The Debate: Have flexible working laws gone too far?
In April the UK’s new Flexible Working Bill came into force, stating that all employees will have the legal right to “request” flexible working, including requesting changes to the number of hours they work, start and finish times, the days they work, and where they work.
But have flexible working laws gone too far?
Yes: They’re creating a divided workforce
The UK’s Flexible Working Bill aims to modernise the country’s working landscape and boost productivity – but it could further entrench an emerging two-tier workforce.
While flexibility has benefits, too much can lead to fragmentation and a lack of cohesion within organisations, which is playing out in “hybrid working” models worldwide – no company has nailed this.
Further, the definition of “flexible working” is ambiguous – is it time or location flexibility, or both? Regardless, the aforementioned bill widens the divide between those who can work flexibly and those in frontline roles who cannot due to the nature of their jobs.
For instance, teachers, medical staff and train drivers – all critical to society’s smooth running – cannot perform their duties from home. This may lead to a talent drain from these sectors, with severe long-term implications for already strained public services.
Flexible arrangements can also inadvertently exacerbate inequalities. If certain groups, such as working mothers, disproportionately take advantage of remote work, they may miss out on opportunities for advancement and relationship-building that come from face-to-face interactions in the office. Notably, Stanford University professor Nicholas Bloom’s global data from March to June 2023 revealed that 59 per cent of workers were entirely on-site, mostly frontline employees with no college degrees and lower earnings than those in hybrid or remote work.
We must strive for a considered approach that champions flexibility while recognising the vital contributions of frontline workers. Otherwise, we risk creating a divided workforce where the gap between the haves and have-nots grows wider, and, ultimately, society breaks irreparably.
No: Mandatory working hours are unjust
Mandatory working hours are inherently sexist, placing restrictions on working mothers, as well as on men who stay home. Research found that 41 per cent of UK working mothers have turned down a promotion or career development due to concerns with juggling childcare. By placing restrictions on female talent, businesses are at risk of limiting diverse perspectives from having a presence in boardrooms. The more diverse thinking you have on a board, the better it is for companies, leading to increased innovation and profitability.
The new UK flexible working legislation marks a positive step towards recognising equity over equality when it comes to employee needs. Enforcing universal, inflexible working standards does not guarantee equity, whereas a flexible working model accommodates various circumstances – whether you’re a working parent, someone with a disability, or a person who finds working in an office to be overstimulating.
Flexibility and autonomy ultimately enables freedom, which equals happiness. Giving people the opportunity to work in a place that best suits them – therefore providing them with a better work-life balance to spend more time with their families – will boost employee satisfaction.
And it’s not just individuals who benefit from this approach. Happy employees work harder, with a proven 37 per cent increase in sales and 31 per cent in productivity. There are plenty of ways to monitor and encourage employee productivity without needing them to physically be in the office from 9-5.
Society is already equipped to securely work from anywhere. We proved that during the years of successful remote work throughout the pandemic. If a business mandates you to come in now, it’s a choice. The tools are already there, and have been for a long time.
The Verdict: Freedom for who, and at what psychological cost?
Both sides claim flexible working laws breed inequality. but who is right?
Flexi working sounds great if you want to do your washing at home and feed a small child at 5pm sharp . Apparently flexibility breeds “freedom” and freedom, says Brown, leads to happiness. A lovely libertarian logic.
But consider this; can freedom not be overwhelming? The existentialists knew that humanity’s inescapable freedom breeds anguish – for Sartre freedom “places the entire responsibility for [man’s] existence squarely upon his own shoulders”. Heavy is that head, for sure.
Now why would anyone want to add to that? Work in Pret, at the office, in the breakout area, on a train? Work 10-7? 9-5? 12-8? Phone or zoom, leave bed or don’t leave bed, etc etc.
Anyway – freedom for who? Not everyone, that’s for sure. Pickup makes this point: zero-hours Deliveroo drivers or warehouse staff won’t be given the right to work remotely, because it’s not possible.
Ultimately, the flexible working laws only allow workers to “request” working from home anyway. And that’s freedom – freedom from indecision paralysis. It’s also some form of equality. Though perhaps this farcical law is obscuring the absence of solution to the real debate which should be had around zero hours contracts.