The article literally says they didn't take a pay cut, I'm not sure where they are saving on labor expense. I support the freedom to independently judge when it is appropriate to be available for work while being committed to succeeding. 32 hours, 24 hours, 60 hours, whatever.. it's best to do what it takes when duty calls. It's important to find balance between work and family as well as manage mental and physical health. Requiring 40 hours is the problem, maybe a model where nobody is required to work Friday however they are expected to stay on top of their work would meet in the middle effectively.

There is a whole can of worms regarding tax law, full time, part time, benefits eligible, etc that I don't totally understand. The other piece of this puzzle is how can we alter our laws to promote more flexibility for companies, especially as it pertains to full time hourly workers and benefits.

The idea of 100% pay for 80% of the work is idiotic. Take it out of the context of the article and really listen to that statement. Think about this in terms of stock traders or financial analysts a second. It's absurd, there is no free lunch. A reasonable way of managing a so-called "4 day work week", would be to have the office open 5 days a week and only require 32 hours assuming a 40 hour week. This would only work for salaried professionals in certain lines of work though. Show me a company cutting hourly workers hours by 20% and increasing wages by 25% to compensate and I'll be impressed. It's bold for a company to commit to encouraging their employees to work no more than 32 hours a week on average for the same pay. I only skimmed the article, so I'm not sure how it played out exactly.