Tory Minister torpedo council's experiment with four day week.

[Magdalia]

The SCDC experiment wasn't just considering individual performance but also service performance across a range of metrics and initial results showed that service performance was maintained in all cases.

The move to a 4-day week did not mean that services were withdrawn on the fifth day. Front-line services were maintained to the same level of availability across the working week with staff being rostered accordingly. Hence no reduction in FM costs.

In my authority we've looked at the SCDC example as we move to make hybrid working permanent. It's enabling us to downsize our estate and make a return from the space we have vacated. And it's enabled us to recruit to hard-to-fill vacancies as we can now draw from a much wider talent pool. We're seeing the benefits in both productivity and wellbeing terms and wouldn't go back to five-day office working even if we could.

SCDC are to be applauded for their trial as it's shown others in our sector the art of the possible. The Minister is Cnut-like in trying to stem the tide, as the move to more flexible working is inexorable and local government will deliver it one way or another whatever diktat he seeks to impose.

Thanks, I was looking forward to reading your perspective on this one. You explain it better than me!

 

[Gloster]

And as a budget holder I want to know how much bang I get for my buck. With agency staff there is already a 15-25% hit because of that overhead. The fact that an agency staff member may individually deliver the same output as a permanent staff member does not alter that fact. With your vast experience I'd expect you to understand that.

THC

I would have thought that agency workers may often take a while to be able to work at the same rate as permanent staff. Few are going to be able to walk in and work at full speed from second one. They don’t know every tiny detail of how things work in practice and they will then disrupt other people’s work by having to ask. If they stay in the same post for a while they will get up to speed, but if they change over frequently, this pattern keeps repeating.

I would ask some of the critics: do you think it would be a good idea to raise council employees’ salaries to attract and retain staff. Or what about trying some other ways to make the job more attractive?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And as a budget holder I want to know how much bang I get for my buck. With agency staff there is already a 15-25% hit because of that overhead. The fact that an agency staff member may individually deliver the same output as a permanent staff member does not alter that fact. With your vast experience I'd expect you to understand that.

THC

The matter in question has two sides to the coin. Of course. the financial implications are there for all to see, but I might have been from the "old school" management brigade who monitored staff performance levels of both employed and agency staff working on projects at the consultancy, both head office based and site based. I trust that answers your query as to my experience-gained knowledge and some thirteen years into retirement, twelve of which have been as a member of this website with over 30,000 postings to my name, I do look to keeping my brain as active as ever, despite suffering from a stroke in July 2012, from which I made a full recovery.

 

[THC]

The matter in question has two sides to the coin. Of course. the financial implications are there for all to see, but I might have been from the "old school" management brigade who monitored staff performance levels of both employed and agency staff working on projects at the consultancy, both head office based and site based.

It really doesn't. The available budget determines the quantum of production and if up to a quarter of that budget leaks out before any work is done then the implications for productivity are clear.

I trust that answers your query as to my experience-gained knowledge and some thirteen years into retirement, twelve of which have been as a member of this website with over 30,000 postings to my name, I do look to keeping my brain as active as ever, despite suffering from a stroke in July 2012, from which I made a full recovery.

Stroke has claimed several of my family and left one of my uncles in a "locked-in" state for many years before his eventual passing, so I am delighted to hear of your full recovery. Keep well.

THC

 

[GusB]

Seem a few people on here think workers are machines who should be able to work non-stop all day / week long. Humans arn't quite like that.

Typical Tory mindset; if you're able to do a week's work in 4 days, you're not working hard enough. Honestly, if they could get away with making everyone work 7 days a week, it still wouldn't be enough for some.

 

[ainsworth74]

No matter how much some people seem to aghast at the idea that a 4-day week can be as productive as a 5-day week (on a service level basis) surely that remains a matter for the people of the relevant authority?

What business is it of central government to impose their own view? If the local residents believe that they're services have been harmed then they will be able to boot out the relevant councillors and change the status quo. Which is surely how it should be?

