Launceston City Council's withdrawal of its four-day, 30.4-hour work week proposal is more than an industrial relations backflip. It is a case study in how public debate can miss the point entirely.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

Login or signup to continue reading

After weeks of heated commentary, the council's chief executive Sam Johnson scrapped the plan citing public backlash and "unacceptable vitriol" directed at staff. Mr Johnson reminded employees they are not "abstract figures in a debate" but residents and ratepayers who "serve this city every day" and deserve respect.

That reminder should not have been necessary.

Critics of the proposal framed it as a threat to service delivery. If staff worked fewer hours, the argument went, residents would get less for their rates. From letters to the editor, the most significant fear appeared to be the closure of customer service counters. On social media, the loudest complaints were that the four-day work week would result in slower response times, diminished access to council services, and the unfairness of council workers getting five days' pay for four days' work. All of these were jumped on by the business lobby and were easy lines to run - and ultimately politically potent ones.

But these complaints misunderstood the proposal's purpose. Perhaps deliberately in the business lobby's case.

The four-day work week was not conceived as a perk in isolation. It was a........

© The Examiner