'The government should be resolute in
implementing a maximal rather than a minimal
framework for entrenching and extending flexible
working practices.’
This is the ‘core message’ from
a new report by the think-tank Demos on
Reinventing the Workplace.
Over the past decade the government in the UK has
introduced and extended legislation that gives the
right to request flexible working to parents and
carers, plus a range of other measures around
maternity, paternity and carers’ leave.
Now with a move last year from a centre-left to a
centre-right government, many of the issues are
being revisited. The Coalition Manifesto made it
clear that the government intends to widen the right
to request flexible work to all workers [link] – a
move that we have always said was necessary in order
to be fair.
However, during the consultation over the
extension, it appears there is strong lobbying from
industry groups to exempt small business from any
new employment regulations and/or to move away from
a legislative approach to having instead a Code of
Practice to support flexible working. Regulation, so
the argument goes, is the enemy of economic growth -
and growth is of paramount importance so we can claw
our way out of the recession.
The Demos report argues strongly against this
view. It argues on the contrary that a strong
and coherent stance on flexible working is essential
for growth. And it's essential looking beyond
the recession too, to create a healthy business
culture in an age of demographic and technological
change.
New data on flexible working
The report contains some new data on flexible
working from a specially commissioned poll of 500
organisations and over 1500 employees. There’s also
more in-depth qualitative and focus group data from
‘vanguard employers’ John Lewis, BT and Women Like
Us.
According to their poll, at least one form of
flexible working is now offered by 91% of employers,
and 60% of employees take up at least one form on
offer, usually some form of flexitime/variable hours
or part-time working.
83% of requests to work flexibly are approved.
However, the over 55s are the most likely to have
their request turned down.
Echoing other studies, this report found that
large organisations are most likely to have formal
policies on flexibility, but micro-businesses (1-10
employees) are more likely to have a greater
proportion of their workforce actually working
flexibly. Medium-sized businesses (50-249 employees)
are most likely to refuse requests.
Making the political and social case for
flexibility
The report gives some good examples of the
business case for flexible working, citing evidence
of reducing absenteeism, improving recruitment and
increasing productivity.
However, what it focuses on is the political case
for taking a strong line on flexibility:
“The key question is not whether businesses
can afford flexible working arrangements, but
whether in the 21st century countries like
Britain can afford to forego them”
This is an appeal to social necessity rather than
business necessity. There is an appeal to corporate
social responsibility too.
But in the current ‘cold climate’, I wonder just
how persuasive is this appeal to corporate virtue or
enlightened self-interest? The risk here is of
unwittingly reinforcing the idea that flexible
working is, in fact, a cost to be borne for the
wider good of society.
The recommendations
The report makes several recommendations to
'normalise' flexible working, underpinning this with
legislative action, a code of conduct and a system
of accreditation. The recommendations are
aimed squarely at government, rather than employers,
though many of the messages in the report should be
of interest to all organisations.
The recommendations are to:
- extend and normalise flexible working to all
employees by making the right to request
universal, a right enshrined in law
- enhance shared responsibility between
employers and employees through a code of
practice which clearly defines what flexible
working is and the various legitimate reasons
for refusing it
- change the minimum qualifying period and
removing the 12-month cap for reapplications
- give recognition to vanguard employers,
target support to those struggling to implement
flexible working practices and monitor progress
to ‘name and shame’ recalcitrant employers
- make shared parental leave affordable for
both partners and employers through a
contributory ‘carers account’, as happens in
Nordic countries
- extend and formalise carers’ leave
- enable all workers, regardless of status,
role or sector, to take up volunteering - this
links flexible working with the government's
Big
Society* ideas.
So on the issue of legislation or code of conduct, their
verdict is for both.
Flexibility comment
Overall, this is a fascinating and
thought-provoking report, with some interesting new
data. It strongly makes the case for keeping up the
momentum in increasing opportunities to work
flexibly. And we entirely agree about the need to
have 'a maximal rather than a minimal framework for
entrenching and extending flexible working
practices'.
While there is much that is interesting and
valuable in the report, though, one can’t help feeling it
has a somewhat institutional approach to flexible
working. Flexible working here is too strongly tied
into the governments' family-friendly/parental and
carers' leave/employee right-to-request agenda, which
is really only half the story.
And
there’s so much more going on out there in the
developing world of flexible working. And it’s in
the area of leading practice in business – despite
the input of the vanguard employers – that the
report could have done much more. One doesn't
really get the feel of the dynamism and energy that
comes from transforming businesses - and public
sector organisations - with new flexible/agile/smart
ways of working.
There also seems to be an idea in the report that flexible
working is something that can be nailed down and
regulated. The idea of having a code of
conduct that defines all the forms of flexible
working misunderstands the continuous evolution of
flexible working:
'A non-statutory code of practice can help
improve understanding of flexible working,
including by clearly defining different flexible
working arrangements...A code of practice can
help inform employees about what is a reasonable
case for request, the forms of flexible working
that are available and which flexible working
arrangements most suit their need while not
burdening business. It could also help guide
employers to understand when it is most
reasonable to say ‘no’ – more than the eight
reasons currently in the law.'
Who could write such a document, one that would
cover all bases and not be out of date the moment it
was written? Such a mechanistic or bureaucratic approach would not
work, and I'd dread to see anyone try it. Well,
unless they paid me a lot of money to do it ...
And what about the proposed idea of
government-backed accreditation and 'name and shame'
approaches? There are several kinds of awards
and 'marks of excellence' out there already.
I'm not sure a centralised codification of this
would help.
Finally, the focus on extending the right
to request means that there is no critique of its
key failing – that it encourages a reactive and ad
hoc approach to flexibility, rather than a strategic
one. If employers develop flexible working one
request at a time, it will indeed be burdensome and
expensive, possibly also downright chaotic. It's in
developing a strategic approach that employers
probably most need guidance.
* For our non-UK readers - and possibly some of
our UK readers too who are puzzled by the concept -
the 'Big Society' as a concept is meant to contrast
with 'Big Government'. That is, it's not up to
the state to do everything for us, and we need to
get back more to ideas of community self-help,
philanthropy, charitable works and volunteering to
improve the areas we live in.
|
