Due to multiple crises, the health care sector in Austria faces the challenge of providing reliable care in the midst of increasing staff shortages. In the aftermath of the Corona pandemic, several organizations have promoted a (compressed) four-day workweek to make the workplace more attractive, but do they also foster organizational resilience (Witmer, 2019)? Atypical work schedules, such as flexible work have been criticized for reinforcing existing inequalities in work distribution and career outcomes (Gerstel and Clawson 2014; Chung, 2019; Chung and van der Lippe, 2020; Williams et al., 2013). However, little is known about compressed working time models in female-dominated occupational contexts with a high proportion of part-time work. Based on a qualitative study, we investigate organizational practices of scheduling in mobile care services for the elderly and their implications for (in) equality and organizational resilience. We contrast two non-profit organizations in Austria that use distinct shift work models via a compressed four-day workweek. Despite providing the same services, the two organizations differ regarding their institutional logics (Thornton et al. 2012): one follows efficiency and uses the four-day workweek as buzzword to compete for young “full-time” workers on the job market whereas the other emphasizes “family-friendliness” by offering individualized work schedules exclusive for mothers in addition to its rigid shift model with a compressed workweek. Using situational analysis (Clarke et al. 2018), a feminist extension of grounded theory, we analyzed interviews with workers and organizational representatives (n= 20) as well as organizational documents to map collective actions, commitments and discourses. Our analysis shows that despite differences, both organizations rely on a diverse workforce to meet specific time demands (i.e. morning, evening and weekend shifts) and short-term changes that are common in this field. To ensure a reliable schedule, three principles are at work in the scheduling process: (1) the privileging of certain groups, (2) the prospect, but not the guarantee, of accommodating all workers’ individual needs, (3) the capitalization of care workers’ (gendered) sense of responsibility to patients when time conflicts arise. While this approach is advantageous for young workers on the four-day workweek who do not have to fill in on their days off (case 1) and for mothers with “family friendly” working hours (case 2), it is disadvantageous for the rest of the workforce who have to work the early mornings, evenings and weekends and cover at short notice. In both organizations, therefore, the hierarchical, top-down approach to scheduling leads to inequalities within the workforce, not only on the basis of gender, but also maternity and age. Drawing on the concept of degendered organizational resilience (Witmer, 2019), we conclude that resilience may be reduced in the long run. Care managers therefore need to reflect on the institutional logics that underpin scheduling practices, as these reinforce rather than diminish traditional worker norms in responding and adapting to the challenges facing the care sector. We also argue for the democratization of working time arrangements through decentralization of scheduling and the reduction of hierarchies through the use of technological tools.