Why Summer Fridays Are Disappearing In The Hybrid Work Era
Summer Fridays were once the ultimate symbol of progressive office culture, a sign that a company valued work-life balance. Now, this much-loved perk is fading from the American workplace. According to a recent Monster survey, 84% of workers receive no summer-specific benefits. This shift is happening even as flexibility becomes more important than ever for employees. In Cisco's global survey of over 21,000 workers, 63% said they would accept a pay cut in exchange for remote work options.
The disappearance of Summer Fridays signals a deeper change in what employees value and what companies are willing to provide. Let's explore how hybrid work has altered the role of workplace perks, what employees want and who really benefits from the new era of flexibility.
How Has Hybrid Work Changed Summer Perks?
The shift to hybrid and remote work has changed how, when and where work happens. As a result, Summer Fridays have largely lost their impact. INRIX's 2024 Global Traffic Scorecard reveals that fewer people commute on Fridays. Most office attendance is now clustered earlier in the week, according to Cisco's research, which also found that 72% of organizations have some type of return-to-office mandate. Still, Friday is the least popular day to be in the office. Hybrid work allows employees to manage their own time by skipping Friday commutes or adjusting their hours as needed. The "long weekend" spirit of Summer Fridays has been replaced by the year-round flexibility that hybrid work allows.
What Do Employees Value And What's Missing?
Even as flexibility increases, many employees still crave structured summer perks. Monster's survey found that among those who receive summer benefits, Summer Fridays remain the most valued, ahead of flexible hours and flextime. Over half of workers say these perks improve productivity. However, the majority of employees are not getting any summer-specific perks. Hybrid work often means more general flexibility but less of the collective, company-wide downtime that defined Summer Fridays. The result is a gap between what workers say they want and what companies are offering. This gap matters for retention. Robert Half reports that 76% of workers say flexibility in when and where they work influences their decision to stay with their employer. Nearly half of job seekers prefer hybrid roles, and more than a quarter want fully remote jobs. Flexibility is no longer a bonus. It is a basic expectation and a deciding factor for many when considering job offers.
Who Actually Gets Flexibility?
Hybrid work isn't distributed equally. Robert Half's analysis shows apparent gaps by industry, geography and seniority. In tech, finance and professional services, more than 30% of new roles in some markets offer hybrid options. In contrast, retail, healthcare and manufacturing often have fewer flexible opportunities.
Geographically, states such as Massachusetts, Minnesota and New York lead the way, with 31%, 30% and 29% of new jobs offering hybrid arrangements. Metro areas such as Sacramento, San Francisco and Boston are at the top for hybrid job availability.
Seniority matters, too. Senior-level professionals with at least five years of experience see 31% of roles as hybrid and 15% as remote. For entry-level employees, those numbers drop to 18% hybrid and 10% remote.
For some, hybrid work has replaced Summer Fridays with more consistent year-round flexibility. For others, especially those early in their careers or in less flexible fields, the loss of a company-wide perk is noticeable.
What Are The Costs of Losing Summer Fridays?
Hybrid work brings clear benefits, but eliminating summer perks has downsides. Company-wide downtime, like Summer Fridays, offered a communal pause that helped teams recharge. According to Exos, a wellness company that works with employers such as JetBlue and Adobe, employee burnout decreases when organizations offer more flexible Fridays. Their "You Do You Fridays" program led to measurable improvements in well-being.
Traditional Summer Fridays also addressed seasonal stress. Monster's research shows that the biggest summer challenges are vacation conflicts, childcare and covering for co-workers. General hybrid work policies don't fully address these issues.
Support also matters. Monster's survey found that 42% of workers feel unsupported by their managers when it comes to handling summer scheduling. Hybrid work may provide autonomy, but it does not always address the unique pressures that arise during the summer.
Why Is Retention At Risk?
Removing Summer Fridays increases the risk that employees will leave for companies that provide more flexibility or better support. Robert Half found that 29% of professionals are looking or planning to look for a new job in the first half of 2025, with flexibility as the top motivator. Many workers are already finding their own ways to manage work-life balance, with or without official perks. Monster reports that 64% of employees feel confident they can maintain a balance during the summer, yet much of this confidence stems from individual effort rather than company policy. Employers who remove Summer Fridays without offering equally robust flexibility are likely to lose out in the competition for talent.
