Australian unions have a proposal: if AI is making workers more productive, those workers should get the time back.
The Australian Services Union wants a four-day working week at 30.4 hours, with no pay cut. The Australian Council of Trade Unions wants maximum weekly hours dropped from 38 to 35. Both submissions landed on the desk of a parliamentary inquiry into the National Employment Standards — the rules that govern how Australians work.
The timing isn't coincidental. Australian tech firms have cut 4,450 jobs so far in 2026, with every single layoff attributed to AI. The ASU's argument is straightforward: if AI is generating productivity gains, workers should share in them — not just lose their jobs to them.
What the Unions Are Asking For
The ASU's submission covers more than just shorter hours. The full package includes:
- 30.4-hour, four-day working week with no loss of pay
- Five weeks annual leave (up from four — the first increase since the mid-1970s)
- Six months paid notice for workers who lose their jobs to AI
- 10 days paid reproductive leave annually
- Predictable rosters with at least two weeks' notice for shift changes
The ASU represents more than 135,000 workers across community services, local government, airlines, energy, and call centres — several of the sectors where AI risk is highest.
Separately, the ACTU — representing around two million workers — proposed reducing the maximum working week from 38 to 35 hours and increasing hourly rates by 8.5%. Their reasoning: if real wages had grown in line with productivity since 2000, average wages would be about $350 per week higher.
The AI Angle
This isn't just about wanting a long weekend. The proposals respond to a real shift in how AI is changing workloads.
Jobs and Skills Australia estimates that 55% of workplace tasks could be performed by people using AI, with another 15% fully replaceable by automation. That means the work being done in many roles is changing shape — and in some cases, there's less of it.
Our data across 358 Australian occupations shows 2.26 million workers sit in occupations with an AI risk score of 6 or above. These are roles where AI can handle a large share of the tasks: general clerks (AI score 7.0, 286,600 workers), accounting clerks (7.2, 143,500 workers), receptionists (6.6, 182,600 workers), and call or contact centre workers (7.4, 29,400 workers).
Another 7.49 million workers sit in the middle range (AI scores 4–5.9), including sales assistants (4.8, 559,800 workers), registered nurses (4.1, 362,900 workers), and software programmers (6.7, 168,700 workers). These are roles where AI augments the work rather than replacing it — exactly the category where a shorter week could make sense.
The union argument is that when AI handles the data entry, the scheduling, and the first draft, workers shouldn't fill the freed-up time with more tasks. They should get some of that time back.
What the Trial Data Shows
The four-day week isn't a thought experiment anymore. It's been tested — including in Australia.
A Swinburne University trial of 10 Australian companies found productivity increased at 70% of participating firms. None reported a decline. A larger Australasian trial of 26 companies found a 54% increase in work ability, 64% reduction in burnout, and a 44.3% decline in sick days per employee.
Internationally, the picture is similar. The UK's trial of 61 companies and 2,900 workers showed 39% less stress, 71% less burnout, and a 57% decrease in staff leaving. One year later, 89% of companies were still running the model. Iceland moved 86% of its workforce to shorter hours for the same pay after trials showed maintained or improved productivity.
Not every trial worked. Unilever and Bupa both abandoned their Australian trials, calling the one-size-fits-all approach too rigid. The City of Launceston agreed to trial a four-day week in January 2026, then pulled back in February.
Where Australian Policy Sits
The Parliament of Australia published a formal research paper examining the evidence on four-day work weeks. The ACT government is developing a roadmap for its public service. Victoria commissioned a feasibility study with a final report due in early 2026. The Greens have included a national test case through the Fair Work Commission in their platform.
But the federal government has been cautious. Prime Minister Albanese has said there are "no plans" to adopt a four-day week. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said it "hasn't been our focus."
Meanwhile, the average Australian worker puts in 4.5 extra weeks of unpaid overtime each year. For workers aged 18 to 24, it's 6.4 weeks. The ASU argues that before debating shorter hours, Australians should at least be compensated for the hours they already work.
Who This Affects Most
The six months paid notice for AI displacement is the proposal most directly tied to the workers on this site. If it were adopted, workers in high-risk roles — keyboard operators at an AI score of 8.0, general clerks at 7.0, accounting clerks at 7.2 — would get six months to retrain, job search, or transition before losing income.
Whether that happens depends on politics, not data. The parliamentary inquiry is ongoing, and no legislation has been introduced. But the proposals signal that Australian unions are treating AI displacement as a workplace relations issue, not just a technology one.
Check Where You Stand
Every occupation on this site has an AI exposure score based on real data from Jobs and Skills Australia and the ABS. You can check your own occupation's risk, see the full rankings, or explore how AI affects different industries.
The policy debate will take time. Your occupation score is available now.