 

[Yew]

No matter how much some people seem to aghast at the idea that a 4-day week can be as productive as a 5-day week (on a service level basis) surely that remains a matter for the people of the relevant authority?

Are these the same Tories that often clamour for deregulation and less state intervention?

 

[JamesT]

No matter how much some people seem to aghast at the idea that a 4-day week can be as productive as a 5-day week (on a service level basis) surely that remains a matter for the people of the relevant authority?

What business is it of central government to impose their own view? If the local residents believe that they're services have been harmed then they will be able to boot out the relevant councillors and change the status quo. Which is surely how it should be?

He who pays the piper calls the tune? I believe around half of local government income comes from central government, who may have some interest in how it's being spent when they answer to their electorate?

 

[THC]

No matter how much some people seem to aghast at the idea that a 4-day week can be as productive as a 5-day week (on a service level basis) surely that remains a matter for the people of the relevant authority?

What business is it of central government to impose their own view? If the local residents believe that they're services have been harmed then they will be able to boot out the relevant councillors and change the status quo. Which is surely how it should be?

Which underlines just how centralised the UK polity actually is - only Ireland in western Europe has a more centralised system of government.

In many cases local government is little more than a local delivery arm of a nationally-specified service. We simply don't have the discretion to flex provision or delivery as we might like, and Minister Rowley's statement makes clear that central government can set the terms as it sees fit without any consultation.

THC

 

[nw1]

Because it is a Liberal-Democrat led council. Isn’t that enough justification?

Sounds like typical Tory authoritarianism.

This government really can't help messing around and interfering in other people's affairs, can they? From telling TOCs how to run their services to telling councils how to run their affairs, the list goes on.

The right often claim to be libertarian, but this (JohnsonTrussSunak) is probably the most authoritarian and controlling government of my lifetime.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sounds like typical Tory authoritarianism.

This government really can't help messing around and interfering in other people's affairs, can they? From telling TOCs how to run their services to telling councils how to run their affairs, the list goes on.

Perhaps you would rather that to achieve your aspiration, they ceased all forms of funding to local government and let those local councils fund all projects in their administered areas from sources where such finance can be obtained.

 

[nw1]

Perhaps you would rather that to achieve your aspiration, they ceased all forms of funding to local government and let those local councils fund all projects in their administered areas from sources where such finance can be obtained.

Well, if local tax went up but income tax went down to compensate, that might work...

 

[SuspectUsual]

Perhaps you would rather that to achieve your aspiration, they ceased all forms of funding to local government and let those local councils fund all projects in their administered areas.

Well, the Tories are already some way down that particular road given the massive reductions in real terms local authority funding since 2010.

But regardless of that, I’m not sure how an aspiration for central government to step meddling in local matters requires an end to central funding.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2023 ==

Well, if local tax went up but income tax went down to compensate, that might work...

I thought that at first, but the disparity in the cost of providing the same level of service across local authority areas is huge

 

[nw1]

Are these the same Tories that often clamour for deregulation and less state intervention?

The current Tories don't like spending, but they do like control. At least that's my conclusion about them.

 

[THC]

Perhaps you would rather that to achieve your aspiration, they ceased all forms of funding to local government and let those local councils fund all projects in their administered areas from sources where such finance can be obtained.

A very interesting proposition.

The last proposals for local government finance reform (abandoned in 2020) would have, if enacted, done away with the block grant from central government and replaced it with business rates localisation, i.e. local authorities would have been allowed to keep all* the business rates raised within their areas.

(*subject to some redistribution, as the business rate take in Westminster is a scale higher than that in, say, Hartlepool.)

This would have loosened the ties that bind and so central government lost its nerve, kicking the can down the road, meaning that we still base our council tax bands on 30+ year-old property valuations rather than something more appropriate to the 2020s but also meaning that Whitehall still sets the terms - to quote @JamesT above, "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

THC

 

[Falcon1200]

No that's just the most simplistic conclusion. In practice, few jobs at places like local councils operate at a standard rate of productivity from 0900 on Monday to 1700 on Friday: no time is completely unproductive, but a shorter working week will squeeze out the least productive time.

