KEY POINTS:
Flexibility, with reference to working arrangements, is a word long favoured by employers and treated with suspicion by trade unions. Flexibility, in hours, leave provisions, pay differentials and job descriptions, was the reason for abolishing compulsory unionism and allowing all employees to bargain individually with their employer if
they wish. Unions fighting to retain members regarded flexibility as an attempt to undermine their standard pay and conditions. Not any more, it seems.
The Government has released a discussion paper drafted by the Labour Department at the request of a parliamentary select committee considering a private bill from Green MP Sue Kedgley. Her bill has won the support of unions as well as women's groups. Releasing the paper, Labour Minister Ruth Dyson said there was no debate at all about the need for "quality flexible work".
So what has changed? Unemployment is negligible and skill shortages abound. The labour market has moved in workers' favour and unions have less cause to fear that flexibility would work against them. It is employers now whose suspicions may need to be allayed.
Previously, flexibility was advanced for the good of firms, industries and the whole economy; all of which needed to be as competitive as possible once they were exposed to global markets. Now flexibility is being argued on principles of "work-life balance", particularly for working couples trying to meet the demands of children and a career. There is no reason that both interests cannot be served by mutually convenient working arrangements but mutual is the crucial word.
The department's paper seems mostly concerned with flexible hours, rosters, shifts and leave provisions for the sake of family commitments; although it argues that the same arrangements can help increase the productivity and skill level of the economy, raising the national living standard. Its proposals are mostly directed at convincing employers of the value of flexibility, with information campaigns directed at them, guidance provided and "templates" designed for flexible work, part-time work, work from home and the like.
But the more concrete proposals are those intended to help employees make requests for flexible terms, have their requests reasonably considered and arrangements adhered to. It suggests legislation could make more specific provisions for employees' rights to request flexible arrangements, the procedures employers must follow when they receive a request and the permissible grounds for a refusal. If this begins to sound ominous for employers, it is.
The "good faith" principle is invoked once again to define the employers' obligation. That suggests the onus is likely to be on employers to agree to variations in hours, rosters, shifts and leave, unless there is a compelling reason not to and additional costs might not count as compelling.
With so many couples in the workforce today trying to raise young families, there is certainly a social need for staggered hours, extended leave, paid or unpaid, and the flexibility to take time off at short notice on occasions. But there should be a quid pro quo for employers - an understanding that extra time will be worked when necessary and less rigid adherence to penal rates and the like. That could test unions' commitment to the concept.
The principle needs restating that flexibility is best left to individuals and firms to find in their infinitely varying needs and circumstances. As soon as flexibility is codified, even as a negotiating procedure, it is in danger of becoming just another cost of employment and a discouragement to growth.
