The UK government recently proposed allowing workers to request a four-day workweek, setting off discussions in the construction sector.
- Many construction professionals remain sceptical about the feasibility of this change due to the industry’s unique challenges.
- Flexible working has shown positive results in pilot projects, yet the industry remains cautious about widespread adoption.
- Concerns include the impact of compressed workweeks on project timelines and the potential for increased costs.
- Maintaining fairness between different roles and ensuring safety are pivotal challenges that construction companies face.
The UK government has proposed allowing employees to request a four-day workweek, which has sparked discussions across various industries, including construction. The proposal builds on existing rights to request flexible working, with the assumption that workers would maintain their full-time hours and output by compressing their work into four days instead of five. This plan, while seemingly advantageous, poses several challenges for the construction sector, which operates on distinct dynamics compared to other industries.
In the construction industry, the feasibility of a compressed workweek greatly depends on the specific type of job. Whilst architects and engineers might efficiently carry out their duties across four days—some already doing so—those in manual onsite roles could encounter significant challenges. The nature of onsite construction work requires physical presence, making a compressed week less practical. Furthermore, with the sector enduring ongoing skill and labour shortages, the attractiveness of a four-day week could be enticing if it helps secure new talent.
Although flexible working has demonstrated positive outcomes in several pilot initiatives, its adoption across the industry remains limited. The primary concerns stem from construction’s tight margins and the significance of adhering to strict project timelines. For instance, a single day’s absence can be more detrimental in a four-day schedule than in the conventional five-day week. Moreover, factors like weather disruptions necessitate flexibility in project planning, which may not align well with a reduced working week. Such situations could potentially drive up costs, as projects might require overtime to meet deadlines, complicating scheduling across different contractors.
Construction companies are not compelled to offer four-day weeks unless reasonably feasible. Employers may refuse requests based on eight prescribed business reasons, such as additional costs, detriments to quality or performance, and insufficient work during proposed periods. Employers are obliged to assess requests carefully within a two-month timeframe and consult with employees before making a decision. However, there remains an underlying expectation that unless impractical, companies should consider adopting more flexible work practices.
Ensuring fairness poses another significant challenge if the industry moves towards more flexible arrangements. The disparity between higher-skilled, well-paid roles, which might more easily transition to flexible work, and lower-skilled, manual positions could exacerbate existing inequities. This situation could expose construction employers to legal claims if imbalances in working conditions are perceived. Thus, employers must tread carefully, keeping fairness and safety at the forefront when contemplating flexible work requests.
The construction industry must weigh the potential benefits of a four-day workweek against its inherent challenges, considering fairness, feasibility, and safety.
