The four-day week trial, which began this summer, has been hailed by the council as a success, claiming significant savings and improvements in staff retention. However, the government, led by Labour’s Communities Secretary Steve Reed, has voiced concerns about declining performance in key housing-related services.
A Focus on Housing Services
The most vocal criticism of South Cambridgeshire‘s four-day working week has come from Steve Reed, who recently wrote to the council leader, Bridget Smith. In a letter leaked to The Telegraph, Reed expressed “deep disappointment” over the reported decline in performance across key housing services, specifically rent collection, repairs, and re-letting times. According to Reed, an independent report commissioned by the government found that these services had worsened during the trial, with vulnerable residents particularly affected.
“Performance declined in key housing-related services, including rent collection, re-letting times, and tenant satisfaction with repairs,” Reed stated. His letter stressed that if the council was unable to manage housing services effectively, especially as social housing was being built by the government, it would undermine the broader goal of addressing the housing crisis.
While the council’s four-day week arrangement does not affect pay, with employees working 32 hours for the same salary as a traditional 40-hour week, Reed questioned the financial sustainability of the model. He raised concerns that this approach to work could not be reconciled with delivering value for money in the public sector.
Performance and Savings
South Cambridgeshire’s council, however, is standing by its four-day week model, defending its overall success. According to the council leader, Bridget Smith, the policy has resulted in significant savings, including a net £399,000 annual saving due to reduced reliance on agency staff. In addition to these financial benefits, the council claims that its performance has remained strong, with most services maintaining or improving their standards.
Smith argued that key performance indicators from the trial showed either improvement or consistency, with the exception of three housing-related metrics. These issues, Smith contends, were unrelated to the four-day week and reflected external factors beyond the council’s control. She pointed to the reduction in staff turnover by 41% and a 123% surge in job applications as signs of the scheme’s success. Furthermore, the council’s planning department, which had previously struggled with recruitment, is now fully staffed and has published its most ambitious local plan proposals ever.
“We are extremely disappointed to receive this letter from the minister as we are an exceptionally high-performing council,” Smith told The Telegraph, emphasising that the four-day week has improved employee well-being and the recruitment process.
Despite these arguments, Reed’s criticisms reflect a wider concern within the government about the potential for reduced working hours to undermine public service efficiency. He has made it clear that the government intends to monitor these trials closely and expects local authorities to ensure that public services are not compromised in the name of innovation.
Flexibility vs. Productivity
The ongoing debate surrounding South Cambridgeshire’s four-day working week trial raises fundamental questions about work-life balance, productivity, and the role of local government. Supporters of the policy, including campaigners from the 4 Day Week Foundation, argue that a shorter working week is not only feasible but beneficial for both employees and employers. Research from private sector companies that have embraced the four-day model shows that it can lead to increased job satisfaction, reduced burnout, and enhanced productivity.
However, critics, particularly from within the public sector, worry about the potential for service degradation when reduced working hours are implemented. As South Cambridgeshire’s experience demonstrates, while certain benefits are clear, challenges remain, particularly in high-demand services like housing.
