"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Yep but if productivity is the same as before and customer satisfaction is equal or better what exactly is the problem?
And from what I've read both of the above seem to be true - and other places have shown similar results..
The only way productivity can remain the same though is if they were wasting 20% of their working time doing stuff other than what they were being paid too.
Example Someone working on a council tax enquiry line, lets say each enquiry takes 10 minutes on average to resolve. Now there is no way you can make that faster. So under a 5 day week they would have done 40 * 6 = 240 calls. On a 4 day week they can do a maximum of 32*6 calls for 192.
Now if after each call they were spending a few minutes gassing with colleagues and now they don't and just do them back to back yes productivity can remain the same. However the answer is not reduce the working days but reduce the skiving off.
I went down slough council offices a couple of times when I lived there and you could see it in action. They would call a number, deal with a client then spend a few minutes chatting to the colleague beside them before calling another number. It was bloody infuriating.
A lot of things you cannot do faster so I am sorry no I don't believe productivity is the same just that they were poorly managed. Now in a trial I am sure they will give it their all to show productivity doesn't drop. Who wouldn't to keep a 4 day week....however once the 4 day week is embedded and accepted I fully expect them to return to dallying between tasks.
This is not just a public sector issue you see the same in the private sector, people scrolling on their phones when they are meant to be doing what they are paid for etc or chatting round the coffee machine.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
Australia’s main orientation is (against) China, with US support as a hedge.
Canada is dual facing (Pacific/Atlantic). It’s a much more logical fit.
Anglo-Canada could use Australian/NZ CER (Closer Economic Relationship) as a model. But alongside that, bespoke finance, energy, mineral, and defence agreements. And Britain would commit to sharing its seat on the UN Permanent Council with Canada.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.
Should be remembered that most money for local government does come from central government.
Equally, I think the minister concerned is behaving like a fool. It's worth waiting to get some proper data from an extended trial.
Not that surprising admittedly, given he is a fool, but still depressing.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Yep but if productivity is the same as before and customer satisfaction is equal or better what exactly is the problem?
And from what I've read both of the above seem to be true - and other places have shown similar results..
The only way productivity can remain the same though is if they were wasting 20% of their working time doing stuff other than what they were being paid too.
Example Someone working on a council tax enquiry line, lets say each enquiry takes 10 minutes on average to resolve. Now there is no way you can make that faster. So under a 5 day week they would have done 40 * 6 = 240 calls. On a 4 day week they can do a maximum of 32*6 calls for 192.
Now after each call they were spending a few minutes gassing with colleagues and now they don't and just do them back to back yes productivity can remain the same. However the answer is not reduce the working days but reduce the skiving off.
I went down slough council offices a couple of times when I lived there and you could see it in action. They would call a number, deal with a client then spend a few minutes chatting to the colleague beside them before calling another number. It was bloody infuriating.
A lot of things you cannot do faster so I am sorry no I don't believe productivity is the same just that they were poorly managed. Now in a trial I am sure they will give it their all to show productivity doesn't drop. Who
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
And once again the only way this can be true is if they spend twenty percent of their time on things other than what they are being paid to do. Most tasks are incompressible unless you either change process or technology. I am sure that studies show it because people want the study to show it so stop slacking off. Once they get their 4 day week permanently they will be right back to slacking off.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Yep but if productivity is the same as before and customer satisfaction is equal or better what exactly is the problem?
And from what I've read both of the above seem to be true - and other places have shown similar results..
The only way productivity can remain the same though is if they were wasting 20% of their working time doing stuff other than what they were being paid too.
Example Someone working on a council tax enquiry line, lets say each enquiry takes 10 minutes on average to resolve. Now there is no way you can make that faster. So under a 5 day week they would have done 40 * 6 = 240 calls. On a 4 day week they can do a maximum of 32*6 calls for 192.
Now if after each call they were spending a few minutes gassing with colleagues and now they don't and just do them back to back yes productivity can remain the same. However the answer is not reduce the working days but reduce the skiving off.
I went down slough council offices a couple of times when I lived there and you could see it in action. They would call a number, deal with a client then spend a few minutes chatting to the colleague beside them before calling another number. It was bloody infuriating.
A lot of things you cannot do faster so I am sorry no I don't believe productivity is the same just that they were poorly managed. Now in a trial I am sure they will give it their all to show productivity doesn't drop. Who wouldn't to keep a 4 day week....however once the 4 day week is embedded and accepted I fully expect them to return to dallying between tasks.
This is not just a public sector issue you see the same in the private sector, people scrolling on their phones when they are meant to be doing what they are paid for etc or chatting round the coffee machine.
When did it become okay for people to use their personal phones while doing a job? I'm sure it wasn't allowed in most jobs when phones first became available.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Yep but if productivity is the same as before and customer satisfaction is equal or better what exactly is the problem?
And from what I've read both of the above seem to be true - and other places have shown similar results..
The only way productivity can remain the same though is if they were wasting 20% of their working time doing stuff other than what they were being paid too.
Example Someone working on a council tax enquiry line, lets say each enquiry takes 10 minutes on average to resolve. Now there is no way you can make that faster. So under a 5 day week they would have done 40 * 6 = 240 calls. On a 4 day week they can do a maximum of 32*6 calls for 192.
Now after each call they were spending a few minutes gassing with colleagues and now they don't and just do them back to back yes productivity can remain the same. However the answer is not reduce the working days but reduce the skiving off.
I went down slough council offices a couple of times when I lived there and you could see it in action. They would call a number, deal with a client then spend a few minutes chatting to the colleague beside them before calling another number. It was bloody infuriating.
A lot of things you cannot do faster so I am sorry no I don't believe productivity is the same just that they were poorly managed. Now in a trial I am sure they will give it their all to show productivity doesn't drop. Who
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
And once again the only way this can be true is if they spend twenty percent of their time on things other than what they are being paid to do. Most tasks are incompressible unless you either change process or technology. I am sure that studies show it because people want the study to show it so stop slacking off. Once they get their 4 day week permanently they will be right back to slacking off.
If it makes it easier to recruit permanent trained staff instead of agency hacks who cycle through once a fortnight, it might well increase productivity and cut costs.
Do you not think that might be a laudable ambition?
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Advocates of the idea have claimed that people are more motivated and productive working a four-day week. If they're right then you'd get more output for the same pay, even if people were technically working for fewer hours.
