Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Michelle A. Travis (
This Article considers the growing reliance that four-day work week advocates have placed on work/family claims. It begins by analyzing whether a compressed work schedule may alleviate work/family conflicts, and more importantly, for whom such benefits are most likely to accrue. While studies consistently find that many workers experience lower levels of work/family conflict when working a compressed schedule, the research also suggests that workers with the most acute work/family conflicts may be the least likely either to obtain or to benefit from a four-day work week design.
Nevertheless, the political climate
surrounding the four-day work week provides a unique opportunity for action.
This Article therefore considers how legal regulation might be used to shape
four-day work week initiatives as a work/family balance tool. In particular,
the Article considers how reflexive law proposals might contribute to the
four-day work week debate. While existing reflexive law models typically rely
on the creation and exercise of procedural rights vested in individual workers,
this Article explores an under-developed alternative that would instead vest
procedural rights primarily in workers as a group. The Article uses California's e