Flexible working: Should it be extended?

DanMartin · May 15, 2008

The government has today announced consultation on proposals to extend flexible working to parents of children up to age 16. Business secretary John Hutton says the plans would give a "big boost to busy parents" and help employers "who often find they get the best out of mums and dads when they allow them to work flexibly".

But what do you think? Do you think the right to flexible working should be extended or should the regulations remain as they are? Vote in the poll above and post any comments below.

Gord · May 15, 2008

DanMartin said:
help employers "who often find they get the best out of mums and dads when they allow them to work flexibly".

Hey that's great Mr Hutton.
Being a complete idiot , I obviously needed the government to legislate the bleedin' obvious.
Instead of agreeing practical solutions that suit the employer and the employees, I will spend my time reading and understanding the new 'laws' to make sure I am not sued somewhere down the line.

National Office Week · May 15, 2008

Depending on the job itself - I think that everyone should be entitled to some flexiblity with their working hours.

Kim

mattsaw · May 15, 2008

National Office Week said:
Depending on the job itself - I think that everyone should be entitled to some flexiblity with their working hours.

Kim

I would agree with that. With anything like this there has to be a degree of common sense used. Sadly with politics that isnt alwats the case. Obviously if you run a shop thats open 9-5 its no good having some of your staff turn up for work at 7pm. No employer should be forced to have to deal with that.

However in industries that have less time constraints, then Im all for it, not just for parents. I think it improves productivity and reduces absenteeism.

Chippie · May 15, 2008

Our business operates Mon-Fri 8.30-5.30 and Sat 9-1. We are a small company with 7 employees. I need all staff in Mon-Fri and we rotate to cover Sat. There is no way we can be more flexible than "all in" or we wouldn't be able to operate. I make this quite clear to new staff before they start. Take it or leave it.

Hayles · May 15, 2008

Chippie said:
Take it or leave it.

Are you breaking the law now?

Haven't read into it too much as we're pretty flexible with hours due to the nature of our business, but I believe there's a 'get out' clause isn't there?

I voted no BTW

H

Chippie · May 15, 2008

Hayles said:
Are you breaking the law now?

TBH my only concern is to run an efficient and profitable business. If staffing requirements have to be a little inflexible to ensure that then I am prepared to work that way. If I make it clear to my staff that they have to work set hours to fit in with our trading hours and they accept that at the outset then we are all happy. If enforced flexibility leads to non-profitability then ultimately they wouldn't have a job to flexible in! Hence the "take it or leave it"! We are in a service industry after all, so our first responsibility has to be to the people we serve, i.e. our customers, or we may as well call it a day.

Dawg · May 15, 2008

I'm sure I will be corrected but I read that the net effect of this is that employers will have to record/write up conversations about flexible working hours when those conversations have being requested by staff. They don't have to actually do anything about making hours flexible.
If so, it's just another bit of grandstanding tripe from the Care in the Community of Westminster unfortunates, who we care for so lovingly.

KM-Tiger · May 15, 2008

Dawg said:
If so, it's just another bit of grandstanding tripe from the Care in the Community of Westminster unfortunates, who we care for so lovingly.

I think it's more sinister than that. It's Gordon Clown attempting to hand out another "entitlement" with a view to buying some votes somewhere.

But who is funding this entitlement? And is it practical for all small businesses?

Probably not, so actually it will be another nail in the coffin of employment by small businesses, another stumbling block for an already faltering economy to fall over.

Wise employers have never had a problem using flexible hours to get the employees they want. Why do we need interference from Westminster to enshrine this as a misunderstood "right"?

Dawg · May 15, 2008

[qoute]Why do we need interference from Westminster to enshrine this as a misunderstood "right"?[/quote]

We don't. Some people don't realize this. An interesting book on this is "The End of Politics: New Labour and the Folly of Managerialism" by Chris Dillow; not an easy read but very interesting. His blog is excellent.

JohnG · May 15, 2008

If I've understood this correctly (and I might not have as I haven't read the small print yet) employers can refuse such requests if they can demonstrate they are doing so for a good business reason.

Maybe open to interpretation of course....... but that's the way Gordon does things.

Moneyman · May 15, 2008

This is just going to be yet another F#~ing piece of legislation. Which gives work to more civil servants but achieves nothing.

If flexibility is what your workers need and it can be done, most good managers allow it. but it is completely impossible in many cases and it is going to require yet more bleeding forms to apply to get out of it.