The council in this trial claimed to have saved a lot of money because the offer a four-day week has helped them to recruit permanent staff in place of the expensive agency staff they previously relied upon.
But, obviously, it looks like skiving, so who cares whether it's actually a good idea? Maybe everyone should be forced back to a six day week with no increase in pay?
We should be forced to work eight days a week, with no lunch break, and get up 'alf an hour afore we go to bed, like in good old days.
If the Beatles could manage eight days a week of loving you, anything less is just being a lightweight.
(More seriously- there are now jobs where low thirties hours a week, i.e. four full days, is as much useful work as you can get out of people. Quality productivity falls off a cliff after that. So do you pad things out with waffle so that onlookers think you're doing a full week, or focus on what's useful and then enjoy the rest of your life? Somewhere, there's a (pre-bonkers) Scott Adams piece called "Out At Five" listing the sort of work practices that could be easily binned with no loss. It all echoes the WFH debate. There's a fair question of whether the necessary work is being done as well as before. It seems, in at least some cases, the answer to that is "yes", even if that's not intuitive. But there's also the more misanthropic "I'm paying them, they should visibly be miserable.")
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Yep but if productivity is the same as before and customer satisfaction is equal or better what exactly is the problem?
And from what I've read both of the above seem to be true - and other places have shown similar results..
The only way productivity can remain the same though is if they were wasting 20% of their working time doing stuff other than what they were being paid too.
Example Someone working on a council tax enquiry line, lets say each enquiry takes 10 minutes on average to resolve. Now there is no way you can make that faster. So under a 5 day week they would have done 40 * 6 = 240 calls. On a 4 day week they can do a maximum of 32*6 calls for 192.
Now if after each call they were spending a few minutes gassing with colleagues and now they don't and just do them back to back yes productivity can remain the same. However the answer is not reduce the working days but reduce the skiving off.
I went down slough council offices a couple of times when I lived there and you could see it in action. They would call a number, deal with a client then spend a few minutes chatting to the colleague beside them before calling another number. It was bloody infuriating.
A lot of things you cannot do faster so I am sorry no I don't believe productivity is the same just that they were poorly managed. Now in a trial I am sure they will give it their all to show productivity doesn't drop. Who wouldn't to keep a 4 day week....however once the 4 day week is embedded and accepted I fully expect them to return to dallying between tasks.
This is not just a public sector issue you see the same in the private sector, people scrolling on their phones when they are meant to be doing what they are paid for etc or chatting round the coffee machine.
Productivity = output per hour worked. The evidence from trials shows that productivity would increase, with output staying flat.
You are suggesting cracking down on staff and increasing productivity across a 5 day week. But isn't that what managers try and do all the time?
England *could* do this. Highly unlikely. But that's better than the total oblivion they faced yesterday
And Winviz says...29% chance of England win.
Which is ridiculous. It's more like 10%? But yesterday it was about 2%
Indeed. Look at how many victories there have been chasing this amount. Very very few in history. Granted, England have chased down several large totals in the last year fairly easily, so to give them credit let's say they have a better chance than the historical examples suggest.
But even with that 10% looks as generous as you'd want to get, not 29%, and probably more like 5%.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Yep but if productivity is the same as before and customer satisfaction is equal or better what exactly is the problem?
And from what I've read both of the above seem to be true - and other places have shown similar results..
The only way productivity can remain the same though is if they were wasting 20% of their working time doing stuff other than what they were being paid too.
Example Someone working on a council tax enquiry line, lets say each enquiry takes 10 minutes on average to resolve. Now there is no way you can make that faster. So under a 5 day week they would have done 40 * 6 = 240 calls. On a 4 day week they can do a maximum of 32*6 calls for 192.
Now if after each call they were spending a few minutes gassing with colleagues and now they don't and just do them back to back yes productivity can remain the same. However the answer is not reduce the working days but reduce the skiving off.
I went down slough council offices a couple of times when I lived there and you could see it in action. They would call a number, deal with a client then spend a few minutes chatting to the colleague beside them before calling another number. It was bloody infuriating.
A lot of things you cannot do faster so I am sorry no I don't believe productivity is the same just that they were poorly managed. Now in a trial I am sure they will give it their all to show productivity doesn't drop. Who wouldn't to keep a 4 day week....however once the 4 day week is embedded and accepted I fully expect them to return to dallying between tasks.
This is not just a public sector issue you see the same in the private sector, people scrolling on their phones when they are meant to be doing what they are paid for etc or chatting round the coffee machine.
When did it become okay for people to use their personal phones while doing a job? I'm sure it wasn't allowed in most jobs when phones first became available.
No one cares as long as you get the work done. That lazy guy that only works 2 days a week but just about hits his performance markers? Probably the smartest in the office.
My local bike mechanic complains about his staff all time. I contend that he is the biggest blocker on productivity in his shop - why would you work hard for that arsehole?
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Of course, and that's a perfectly reasonable objection.
But taking a slightly longer term view, wouldn't it be nice to see if a council can provide all its services on a four day week?
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
Good point. I thought compressed hours was an entirely different idea. I work 4.5 days a week, 37.5 hours.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Precisely my point you are being paid to work not to post on PB. You are slacking off. Cut the slacking off while working 5 days a week and you would get more work done in 5 days than 4.
Because you and I both know that after a year or so of working 4 days a week that the old habits would creep back and you would soon be slacking off just as much in those 4 days.
Now I do not personally agree with working hours per se so don't get me wrong. I think we would all be better off if management were to say "These are your tasks for the week, once you have done them you don't need to be here". That would encourage people to work efficiently and not slack off. Some might finish the tasks in 3 days, some in 4, some in 5. But that is a better way to go about it.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Advocates of the idea have claimed that people are more motivated and productive working a four-day week. If they're right then you'd get more output for the same pay, even if people were technically working for fewer hours.
The council in this trial claimed to have saved a lot of money because the offer a four-day week has helped them to recruit permanent staff in place of the expensive agency staff they previously relied upon.
But, obviously, it looks like skiving, so who cares whether it's actually a good idea? Maybe everyone should be forced back to a six day week with no increase in pay?
What's wrong with 7 12 hour days? Just so folk don't think you're lazy?
