This post is also available in:

Political Agenda Setting Has Accelerated, But Institutional Preparation Remains in the Early Stages

The 4.5-day work week is one of the labor policy issues rapidly gaining traction in South Korean society. Social interest has surged as some local governments and public institutions have introduced pilot programs, and the political sphere has placed it prominently in key election pledges and national tasks. The underlying concern—improving the quality of life for workers through reduced working hours—is not new, but the current pace of discussion needs scrutiny, as it is outpacing the level of institutional design and social readiness. The emergence of a policy agenda in the public sphere is a completely different matter from the readiness of the system to be established in society.

As the 4.5-day work week discussion spreads quickly, an atmosphere is forming where its introduction is perceived as a fait accompli. However, the current stage of discussion is closer to an initial debate, mixed with expectations and concerns, rather than a detailed design phase presupposing the system’s adoption. While the combination of public interest and political competition may make the policy discussion seem mature, the review of the structural impact of reduced working hours on the overall labor market is not yet considered sufficient.

Moving Beyond Pros and Cons: Time to Scrutinize the ‘Conditions’ of the Discussion

The debate surrounding the 4.5-day work week is often simplified into a dichotomy of pros and cons. Labor unions emphasize the necessity of introduction for workers’ health and work-life balance, while management expresses concerns about increased labor costs, decreased productivity, and weakened corporate competitiveness. However, this opposition does not fully explain the core of the system. The 4.5-day work week is not simply a matter of cutting one workday; it is an institutional change that requires simultaneous adjustments to the wage system, productivity structure, and overall workforce management methods.

The premise of maintaining wages while reducing weekly working hours inherently contains a high-difficulty policy challenge. Maintaining the same wage level while labor input decreases necessitates accompanying structural changes such as productivity enhancement, work redesign, or workforce reassignment. This may be feasible in some organizations or specific industries, but it is not a solution that can be uniformly applied to all sectors and workplaces. Nevertheless, in the current discussion, these prerequisites tend to be highlighted less than the symbolic significance and expected effects of the system’s introduction.

Wages and Productivity: The Most Difficult Questions Remain Unanswered

The most crucial point of contention in the 4.5-day work week debate is the question of whether ‘reduced working hours without wage cuts’ is truly possible. Reducing weekly working hours from 40 to 36 is not a simple change in work schedule but a structural change where labor input itself decreases. To reduce working hours while maintaining wages, there must be a significant increase in productivity per hour, or a comprehensive redesign of work methods and organizational operation. However, this premise is not yet considered sufficiently proven empirically.

광고

While some pilot cases and international studies show positive results, they are closer to limited achievements based on specific organizational conditions and job characteristics. There are clear limitations to applying them directly to South Korean society, which has different industrial structures and labor market characteristics. Especially in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), labor-intensive industries, and essential service sectors, reduced working hours are likely to lead immediately to increased staffing needs or costs. For productivity improvement to be a prerequisite for system introduction, sufficient data and verification must precede it, enabling it to serve as the basis for policy design, not just an assumption. The current 4.5-day work week discussion remains in the preparation stage on this point.

The Reality That Not All Workplaces Start on the Same Line

Another reason the 4.5-day work week discussion is difficult is the significant variation in the capacity to adopt the system based on company size and industrial conditions. Adjusting working hours and reassigning work may be relatively easy in large corporations, the public sector, or organizations centered on office work. Conversely, the same system can impose a much greater burden on SMEs with limited workforce capacity or sectors where shift work and continuous services are essential. The possibility that the uniform introduction of the same system could exacerbate disparities within the labor market cannot be excluded.

If the system is introduced uniformly without considering these differences, there is a risk that the formal equality of the policy will translate into real-world inequality. If the 4.5-day work week is intended to improve workers’ quality of life, sufficient adjustments and supplementary measures must be discussed from the policy design stage to ensure that its effects are not concentrated only among specific groups. However, compared to the symbolic significance and political message of the system’s introduction, relatively less attention is being paid to this micro-level impact analysis in the current discussion.

The Issue of Institutional Consistency Not Solved by Legal Amendment Alone

The 4.5-day work week is not a system that can be realized merely by reducing statutory working hours or adjusting one workday. The working hour regulations under the Labor Standards Act, systems for extended and holiday work, wage calculation methods, and attendance management systems are all tightly interconnected. The current working hour management system is designed based on a 5-day, 8-hour per day work week, and comprehensive system reorganization is needed to reflect new forms such as half-day work on Fridays or hourly work adjustments.

