The article ends with saying that a 4-day work week will solve the problem, but it won't.

The issue isn't that Rebecca from the article needs to work 70+ hours, and they would be completely fine if it was "only" 64 hours. The issue is stated plainly in a quote earlier on in the article; Salaries have not increased at the same pace as the cost of living. No one should need to work 2 jobs in order to survive. Going from 70+ hours to 40 would be a much bigger change in the lives of the people in the article.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

This is Part 4 of The Grind, a series from CBC Newfoundland and Labrador on people who are working multiple jobs to offset the rising cost of living.

A 2019 meta-analysis from the City University of Hong Kong found that overwork increases the risk of heart disease, diabetes, depression and anxiety, as well as encourages risky behaviours such as drinking, smoking and physical inactivity.

Like Gladney, Khan works two jobs and lives within the confines of a masterfully scheduled calendar that requires him to manage two workloads while juggling a double-major education at Memorial University.

There's a growing movement designed to combat working lives like the ones Gladney and Khan lead: weeks that wear them emotionally thin, leave them tearful and sleep-deprived, and put their long-term health in peril.

Wen Fan, a professor of sociology at Boston College, is assessing the results of that project, which partners with companies to implement a six-month trial of the new organizational structure.

But until more employers adopt a condensed work week, the ever-present spectre of shifts to attend is a burden Gladney and Khan carry constantly.

The original article contains 1,590 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 89%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!