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
Good point. I thought compressed hours was an entirely different idea. I work 4.5 days a week, 37.5 hours.
Thanks - that clarifies it in that case. But the effect *looks* much the same, in terms of faces in the office or at the end of the phone on any one day.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Advocates of the idea have claimed that people are more motivated and productive working a four-day week. If they're right then you'd get more output for the same pay, even if people were technically working for fewer hours.
The council in this trial claimed to have saved a lot of money because the offer a four-day week has helped them to recruit permanent staff in place of the expensive agency staff they previously relied upon.
But, obviously, it looks like skiving, so who cares whether it's actually a good idea? Maybe everyone should be forced back to a six day week with no increase in pay?
What's wrong with 7 12 hour days? Just so folk don't think you're lazy?
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
Australia’s main orientation is (against) China, with US support as a hedge.
Canada is dual facing (Pacific/Atlantic). It’s a much more logical fit.
Anglo-Canada could use Australian/NZ CER (Closer Economic Relationship) as a model. But alongside that, bespoke finance, energy, mineral, and defence agreements. And Britain would commit to sharing its seat on the UN Permanent Council with Canada.
All we need is a multiple voting system and a Governor General for the UK and we are "In the Wet".
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Advocates of the idea have claimed that people are more motivated and productive working a four-day week. If they're right then you'd get more output for the same pay, even if people were technically working for fewer hours.
The council in this trial claimed to have saved a lot of money because the offer a four-day week has helped them to recruit permanent staff in place of the expensive agency staff they previously relied upon.
But, obviously, it looks like skiving, so who cares whether it's actually a good idea? Maybe everyone should be forced back to a six day week with no increase in pay?
What's wrong with 7 12 hour days? Just so folk don't think you're lazy?
I'm not a fan of compressed working because in my experience the law of sod kicks in and something major comes up on the day off.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
Indeed. It's an important distinction.
I (by choice) compress my 5 day working week into 4 longer days, so even if there's no benefit to me having that extra rest day I should still be net the same in productivity. Previously I did a 4 day week where I voluntarily sacrificed 20% of salary, so the 20% reduction in productivity was "fair" in that sense.
It is a bit more of a stretch to say "I'll have the same money for 20% less work", in my mind.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
Australia’s main orientation is (against) China, with US support as a hedge.
Canada is dual facing (Pacific/Atlantic). It’s a much more logical fit.
Anglo-Canada could use Australian/NZ CER (Closer Economic Relationship) as a model. But alongside that, bespoke finance, energy, mineral, and defence agreements. And Britain would commit to sharing its seat on the UN Permanent Council with Canada.
All we need is a multiple voting system and a Governor General for the UK and we are "In the Wet".
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
Advocates of the idea have claimed that people are more motivated and productive working a four-day week. If they're right then you'd get more output for the same pay, even if people were technically working for fewer hours.
The council in this trial claimed to have saved a lot of money because the offer a four-day week has helped them to recruit permanent staff in place of the expensive agency staff they previously relied upon.
But, obviously, it looks like skiving, so who cares whether it's actually a good idea? Maybe everyone should be forced back to a six day week with no increase in pay?
We should be forced to work eight days a week, with no lunch break, and get up 'alf an hour afore we go to bed, like in good old days.
You got to sleep? {pyrbars open a double box of Chateaux De Chassaliers}
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
Twitter seems to have fallen over. For me, at least.
Me too. Hope it is a reset to let us see tweets again without logging on.
New Musk wheeze apparently. You have to be logged on in order to see Tweets.
It;s clever and sensible. In fact it's amazing Twiter haven't done this before
It’s bloody stupid. Musk appears to want to become another Facebook, but without either the market position or the cash flow. He’s steadily eroding what makes Twitter useful or distinctive.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
Ah, thanks. Now I'm as confused as everyone else, though in reality this is prtetty conclusive.
The argument against, for public-facing roles at least, is that the shifts are primarily designed for the staff rather than the customers - there are fewer staff available for the peak hours of demand, and overall service levels suffer as a result.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
Indeed. It's an important distinction.
I (by choice) compress my 5 day working week into 4 longer days, so even if there's no benefit to me having that extra rest day I should still be net the same in productivity. Previously I did a 4 day week where I voluntarily sacrificed 20% of salary, so the 20% reduction in productivity was "fair" in that sense.
It is a bit more of a stretch to say "I'll have the same money for 20% less work", in my mind.
I'm sure elements in the media love confusing the former with the latter.
(It might also be observed that there are only eight tea/coffee breaks in the working week, now ...).
It's also very handy for some jobs whjich need long sessions - for instance in my operation, the lab folk found it easier to complete a long complex manipulation in the lab without the janitor turning up as they were getting near the end.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
Ah, thanks. Now I'm as confused as everyone else, though in reality this is prtetty conclusive.
The argument against, for public-facing roles at least, is that the shifts are primarily designed for the staff rather than the customers - there are fewer staff available for the peak hours of demand, and overall service levels suffer as a result.
That's not actually true.
For example most of the public work during normal office hours, the council staff are now working until 7pm for example, adding two hours extra for the public to contact them.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
That's Cambridgeshire County, and looks like standard flexible working.
The South Cambs District trial is different; A four-day week is when people deliver 100% of their work in 80% of their contracted hours for 100% of their pay. We think a four-day week will help us attract and keep talented colleagues. Not being able to fill vacant posts – or switching between agency staff to cover them – is both costly and disruptive to services for residents. For example, when case officers change during the process of a planning application, it can cause delays and frustration because a lot of context and institutional memory is lost. The trial is also about testing whether we can improve the health and wellbeing of colleagues.
Four-day weeks require everyone to become more productive – so that we can do all our work in 80% of our contracted hours. It’s not about doing less work. It’s about working smarter and being more productive while we’re at work, with the benefit of having extra time off. It’s a ‘reciprocal deal’ between the Council and colleagues.
As things stand, it's a trial. It might not work out, in which case we will know. But the early signs are that something interesting is coming out of these trials. (And to recap, I don't think cutting the 20% waffle and replacing it with another 20% top efficiency work would work. If I teach 5 lessons out of 5 in a day, rather than 4, one of them will be noticeably worse. Our brains aren't really evolved to work like that, and a lot more of us do brain work than in previous decades. The drugery of doing calculations by hand must have been dull, but it also gave padding between bursts of genuine creativity. Computers have rather overshot in getting rid of all the drugery. A bit like Mrs Doyle and the Teamaster.)
