Zach Weigel
After the recent three-day weekend in observance of Labor Day, I’m sure I’m not the only one who yearns for every week to include a three-day weekend. Having an extra day away from the rigors of work life and the minutiae that accompany the workday grind seems like a grand idea and as chance would have it, there may actually be some substance to that thought. We would have to reorient a large part of the structure of our society toward four-day workweeks instead of the traditional five, but oddly enough, there may be an environmental reason to do so.
According to a recent U.S. News & World Report, research backs the claim that three-day weekends can in fact be beneficial when it comes to environmental concerns. Energy consumption would be reduced significantly by eliminating one day’s worth of commuting to and from work. Hypothetically, that’s a 20 percent cut in energy use for transportation, yet in actuality, that number is likely to be overstated because even if people aren’t working, they will still travel for various purposes, such as running errands or going on trips. Nevertheless, having one fewer workday would suggest that energy use via transportation should decline somewhat. Furthermore, the report argues that energy consumption would be further diminished since workplaces would only need to be powered for four days as opposed to five.
The state of Utah even tried four-day workweeks in 2007. Data estimates showed that the state could save nearly $1.8 million in energy costs and that CO2 emissions could be reduced by 12,000 tons annually. To accomplish this feat, Utah simply altered the work-week paradigm from five eight-hour days to four 10-hour days, allowing state employees to have every Friday off.
Admittedly, adjusting the entire country to follow this paradigm would have its shortcomings. In Utah, the move was met with modest backlash because residents found it inconvenient that they couldn’t obtain services on Fridays or schedule appointments. So it reverted to standard five-day workweeks. Even though the Utah example is a small case study, it does provide evidence that altering the work-week paradigm could save money by cutting energy costs while also curtailing the environmental impact from energy use.
On the other hand, the Utah example exposes one glaring flaw. It is a tall task to change the structure of the workweek. The very fabric of our society is predicated on the structure of the traditional 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday work-week; however, it appears we are starting to see the devolution of the conventional workweek, meaning that a nationwide shift could be possible. Technology has enhanced the operational abilities of sectors so that confining people to strict hours of business is no longer always the most efficient way to conduct business. Many tasks can be completed online, and an increasing number of jobs have become automated allowing greater flexibility in working hours.
Don’t get me wrong; there are some sectors that cannot alter their work-week paradigms because of the nature of the business. Take the food-service industry, for instance. The hours of operation follow a much different structure than that of business-world jobs such as office work and providing services. These types of consumer-driven jobs need to maintain hours of operation that fit their target audience, but many other sectors could save money and reduce their environmental impact by rethinking the workweek. It is not just blissful to ponder the notion of making every week end in a three-day weekend. It may actually be practical for businesses and bureaucracies that provide goods and service of the nonessential varieties to change their workweek from five days to four days.