OK; But if a five-day working week included, in effect, a whole day's worth of unproductive time, I reiterate that there was something very amiss with the council's performance regime.

Typical Tory mindset; if you're able to do a week's work in 4 days, you're not working hard enough.

How about staff being paid for five days work actually doing five days work, rather than apparently achieving nothing useful for 20% of their time; Now they get an extra day off, in most cases no doubt giving them a 3-day weekend, every weekend, with no loss of earnings, and a reduction in travelling time and expense (if they are not already working from home of course).

 

[GusB]

The results of the recent 4-day week pilot are interesting.

Pilot Results Old | 4 Day Week Foundation

www.4dayweek.co.uk

Almost every company (92%) that took part has decided to continue with the four-day week after the pilot. Of the 61 companies that participated, at least 56 are continuing with the four-day week, with 18 saying the policy is a permanent change

The vast majority of companies were satisfied that business performance and productivity was maintained

Over the six-month trial period, stress and burnout for employees both significantly declined with 71% of employees reporting lower levels of burnout

Reported levels of anxiety, fatigue and sleep issues decreased, while mental and physical health both experienced improvements.

Measures of work-life balance improved. Respondents found it easier to balance their work with both family and social commitments, and were more satisfied with their household finances, relationships and how their time was being managed.

Other key business metrics showed signs of positive effects. Companies’ revenue stayed broadly the same, rising by 1.4% on average.

There was a substantial decline (57%) in the likelihood that an employee would quit, dramatically improving job retention.

There was a 65% reduction in the number of sick days

That all seems fairly positive to me.

OK; But if a five-day working week included, in effect, a whole day's worth of unproductive time, I reiterate that there was something very amiss with the council's performance regime.

How about staff being paid for five days work actually doing five days work, rather than apparently achieving nothing useful for 20% of their time; Now they get an extra day off, in most cases no doubt giving them a 3-day weekend, every weekend, with no loss of earnings, and a reduction in travelling time and expense (if they are not already working from home of course).

If they're achieving 5 days work in 4, and potentially getting more done in that time, and being paid the same, what on earth is wrong with it? The employer isn't losing out and staff are healthier and happier as a result; it's a win-win for everyone. It should be a surprise to nobody that workers who don't feel burned out are better at their jobs, are less likely to quit and less likely to go off sick. It doesn't necessarily mean a 3 day weekend, either; it's perfectly feasible to have that extra day through the week.

 

[yorksrob]

The results of the recent 4-day week pilot are interesting.

Pilot Results Old | 4 Day Week Foundation

www.4dayweek.co.uk

That all seems fairly positive to me.


If they're achieving 5 days work in 4, and potentially getting more done in that time, and being paid the same, what on earth is wrong with it? The employer isn't losing out and staff are healthier and happier as a result; it's a win-win for everyone. It should be a surprise to nobody that workers who don't feel burned out are better at their jobs, are less likely to quit and less likely to go off sick. It doesn't necessarily mean a 3 day weekend, either; it's perfectly feasible to have that extra day through the week.

And with all that, an additional day to spend their earnings in the national economy.

 

[Falcon1200]

If they're achieving 5 days work in 4, and potentially getting more done in that time, and being paid the same, what on earth is wrong with it?

What is wrong with it is that before the 4 day week was adopted, staff were working 5 days but apparently only managing 4 days worth of work!
Imagine how much more could have been achieved if they worked as hard on those 5 days as they now do on 4.

 

[Richardr]

I think there are three separate questions here which need to be disentangled from each other if there is to be any meaningful discussion:

1. Is a four-day working week a good or a bad idea in principle?
2. Is it an trialling a four-day working week for its staff a responsible or an irresponsible thing for South Cambridgeshire District Council to do?
3. is this something that central government should be intervening in?

An extremely sensible post, and whereas I am sceptical that it is a good idea, the answer to 1 can't come until there are extensive trials in the real world. To that end it seems wholly responsible that an employer should be able to trial such a scheme - if it clearly doesn't work either they will change it back, or lose their electoral mandate.