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
Ah, thanks. Now I'm as confused as everyone else, though in reality this is prtetty conclusive.
The argument against, for public-facing roles at least, is that the shifts are primarily designed for the staff rather than the customers - there are fewer staff available for the peak hours of demand, and overall service levels suffer as a result.
Depends on the job, obviously. If there are long periods of access then some sort of split of staff cover is inevitable, anyway.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.
Should be remembered that most money for local government does come from central government.
Equally, I think the minister concerned is behaving like a fool. It's worth waiting to get some proper data from an extended trial.
Not that surprising admittedly, given he is a fool, but still depressing.
Is that true ? (Not his being a fool.) https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england … In 2019/20, local authorities in England received 23% of their funding from government grants, 50% from council tax, and 27% from retained business rates – revenue from business rates that they do not send to the Treasury. Unlike central government, local authorities cannot borrow to finance day-to-day spending, and so they must either run balanced budgets or draw down reserves – money built up by underspending in earlier years – to ensure that their annual spending does not exceed their annual revenue. But reserves can only be used once. Once reserves are spent, they cannot be spent again. Local government in England has very limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2014, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Twelve percent of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 17% collected locally or federally in Italy, 30% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada...
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
Ah, thanks. Now I'm as confused as everyone else, though in reality this is prtetty conclusive.
The argument against, for public-facing roles at least, is that the shifts are primarily designed for the staff rather than the customers - there are fewer staff available for the peak hours of demand, and overall service levels suffer as a result.
That's not actually true.
For example most of the public work during normal office hours, the council staff are now working until 7pm for example, adding two hours extra for the public to contact them.
Yes, but the public don’t call at 7pm, they call at 9am, and there’s only 4/5 of the staff there at 9am on the average day.
They’re asking the customer to change their behaviour, to match the shift patterns of the staff. In the private sector, you’ll likely find the opposite is the case.
With the Bank Holidays and strike days, we had a spell of 4 consecutive 4 day weeks at school. My anecdotal experience was that the levels of behaviour and achievement soared. The kids were rested and ready to learn. The staff unstressed. Which led to a virtuous spiral. Absolutely no chance we'd get the chance of an experiment, mind.
Working hours anecdata: I used to work in a unit with a 4-day, 40 hour week. Everyone loved it and did not want to transfer out. But here's the odd thing, no-one who did transfer to a normal work week ever asked to go back to four days.
Also, btw, when totting up hours worked, remember to account for fewer tea-breaks and lunch hours in a 4-day week.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.
Should be remembered that most money for local government does come from central government.
Equally, I think the minister concerned is behaving like a fool. It's worth waiting to get some proper data from an extended trial.
Not that surprising admittedly, given he is a fool, but still depressing.
Is that true ? (Not his being a fool.) https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england … In 2019/20, local authorities in England received 23% of their funding from government grants, 50% from council tax, and 27% from retained business rates – revenue from business rates that they do not send to the Treasury. Unlike central government, local authorities cannot borrow to finance day-to-day spending, and so they must either run balanced budgets or draw down reserves – money built up by underspending in earlier years – to ensure that their annual spending does not exceed their annual revenue. But reserves can only be used once. Once reserves are spent, they cannot be spent again. Local government in England has very limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2014, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Twelve percent of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 17% collected locally or federally in Italy, 30% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada...
Apparently not. My information was clearly out of date.
In which case, he's an even bigger fool than I thought which is some achievement.
Working hours anecdata: I used to work in a unit with a 4-day, 40 hour week. Everyone loved it and did not want to transfer out. But here's the odd thing, no-one who did transfer to a normal work week ever asked to go back to four days.
Also, btw, when totting up hours worked, remember to account for fewer tea-breaks and lunch hours in a 4-day week.
Yes, re the latter. But the lunch break will not be counted in the working hours anyway.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Precisely my point you are being paid to work not to post on PB. You are slacking off. Cut the slacking off while working 5 days a week and you would get more work done in 5 days than 4.
Because you and I both know that after a year or so of working 4 days a week that the old habits would creep back and you would soon be slacking off just as much in those 4 days.
Now I do not personally agree with working hours per se so don
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
quote "A four-day week is when people deliver 100% of their work in 80% of their contracted hours for 100% of their pay."
Does that sound like compressed hours to you because it sure doesnt to me.
If they can do the same work in 30 hours as 37.5 hours the question we should be asking is why haven't they been doing more. They took on a job and knew it was 37.5 hours and agreed the pay.....if they could do the job more efficiently why weren't they already doing it and delivering more.
Also, it is not surprising productivity has risen with the new hours. It might just be the Hawthorne Effect, which is that any change increases productivity, at least in the short term. It is the occupational psychologist's equivalent of the placebo effect.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.
Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.
This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.
In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...
Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.
Ah, thanks. Now I'm as confused as everyone else, though in reality this is prtetty conclusive.
The argument against, for public-facing roles at least, is that the shifts are primarily designed for the staff rather than the customers - there are fewer staff available for the peak hours of demand, and overall service levels suffer as a result.
That's not actually true.
For example most of the public work during normal office hours, the council staff are now working until 7pm for example, adding two hours extra for the public to contact them.
Yes, but the public don’t call at 7pm, they call at 9am, and there’s only 4/5 of the staff there at 9am on the average day.
They’re asking the customer to change their behaviour, to match the shift patterns of the staff. In the private sector, you’ll likely find the opposite is the case.
I'm a member of the public. I'm unable to call between the hours of 8:30 and 4:30 because I'm at work, and having a phone switched on, let alone making a call, is a disciplinary offence. The public call at 9 because they aren't generally open to call at 7pm.
Working hours anecdata: I used to work in a unit with a 4-day, 40 hour week. Everyone loved it and did not want to transfer out. But here's the odd thing, no-one who did transfer to a normal work week ever asked to go back to four days.
Also, btw, when totting up hours worked, remember to account for fewer tea-breaks and lunch hours in a 4-day week.
It's about synchronising everything with your family. If one of you works 4 days a week and the other 5 days a week.
One of the my biggest relationship challenges early in my career was one of us had holiday year end in December and the other in March.
Trying to align those was fun. particularly when one of the holiday policies was use or lose it.
