The UK government recently announced plans to allow workers the right to request a four-day working week, as an extension to existing rights to request flexible working.

The proposals assume workers will work (and be paid) for full-time hours (or at least full-time output), compressing the work into four, rather than the standard five, working days.

Proponents of a four-day week point to evidence of higher productivity, happier employees, better staff retention and fewer absences, among other benefits.

Detractors have pointed to potential scheduling difficulties and extra costs for employers, as well as possible tensions with staff working the standard five-day pattern.

In the construction industry, whether a compressed week is feasible depends very much on the type of job involved.

Architects and engineers, for instance, could probably perform their roles across four compressed days (and in fact some already do), without any significant disruption to the industry's existing working pattern.

For those working on site in manual occupations, a compressed four-day week is likely to be more problematic because a key component of the role involves being present on the construction site to perform the job.

But in what is a fundamentally outcomes-based industry facing well-publicised skills and labour shortages, particularly in manual occupations, four-day weeks might warrant serious consideration if the industry wants to attract talent.

How flexible is construction?

In the UK, all employees – including those in construction – already have the right to request flexible working. What is changing with the new proposals is the expectation that such requests will be granted.

Since 1 April 2024, there has been a 'day one' right allowing employees to ask for flexibility in their hours on the first day of a new job.

Current legislation does not place restrictions on the type of flexible working an employee can ask for, so it is possible to request anything from part-time working to compressed hours, and from home or hybrid working to term-time working.

A 2021 study (timewise.co.uk: Making construction a great place to work: can flexible working help?) published by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) reported largely positive results, for both employees and employers of flexible working pilot projects in construction.

Some leading construction companies (e.g. building.co.uk: How Sir Robert McAlpine introduced flexible working to construction sites) have also introduced flexible working policies in the past few years.

However, anecdotal evidence suggests flexible working is not widespread within the industry, and generally construction professionals are sceptical about the feasibility of a four-day week.

There are plenty of good reasons for these doubts, not least that construction is an industry that operates on very slim margins and tight timelines, making it highly sensitive to changes that might affect its cost structure or risk delays.

For instance, a single day's absence from a four-day rather than a five-day week has a much greater impact in terms of time lost. And, if a project is hampered by weather conditions or other uncontrollable factors, contractors will be reluctant to reduce the number of days available to get the build back on track, or to pay the increased overtime associated with compressed days.

Manual construction jobs are also very physically demanding roles, which raises concerns about the wellbeing and safety of these staff working longer daily hours.

Many construction projects will have conditions attached to the build, such as restrictions on noise levels between certain times in sensitive areas, which would curtail the scope for working longer days.

Scheduling overlaps between different contractors and phases of the build would also be more complicated on a four-day working week basis, especially if not all contractors agreed to the same working patterns.

Are construction companies obliged to offer four-day weeks?

The government has said that it will make flexible working the default for all workers (not just employees), except where it is "not reasonably feasible".

This would require a change to the legislation, possibly by introducing a presumption in favour of a flexible working request, unless the employer can show that it would not be reasonably feasible.

In practice, that may mean that, before rejecting a request, construction employers would need to produce strong evidence to support their decision if the law were to shift in this way.

There are eight prescribed business reasons why an employer may refuse a request, which most construction employers are likely to feel they could reasonably justify.

These include the burden of additional costs; inability to reorganise work among existing staff detrimental impact on quality; detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand; inability to recruit additional staff; detrimental impact on performance; insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work; and planned structural changes.

It is important to stress that employers have a two-month window in which to deal with any requests and are not obliged to accept them or allow appeals against decisions, although they must consult the employee before refusing.

This framework gives employers a lot of scope to make a decision that works for them, while also taking into account the rights (and expectations) of employees.

Fairness

If construction companies do decide to allow more flexibility in working patterns, they must be mindful of maintaining fairness.

This issue arises if more skilled, highly paid jobs lend themselves more easily to flexible working than lower-skilled, more manual occupations – widening gaps between employees' respective working conditions and potentially leaving construction employers open to tribunal claims.

Because construction remains a male-dominated industry, this could mean it has had to adapt less to flexible working requests which have historically and statistically been more common among female workers. Failing to embrace flexibility might risk entrenching that gender divide.

Flexible and four-day week working patterns will therefore need to be considered carefully by construction employers, who may receive more requests to adopt new ways of working in the future and may have to compete even harder for skills and labour.

A version of this article was first published by Construction News.