How about the rights of business owners to require employees to work in the manner they are contracted to do?

When will this government stop wasting time on headlines. One of these days we ought to all apply to opt out, then opt in and out again on every stupid little rule until the system grinds to a hault.

The current legislation does almost nothing practical for women or various minorities as it tends to make everyone a potential litigant and slightly less atractive as an employee as it presumes they are all going to want to spend time with families etc.

The government cant run anything effectively and they are the last people on the planet who should be allowed to muck about with business.

Cornish Steve · May 15, 2008

I'm totally against legislation and anything to do with government. Why on earth does a simple and obvious thing like this need government bureaucracy? Any reasonable employer is going to accommodate the needs of parents. If an employer is unreasonable, he'll soon find his employees going to work elsewhere. And as others have said, the employer pays the money, the employer has staffing needs, so the employer should determine the hours people are needed.

And please remember that I'm allergic to the word 'entitled'. Yuk, spit, cough.

JohnG · May 15, 2008

goldctrsteve said:
I'm totally against legislation and anything to do with government. Why on earth does a simple and obvious thing like this need government bureaucracy?

It doesn't. It's just that Gordon Brown is a control freak who thinks that tinkering at the edges will help get him out of his current mess. And if he thinks that then he really has lost it.

obscure · May 15, 2008

Every child over the age of five should be required to work as unpaid assistant to their parents. That way their parents won't need to worry about where the kids are or what they are up to and the kids can learn their parents trade ready to take over when their parent dies. Sorted.

Chippie · May 15, 2008

obscure said:
Every child over the age of five should be required to work as unpaid assistant to their parents. That way their parents won't need to worry about where the kids are or what they are up to and the kids can learn their parents trade ready to take over when their parent dies. Sorted.

Well that would spell the end of the world's oldest profession!!

Cornish Steve · May 15, 2008

obscure said:
Every child over the age of five should be required to work as unpaid assistant to their parents. That way their parents won't need to worry about where the kids are or what they are up to and the kids can learn their parents trade ready to take over when their parent dies. Sorted.

Funny you should say that. We home-schooled our first three children from age 11 to 14. Consider my oldest, for example. At the time, I worked in a local office. I took her to the office with me. As well as doing her usual school work, she printed things, sent faxes, ran little errands, and generally learned how the office worked. At home, she helped with the garden and with making meals. I agree that education is more than learning in a classroom.

Mat_D · May 15, 2008

I'm of the opinion that flexible working hours (and, indeed, anything else which increases morale and provides employees with that little bit more freedom and responsibility) are great and should be fully embraced by any business which can.

However, I also believe that people have the right to run their business as they see fit, and no amount of government legislation should force that on them. Also, as others have pointed out, a lot of industries simply cannot offer flexible working hours to their employees.

ixion · May 15, 2008

Mat_D said:
I'm of the opinion that flexible working hours (and, indeed, anything else which increases morale and provides employees with that little bit more freedom and responsibility) are great and should be fully embraced by any business which can.

However, I also believe that people have the right to run their business as they see fit, and no amount of government legislation should force that on them. Also, as others have pointed out, a lot of industries simply cannot offer flexible working hours to their employees.

These are pretty much my feelings on the subject also.

SK Virtual Assistant · May 15, 2008

Mat_D, I agree with both of your statements 100%.

Is this not yet another case of politics forcing itself into places it shouldn't be? It seems to me that we have very little left in our lives (in this country at least) which isn't under some form of "control" by politics. I would have thought discretion and common sense is all that is needed in such cases where an individual needs flexibility in their employment - and if the employer can't offer such flexibility, that individual has every right to find another job which can.

dave_n · May 15, 2008

while i agree with some aspects of this i think we are in danger of alienating people who may be single and chose not to have children....let business manage business and let the labour party make a mess of the country!

AdamJ · May 15, 2008

And at the end of the day it will harm those its intended to help. No employer will ever admit to discrimination, but it takes place all the time and mostly influenced by conferred 'rights' by government. I have a friend who runs a small sales company with six employees. The last time she appointed someone she specifically chose not to appoint a female applicant in her early 30s due to the risk of her disappearing on maternity at some point. Of course some other reason was given for not appointing that person, but the employer's view was that she will have to spend a lot of time and money training the person to a level where they can work on their own and if they then leave it has to be done again with someone else. She wasn't short of decent applicants so why take that risk. This principle can be extended to other touchy-feely nonsense 'rights' such as this now for parents - employers are not social services - people come to work, do their job and go home. It may not fit in with the kid's school holidays but tough, who said life was fair and had to bend to each person's will. If someone wants that level of control in their workplace then they should go self-employed and become their own boss.