With the Bank Holidays and strike days, we had a spell of 4 consecutive 4 day weeks at school. My anecdotal experience was that the levels of behaviour and achievement soared. The kids were rested and ready to learn. The staff unstressed. Which led to a virtuous spiral. Absolutely no chance we'd get the chance of an experiment, mind.
Anecdotally most private schools are ditching Saturday lessons. They weren't popular with the children and made it difficult to retain staff.
So many of them work in effect four and half days (as one afternoon is just games). And on average they are in for about 10% fewer days.
But - they do also tend to have longer days. 8.30 until 4 is usual and 5 or even 6 is not unusual.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.
Should be remembered that most money for local government does come from central government.
Equally, I think the minister concerned is behaving like a fool. It's worth waiting to get some proper data from an extended trial.
Not that surprising admittedly, given he is a fool, but still depressing.
Is that true ? (Not his being a fool.) https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england … In 2019/20, local authorities in England received 23% of their funding from government grants, 50% from council tax, and 27% from retained business rates – revenue from business rates that they do not send to the Treasury. Unlike central government, local authorities cannot borrow to finance day-to-day spending, and so they must either run balanced budgets or draw down reserves – money built up by underspending in earlier years – to ensure that their annual spending does not exceed their annual revenue. But reserves can only be used once. Once reserves are spent, they cannot be spent again. Local government in England has very limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2014, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Twelve percent of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 17% collected locally or federally in Italy, 30% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada...
Apparently not. My information was clearly out of date.
In which case, he's an even bigger fool than I thought which is some achievement.
Don't forget about "service income", stuff like swimming pool and social care fees, which show up in the spending stats as they are reported on a net basis. This is a huge source of income for local government.
With the Bank Holidays and strike days, we had a spell of 4 consecutive 4 day weeks at school. My anecdotal experience was that the levels of behaviour and achievement soared. The kids were rested and ready to learn. The staff unstressed. Which led to a virtuous spiral. Absolutely no chance we'd get the chance of an experiment, mind.
As a counter, we had five and a half days a week (including Saturday mornings), finishing Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 6pm, with compulsory study from 7-9 every evening apart from Sunday and behaviour wasn’t an issue and we were rested and ready to learn. Maybe it’s not about the time spent at school?
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.
Should be remembered that most money for local government does come from central government.
Equally, I think the minister concerned is behaving like a fool. It's worth waiting to get some proper data from an extended trial.
Not that surprising admittedly, given he is a fool, but still depressing.
Is that true ? (Not his being a fool.) https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england … In 2019/20, local authorities in England received 23% of their funding from government grants, 50% from council tax, and 27% from retained business rates – revenue from business rates that they do not send to the Treasury. Unlike central government, local authorities cannot borrow to finance day-to-day spending, and so they must either run balanced budgets or draw down reserves – money built up by underspending in earlier years – to ensure that their annual spending does not exceed their annual revenue. But reserves can only be used once. Once reserves are spent, they cannot be spent again. Local government in England has very limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2014, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Twelve percent of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 17% collected locally or federally in Italy, 30% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada...
Apparently not. My information was clearly out of date.
In which case, he's an even bigger fool than I thought which is some achievement.
Just thinking that this discussion reminds me of the arguments about letting the proles have two weeks holiday each year, then Saturday afternoon off, then the whole of Saturday ...
(I always thought it was really shitty of the upper and middle classes to make the proles work 6 days a week and then shut everything down, like the parks, railways, art galleries, etc. so they couldn't do anything nice on a Sunday once they'd been to church or chapel. There is some really good reading on Victorian sabbatarianism and anti-sabbatarianism. There's a bit of that sentiment still in some folk, I suspect.)
With the Bank Holidays and strike days, we had a spell of 4 consecutive 4 day weeks at school. My anecdotal experience was that the levels of behaviour and achievement soared. The kids were rested and ready to learn. The staff unstressed. Which led to a virtuous spiral. Absolutely no chance we'd get the chance of an experiment, mind.
As a counter, we had five and a half days a week (including Saturday mornings), finishing Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 6pm, with compulsory study from 7-9 every evening apart from Sunday and behaviour wasn’t an issue and we were rested and ready to learn. Maybe it’s not about the time spent at school?
In August 2018, the Conservative Party of Canada voted almost unanimously to incorporate the organization's proposals as party policy following its annual convention, held in Halifax.
(In reference to the CANZUK lobby group, based in Vancouver).
Britain with prairies, and a Pacific shore. What’s not to like?
With the Bank Holidays and strike days, we had a spell of 4 consecutive 4 day weeks at school. My anecdotal experience was that the levels of behaviour and achievement soared. The kids were rested and ready to learn. The staff unstressed. Which led to a virtuous spiral. Absolutely no chance we'd get the chance of an experiment, mind.
As a counter, we had five and a half days a week (including Saturday mornings), finishing Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 6pm, with compulsory study from 7-9 every evening apart from Sunday and behaviour wasn’t an issue and we were rested and ready to learn. Maybe it’s not about the time spent at school?
I assume that's at boarding school?
Two points:
(a) those afternoon hours included games in the early or late afternoon, depending on season, surely (b) if boarding school, then there was zero hassle and time spent travelling to/from school
In August 2018, the Conservative Party of Canada voted almost unanimously to incorporate the organization's proposals as party policy following its annual convention, held in Halifax.
(In reference to the CANZUK lobby group, based in Vancouver).
Britain with prairies, and a Pacific shore. What’s not to like?
We could agitate to get Washington, Oregon and California to join and cut the mainland US off from the Pacific.
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.
Should be remembered that most money for local government does come from central government.
Equally, I think the minister concerned is behaving like a fool. It's worth waiting to get some proper data from an extended trial.
Not that surprising admittedly, given he is a fool, but still depressing.
Is that true ? (Not his being a fool.) https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england … In 2019/20, local authorities in England received 23% of their funding from government grants, 50% from council tax, and 27% from retained business rates – revenue from business rates that they do not send to the Treasury. Unlike central government, local authorities cannot borrow to finance day-to-day spending, and so they must either run balanced budgets or draw down reserves – money built up by underspending in earlier years – to ensure that their annual spending does not exceed their annual revenue. But reserves can only be used once. Once reserves are spent, they cannot be spent again. Local government in England has very limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2014, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Twelve percent of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 17% collected locally or federally in Italy, 30% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada...