How Can You Enjoy Year-Round Flexibility at Work?
What should workers focus on as Summer Fridays become a thing of the past? When evaluating job offers, look for year-round flexibility, clear hybrid work policies and supportive management, especially during high-pressure periods. Consider industries and locations where flexible work is the norm. When interviewing, ask about how the company handles seasonal schedules and coverage gaps. Employers should recognize that flexibility is no longer a seasonal perk. If Summer Fridays are disappearing, they must be replaced with policies that offer consistent and meaningful autonomy. Companies that invest in real, structured flexibility will be better positioned to recruit and retain top talent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Engadget
28 minutes ago
- Engadget
Court blocks FTC investigation into Media Matters' alleged scheme against X
The court has blocked the Federal Trade Commission's investigation into Media Matters, the media nonprofit that previously published research showing that ads appeared on X alongside neo-Nazi and other antisemitic content. In 2023, Elon Musk's X filed a lawsuit against the media watchdog following an advertiser exodus. It accused Media Matters of "knowingly and maliciously manufactur[ing] side-by-side images depicting advertisers' posts on X Corp.'s social media platform beside Neo-Nazi and white national fringe content." Just this May, the FTC started looking into whether the nonprofit violated antitrust laws by allegedly colluding with advertising and advocacy groups to boycott X. In June, Media Matters sued the FTC, accusing it of unfairly targeting the group in retaliation for past criticisms of X. "The Federal Trade Commission seeks to punish Media Matters for its journalism and speech in exposing matters of substantial public concern — including how has enabled and profited from extremist content that proliferated after Elon Musk took over the platform formerly known as Twitter," the group said at the time. Now, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan has granted a preliminary injunction in the nonprofit's favor. Sooknanan has agreed with the group that the FTC's investigation is "a retaliatory act" and has noted that it is "likely to succeed on its First Amendment retaliation claim." She wrote in her decision that such probes would deter other reporters from speaking again. "Indeed, the FTC's [investigation] has had its intended effect." Apparently, because of the probe, Media Matters has "decided against pursuing certain stories about the FTC, Chairman Ferguson, and Mr. Musk." "The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration," Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, told The New York Times . "We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American." As the publication notes, courts had also blocked investigations into the group by the attorneys general in Texas and Missouri. Musk's lawsuits against the nonprofit, however, are still ongoing.
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Bourbon blues: Five months into ban, Canadian bars running dry of Kentucky whiskey
Canadian bars that stocked up on Kentucky Bourbon are running on fumes five months into its nation's ban on US booze – yanking popular cocktails from menus or slapping on a premium for the scarce commodity. In March, provinces ordered their liquor stores to yank all American products from their shelves, in retaliation for the Trump administration slapping 25% tariffs on Canadian goods. One Canadian bar owner told The Post he stocked up on half gallons of Kentucky Bourbon to survive the trade war. 3 Rafferty, who stocked up in March, is down to his last few bottles of Bourbon. Courtesy of Johnny Rafferty 'When Ontario said it was going to take every American brand off the shelf, I went nuts,' said Johnny Rafferty, owner of Rose and Crown bar in Toronto. Rafferty bought six cases in March, each containing six bottles of the Bluegrass State spirit. 'When I showed up, they just had these monster bottles,' he said. 'I pretty much grabbed whatever I could.' He's now down to his last four — two bottles of Jim Beam, one Jack Daniel's and a Bulleit. 'If these tariffs lift, I think it'll be a free for all,' he said. 3 Canada pulled US booze from shelves back in March in response to US tariffs. REUTERS Another bar owner meanwhile has been overcharging customers who are desperate for a taste of Kentucky whiskey — the now rare liquor. 'Because it's in limited supply, I charge more for it, right?' Scott Swain, manager of Danu Social House told CBC News. 'It's a premium product right now.' 3 Except for Alberta, other provinces have stuck with the ban, even five months in. VCG via Reuters Connect Bourbon makers in Kentucky had slammed Canada's ban as a 'disproportionate response' to the trade war. Alberta — where some have warmed to the idea of a 51st state — lifted the US booze ban in June to help ease trade negotiations, but other Northern provinces have shown no sign of relenting.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
America's nuclear energy moment is here — let's seize it
