Shorter working hours in Finland are being tested through several different models, from four-day weeks on full pay to six-hour days with a smaller reduction in salary. A new report commissioned by the Finnish Confederation of Professionals (STTK) examines four companies that have adopted such arrangements and argues that reducing working time could become one way to improve employee wellbeing, retention and the organisation of work.
The report presented by STTK on 18 August was written by researcher Anna Kuokkanen and is based on international research and interviews with Finnish workplaces. Rather than proposing a single shorter working week for all employees, it focuses on how different arrangements can work depending on the organisation and the type of job.
Four companies, four approaches to shorter working hours
The examples highlighted by Finnish public broadcaster Yle show how different the concept of shorter working hours can be in practice.
At Fingersoft, the game developer based in Oulu and known for Hill Climb Racing, employees can choose to work 80 percent of full-time hours. Around 25 to 30 percent of the workforce currently uses the option.
Employees choosing a four-day week receive 80 percent of their normal salary, while those working six-hour days receive 90 percent.
The arrangement followed an experiment conducted by Fingersoft in 2021 and 2022. The company said after the trial that six-hour working days produced better results for its organisation than concentrating the reduction into a four-day week. According to Fingersoft, productivity remained almost unchanged with shorter daily hours, while during the four-day-week experiment it declined broadly in line with the reduction in working time.
Other Finnish employers have taken different approaches. At Kajo, a restaurant in Tampere, most employees work four days a week while retaining their full salary. Sercap, a vehicle electronics company in Keminmaa, has also introduced a four-day week on full pay.
Meanwhile, Helsinki-based consultancy Third Rock has opted for a smaller reduction. Employees have Friday afternoons off without a salary cut. CEO Leo Stranius told Yle that the company considers Friday afternoons relatively unproductive, as employees are often already shifting their attention towards the weekend.
The examples therefore range from reduced hours accompanied by lower pay to arrangements in which employees work less while keeping their full salary.
Finland’s shorter working hours debate is about how work is organised
For STTK, the debate should not simply be framed as a choice between making working weeks longer or shorter.
Taina Vallander, STTK’s Director of Social Impact, Strategy and Development, said the organisation is looking at shorter working hours as a way to improve employees’ wellbeing and commitment, preserve their ability to work and potentially allow people to remain in employment for longer.
The report argues that simply removing working hours without changing anything else is unlikely to produce the best results. Companies may instead need to reconsider which tasks are necessary, how work is distributed and how teams cooperate.
Kuokkanen said successful reductions can help organisations eliminate unnecessary tasks and reveal workplace problems that had previously been left unresolved.
This also means there may be no single model that can be transferred directly from one workplace to another. A restaurant, a technology company and a consultancy have different requirements for staffing, customer service and collaboration.
Shorter hours could also target night work
STTK is also considering shorter hours beyond the conventional debate over a four-day office week.
One proposal concerns night work, which can place additional strain on employees. Vallander pointed to arrangements used by some care workers in Norway, where night shifts can count for more working time, allowing employees to work fewer actual hours without receiving lower pay.
STTK argues that additional recovery time could reduce some of the health burden associated with working at night and potentially help employees remain in working life for longer.
Shorter schedules could also be used temporarily when employees are going through particularly demanding periods in their lives rather than being introduced as a permanent arrangement throughout their careers.
Experiments could provide more evidence
Kuokkanen argues that more workplace trials are needed before broader conclusions can be drawn about shorter working hours in Finland.
According to the report, the most promising conditions exist in workplaces with good communication, effective management and employees who can participate in redesigning how their work is organised. STTK recommends careful planning and systematic monitoring of results rather than treating a reduction in working hours as a goal in itself.
Trials could also remain temporary. A company could test a model for six months or a year and then decide whether to continue, modify or abandon it based on its effects.
The Finnish cases illustrate why the debate over shorter working weeks is increasingly about more than the number of days spent at work. The more consequential question is whether employers can reduce working time while reorganising work in ways that preserve productivity and improve wellbeing.
For Finland, the four companies provide small-scale examples rather than evidence for a nationwide model. But their different approaches may offer useful data for a debate that is also taking place elsewhere in the Nordic countries and across Europe.
