AIBU to think the whole "extend the right to request flexible working to all employees" is well presented tripe????

[CagedBird]

surely we already have the right to ask our employers for flexible hours what isn't going to change is that employers can just say no.

Am I missing something? Why is this in the three main parties manifesto's.

I am v lucky in that I can literally name the hours that I can do in my job as it is such a large organisation (although they are trying to restrict it a bit).

But when DH worked for his former employer we were both really flexible, and if for some reason his employer needed him in for the whole week I would take the week off work and he would make the time up to me at a later date. So it does work both ways.

It's also not as simple in secondary schools as 'different teachers teach different classes' because core subjects like English and Maths are spread out through the week - in my school a pupil would have 4 English lessons, which are likely to fall on 4 different days - and actually little and often is by far the best educationally for these subjects. So it doesn't work when you've got a teacher who wants to work part time and wants their days blocked. It also doesn't work to say 'one teacher teach one module and one do a different one' because of the complexity of the secondary curriculum these days. eg with one of my GCSE classes, the module I started to teach in Sept was examined in March. If had been sharing this class with another teacher, it would have been pointless getting them to teach a different module because the next one won't be examined until November!

It's quite arrogant to assume that the majority of businesses could provide flexible working hours. I think hours of work are very specific in an enormous amount of businesses.
I granted flexible working hours to a single mother who had worked for me full-time for 6 months and ended up having to employ another full-time person because we just couldn't cope on the days she didn't work and she continually needed days off here and there. It was too haphazard and you can't effectively run a business like that.

The flexible working law is looking for employees and employers to comprise. The idea of the law is to initate discussion of how the needs of the employer and the employee can be met.

It is not the right for employees to take the piss. However if an employer is totally and utterly unreasonable they can be taken to tribunal.

For example refusing to allow a breastfeeding mother to express and forcing her to work full time can result in a claim for sex discrimation and constructive dismissal.

Absolutely - there are procedures which must be followed. I am totally in favour of proper procedures and legislation. I have to say though, it's been a real eye opener seeing things from a management viewpoint, as unfortunately some people do take the piss. I don't know whether it's intentional, or possibly arises out of misunderstanding. Probably the latter to some degree. I still hear women on our staff talking about how 'when I have a baby I'll do 4 days/ 3 days/ have Fridays off' etc - there still seems to be an assumption among some that having a baby is a passport to re writing the job exactly as they'd like it to be, rather than approaching it from the viewpoint that the actual job they've been doing hasn't changed, and that they need to show how they can work flexibly without negatively affecting the job!

My children have been taught by jobshare teachers in Primary. One teacher teaches in the morning and the other in the afternoon. I think it works really well and allows each teacher to focus on some subjects, as on always does Maths and the other Science.

A lot of jobs could be shared.

I wonder how these laws fit in with the regulations around reasonable adjustments. If you are off work with stress, or you have a disability, surely you are then allowed to ask for reasonable adjustments, which could include part time or flexible working patterns?

I heard that sick notes have recently been changed, and that doctors can not tick that you are unfit for work, or that you are fit for work if certain changes are made in your workplace. This seems sensible.

There are so many people who could be contributing but find they can't because of the inflexibility of employers, and that cannot be good for businesses. It goes far beyond women with young children.

I will be taking maternity leave, it won't be short wholly because of guilt but because of finances. We could probably afford for me to go part time but having been recently been promoted I can't imagine that being considered seriously.

The Lib Dems have proposed the right to request flexible working to all employees. This would be a great step forward for many; older workers (included in Labour's proposal) who want to continue to work but not full time, those who want to spend more time on the golf course, employees wanting to split their time between voluntary / paid work or those who want to spend more time on their sport (our olympic chances could be boosted!!).
(for completeness: the conservatives have proposed extending the right to parents / guardians of under 18's rather than the current under 16's plus carers of adults)

The increase of requests will make the requests of parents less of an emotive issue for managers / other employees and will result in more flexible jobs being available. A more flexible workforce could benefit everyone with more focus on how to get tasks done in the easiest most efficient way possible and reduce the stress on individuals at peak work times. Now we just need to ensure that this right is available to new employees (not just those who have 26 weeks employment) so that work returners can benefit too!!