In 1960, Dr. Glenn Seaborg, then-chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, confidently predicted that nuclear energy would power half of American homes by the year 2000. For a while, it looked like he might be right. Between 1967 and 1974, U.S. utilities ordered nearly 200 nuclear reactors. But momentum stalled as cost overruns, regulatory hurdles, slowing demand and accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and later Fukushima eroded public confidence. Projects were canceled, and the nation's once-robust nuclear manufacturing base faded. Today, it seems like Seaborg's prediction wasn't wrong — just too early. A new generation of nuclear reactors — with advanced designs that safely cool and shut down reactors without the need for power or operator intervention — has made such accidents virtually impossible. Meanwhile, soaring electricity demand, driven by artificial intelligence, and rising geopolitical risks have underscored the need for energy that is clean, safe, reliable and abundant — four boxes that only nuclear energy checks. I have witnessed nuclear's resurgence firsthand in my role at the engineering and construction firm Bechtel. We successfully helped bring Georgia Power's two new reactors online in 2023 and 2024, and are currently working to deliver nuclear projects in Tennessee and Wyoming. Overseas, we're helping Poland build its first nuclear plant — a reminder that U.S. nuclear leadership also expands our geopolitical influence, rather than ceding it to Russia and China. Fortunately, the Trump administration understands the stakes and has issued executive orders aimed at quadrupling domestic nuclear capacity by 2050. With its sights set on a true nuclear renaissance, the government — together with the nuclear industry — should focus on clearing the four biggest hurdles in nuclear's path. First, we must confront the elephant in the room: cost. Critics who say nuclear energy is too expensive underestimate both its long-term value and American ingenuity. A nuclear plant's low operating costs and long lifespan make the cost per unit of energy highly competitive. Meanwhile, each new project helps technology developers and utilities standardize reactors, enabling builders like Bechtel to standardize engineering designs, scale supply chains and deploy new construction methods such as digital execution and modularization. The result is shorter schedules, lower costs and greater certainty of outcome. Controlling cost is also about reducing 'project execution' risk for investors. If we want to expand nuclear energy and unlock efficiency gains, we will need more help from the government to assume some of the financial risk of first-mover projects. As the industry rebuilds its capability to deliver, new nuclear projects can be susceptible to delays and cost overruns that deter investors. To stimulate the market, the government must absorb some of the early project cost overrun risks — just as other countries are already doing to grow their nuclear power output. Second, the U.S. should deliver on its obligation under law to establish a sustainable national program for permanently disposing of spent nuclear fuel. While today's storage methods are designed to work safely for 80 years or more, a long-term solution would resolve this challenge and strengthen public confidence in nuclear power. Third, regulators must continue modernizing. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in particular, plays an indispensable role in maintaining high industry standards and has made progress in updating its approach to approving projects. But the framework, built in the 1970s, lags behind the modular, standardized and inherently safer designs of today's nuclear reactors. Significant opportunities remain to streamline approvals without compromising safety. The Trump administration's new executive order encouraging the commission to reform is a welcome step in the right direction. Fourth, and perhaps most urgently, we need people. America is grappling with a skilled labor shortage, from welders to electricians and heavy equipment operators. Here, too, the administration can and is beginning to lead by incentivizing partnerships between industry and education and by expanding access to vocational training. We need to make sure that joining the construction trades is a rewarding, fulfilling and safe career. We need to reshape perceptions that you can only get ahead with a four-year degree, which is simply not true and even misleading to the younger generation. A national campaign should champion these careers as mission-driven, innovative and essential to America's future. There are no silver bullets in energy policy. Solar, gas and emerging technologies will all be part of the equation. But failing to realize the full potential of nuclear energy's promise would be a costly mistake — economically, environmentally and geopolitically. A strong U.S. nuclear program will produce more than megawatts. It will catalyze life-changing technologies, a robust national industrial base and a brighter future for generations. If we get it right, maybe someone in 2075 will look back at today as the moment when America glimpsed its energy moonshot and seized the opportunity to lead. Craig Albert is president and chief operating officer of the engineering and construction company Bechtel. He previously led its nuclear, security and environmental unit.