Of course some level of protection is needed - on the whole the disability discrimination act was a good thing, but governments love using 'business' to give a percieved 'benefit' while they then claim its all down to them and how much they care.

Hayles · May 15, 2008

AdamJ said:
And at the end of the day it will harm those its intended to help. No employer will ever admit to discrimination, but it takes place all the time and mostly influenced by conferred 'rights' by government. I have a friend who runs a small sales company with six employees. The last time she appointed someone she specifically chose not to appoint a female applicant in her early 30s due to the risk of her disappearing on maternity at some point. Of course some other reason was given for not appointing that person, but the employer's view was that she will have to spend a lot of time and money training the person to a level where they can work on their own and if they then leave it has to be done again with someone else. She wasn't short of decent applicants so why take that risk. This principle can be extended to other touchy-feely nonsense 'rights' such as this now for parents - employers are not social services - people come to work, do their job and go home. It may not fit in with the kid's school holidays but tough, who said life was fair and had to bend to each person's will. If someone wants that level of control in their workplace then they should go self-employed and become their own boss.

Of course some level of protection is needed - on the whole the disability discrimination act was a good thing, but governments love using 'business' to give a percieved 'benefit' while they then claim its all down to them and how much they care.

Good post, totally agree.

H

Simon Hughes · May 16, 2008

This proposal will terrify most small employers and depress many large ones. All of these proscriptive measures will deflect owners/managers attentions from the business of generating fair and sustainable profit towards HR management.

Mister B · May 16, 2008

I think that is is totally wrong and just another example of money being wasted on another layer of red tape. Why not let common sense prevail?

On a similar vein, I remember when the minimum wage was hiked up a few years ago which meant that one of the UK factories which I dealt with could no longer be afford to be competitive with European sources. A few weeks after it was announced I remember visiting the factory and speaking with the workers, who BTW, had just been made redundant because the factory could not compete and they all to a man (or woman) agreed that they would rather have a lower hourly rate but consistent employment.

Mister B

Chippie · May 16, 2008

AdamJ said:
And at the end of the day it will harm those its intended to help. No employer will ever admit to discrimination, but it takes place all the time and mostly influenced by conferred 'rights' by government. I have a friend who runs a small sales company with six employees. The last time she appointed someone she specifically chose not to appoint a female applicant in her early 30s due to the risk of her disappearing on maternity at some point. Of course some other reason was given for not appointing that person, but the employer's view was that she will have to spend a lot of time and money training the person to a level where they can work on their own and if they then leave it has to be done again with someone else. She wasn't short of decent applicants so why take that risk. This principle can be extended to other touchy-feely nonsense 'rights' such as this now for parents - employers are not social services - people come to work, do their job and go home. It may not fit in with the kid's school holidays but tough, who said life was fair and had to bend to each person's will. If someone wants that level of control in their workplace then they should go self-employed and become their own boss.

Of course some level of protection is needed - on the whole the disability discrimination act was a good thing, but governments love using 'business' to give a percieved 'benefit' while they then claim its all down to them and how much they care.

Totally agree. Very well said.

Clare · May 16, 2008

While I think employees should be able to work flexibly, as it allows them to work at a time that suits them, this can only be applied where it makes sense and would actually work. I don't think it should be a 'right' and I certainly don't think we need more of the Government telling us what we can and can't do.

Clare

harvey25 · May 16, 2008

I only have a small business so we can be quite flexible. However all this legislation is making it more and more difficult for employers. Not only do you have a business to run, including having to cover if flexible working it in place but you have to continuously read employment law updates to ensure what you offering is correct. I don't have that many hours in a day!

Mulith · May 21, 2008

Damn politicians meddling again. Leave it to be a free market economy.

