Work-life balance has always been a struggle.
維持工作和生活的平衡一直是件難事。

But an increased concern for workers’rights paired with the power of automation has created a shift.
但是，在自動(dòng)化影響下，勞動(dòng)者權(quán)利愈發(fā)受到重視，這導(dǎo)致了一個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)變。

Certain industries don’t require as many working hours anymore, and the global trend–especially in Europe–leans toward a four-day workweek.
一些行業(yè)已經(jīng)不再需要那么多的工作時(shí)間，從全球趨勢(shì)來(lái)看-尤其是歐洲-更傾向于每周工作四天。

Does it work? Can people accomplish the same amount in four days as they can in five?
這能行嗎？人們可以在四天內(nèi)完成五天的工作量嗎？

And if so, why isn’t everyone doing it?
如果可以，為什么大家不都這樣做？

Let’s look at what we know so far to see how effective the four-day workweek really is.
來(lái)看看目前為止所我們所了解的，為期四天的工作周多么有效。

?

THE FOUR-DAY WORKWEEK IS AN IDEA AHEAD OF ITS TIME
四天工作周是領(lǐng)先時(shí)代的想法

In 1930, during the Great Depression, e conomist John Maynard Keynes predicted that we’d all have a 15-hour workweek “within 100 years.”
1930年，大蕭條時(shí)期，經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家約翰·梅納德·凱恩斯曾預(yù)測(cè)，“100年內(nèi)”，我們都將每周只工作15小時(shí)。

In his own time, Keynes saw the rise of industrialization and assumed the trend toward more efficient work methods would continue. Once a worker earned enough to pay for their necessities, he suggested, they’d opt to spend more time at home or in leisure, reducing the workweek to only two or three days.
在他的時(shí)代，凱恩斯看到了工業(yè)化的興起，并認(rèn)為更有效率的工作方式會(huì)繼續(xù)出現(xiàn)。他說(shuō)，一旦工人掙到足夠的錢(qián)購(gòu)買(mǎi)必需品，他們就會(huì)在家庭和休閑上投入更多時(shí)間，把每周的工作時(shí)間減少到兩三天。

As an attractive fantasy to beleaguered workers throughout the century, the idea never quite left the public consciousness. Even Richard Nixon, during his vice presidency in 1956, predicted that the four-day workweek was coming “in the not too distant future.”
一個(gè)世紀(jì)以來(lái)，勞動(dòng)者飽受困擾，這個(gè)幻想很有吸引力，未曾在公眾意識(shí)中消失。即便是理查德·尼克松，他在1956年擔(dān)任副總統(tǒng)期間也曾預(yù)測(cè)，為期四天的工作周會(huì)“在不太遙遠(yuǎn)的將來(lái)”出現(xiàn)。

The idea remained just an idea for close to a century, until 1998, when France enacted the first of its two “Aubry” laws that reduced the national workweek to 35 hours instead of 39, with excess hours counting as overtime. (In subsequent years, revisions have eroded much of the original laws.) Their aim was to reduce their 12% unemployment rate (at the time) through work sharing, but the success of the legislation got other countries revisiting their standard work schedules.
近一個(gè)世紀(jì)以來(lái)，這個(gè)理念都只是一個(gè)想法。直到1998年，法國(guó)頒布了兩部“奧布里”法律中的第一部，將全國(guó)每周39小時(shí)的工作時(shí)間減少到35小時(shí)。超出時(shí)間算作加班。（隨后的幾年中，原版法律不斷被修訂，很多內(nèi)容被更改。）他們的目標(biāo)是通過(guò)分擔(dān)工作量降低（當(dāng)時(shí)）12％的失業(yè)率，而立法的成功也讓其他國(guó)家重新審視自己的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)工作時(shí)間表。

With the tech disruption evident in the 21st century–similar to the “conveyor belt” tech disruption of the 1920s that ushered in the five-day workweek–the idea continues to snowball. Even business mogul Richard Branson supports the shift to a shorter workweek, stating in a blog post:
20世紀(jì)20年代的出現(xiàn)的“輸送帶”顛覆性技術(shù)，迎來(lái)了為期五天的工作周，于此類似，隨著21世紀(jì)顛覆性技術(shù)的出現(xiàn)，這個(gè)想法繼續(xù)膨脹。商業(yè)大亨理查德·布蘭森也支持這一轉(zhuǎn)變，縮短每周的工作時(shí)間，他在一篇博文中說(shuō)：