However, the most important question may well be the third one. The government (and many before them) see parliamentary sovereignty as all encompassing, and consider they have the right to control any public authority with no restrictions on what they can do. I personally think that when they have solved the issues around the things they do control centrally, such as the NHS (in England), then they can claim the right to intervene elsewhere. In claiming to be in charge of everything, they set themselves up for a fall when things go wrong.

I also do not understand the present government's obsession against four day working weeks, or indeed working from home where appropriate. Whatever ones views, surely that should be a matter for employers and employees, and not central government mandate.

 

[py_megapixel]

What is wrong with it is that before the 4 day week was adopted, staff were working 5 days but apparently only managing 4 days worth of work!
Imagine how much more could have been achieved if they worked as hard on those 5 days as they now do on 4.

Alternatively, one could say that there was 4 days worth of work that they could manage within a week, and this was being unnecessarily and inefficiently spread out over 5!

 

[SuspectUsual]

What is wrong with it is that before the 4 day week was adopted, staff were working 5 days but apparently only managing 4 days worth of work!
Imagine how much more could have been achieved if they worked as hard on those 5 days as they now do on 4.

Do we actually know how long they’re working on each of the 4 days, and how many hours they were doing previously on 5?

I’d love to do 4 x 10 hour days rather than 5 x 8

 

[MikeWM]

Alternatively, one could say that there was 4 days worth of work that they could manage within a week, and this was being unnecessarily and inefficiently spread out over 5!

If that were the case, surely the correct solution is to have fewer staff and hence lower Council Tax bills for the taxpayer? I can't imagine anyone likes paying inflated Council Tax bills to cover staff inefficiency.

I also don't really see that the results of the 'trial' tell us much at all. Human nature would dictate that most staff would put in more effort at the very start of such a change in working conditions to show that the change is good and they can achieve as much in 4 days as previously in 5. Whether that is still the case in 2-3 years time is surely more indicative.

 

[JamesT]

Do we actually know how long they’re working on each of the 4 days, and how many hours they were doing previously on 5?

I’d love to do 4 x 10 hour days rather than 5 x 8

The usual meaning of this kind of 4-day week is it would be 4x7.5/8. 4x10 is usually described as a compressed working week as you’re still doing a “full” week’s hours.

 

[Starmill]

One thing that's interesting about this to me is that in many large organisations, you already have many staff who've individually negotiated 4/5 pay for 4/5 of standard weekly hours. Pretty common in professional roles for people to ask to agree that change of hours for example when they become a parent or when they get to around a decade before their planned retirement date. Others might take it to increase their downtime from work as their career becomes more tiring on their body, get support for their mental health, or to support their return from work after a longer period of illness and a phased return which builds up to this level. Others are in the fortunate position where they can afford that and they just want more free time. Ultimately the reason isn't important it's just that it's already a fairly common minority thing to work four day weeks.

Now, just think if you were one of those people, would you get more work done if you received a 25% gross pay increase? Or would you only get the same amount done? Food for thought.

 

[Gloster]

We seem to be stuck in the belief that forty hours is the right length for a working week. Maybe we have been doing it wrong all the time and a shorter working week produces a better use of the hours worked. Whether the better productivity, combined with any other gains, such as fewer vacancies and less agency work, will produce a better result remains to be seen. But the question should and has been asked, and so the experiment should be seen through.

I am afraid that one or two of the posts on this thread are not far short of the comments to be found on local media’s websites. A belief that local government employees should work themselves to death every hour of every day because it is MY COUNCIL TAX that pays them (and I tend to resent them getting anything above minimum wage, if that). N.b. Not my personal opinion.

 

[THC]

What is wrong with it is that before the 4 day week was adopted, staff were working 5 days but apparently only managing 4 days worth of work!
Imagine how much more could have been achieved if they worked as hard on those 5 days as they now do on 4.

I don't know whether you're at the wind-up here or just simply unable to grasp the complexity of the topic at hand. I'll presume the latter, so allow me to shine some more light for you.

