To think Companies/employers should offered more flexible work, less hours, more annual leave

[Luna9]

Just reading another thread about how unhappy many people is to be working/commuting 5 days per week and I am thinking people will be happier if they could have a bit more flexibility like doing some days/hours from home. Also 35 hours per week instead of 37.5 or 40 and 30 days annual leave.

I understand flexible working doesn’t work for some jobs but it does for many others.

I think people will be more productive and happier.

Just dreaming

Well everyone can ‘apply’ to reduce their hours, take parental (unpaid) leave or unpaid leave.
But do they? Or do they want to earn the maximum they can?

A company is not going to pay for more holiday, would you? No, they’ll probably have to pay less as they need more staff to cover the part-timers and that costs a lot for benefits/holiday etc.

Studies have consistently shown that people are more productive working 4 day weeks or 9 day fortnights so YANBU

In certain jobs. In my job our engineers are booked in for jobs. They will be on site or a set time. Working 4 days wont mean they can do more jobs.

Imagine if all gps went on a 4 day week. There woildnt be more appointments available.

I think core hours should be introduced more widely - as in everyone has to be in from 10 AM - 4 PM but with flexibility around when you start and end depending on your personal circumstances. People waste a lot of time in a commute to all get into the office and leave for home at the same time.

Our business couldn't work like that, if it was made compulsory we wouldn't last long, we couldn't afford it and as a result jobs would have to go, so it would be counter productive.
We have three staff at present, one very flexible, one with full-time uni commitments and the other on fixed hours which she can't move on. Due to the needs of the business we can find that depending who is sick or off we struggle to cover hours, throw this in it would be a nightmare.
Again I second the pp who suggested starting your own business.
The hardest part is often managing staff, I know a few fellow business owners who say staff are the biggest problem for them.
I also know quite a few people who work for small business owners who have been unhappy with work conditions and they could have set up a competing company but funnily enough they're happy to moan but won't actually try it themselves and show how they could do better.
On another hand I know of two people we who were given the chance at a startup I was directly involved in helping one of them, the one I helped lasted three months the other only eight, both very viable. Why? It was much harder than they thought.

Reason for my rant op? It's easy to moan when you're the employee, it's much harder to take control and deal with the practicalities of things like this as well as a the other responsibilities of managing a business. People's have the ideals but can't see how practically it's bloody hard to make it work.

If someone is working 50+ hours on a regular basis then the place doesn't have enough staff

DH has unlimited holiday and flexible working at the Tech company he works at now. No one takes the piss, and pretty much everyone is hard working. I work at a school, and it definitely wouldn't work here.

YANBU

Doesn’t anyone ever wonder why the broad majority of jobs are shoe horned into a 9-5, monday- Friday pattern?

It’s not because they’re actually doable in that time frame.

We need a rethink of the modern economy and structured workforce.

The hardest part is often managing staff, I know a few fellow business owners who say staff are the biggest problem for them

Probably because they haven’t taken the time and responsibility to learn how to do it properly.

I agree with you on the flexible working.

I work in the public sector and flexi time is brilliant for me. However my DH is private and they are very rigid. We recently decided to ditch one car and commute together for environmental reasons, and fortunately because DH is a manager and an old timer he was able to change his hours to 7:30 - 3:30. This isn’t possible for newer staff who are restricted to 9-5. If we were in that situation we wouldn’t be able to commute together (9 too late to beat traffic/get parked) which isn’t great for the environment, more traffic!

I love being able to get out of work at half Past 3 and beat the busy times on the roads and in the gym.

I also find that I’m more willing to log on later in the evening if we are very busy because I feel I benefit greatly from flexi time so am happy to give back.

A lot of jobs can easily be done from home. This reduces the need for cars on the road, offices can be smaller with less infrastructure and most importantly it allows employees to have more control over their work life balance and this is good for mental health.

I’d certainly have to be paid a lot more money to trade in my flexible working.

I’m not sure about the 4 day working week though. It seems very unfair on employers and I suspect most people’s work load is designed for a 5 day week. I think the 2 day week is enough to recouperate.

My company is like this. You can basically pick your hours, work extra hours to then take as holiday. Total flexi time with no core hours.
But total flexi time oddly leads to a bit of a jobsworth attitude, with people packing up ten minutes before they’re due to go etc.
As a result, I suppose, the pay is less than other employers.

My employer is pretty flexible. I have a fixed desk, as I am in the office most days, but there are lots of hot desks. I am currently working most Wednesdays from home to focus on a particular project. Other people have formal work-from-home agreement's. Plenty of people have agreed 3 and 4 day working weeks. There are certain roles which need to be on-site, so are less flexible, and some departments cover 24/7 shift patterns. My own department has an on-call rota, so 1 week in about 6, I could get called at any time of the night or weekend - but I get extra pay for that. We also have to do some maintenance work between midnight and 4am, but that's planned in advance, and you get TOIL. I don't have to be in at 9am unless I have a meeting then, as long as I work 40h a week. Others come in earlier and leave earlier. It means our commuting times are lessened, as the traffic is less busy - and we have people who are available for calls to AsiaPac or the Americas, depending on which end of the day. We have plenty of different communication options these days - phone, email, instant messaging, group messaging, video conferencing and so on, which means it's much easier to work remotely and still be in touch. It can work really well.

As one HR director used to say, "work is an activity, not a location." Of course, there are plenty of jobs where it is a location, and that limits the options for flexibility, but even then, there can be some options for flexibility, if you think creatively.

There are also people who take the piss, but that happens even when you have less flexible working, and it is part of management to deal with, however it manifests.

