Councils warned against adopting four-day week.

Local authorities across England have received a stern warning from Local Government Secretary Steve Reed, who has explicitly advised against the implementation of four-day working weeks for council staff. In a letter dispatched to all council leaders, Reed underscored the government’s firm stance, suggesting that any council found to be allowing "part-time work for full-time pay without compelling justification" would face severe scrutiny. Such practices, he indicated, would be considered a significant "indicator, among a wide range of factors, of potential failure," a declaration that carries the implicit threat of government intervention.

Reed’s communication, first reported by The Telegraph, leaves no room for ambiguity regarding the Labour government’s policy on this contentious issue. He expressed his hope that his message had been made "unambiguously clear to all councils," signaling a zero-tolerance approach to what he perceives as a misallocation of public funds and a potential compromise of public service standards. This directive comes amidst an ongoing national debate about flexible working patterns and productivity in the public sector, and it marks a clear line drawn by the Labour administration.

The government’s position is further reinforced by a Labour source, who articulated the party’s expectations for local governance. "Voters deserve high standards and hard work from local councils, and seeing council staff working a four-day week just won’t cut it," the source stated. This comment highlights a perceived misalignment between the public’s expectation of efficient, accessible services and the perceived implications of a reduced working week. The source added that councils "should get on with the job and make sure residents get the best service possible five days a week," emphasizing a commitment to traditional service delivery models.

This directive from Steve Reed is not an isolated incident but rather a continuation of his previously expressed "deep disappointment" regarding the first UK council to fully embrace a four-day working week. South Cambridgeshire District Council, led by the Liberal Democrats, became a focal point of this debate when it transitioned to a permanent four-day week in July, following a trial period initiated in 2023. The council’s move was predicated on aspirations to improve staff well-being, reduce recruitment and retention costs, and potentially enhance productivity. However, Reed quickly flagged concerns, citing a reported decline in performance within the council’s housing service. He publicly questioned how the local authority intended to "mitigate" this perceived dip in service quality, setting a precedent for potential intervention if performance issues are linked to the new working model.

The government holds significant powers to intervene in the affairs of any council deemed to be failing in its duties or responsibilities. This power looms large over local authorities considering alternative working patterns, acting as a potent deterrent. The warning from Reed therefore serves as a pre-emptive measure, aiming to prevent councils from adopting policies that the central government believes could lead to service degradation and a misuse of taxpayer money.

The broader political context for this firm stance from a Labour government is noteworthy. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer himself, in the preceding year, had rejected demands from civil servants for a four-day working week. This indicates a consistent position across the Labour government that, while progressive on many fronts, appears cautious about implementing a shorter working week within the public sector, prioritizing service delivery and perceived value for money.

Critics of the four-day week often argue that it would inevitably lead to a reduction in overall productivity and could slow economic growth, particularly in sectors heavily reliant on consistent public service provision. The argument typically centres on the idea that fewer hours worked translates directly to less output, potentially stretching resources and leading to longer waiting times for the public. There are also concerns about the practicalities of maintaining a full range of services, such as bin collections, planning applications, or social care assessments, within a compressed four-day schedule without incurring significant additional costs for increased staffing or overtime. From this perspective, offering "full-time pay for part-time work" is seen as fiscally irresponsible, especially for councils already facing tight budgets and increasing demand for services.

However, proponents of the four-day week present a contrasting view, backed by various trials and studies. They argue that a compressed working week can lead to significant improvements in staff well-being, morale, and engagement, which in turn can boost productivity and reduce absenteeism. A notable trial in the Scottish public sector, conducted earlier in the year, provided compelling evidence to support these claims. The study, coordinated by the Autonomy Institute on behalf of the Scottish government, found encouraging results, including a reported increase in productivity and substantial improvements in staff well-being. According to the Autonomy Institute’s findings, a remarkable 98% of participating staff reported an improvement in their morale and motivation, suggesting that the benefits extend beyond mere time off to a more engaged and satisfied workforce.

Further arguments in favour of the four-day week include its potential to attract and retain talent in a competitive job market, reduce employee burnout, and foster a better work-life balance. For local councils, facing perennial challenges with recruitment and staff turnover in certain departments, a four-day week could be a powerful incentive. It could also lead to environmental benefits, such as reduced commuting and lower carbon footprints. The underlying principle is often that employees, knowing they have a longer weekend, are more focused and efficient during their four working days, leading to a net gain in output despite fewer hours.

The current financial climate for local government further complicates this debate. Many councils are grappling with severe budgetary pressures, increased demand for services, and a shrinking workforce. In this context, some councils might view a four-day week as a potential solution to enhance staff satisfaction and retention without needing to offer substantial pay rises, thereby indirectly managing costs. However, the government’s warning makes it clear that such considerations must be weighed against the explicit expectation of maintaining and improving service delivery, five days a week.

The debate surrounding the four-day week in the public sector is far from over. While the Labour government under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Local Government Secretary Steve Reed has drawn a clear line in the sand for councils, the evidence from trials continues to fuel discussions about the future of work. The government’s firm stance reflects a political imperative to demonstrate fiscal prudence and an unwavering commitment to public service standards. For local councils, the message is unequivocal: innovation in working patterns must not come at the expense of service quality or perceived value for money, under penalty of central government intervention. The coming months will undoubtedly see councils carefully reviewing their employment policies in light of this forceful directive, navigating the complex balance between staff welfare, efficiency, and political expectations.