In particular, if working hour records and wage calculation standards lack consistency, there is a high likelihood of confusion and disputes in the field. Contrary to the intent of the system, paradoxical results may emerge, such as an increase in overtime work or the reduction of working hours leading to increased work intensity. These issues cannot be resolved by amending a single legal clause but require comprehensive discussion on how to redesign the entire working hour system.

South Korean society has already experienced one major transformation of the working hour system. The process of introducing the 5-day work week clearly shows the confusion and adjustment costs that arise when a working hour system is implemented without social dialogue. Although the 5-day work week was legalized after long discussions, it was not introduced with sufficient social consensus among labor, management, and government. Consequently, the timing and method of application varied by industry and workplace size, and it took a considerable amount of time for the system to settle down stably. Especially for SMEs, initial cost burdens were significant, leading to repetitive discussions about additional support and grace periods. The fact that it took a long time for the 5-day work week to be socially established suggests that changes to the working hour system are not finalized upon the date of legal enforcement. The adjustment process after the system’s introduction can be much longer and more complex, and the burden can be entirely transferred to the field. This experience is an important lesson that must be referenced in the 4.5-day work week discussion.

Why Does the 4.5-Day Work Week Discussion Remain at the Social Dialogue Stage?

There is widespread analysis that the current 4.5-day work week discussion is not accompanied by a corresponding level of social consensus and preparation relative to its goals and expectations. While various assessments exist regarding the system’s potential effects and side effects, broader public discourse is necessary to synthesize them into a policy consensus. Beyond the issues of wages, productivity, and institutional consistency, there is a call for the prior accumulation of empirical data on the labor market and industry as a whole. For instance, the process of finding common ground by considering differences in conditions across industries and companies, as well as the structure of the labor market, is absolutely necessary during policy design. Rushing legal amendments or agenda setting without this preparation not only makes the policy effect uncertain but also carries a high risk of causing confusion in the field.

Moreover, the discussion of working hours is not merely a matter of the final time of system introduction. It is also a fundamental question about the direction in which society will readjust labor and leisure, education, and the quality of life. Similar discussions are already present in university settings. In many universities, timetables are observed where classes are not scheduled on Fridays when setting the regular class schedule, operating as a de facto ‘4-day class week.’ This phenomenon, which arises from a combination of student demand and operational conditions rather than an official system, is supported by survey results showing that many students react positively to a 4-day class week. One survey showed a distinct preference among university students for schedules without Friday classes, or ‘Friday off.’ This timetable experimentation in university settings demonstrates that a ‘shorter weekly schedule’ can be naturally discussed in an environment centered around the learner and the field. However, these cases also differ from a ‘legal system,’ and consensus among faculty, students, and administration is necessary for them to be adopted as a formal system. This is fundamentally similar to the labor hour policy discussion. Although the name of the system and the scope of application differ, a common task exists in that the process of coordinating the differences in expectations and concerns among constituents regarding system change must precede implementation.

Policy Discussion Depends on Structure and Consensus, Not Speed

Institutional transitions like reduced working hours cannot be solved by legal amendment alone. Since various variables—including the framework of the Labor Standards Act, industry-specific labor characteristics, and the adoption capacity based on company size—are interconnected, it is difficult to resolve this through short-term political discussion. Social dialogue surrounding policy design is not only a process of coordinating conflicting opinions among stakeholders but also a prerequisite for ensuring policy effectiveness.

The 4.5-day work week discussion can be an opportunity for a discursive shift that redefines the balance between labor and life for the entire society. However, for that opportunity to translate into realistic institutional change, sufficient time, empirical data, and a consensus-based public forum are essential. Political speed and agenda-driven discussions can generate superficial interest in the issue, but the depth of discussion and the underlying conditions are paramount for the system to actually settle down and take effect.

In conclusion, the reason why social consensus is needed before legislation for the 4.5-day work week discussion to lead to genuine policy change is clear. This is because it demands a holistic policy design that considers labor, leisure, education, and the quality of life together, not just aiming for a quantitative reduction in working hours.

Reference: National Assembly Research Service (Issue and Point No. 2441-20251212) Social Dialogue Must Precede the Introduction of the 4.5-Day Work Week

#4_5DayWorkWeek #ReducedWorkingHours #SocialConsensus #LaborPolicy #LaborMarketReform #WagesandProductivity #SocialDialogue #5DayWorkWeekLessons #PolicyPilotProgram #University4DayClassWeek #SpotlightU