting a four-day-a-week model as challenging unless all other contractors followed suit. The risk otherwise would be that some would be able to offer cheaper tenders, he warns.

Nonetheless, he sees it as being easier for non-site-based staff and support teams to enjoy a four-day week.

What is a four-day week?

But then there is the question of what a four-day week actually means. Working four days instead of five but for the same pay is likely to attract more people to the industry and could reduce accidents caused by fatigue, as well as boosting productivity and mental health, argues Webb.

There is also the possibility of working five days into four. And while that likely still increases the attractiveness of the industry, it potentially also increased fatigue-induced accidents, and in order to avoid additional cost and programme delays would need to be coordinated across all operatives undertaking physical activity on site, deliveries, management and supervision, he points out.

Not as good for mental health as it looks?

Bal Manak, construction partner at UK-based Square One Law is another who sees too many obstacles in the way of four-day-a-week working being a viable option in the construction industry.

“I’m not sure I can see a four-day work week becoming a permanent fixture for the vast majority of businesses in the construction sector,” she says.

Image: Gustavo Muñoz via AdobeStock - stock.adobe.com

“Projects are more often than not running behind, so if anything, more hours are needed, not less. A lot of site staff also finish early on Friday, so almost have a half day, meaning Fridays are often used as the catch-up day to finish tasks that we lagging behind during the week. If the week was shortened then the programme of works would only extend further, and this would lead to even more costs and having to keep equipment on site for longer.”

And while fewer working hours are generally good for mental wellbeing, he makes the point that if the same deadline pressures remain for construction workers, then having fewer working hours in which to meet them isn’t necessarily likely to make them feel less stressed.

“A shorter working week may help more women, parents or older workers into the industry who may require fewer hours. However, it would be better to have flexible working hours rather than a fixed four-day week,” she says.

Other risks exist if an employer were to decide to move full-time employees to a four-day week with a corresponding reduction in hours but without a pay cut but there are already other people within the business working part-time on a four-day week while only receiving 80% of the pay. That could lead disgruntled part-time workers to argue that they are being treated less favourably.

One option might be to increase their pay to full-time levels and increase their workload to full-time levels, suggests Victoria Wenn, knowledge lawyer in the employment team of law firm TLT. Alternatively, she suggests, the employer could reduce their hours on a pro-rata basis while allowing them to retain their existing pay.

One company making it work

There are rare cases of construction companies that have adopted a four-day week and stuck with it, however.

One such firm is building and renovation contractor Orocco, part of the Terpex Group based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

“We adopted it in late 2020, after the Covid lockdowns and we have not really looked back since – it has become the norm,” explains brand manager Aaron Bolton.

Orocco’s employees still work 39 hours a week but compressed into Monday to Thursday, giving them Friday off.

And being able to offer such hours has become a major driver for recruitment and retention, says Bolton. “It’s a massive attraction in the construction industry and one of the biggest ways we can bring talent onto site,” he says.

That’s not to say there aren’t downsides. In Scotland’s long and dark winter, employees find that they are working for many hours before sunrise and after sunset. “There is an increased cost in heating and lighting to keep employee wellbeing and morale high, “ he says.

But the company has found other practical considerations like managing deliveries to site and bringing subcontractors who usually work five days a week have been relatively easy to deal with. When there are time pressures to finish a project, overtime does come into play to get the work finished but Bolton doesn’t think the move has spooked clients. “We have had questions from the client side asking if they are going to get fewer hours on a project. But we are doing the compressed hours so clients are still getting the same level of output form the business and there is no impact on timescales for clients if they choose to go with us.

“I think the four-day week is here to stay at the moment – I don’t believe there are any plans to change it any time soon.”