Blush · May 22, 2008

As a parent yes, as a business owner no!
However what a lot of small businesses don't realise is yes employees have the right to request flexible working hours etc,however, it is not their right to receive them. You have the final say, you are required to respond and acknowledge but at the end of the day if your business can't sustain their request you are well within your rights to refuse, in writing if the business can't function with their request.Typical example is what has already been stated a shop opening 9-5, in particular if you only have yourself and two employees. they have to work together you couldn't have both working the same hours for instance, what is the pint in that and they can't both work term time as you would have no staff then! . Common sense must prevail.
As a parent I would be as flexible as I could to any future employees but the business needs must always come first.

dave_n · May 22, 2008

this may be more pertinent after the last week due to the fuel price hikes and the govts unwillingness to drop the duty....many people may soon have to work at home because they simply cannot afford to drive.

mrsE · May 23, 2008

I voted yes, due to the fact that I am a mum of 2 young children and am finding it terribly hard to get even a part time job that I can fit in around the school hours as I have no childcare and for what it costs for childcare I'd may as well not work!

officeangel · May 23, 2008

... a difficult one to answer. I think parents who choose to work should have supportive and understanding in the workplace and I suppose that the best way to ensure this is to have it laid down in law. But making it legal and binding will by default mean that some companies will find it difficult to make the decision to hire parents, and let's be perfectly honest and non PC, and say women.

I have worked all my life, I had 5 months off when my son was born, but that was it. And I didn't have childcare vouchers, or the benefit of paternity leave, or even legally binding flexible working hours. I coped, it's what parents who work do.

When it became difficult for me to carry on one particular role because of the journey time and my son needing me more at home, I didn't expect my employer to bend over backwards to let me work less hours, I changed my job to one nearer home. But if my son I was ill, I expected to be allowed to go home, and I always was, but I worked from home or made up the time another day ... give and take ... that's what every working parent needs, not a legal handbook!!

Cornish Steve · May 23, 2008

officeangel said:
give and take ... that's what every working parent needs, not a legal handbook!!

Hurrah! Someone with common sense. Would you please stand as a local MP?

emilyrobe · May 28, 2008

Before the powers that be introduce this they need to take a long hard look at childcare provisions. I voted yes, purely from the point of view that I am a working mum. I currently have excellent childcare provision through my children's school. However, this will all change in September as one of my children will start secondary school and they have no after school provision. This means that an 11yr old will be coming home to an empty house at 3.30 and I don't finish work until 5.15 pm. Nurseries won't take her, childminders aren't an option locally and as I work I don't know any of her friends parents who would be willing to take her. There is very little childcare provision past the age of 11 but how many parents are willing to leave an 11 year old on their own for over an hour? (I'm not even convinced that it is legal to do so!)

I'm currently trying hard to start my own business and this is the reason why! My employers are not flexible on my hours of work despite my having been able to prove that I could work from home for the final hour each day with no detriment to their business.

Cornish Steve · May 29, 2008

So, there's a fantastic business opportunity for someone to create a national after-school program!

losbol · May 29, 2008

Do we really need more legislation on this subject ? This will be particuliar harsch on smaller companies. I personally think a wider acceptance of part time and shared work is needed. An equilibrium of lower salaries and working hours flexibility needs to be found. It could very well be that this equilibrium is at much lower salaries than might be first expected.

officeangel · May 30, 2008

Hopefully you will find that there will be afterschool clubs at the secondary school that your daughter can attend. They're not childcare as such, and usually don't run past 5pm, but there are clubs as simple as the homework club, or music, sports or arts orientated clubs ... they should give you a bit of breathing space. And that's certainly how I coped when my son first went to secondary school.

I don't envy you trying to set up a new business at this point in your child's education. But then is there ever a good time?? Good luck and enjoy the flexibility your entrepreneurial streak affords you ... and your daughter!

sjbeale · May 30, 2008

The government plans to extend flexible working to parents of children up to 16 are supporting a growing move towards this concept in the UK for all employees.

The extension to the legislation will follow the exisiting procedure of employees submitting a request, having it considered then either confirmed or rejected due to viable business reasons. There are obviously some businesses, departments and jobs which can not accommodate flexible working so the common sense approach is needed.

I have worked in companies where flexible working has been deemed to be a no no and the results are high turnover. Likewise I have worked in companies that have introduced flexible working to good effect. With a workable procedure in place that is operated fairly and consistently it works.

The use of flexible working is increasing in the UK and quite rightly so with the need for the work/life balance and increasing number of cars on the road which encourage a move towards homeworking as part of a flexible working.

Cookie Consent

Essential

Analytics

Marketing

Flexible working: Should it be extended?

Should the right to flexible working be extended to parents of children up to age 16?

Yes

No

Gord

National Office Week

Chippie

Hayles

Chippie

Dawg

Dawg

JohnG

JohnG

Chippie

ixion

SK Virtual Assistant

Hayles

Simon Hughes

Chippie

Mulith

Blush

emilyrobe

losbol