A recently completed academic study by Javonson Willock, examining employees’, employers’, and union representatives’ perspectives, has found that the hotel sector is not ready for a short-term implementation of a four-day/32-hour workweek.
While the concept of a four-day workweek enjoys broad theoretical support, hotel workers, managers, and union representatives warn that major financial, operational, and regulatory gaps must first be addressed.
Hotel workers expressed strong interest in a reduced workweek for reasons related to rest, mental health, and family time.
Most believed that an extra day off would rejuvenate the workforce, potentially improving the guest experience.
However, their readiness for implementation was overwhelmingly tied to income protection. Workers feared that reducing hours from 40 to 32 would shrink wages and service charge earnings, a risk they described as untenable amid rising living costs.
Several employees said that without guaranteed full pay, the four-day system would force them to seek additional employment.
This, they warned, would undermine the policy’s intended benefits, leaving workers more exhausted than before.
They also expressed concerns about workload compression, predicting that employers would try to compress five days of work into four, which would reduce service quality and increase burnout.
Hotel management acknowledged the potential benefits of better-rested staff, but collectively cautioned that the sector was not ready for short-term implementation.
They stressed that the model would require more staffing, increasing labour costs, and multi-year planning to restructure operations.
The employers emphasized that hospitality is a 24-hour, guest-driven industry that cannot reduce coverage without risking service disruptions.
Managers warned that rolling out a four-day workweek too quickly would strain budgets, intensify scheduling difficulties, and compromise service standards, especially in labour-intensive departments such as housekeeping and food and beverage.
Managers also insisted that implementation would require revising collective agreements, reworking staffing ratios, and preparing for the likelihood that workers may seek side jobs, potentially returning to work fatigued.
Trade unions expressed the strongest reservations, calling the four-day workweek “not practical at this point” without significant structural reforms.
Union leaders described the hotel sector as financially fragile, heavily dependent on service charge systems, and already grappling with understaffing.
Across all unions, wage protection emerged as a non-negotiable condition. Leaders argued that reducing hours without preserving income would further destabilize families struggling under existing wage levels.
Unions also raised concerns about the Labour Code and collective bargaining agreements, noting that implementing a new work-time structure would require legislative amendments and renegotiation of existing contracts.
However, all the union representatives supported piloting the model at select hotels before any national rollout.
While the idea of a four-day workweek enjoys widespread appeal, the study’s findings suggest that short-term implementation was not feasible without comprehensive reforms.
All three stakeholder groups highlighted the financial vulnerability of workers, operational strain on hotels, legal and contractual constraints, the risk of declining service quality, and the potential increase in worker burnout from side employment.
The report concludes that Antigua could benefit from exploring a four-day model, but only through a phased, carefully planned transition supported by policy, staffing, and wage reforms.