As I understand it, the SCDC experiment involved moving from a seven-hour/five day core hours arrangement to an eight-hour/four day arrangement, in other words a reduction in core hours from 35 to 32. What it didn't mean was a reduction in workload, as the performance analysis I referred to above showed that service standards at SCDC were being maintained (disclaimer: I have over twenty years experience in local authority performance management, so have a pretty good idea of what I'm looking for). What it did mean was that SCDC officers were given a greater flexibility to arrange their working weeks to suit their circumstances, a key factor in maintaining loyalty and wellbeing and in reducing staff churn.

You seem to see productivity as simply a function of time spent, as if the jobs in scope are volume-based, transactional and repetitive, whereas @Magdalia and I have tried to illustrate to you why this is an erroneous assumption. As the head of a complex group of services in a local authority setting, I can assure you that introducing flexible working arrangements for my teams has seen an uplift in output, a reduction in sick leave and a general increase in wellbeing and staff satisfaction right across the board. Who knew that having more tailored and less one-size-fits-all approaches to work would yield these gains? Not the Minister and nor your good self it would seem.

THC

 

[Magdalia]

Imagine how much more could have been achieved if they worked as hard on those 5 days as they now do on 4.

We don't need to imagine, we know. The evidence is in the 4 day week report.

In particular, that would lead to increased burn out, anxiety and stress, more sick absence and more resignations, and no significant increase in output as a result.

We seem to be stuck in the belief that forty hours is the right length for a working week. Maybe we have been doing it wrong all the time and a shorter working week produces a better use of the hours worked. Whether the better productivity, combined with any other gains, such as fewer vacancies and less agency work, will produce a better result remains to be seen. But the question should and has been asked, and so the experiment should be seen through.

This is an important point though I would put it differently. I'm not convinced that we have been doing it wrong all the time, but I was fortunate to escape work before the advent of smartphones and social media. I do think that these developments may be contributing to things like increased burn out, anxiety and stress, and that a shorter working week is now needed to mitigate that.

 

[Ianigsy]

I also do not understand the present government's obsession against four day working weeks, or indeed working from home where appropriate. Whatever ones views, surely that should be a matter for employers and employees, and not central government mandate.

It does rather contradict the Chancellor’s stated aim of getting older workers back into the workforce. A four day week could be particularly attractive to somebody winding down to retirement. There also seem to be a number of studies showing that meeting discipline is a bigger threat to productivity- if you take an hour rather than 30 minutes to make a decision, that decision is rarely twice as good for the amount of additional time taken. But let him who has never clockwatched on a Friday afternoon cast the first stone!

I work in a team which was given a certain amount of freedom to set its own working hours, and one result of this was that we decided that we would work 8-4 rather than 9-5. Our post has all been collected by 2.30 and as our files are in offsite storage, there’s very little we can do after 3 when the financial system starts to go into end-of-day mode. On the other side of things, when the company was previously owned by Australians, somebody had to start before 7 to hand over certain key systems and somebody else had to do the reverse in the evening.

 

[BrianW]

The results of the recent 4-day week pilot are interesting.

Pilot Results Old | 4 Day Week Foundation

www.4dayweek.co.uk

That all seems fairly positive to me.


If they're achieving 5 days work in 4, and potentially getting more done in that time, and being paid the same, what on earth is wrong with it? The employer isn't losing out and staff are healthier and happier as a result; it's a win-win for everyone. It should be a surprise to nobody that workers who don't feel burned out are better at their jobs, are less likely to quit and less likely to go off sick. It doesn't necessarily mean a 3 day weekend, either; it's perfectly feasible to have that extra day through the week.

I observe that many of the participants were in consultancy/ PR/ creatives etc. One chippy. The report is light/ silent on downsides- there must have been some- not all are continuing. Evidence from schools, hospitals, railways??

We had flexitime in the 1970s- I worked a nine-day fortnight in local government. People work better if trusted without close supervision. Happy workforce is an effective workforce. Life's short. Retrain slave-drivers. Wishing Lee Rowley MP well with the greasey pole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Rowley.