Summary of Key Points
In 2026, the workweek of "four days working and three days off" became a hot topic of discussion, but two distinctly different models emerged: one involved factories reducing salaries in exchange for more rest (for example, a textile factory in Wujiang, which cut wages by 1000 yuan to provide an extra day off, essentially shifting the cost due to insufficient orders); the other involved knowledge-intensive companies offering benefits without salary cuts (for instance, an integrated circuit company in Sichuan that offered paid Fridays, resulting in increased efficiency). The differences between these two models stem from the nature of the industries (labor-intensive vs. knowledge-intensive), the availability of orders, the potential for efficiency improvements, and the bargaining power of workers. This reflects a structural divide in China's economy as it transitions from being driven by working hours to being driven by efficiency—while the old economy relies on reducing working hours to cut costs, the new economy focuses on optimizing efficiency for mutual benefit.
Detailed Explanation
1. Why Do Some Reduce Salaries and Others Not?
The fundamental difference between the two models of a four-day workweek does not lie in the kindness of employers, but rather in whether the output of the industry is directly related to the amount of time worked:
- Factory model with salary cuts: Industries like textiles and hardware manufacturing are labor-intensive, where output on the production line is directly linked to the number of hours worked (for example, how much fabric is produced by the textile machines or how many parts are manufactured by the injection molding machines). When orders are scarce, companies avoid layoffs (fearing a lack of workers if they do), so they opt for a four-day workweek with a salary cut to reduce costs. Although workers work fewer hours, their daily wages decrease, and the company also saves on utilities and equipment depreciation. However, the workload remains the same; working four days instead of five essentially increases the intensity of labor, leading to lower hourly wages.
- Knowledge-intensive companies without salary cuts: Industries such as integrated circuit manufacturing and internet services rely on creativity and efficiency, not just the number of hours spent at the desk. A UK experiment showed that with 100% of the usual salary and 80% of the working hours, employees voluntarily eliminated unnecessary meetings and reduced inefficiencies, resulting in increased efficiency and a 57% decrease in turnover rates. These companies can afford not to cut salaries because they can complete the same amount of work in four days or even better.
In simple terms: In industries that rely on machinery or physical labor, working hours equal output, so cutting salaries is necessary; in industries that rely on intellectual effort, improving efficiency leads to a win-win situation for both employees and the company.
2. Is a Four-Day Workweek with Salary Cuts Legal?
The Workers' Daily newspaper has stated that it is illegal for companies to unilaterally implement such changes without employee consent. For example, a company in Chengdu reduced basic salaries from 3850 yuan to 2100 yuan without employee agreement, and the employees won the lawsuit. However, the law has its limitations:
- Current labor laws assume a linear relationship between working hours and output, but this does not apply to knowledge-intensive industries. For instance, a designer may complete five days' worth of work in four days, yet the law cannot determine how to compensate for this non-linear output.
- The law regulates procedures (such as salary cuts through negotiation) but cannot address the underlying issue of insufficient orders. If a company truly has no orders, it must either cut salaries or lay off employees, leaving workers with no choice but to accept one of these options.
Thus, while the law protects workers' rights, it cannot alleviate the pressures of an economic downturn.
3. Can a Four-Day Workweek Stimulate Consumption?
Logically, more free time should lead to increased consumption, but in reality:
- Salary-cut model: Workers have more free time but less income, so they may spend their time at home without spending much money (e.g., the film market in 2026 saw lower ticket prices and additional subsidies, but cinemas relied on popcorn sales and esports events to survive, indicating consumers' reduced purchasing power).
- Non-salary-cut model: Workers have both free time and extra income, leading to increased consumption (for example, travel numbers increased from 410 million to 629 million in 1995 when two-day weekends were introduced because incomes remained unchanged and more time was available for spending).
Consumption requires both time and money; without either, it cannot thrive.
4. Does the Right to Choose Define True Benefits?
The quality of a four-day workweek depends on whether workers have bargaining power:
- Workers in Wujiang had no choice—companies imposed the change, and those who refused had to quit due to an oversupply of labor.
- Employees at Sichuan Jingyuan had the option; the company offered benefits without salary cuts, allowing them to accept or reject the proposal, as the company needed skilled talent (a scarce resource).
- A lesson from Japan: The government promoted "Premium Friday" (ending work at 3 PM on the last Friday of the month), but only 11% of employees participated because no one wanted to be the first to leave. This shows that workers lack bargaining power.
True benefits mean that employees can make choices, not merely accept what is offered.
5. The Four-Day Workweek Reflects Economic Divisions
The two models of a four-day workweek reflect the transformation of China's economy:
- Old Economy (manufacturing): Still driven by working hours, relying on extending working hours to increase production. When orders are low, companies cut costs by reducing hours, which is a natural consequence of economic downturns.
- New Economy (knowledge-intensive industries): Moving towards efficiency, optimizing processes and creativity to generate profits. A four-day workweek can drive management improvements and enhance competitiveness.
Great Wall Motor switched from a five-day to a two-day weekend because manufacturing has become more automated, reducing the need for manual supervision. However, such companies are still in the minority; many factories in Wujiang still operate with traditional methods.
Therefore, the four-day workweek is not about benefits or tricks but a reflection of the economic structure: it reveals which industries are relying on outdated practices and which are transitioning to the future.
In Conclusion
The reality of a four-day workweek depends on the underlying economic structure. Only when more companies shift from being driven by working hours to being driven by efficiency, and when workers have greater bargaining power, will such a change truly benefit them. Before that happens, we need to address why 65% of people still do not enjoy the two-day weekend, a policy that has been in place for 31 years. That is the real issue at hand.