By working more efficiently, there is no reason why people can’t work less hours and be equally–if not more–effective. People will need to be paid more for working less time, so they can afford more leisure time. That’s going to be a difficult balancing act to get right, but it can be done.
通過(guò)提高工作效率，人們沒(méi)理由不在更短的時(shí)間內(nèi)做完同樣多甚至更多的工作。人們要在工作時(shí)間縮短的情況下獲得更高的報(bào)酬，來(lái)支付更多的休閑開(kāi)支。要達(dá)到這個(gè)平衡其實(shí)很難，但卻可以實(shí)現(xiàn)。

Different countries in Europe are already experimenting and implementing shorter workweeks in varying degrees. But the conversation got louder earlier this year, when a New Zealand firm conducted a formal experiment.
不同的歐洲國(guó)家已經(jīng)在不同程度上在嘗試和實(shí)施縮短每周的工作時(shí)間。今年年初，這場(chǎng)對(duì)話變得愈發(fā)響亮。新西蘭的一家公司正式進(jìn)行了一次實(shí)驗(yàn)。

?

NEW ZEALAND STUDY ABOUT THE FOUR-DAY WORKWEEK
新西蘭對(duì)每周四天工作日的研究

The Perpetual Guardian is an estate management firm that deals in wills, trusts, and EPAs–a fairly unassuming and conventional company, perfect for capturing a work experience close to the norm.
Perpetual Guardian是一家物業(yè)管理公司，經(jīng)營(yíng)遺囑、信托和可信賴商業(yè)業(yè)務(wù)——這是一家相當(dāng)?shù)驼{(diào)傳統(tǒng)的公司，非常適合作為樣本，衡量常規(guī)的工作體驗(yàn)。

In March and April 2018, the firm ran an experiment that reduced their workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours, for all of its 240 employees, while still paying the same salaries. They hired a pair of researchers to record the results quantitatively, and what they found shows positive support for the four-day workweek:
2018年3月和4月，該公司進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)，將240名員工每周的工作時(shí)間從40小時(shí)減少到32小時(shí)，并支付相同的工資。他們聘請(qǐng)兩位研究員對(duì)結(jié)果進(jìn)行量化記錄，結(jié)果證實(shí)了四天工作周的有效性：

24% more employees felt they could successfully balance their work and personal lives. Stress decreased by 7% among everyone involved. Overall work satisfaction increased by 5%. But above all, “their actual job performance didn’t change when doing it over four days instead of five,” in the words of Jarrod Harr, the Auckland University of Technology human resources professor who jointly oversaw the experiment.
24％的員工感覺(jué)他們可以成功地平衡工作和個(gè)人生活。所有參與者的壓力都下降了7％。總體工作滿意度提高了5％。但最重要的是，一同參與監(jiān)督了這次實(shí)驗(yàn)的奧克蘭理工大學(xué)人力資源教授杰羅德·哈爾說(shuō)“用四天取代五天工作日，他們的實(shí)際工作表現(xiàn)沒(méi)有變化”。

As reported, with the benefit of an extra free day, employees were exceptionally motivated to meet productivity requirements. This motivation inspired workers to devise better work habits and to waste less of their work time, to say nothing of the improvements in their mood. “Supervisors said staff were more creative, their attendance was better, they were on time, and they didn’t leave early or take long breaks,” noted Harr.
據(jù)報(bào)道，因?yàn)槎嗔艘惶煨菹⑷?，員工格外積極地滿足生產(chǎn)要求。這個(gè)動(dòng)機(jī)激勵(lì)員工形成更好的工作習(xí)慣，減少工作時(shí)間的浪費(fèi)，更不用說(shuō)，他們的情緒也有所改善。“管理者說(shuō)，員工們更有創(chuàng)造力了，他們的出勤率更高，準(zhǔn)時(shí)上班，而且沒(méi)有早退或長(zhǎng)時(shí)間休息，”哈爾說(shuō)。

The study seems to offer evidence for what many already predicted: Productivity isn’t influenced by just time–employee mentality also plays an influential role.
這項(xiàng)研究似乎為很多人的預(yù)測(cè)提供了證據(jù)：生產(chǎn)力不僅受時(shí)間的影響——也受員工的心態(tài)的影響。

?

（翻譯：Claire）