Pigs will surely sooner fly over Glasgow Pollok than business will take inspiration from Humza Yousaf’s approach to running government. Nonetheless, the claim made by Scotland’s First Minister and his advisers is that moving state employees to a four-day week could be a catalyst for the private sector to follow suit.
In the clearest sign yet that the SNP exists for the welfare of its public sector workers at the expense of the taxpayer, Yousaf has announced a pilot scheme in his programme for government, Holyrood’s version of Westminster’s King’s speech, despite warnings that it could ‘blow a £2.5 billion hole‘ in his budget. The SNP’s day-to-day spending is already on course to exceed their funding by £1 billion in 2024/25, rising to £1.9 billion in 2027/28.
The public sector in Scotland employs 21 per cent of the workforce — level with Wales and higher than any region in England. The majority of its civil servants continue to work from home post-pandemic: fewer than a third of desks are occupied in 16 major office buildings and 10 are under half full. Its public sector output remains 0.4 per cent below pre-Covid levels.
Advocates of a four-day week have been spurred on by the UK-based trial last year, with results reportedly showing a 65 per cent reduction in the number of sick days and a 57 per cent lower chance of people quitting their jobs. Employees reported lower stress and burnout, as well as higher job satisfaction — as though the incentives for them to say different were ever there.
The outcome of the trial should be taken with a pinch of salt. In what is known as the Hawthorne Effect, many new work arrangements lead to a short-term boost to productivity, which then declines as the arrangements become normalised and the novelty wears off. New workers then come in who never experienced the change and whose productivity is not boosted. During the trial, workers on average only reduced hours from 38 to 34. The boost to revenues was overstated by comparing the six-month trial period to that directly after the economy reopened post-lockdown. And the firms involved were in sectors which lend themselves to flexible working (such as marketing).
Many new work arrangements lead to a short-term boost to productivity, which then declines as the arrangements become normalised and the novelty wears off.
The notion that some jobs simply cannot be done in four days with no drop in output has not, however, deterred the Liberal Democrat South Cambridgeshire District Council. It is currently experimenting with a three-day weekend, recently extended to December. Constituents, it was today reported, may find bins filled with decomposing food waste are not collected for ‘the best part of a month’ all to, in the words of the council, ‘improve the health and wellbeing of colleagues’.
The forces pushing for the expansion of workers’ rights are powerful. Unions, the SNP and pressure groups all subscribe to the notion that our benevolent state ought to regulate jobs with the goal of making employees happier and stamping out exploitation. Their argument, they believe, has been bolstered by studies appearing to show that the rights they advocate can lead to greater productivity and creativity.
But labour market regulation comes at a cost: were this not the case, compulsion wouldn’t be needed, as some employers would experiment by offering cost-neutral variations in working arrangements which better suited workers. Many labour market mandates fall most heavily on smaller businesses and those who work in them. 40 per cent of private sector workers are in businesses with fewer than 50 workers, meaning the cost of flexibility for some staff will fall on others who have to cover for them. Will they really follow the SNP’s lead?
Meanwhile, large firms are clamping down on work-from-home: executives at Citi may find bonuses docked if they fail to turn up at least three days a week. At Google, attendance may impact performance reviews. In May, Amazon introduced a policy that made it compulsory for its 300,000 white-collar staff to attend the office three times a week. There can be little denying a post-pandemic correction is well underway.
Anyone in Scotland earning more than £27,850 now pays more income tax than if they were to live south of the border. Those earning a £50,000 salary pay almost £1,500 per year extra. But Yousaf is contemplating a new rate charged on income between £75,000 and £125,140 with the aim of generating an extra £200 million per year. Scottish taxpayers may wonder what they are getting in return for their generosity beyond woke wellbeing schemes for state employees. Under Yousaf’s leadership, Scotland’s economy has shrunk by 0.3 per cent.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with people working flexibly — and for the self-employed, those in the gig economy and some staff, it will work. The likelihood is that the world of work will in future be dominated by a hybrid model. But if the English taxpayer is helping to pay the Scottish civil servant to kick up their heels every Friday, the ‘benefits’ ought to be closely scrutinised.
Comments