Some organisations do offer that level of flexibility. Some organisations have the scope to do more though.

The four day week is problematic. As others have said...how will that work practically? If an organisation is going to continue to operate a 'full time' service then they'll need 20% more staff. In sectors where there are skills shortages that creates a problem. It's completely unrealistic for many, many reasons.

My company offers flexible working and rewards staff with additional annual leave. I’m not sure if it would work for all companies/businesses but it definitely works for mine.

I took advantage to work less hours when
I have small kids. I can also adjust the hours I am in the office each day, so long as I am there for core hours. Helps enormously with the ups and downs of having small children.

I am also a lot more productive as I know I have to get work done in a short time frame (not that I was a slacker before but less coffee breaks and chat). My well being is also much better and I hardly ever have to take sick days.

A four day week can work - you just don't have everyone working the same 4 days - which is more possible to cover in larger organisations. We try to have one day that everyone is in, so we can have team meetings then, but you can get round it if needs be. A lot of businesses already work this sort of way - retail usually runs 7 days a week these days. Staff don't cover every 7 days, because they are entitled to time off work each week/fortnight. It would take more adjustment for smaller businesses with only a few staff though.

Ebearhug how would that work in sectors that are short staffed or where there are skills shortages? I work in a university...I'm the only person who teaches my subject. We can't afford additional staff, in fact people are being made redundant. Essentially a 20% cut in staffing without staff taking pay cuts ( which is what labour is proposing) would cripple us financially.

Iggly
The staff get treated properly, we and they have taken the responsibility to learn, seeking advice from professionals when needed. I know this as we often talk together, drawing on each others experience etc. I have also spend a long time learning about employment issues, that said I and they still find it the hardest and most unrewarding part of what i do, finding it hard doesn't mean we arnt doing it right or are being irresponsible. I feel a little pissed at your comment knowing the effort I have put into my business and staff but despite this still have stress dealing with staff. Most of us employers do actually give a shit about staff as well as all the other aspects of the business.
I never stop feeling like this because I sometimes get these comments from people who haven't been I my shoes or running the whole show where as those who have can at least understand that I despite you print responsible and doing it right it still it s very hard at times.

This is not a new idea: Harold Wilson wanted it - that’s why so many leisure centres and the OU were started so people could make use of their time.

It does make sense to work more flexibly. For a start, the rush hour traffic would be eased if everyone were not trying to get to work for 9am. Wages are already far too low.

I’m reading complaints about same pay for less hours. Yet more hours/work for same pay seems quite acceptable to many employers and they happily take advantage of enforced overtime for no pay, zero hour contracts and the like.

I think people don’t realise how far employment law and practice has moved from what was basic and decent not so long ago.

Being not print.

Reduced hours = reduced pay!

Flevible hours and work from home as options where feasible are great for work life balance. However, people can't expect to reduce hours without losing pay. 4 days, or even 3, if people can manage would be great as others could be employed too. Job shares all round.

Flexible hours and working from home is not possible in the company I work for. It’s a 24/7 industry. Part time working is not allowed either unless you agree to work every weekend.

A four day week can work - you just don't have everyone working the same 4 days - which is more possible to cover in larger organisations.

In lots of places they wont be able to cover it. The divisions in my place of work, look after particular areas of the business. The members will look after one particular section of that. If those people only work 4 days, a person will have to be employed to cover the 1 day.

Many organisations don't have its of staff that all can do eachothers roles and anyone can cover it.

And again, will most people want to take the pay cut?

I wish it was the norm to be flexible and WFH more. It seems (to me) that as tech has advanced and now practically everyone has broadband/laptops/smart phones/tablets, workplaces have actually become LESS likely to be flexible and allow WFH or choice of hours. It’s what puts me off office-type roles as there are plenty roles which you don’t need to be physically present for and it doesn’t matter whether it’s done between 9-5/7-3/12-8, yet managers insist on you commuting an hour or more to sit behind a desk for no real reason.

A couple of years ago I was in a role where some elements required me to be in and interacting with staff. I was expected to do loads of travel as well and was told “you can work on the train” (bearing in mind, the trains in that area had no tables/charging points/WiFi). At the time DP and I were in the process of moving from one end of the country to the other so I lived in one place in the week and went back Fridays to see DP. I used to have to get in the office for 7 so I could leave at a reasonably early time to get to DP as, oddly my boss wasn’t so keen on me “working on the train”
on my way back home to DP. Even though those trains had all the aforementioned and the journey was over 3 hours in total. He just hated people working flexibly or from home.

I’m currently in a front-line customer service role so obviously can’t WFH. I worked fixed shifts so no unpaid/involuntary overtime. That suits me for now but I’ll struggle if I ever want to change jobs as unless you’re quite high up, flexibility just seems to be less and less available. 3/4 days would suit me now.

I run my own business and always try to be flexible with time. We don’t have a fixed annual leave policy but they know not to take the piss. I give time off when needed but at the same time they will work extra if need be and have been great helping us when dh hasn’t been well.

If they finish their allocated work early, we chat and then they will either do something else or go home. I don’t worry too much about what time they get in either, as long as it’s roughly on time.

I discuss their pay with them individually each year and reach a happy agreement, they always have a pay rise

It works well for us at the moment and everyone seems happy. Sure we would make more money/profit if we were stricter but there is more to life than that. We make enough to enjoy our life

A job role is for a certain amount of work, if someone works less then additional staff are required to cover, this isn't always feasible because their might not be someone qualified in that role who wants to work 5 hours a week! Same goes for covering holidays, I have no cover at all.