Home > Opinion > Columns

Will a four-day workweek work for Korea?

Published: 28 Feb. 2025, 00:01

Kim Won-bae

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

Can a four-day workweek become a reality? In a speech before the National Assembly’s negotiating bloc on Feb. 10, Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party (DP), said, “Korea must transition to a four-day workweek, starting with a four-and-a-half-day system.” Last week, he reiterated this pledge during visits to the country’s two largest labor unions, vowing to push for its implementation. This announcement, seemingly aimed at reinforcing his progressive credentials following criticism of his recent policy shifts, has reignited debate over the feasibility of such a system.

Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung speaks at a press conference held at the headquarters of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions in Jung District, central Seoul, on Feb. 21. [NEWS1]

Lee has championed the four-day workweek before. When the government sought to introduce flexible working hours last June, he countered, “A four-day workweek is an unavoidable global trend. Rather than advocating for flexibility, the government should engage in social discussions on how to enhance labor productivity.” But is the four-day workweek truly an inevitable global shift?

Frequently cited international examples suggest a different reality. Belgium’s 2022 law allows employees to request a four-day workweek while maintaining a 38-hour workload. Employers may accept or reject these requests, but employees who opt in must work 9.5-hour days. Meanwhile, Britain has conducted various trials. A 2022 pilot program involving 61 companies reported increased productivity and high satisfaction among workers and employers, leading to claims of a resounding success. Yet, the current Labour government’s proposal focuses on “compressed hours,” granting employees the right to condense their five-day workload into four longer days — contingent on employer approval. These models differ significantly from a universal 32-hour workweek.

If such trials have been overwhelmingly successful, why has Britain not fully adopted a four-day workweek? A BBC report from last September titled “Are People Happier with a Four-Day Workweek?” highlighted mixed feedback. While some workers appreciated the additional family time and greater focus at work, others found the extended hours grueling. Predictably, businesses requiring direct customer interaction, such as small enterprises, expressed reservations. In Belgium, despite widespread interest, only 0.8 percent of workers have adopted the system, according to Newsweek.

For some, particularly working parents, a four-day workweek may offer an attractive alternative. However, it is hardly a one-size-fits-all solution. No country today effectively treats Friday as an additional weekend day. The more pragmatic approach, seen in leading economies, is to provide workers with the option of a four-day workweek rather than enforcing it across all industries. Selective trials and employer-led initiatives do not equate to a global consensus that 32-hour workweeks are the new norm.

Even without reducing the workweek to 32 hours, a shift to 36 hours raises fundamental concerns — chiefly, how wages will be adjusted. Naturally, unions and workers will demand reduced hours without salary cuts, but this places an immense financial burden on businesses. Large corporations, financial institutions, and public agencies may absorb the costs, but small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and self-employed business owners will struggle. This could exacerbate labor market inequality, widening the divide between workers in high-paying industries and those in precarious employment.

In Korea, companies and organizations with the flexibility to experiment with shorter workweeks are already doing so. Competitive firms seeking top talent naturally offer attractive working conditions. Left to market forces, businesses will identify and implement the most effective models. While the government can support and encourage such efforts, imposing a nationwide mandate would be reckless. It could prove even more disruptive than the Moon Jae-in administration’s income-led growth policy, which had unintended economic consequences.

Bank of Korea (BOK) Gov. Rhee Chang-yong speaks during a press conference following the Monetary Policy Board meeting at the central bank's headquarters in Jung District, central Seoul, on Feb. 25. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

On Feb. 11, Lee reaffirmed his position on Facebook, stating that labor hour reductions and the semiconductor sector’s 52-hour workweek exemption “can absolutely coexist.” This assertion is, in principle, correct. Yet, in practice, his stance on work-hour flexibility has since softened. If the two policies are to coexist, a rigid, one-size-fits-all work-hour reduction must be abandoned in favor of greater flexibility. The priority should be a system that accommodates diverse needs: workers who prefer a four-day workweek, those who favor morning shifts and those willing to work longer hours for higher pay. A flexible approach, tailored to workers and businesses alike, is essential for enhancing national competitiveness.

At a press conference on Feb. 25, Bank of Korea Governor Rhee Chang-yong remarked, “Next year’s 1.8 percent growth forecast reflects Korea’s actual economic potential.” His comment underscores the urgent need for structural reform. Overhauling Korea’s rigid labor market is a key component of such reform. Fixating on half-baked ideals while ignoring pressing structural issues will only hinder Korea’s progress rather than propel it forward.

Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.