Flexible working does present challenges to Businesses but there are some compelling studies which show bottom line benefits and many who have embraced it become enthusiastic flexible working cheerleaders! (BT have an enviable maternity returners rate of over 90%, offer flexible request rights to everyone and quote some impressive figures in terms of business savings)

The right to request may not be perfect but there are more people working flexibly today than there were 5 years ago and IMO these are great steps in the right direction!!

absolutely dierdre

I didn't agree with this but understand the plus side of it from what Ribinaberry has put (thanks).

Although each request has to be condiered on its individual merits, I just hope that the people who really need flexible working to make ends meet juggling childcare etc are not denied because too many people have decided it would be nice to have a 3 day weekend and spend a day on the golf course.

I think it is a good idea and I've seen it work well in a couple of public sector organisations where it is already used.

Ok what I didn't understand because as Ribenaberry said it isn't well expressed is that an employer can only turn down a request only if there is a good business reason. Which makes a little more sense, i guess this gives scope for legal action should a reasonable request be rejected. I can't see why this wasn't in place to begin with and as I've been out of the workforce for quite a while now it obviously isn't something I'm completely up on.

I think I may actually be doing a u-turn [after all the gusto of my op blush] but after reading deidre's post it actually does make some sense. You would think however, that the parties would make it easy to understand as well.

Gosh. A civilised debate from all the posters that made the OP change their opinion. Got to be a first for AIBU

Agree, the politicans express it all v, v badly. It's the same for almost any employment law policy to be honest....

watching this thread with interest, educational!

obviously flexible hours are a great thing, but i think some people expect too much out of employers. thankfully only a few though!
i know a friend's colleague who is making noises at work about working 5 hours a day instead of 8 to reduce outside childcare, but is expecting to be paid exactly the same because she thinks she can get all her work done in 5 hours instead of 8, but then is also complaining about how much work she has to take home which impedes on her family life

wastwinset, what is your job title? I am a HoD, and I went 0.6 when I had my DD- it's hard, but not impossible. They cannot refuse pt on the basis of your position alone.

Deputy Head of House , I am new in post after a period of instabilty due to previous absence. The kids need at least a clear year with me in post at work every day IMO.

I will ask, which is a huge leap forward. We earn too much to get any help with childcare so if I can go part time it will be a big help. They may allow it for a term.

I know Ribena, you'd think we were adults so few and far between

In answer to a few comments.....

There is a certain amount of assuming that if you have a baby, you are entitled to a three / four day week and an assumption that employers will just have to work round it.

Unfortunately, the legislation forces employees into direct confrontation with the employer rather than reasoned negogiation which has significant downsides as it's difficult to talk through the options and come to the best scenario for everyone without employer / employee feeling railroaded one way or the other.

In my rose tinted world, "flexible" would mean more than it does now, allowing a range of options, not constrained by the number of days worked. Job roles would be more flexible and the focus would be on getting the job done.

There is a need for greater appreciation of the issues from both sides. Employers should recognise that motivated part time workers may well do everything more efficiently, better, faster, cheaper (and feel short changed). Also employers benefit from the fact that you do not stop thinking about work when you are not there.

Employees should recognise the impact on employers / fellow employees. The little things not in your job description but keep the business running smoothly are not as easy to do if you work part time and it is more difficult to react to short term changes in work load. An extra two hours on a full time week is not much, but on a three day week, constrained by drops offs and pick ups is!

Hopefully as more people work flexibly, we will get better at it!!!

i think that extending the right to work flexibly to all is a brilliant thing for women of child-bearing age in the work place as it stops us from being different and percieved as a bigger burden on the employer than an older woman or young and single girl or any man.

it should encourage more men to share childcare, particularly of older children, and it should help people who care for aging parents and those with important amateur interests (sport, charity work, community work).

flexible working doesn't have to mean working less - it can mean working the same hours in fewer days, or jobshare where in my experience an employer often gets more than half time from each employee.

Flexible working is great in my part of the civil service (scientific field that gets a bad press) - we have very few qualified people apply for posts so are desperate to take any who are willing to work for us. So we have probably 80% of staff are part time for us, even though most are full-time
workers - they work for us 1 or 2 or 3 days a week and the rest of the time elsewhere, and half the office at least work outside the office regularly.

Given the future budget cuts, we'll probably be recruiting future people for limited proportions of time simply to get the skills/knowledge while saving money. The fact that I've been able to return after maternity leave and do 3 days a week while still being valued as a committed member of the team is just a bonus!

Presumably enshrining the 'right to request' in law will mean that people won't be able to be discriminated against for asking - "they wanted to be able to leave early 2 days a week, obviously not a team player and not committed to the company, can't give them promotion" - it happens.