Apparently not. My information was clearly out of date.
In which case, he's an even bigger fool than I thought which is some achievement.
Don't forget about "service income", stuff like swimming pool and social care fees, which show up in the spending stats as they are reported on a net basis. This is a huge source of income for local government.
It should be noted that the rates system, since 1984, is entirely controlled by central government: even if the money is generated locally, Westminster controls the level of rates, and the flow of funds.
Also, of course, there was a big reduction in central government funding in the last decade, as most schools funding stopped being routed through local authorities - that was also effectively a centralising decision.
In August 2018, the Conservative Party of Canada voted almost unanimously to incorporate the organization's proposals as party policy following its annual convention, held in Halifax.
(In reference to the CANZUK lobby group, based in Vancouver).
Britain with prairies, and a Pacific shore. What’s not to like?
We could agitate to get Washington, Oregon and California to join and cut the mainland US off from the Pacific.
That dream died in the 1840s. One of the many paths-not-taken.
This is going well. That was unlucky. It is a good job that England bat deep. We'll get them when we field It looks like its going to rain, that will save us Well 2-0 is recoverable <<<<< We've lost but we've got two tests to avoid the whitewash It'll be a different story in Australia
Ran into Boris at the Brightwell village fete today, walking his dog and kids, and we had an amicable chat - I was midly impressed that, unprompted, he remembered my interest in animal welfare and said it was a shame about the collapse of the bsan on live exports. I last saw him 13 years ago, though we spoke briefly on the issue during the Brexit referendum. The ability to remember who people who you once knew slightly are and what they're involved in is something that many leading politicians have and I totally lack.
Working hours anecdata: I used to work in a unit with a 4-day, 40 hour week. Everyone loved it and did not want to transfer out. But here's the odd thing, no-one who did transfer to a normal work week ever asked to go back to four days.
Also, btw, when totting up hours worked, remember to account for fewer tea-breaks and lunch hours in a 4-day week.
It's about synchronising everything with your family. If one of you works 4 days a week and the other 5 days a week.
One of the my biggest relationship challenges early in my career was one of us had holiday year end in December and the other in March.
Trying to align those was fun. particularly when one of the holiday policies was use or lose it.
Mrs C and I had the latter too, all our working lives. Not missed at all, now. (But that wasn't, of course, dependent on the days per week thing.)
In August 2018, the Conservative Party of Canada voted almost unanimously to incorporate the organization's proposals as party policy following its annual convention, held in Halifax.
(In reference to the CANZUK lobby group, based in Vancouver).
Britain with prairies, and a Pacific shore. What’s not to like?
We could agitate to get Washington, Oregon and California to join and cut the mainland US off from the Pacific.
We want Hawaii.
Their flag is proof they want to be a part of the UK.
With the Bank Holidays and strike days, we had a spell of 4 consecutive 4 day weeks at school. My anecdotal experience was that the levels of behaviour and achievement soared. The kids were rested and ready to learn. The staff unstressed. Which led to a virtuous spiral. Absolutely no chance we'd get the chance of an experiment, mind.
As a counter, we had five and a half days a week (including Saturday mornings), finishing Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 6pm, with compulsory study from 7-9 every evening apart from Sunday and behaviour wasn’t an issue and we were rested and ready to learn. Maybe it’s not about the time spent at school?
I assume that's at boarding school?
Yes, but you mentioned an experiment and surely there is an experiment already going on where there are students spending long hours “in school” compared to the accepted timetable in State Schools where you can compare hours spent in schools against other metrics.
As I know absolutely nothing about being a teacher I can’t hope to know your experience but I’ve always wondered why the school day isn’t changed, with any necessary uplift in pay for teachers, to finish after 5pm for 13+ as it would have the benefit of freeing up parents to work a full day rather than having to work part time which would be good for parents, productivity and tax receipts surely.
In last two days, Poland's prime minister has talked about acquiring nuclear weapons, hinted at the need for martial law, and said Poland is under equal threat from Wagner in the east and from German Christian democrats, linked to the Polish democratic opposition, in the west. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1675164589569310720
"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.
Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.
...
"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."
Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."
Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.
I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers
That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.
Should be remembered that most money for local government does come from central government.
Equally, I think the minister concerned is behaving like a fool. It's worth waiting to get some proper data from an extended trial.
Not that surprising admittedly, given he is a fool, but still depressing.
Is that true ? (Not his being a fool.) https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england … In 2019/20, local authorities in England received 23% of their funding from government grants, 50% from council tax, and 27% from retained business rates – revenue from business rates that they do not send to the Treasury. Unlike central government, local authorities cannot borrow to finance day-to-day spending, and so they must either run balanced budgets or draw down reserves – money built up by underspending in earlier years – to ensure that their annual spending does not exceed their annual revenue. But reserves can only be used once. Once reserves are spent, they cannot be spent again. Local government in England has very limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2014, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Twelve percent of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 17% collected locally or federally in Italy, 30% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada...
Apparently not. My information was clearly out of date.
In which case, he's an even bigger fool than I thought which is some achievement.
Just thinking that this discussion reminds me of the arguments about letting the proles have two weeks holiday each year, then Saturday afternoon off, then the whole of Saturday ...
(I always thought it was really shitty of the upper and middle classes to make the proles work 6 days a week and then shut everything down, like the parks, railways, art galleries, etc. so they couldn't do anything nice on a Sunday once they'd been to church or chapel. There is some really good reading on Victorian sabbatarianism and anti-sabbatarianism. There's a bit of that sentiment still in some folk, I suspect.)
Discussions about four versus five day weeks are, in and of themselves, bourgeois, of course. How many people working low wage crap jobs in a whole range of sectors (care homes and shops immediately spring to mind) get all their weekends off? For that matter, how many hard-up workers do more than one job, spread over six or seven days of the week?
With the Bank Holidays and strike days, we had a spell of 4 consecutive 4 day weeks at school. My anecdotal experience was that the levels of behaviour and achievement soared. The kids were rested and ready to learn. The staff unstressed. Which led to a virtuous spiral. Absolutely no chance we'd get the chance of an experiment, mind.
