A four-day workweek remains an attractive prospect for many US employees, and some are willing to accept lower pay to make it happen. A survey by BadCredit.org found that 34% of respondents would accept a pay cut of 10% or 15% in exchange for a permanent four-day workweek.
The findings come as the debate over shorter working hours continues in the United States. While most workers would prefer to gain an extra day off without losing income, the BadCredit.org survey on four-day workweeks suggests that a portion of employees would consider a financial compromise.
Most Workers Would Prefer to Keep Their Current Pay
Among respondents, 26% said they would accept a 10% pay reduction, while 9% were willing to accept a 15% cut. However, the majority were not prepared to make that trade-off: 63% said they would not accept lower pay, while 3% already had a four-day workweek.
The results suggest that although a shorter working week has considerable appeal, compensation remains an important consideration for employees.
Interest in discussing the arrangement with employers was also evident. Around 45% of respondents said their employer had not offered or discussed a four-day workweek, but they wished the subject would be raised. This included 53% of Gen X respondents, indicating that interest is not limited to younger workers.
Some Employees Would Consider Financial Trade-Offs
The survey also explored what respondents might change in their personal finances if a pay reduction created financial pressure.
The most frequently selected adjustments included:
- 24% would repay debt more slowly.
- 21% would reduce contributions to emergency savings.
- 18% would contribute less to retirement savings.
- 16% would delay buying a home.
- 10% would put off having children.
- 10% would take on new credit-card debt.
Overall, 52% selected at least one potential financial adjustment, while 48% said they would not accept any financial strain. These responses were hypothetical and included people who had previously said they would not accept a pay cut.
The findings highlight a potential tension for employers: employees may value additional time away from work, but the financial consequences of reduced earnings could limit how many are willing or able to make that choice.
The 32-Hour Workweek Debate in the US
The survey comes amid legislative efforts to reduce standard working hours in the United States.
In September 2026, Representative Mark Takano introduced the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act, H.R. 10323. The proposal seeks to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act and reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours, with changes to the overtime threshold.
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. It remains a legislative proposal and has not become law. Its introduction does not mean that employers are currently required to adopt a 32-hour workweek.
The proposal is relevant to the wider discussion because it addresses shorter working hours through changes to federal overtime rules, rather than relying solely on individual employer decisions.
What the Findings Mean for Employers
The survey does not establish that employees would accept permanent pay reductions when presented with an actual workplace offer. However, it does show that some workers place considerable value on having an additional day away from work.
For HR leaders, the findings point to the importance of understanding what employees want from flexible work arrangements and how those preferences interact with financial security.
A four-day workweek does not necessarily require a reduction in pay. Employers considering the model can explore different approaches, including reorganising working hours, reviewing workloads and assessing whether productivity can be maintained across fewer working days.
Ultimately, the challenge is to find arrangements that support employee well-being without creating unsustainable financial or operational trade-offs.