As a counter, we had five and a half days a week (including Saturday mornings), finishing Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 6pm, with compulsory study from 7-9 every evening apart from Sunday and behaviour wasn’t an issue and we were rested and ready to learn. Maybe it’s not about the time spent at school?
I assume that's at boarding school?
Yes, but you mentioned an experiment and surely there is an experiment already going on where there are students spending long hours “in school” compared to the accepted timetable in State Schools where you can compare hours spent in schools against other metrics.
As I know absolutely nothing about being a teacher I can’t hope to know your experience but I’ve always wondered why the school day isn’t changed, with any necessary uplift in pay for teachers, to finish after 5pm for 13+ as it would have the benefit of freeing up parents to work a full day rather than having to work part time which would be good for parents, productivity and tax receipts surely.
But doesn't your suggestion imply 2 hours of sport (or voluntary service or whatever) every afternoon, on the private school model? That would need more playing fields than (so I understand) schools tend to have these days.
In August 2018, the Conservative Party of Canada voted almost unanimously to incorporate the organization's proposals as party policy following its annual convention, held in Halifax.
(In reference to the CANZUK lobby group, based in Vancouver).
Britain with prairies, and a Pacific shore. What’s not to like?
We could agitate to get Washington, Oregon and California to join and cut the mainland US off from the Pacific.
UKers already tried THAT gambit between 1861-65.
Best go back to the drawing board (or is it room?) to dream yet more horseshit.
Comments
Do England dare scrap Bazball in favour of Boycottball, or do they see if they can get halfway to the total tonight?
Plus I generally love Canada, in case anyone hadn't noticed.
Example Someone working on a council tax enquiry line, lets say each enquiry takes 10 minutes on average to resolve. Now there is no way you can make that faster. So under a 5 day week they would have done 40 * 6 = 240 calls. On a 4 day week they can do a maximum of 32*6 calls for 192.
Now if after each call they were spending a few minutes gassing with colleagues and now they don't and just do them back to back yes productivity can remain the same. However the answer is not reduce the working days but reduce the skiving off.
I went down slough council offices a couple of times when I lived there and you could see it in action. They would call a number, deal with a client then spend a few minutes chatting to the colleague beside them before calling another number. It was bloody infuriating.
A lot of things you cannot do faster so I am sorry no I don't believe productivity is the same just that they were poorly managed. Now in a trial I am sure they will give it their all to show productivity doesn't drop. Who wouldn't to keep a 4 day week....however once the 4 day week is embedded and accepted I fully expect them to return to dallying between tasks.
This is not just a public sector issue you see the same in the private sector, people scrolling on their phones when they are meant to be doing what they are paid for etc or chatting round the coffee machine.
Lord's is always a charming place to be
Canada is dual facing (Pacific/Atlantic). It’s a much more logical fit.
Anglo-Canada could use Australian/NZ CER (Closer Economic Relationship) as a model. But alongside that, bespoke finance, energy, mineral, and defence agreements. And Britain would commit to sharing its seat on the UN Permanent Council with Canada.
Equally, I think the minister concerned is behaving like a fool. It's worth waiting to get some proper data from an extended trial.
Not that surprising admittedly, given he is a fool, but still depressing.
Example Someone working on a council tax enquiry line, lets say each enquiry takes 10 minutes on average to resolve. Now there is no way you can make that faster. So under a 5 day week they would have done 40 * 6 = 240 calls. On a 4 day week they can do a maximum of 32*6 calls for 192.
Now after each call they were spending a few minutes gassing with colleagues and now they don't and just do them back to back yes productivity can remain the same. However the answer is not reduce the working days but reduce the skiving off.
I went down slough council offices a couple of times when I lived there and you could see it in action. They would call a number, deal with a client then spend a few minutes chatting to the colleague beside them before calling another number. It was bloody infuriating.
A lot of things you cannot do faster so I am sorry no I don't believe productivity is the same just that they were poorly managed. Now in a trial I am sure they will give it their all to show productivity doesn't drop. Who And once again the only way this can be true is if they spend twenty percent of their time on things other than what they are being paid to do. Most tasks are incompressible unless you either change process or technology. I am sure that studies show it because people want the study to show it so stop slacking off. Once they get their 4 day week permanently they will be right back to slacking off.
Do you not think that might be a laudable ambition?
(More seriously- there are now jobs where low thirties hours a week, i.e. four full days, is as much useful work as you can get out of people. Quality productivity falls off a cliff after that. So do you pad things out with waffle so that onlookers think you're doing a full week, or focus on what's useful and then enjoy the rest of your life? Somewhere, there's a (pre-bonkers) Scott Adams piece called "Out At Five" listing the sort of work practices that could be easily binned with no loss.
It all echoes the WFH debate. There's a fair question of whether the necessary work is being done as well as before. It seems, in at least some cases, the answer to that is "yes", even if that's not intuitive. But there's also the more misanthropic "I'm paying them, they should visibly be miserable.")
You are suggesting cracking down on staff and increasing productivity across a 5 day week. But isn't that what managers try and do all the time?
But even with that 10% looks as generous as you'd want to get, not 29%, and probably more like 5%.
My local bike mechanic complains about his staff all time. I contend that he is the biggest blocker on productivity in his shop - why would you work hard for that arsehole?
But taking a slightly longer term view, wouldn't it be nice to see if a council can provide all its services on a four day week?
That might be all our luck for one innings used up.
(It's not compressed hours: https://www.scambs.gov.uk/your-council-and-democracy/four-day-working-week-trial/)
Because you and I both know that after a year or so of working 4 days a week that the old habits would creep back and you would soon be slacking off just as much in those 4 days.
Now I do not personally agree with working hours per se so don't get me wrong. I think we would all be better off if management were to say "These are your tasks for the week, once you have done them you don't need to be here". That would encourage people to work efficiently and not slack off. Some might finish the tasks in 3 days, some in 4, some in 5. But that is a better way to go about it.
Just so folk don't think you're lazy?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11789/response/29489/attach/4/Flexible Working Policy.pdf
Admittedly, my July is relaxed!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Wet
I don’t disagree about the tendency - shared by the Tories at least since Thatcher - but there is the glimmer of a change of heart.
I (by choice) compress my 5 day working week into 4 longer days, so even if there's no benefit to me having that extra rest day I should still be net the same in productivity. Previously I did a 4 day week where I voluntarily sacrificed 20% of salary, so the 20% reduction in productivity was "fair" in that sense.
It is a bit more of a stretch to say "I'll have the same money for 20% less work", in my mind.
Luuuuuxuuury!
Musk appears to want to become another Facebook, but without either the market position or the cash flow. He’s steadily eroding what makes Twitter useful or distinctive.
Those bunch of lazy parasites are actually telling us they would slack if they were given the opportunity.
(It might also be observed that there are only eight tea/coffee breaks in the working week, now ...).
It's also very handy for some jobs whjich need long sessions - for instance in my operation, the lab folk found it easier to complete a long complex manipulation in the lab without the janitor turning up as they were getting near the end.
Apparently I was optimistic
For example most of the public work during normal office hours, the council staff are now working until 7pm for example, adding two hours extra for the public to contact them.
What a country that would have been, as I've mentioned many times,
The South Cambs District trial is different;
A four-day week is when people deliver 100% of their work in 80% of their contracted hours for 100% of their pay. We think a four-day week will help us attract and keep talented colleagues. Not being able to fill vacant posts – or switching between agency staff to cover them – is both costly and disruptive to services for residents. For example, when case officers change during the process of a planning application, it can cause delays and frustration because a lot of context and institutional memory is lost. The trial is also about testing whether we can improve the health and wellbeing of colleagues.
Four-day weeks require everyone to become more productive – so that we can do all our work in 80% of our contracted hours. It’s not about doing less work. It’s about working smarter and being more productive while we’re at work, with the benefit of having extra time off. It’s a ‘reciprocal deal’ between the Council and colleagues.
https://www.scambs.gov.uk/your-council-and-democracy/four-day-working-week-trial/
As things stand, it's a trial. It might not work out, in which case we will know. But the early signs are that something interesting is coming out of these trials. (And to recap, I don't think cutting the 20% waffle and replacing it with another 20% top efficiency work would work. If I teach 5 lessons out of 5 in a day, rather than 4, one of them will be noticeably worse. Our brains aren't really evolved to work like that, and a lot more of us do brain work than in previous decades. The drugery of doing calculations by hand must have been dull, but it also gave padding between bursts of genuine creativity. Computers have rather overshot in getting rid of all the drugery. A bit like Mrs Doyle and the Teamaster.)
(Not his being a fool.)
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england
… In 2019/20, local authorities in England received 23% of their funding from government grants, 50% from council tax, and 27% from retained business rates – revenue from business rates that they do not send to the Treasury.
Unlike central government, local authorities cannot borrow to finance day-to-day spending, and so they must either run balanced budgets or draw down reserves – money built up by underspending in earlier years – to ensure that their annual spending does not exceed their annual revenue. But reserves can only be used once. Once reserves are spent, they cannot be spent again.
Local government in England has very limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2014, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Twelve percent of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 17% collected locally or federally in Italy, 30% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada...
They’re asking the customer to change their behaviour, to match the shift patterns of the staff. In the private sector, you’ll likely find the opposite is the case.
My anecdotal experience was that the levels of behaviour and achievement soared.
The kids were rested and ready to learn.
The staff unstressed.
Which led to a virtuous spiral.
Absolutely no chance we'd get the chance of an experiment, mind.
Also, btw, when totting up hours worked, remember to account for fewer tea-breaks and lunch hours in a 4-day week.
In which case, he's an even bigger fool than I thought which is some achievement.
Because you and I both know that after a year or so of working 4 days a week that the old habits would creep back and you would soon be slacking off just as much in those 4 days.
Now I do not personally agree with working hours per se so don Well not according to here
https://www.scambs.gov.uk/your-council-and-democracy/four-day-working-week-trial/
quote
"A four-day week is when people deliver 100% of their work in 80% of their contracted hours for 100% of their pay."
Does that sound like compressed hours to you because it sure doesnt to me.
If they can do the same work in 30 hours as 37.5 hours the question we should be asking is why haven't they been doing more. They took on a job and knew it was 37.5 hours and agreed the pay.....if they could do the job more efficiently why weren't they already doing it and delivering more.
The public call at 9 because they aren't generally open to call at 7pm.
One of the my biggest relationship challenges early in my career was one of us had holiday year end in December and the other in March.
Trying to align those was fun. particularly when one of the holiday policies was use or lose it.
So many of them work in effect four and half days (as one afternoon is just games). And on average they are in for about 10% fewer days.
But - they do also tend to have longer days. 8.30 until 4 is usual and 5 or even 6 is not unusual.
@Leon is going to have a short day tomorrow.
(I always thought it was really shitty of the upper and middle classes to make the proles work 6 days a week and then shut everything down, like the parks, railways, art galleries, etc. so they couldn't do anything nice on a Sunday once they'd been to church or chapel. There is some really good reading on Victorian sabbatarianism and anti-sabbatarianism. There's a bit of that sentiment still in some folk, I suspect.)
(In reference to the CANZUK lobby group, based in Vancouver).
Britain with prairies, and a Pacific shore.
What’s not to like?
(a) those afternoon hours included games in the early or late afternoon, depending on season, surely
(b) if boarding school, then there was zero hassle and time spent travelling to/from school
(Fourth, if you count EU as a single economy).
Also, of course, there was a big reduction in central government funding in the last decade, as most schools funding stopped being routed through local authorities - that was also effectively a centralising decision.
In fact, it must do.
One of the many paths-not-taken.
That was unlucky.
It is a good job that England bat deep.
We'll get them when we field
It looks like its going to rain, that will save us
Well 2-0 is recoverable <<<<<
We've lost but we've got two tests to avoid the whitewash
It'll be a different story in Australia
Their flag is proof they want to be a part of the UK.
HAPPY CANADA DAY!
As I know absolutely nothing about being a teacher I can’t hope to know your experience but I’ve always wondered why the school day isn’t changed, with any necessary uplift in pay for teachers, to finish after 5pm for 13+ as it would have the benefit of freeing up parents to work a full day rather than having to work part time which would be good for parents, productivity and tax receipts surely.
In last two days, Poland's prime minister has talked about acquiring nuclear weapons, hinted at the need for martial law, and said Poland is under equal threat from Wagner in the east and from German Christian democrats, linked to the Polish democratic opposition, in the west.
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1675164589569310720
Best go back to the drawing board (or is it room?) to dream yet more horseshit.