Flexible working - no policy

[thehorseandhisboy]

Just interested in peoples' thoughts...

Listening to a senior leader in banking today who said that his bank had brought in flexible working which was 'hugely successful'.

He then said that his top tip to organisations is to not have a flexible working policy.

It wasn't appropriate to ask why not, but it struck me that this means that any discrimination - either intentional or not - will be able to go unchallenged, as no employee has recourse to a policy.

Have I missed something here? We all know that policies need to be applied in a sensible, sometimes flexible manner, but not having a policy about something so important and potentially divisive between people was surprising to me.

I don't understand your post

He said they'd brought in a successful flexible working policy and then went on to say don't bring it in

I don’t understand either point! Flexible working is a legal ‘thing’, so no individual employer gets to ‘bring it in’ like they’ve invented the concept. Presumably what he meant was they started encouraging it, facilitating it, that kind of thing. It would be strange for a big organisation to have a big ‘push’ on flexible working (or anything) without a policy, but whatever.

I also don’t understand your point that without an internal policy on something, discrimination can go unchallenged. If anyone is discriminated against in any area of working life, they have plenty of recourse, because discrimination is unlawful. And having a grievance policy (which one would use to challenge such discrimination) is a legal requirement, and even if it wasn’t, as discrimination is unlawful., there is always the option of a legal claim.

You don’t need a policy on everything that moves in order to ensure people’s legal rights are being met and that they have a route to go down if that isn’t happening.

Sometimes a flexible working policy is appropriate, depending on the size of the organisation and other factors, and it can be helpful for employees to guide them as to what they need to do to put in a flexible working request. But if there is no flexible working policy, employees still have the right to request flexible working and there is legal guidance on what process they need to follow.

Do you think what he was saying is don’t have a flexible working policy that determines what form that flexibility should take but consider each case individually to see what actually works? That would seem a good approach to me.

It makes sense to me - they don't have a rigid policy (beyond obeying the law, I assume!) but managers have the discretion to let their teams work in a flexible way that suits them and the business.

I've seen this work well (also in financial services) especially in unusual circumstances that a written policy would never cover. Eg a colleague's mum was seriously ill in Australia, and she was allowed to work from Oz for a few weeks to be with her. For us, the flip side was that when the business needed it we worked very, very hard.

The problems come if some managers are more rigid than others.

What he's saying is each request should be bespoke rather than a set policy, makes sense

Thanks for your replies. The law that says each request must be considered as 'bespoke' and that's how a Tribunal would consider a case.

It's the employer 'considering' each request without any explicit reference to what factors will be involved that concerned me, I think.

The example of the person who was permitted to work from Australia because her mum was ill can be incorporated into a policy ie can the person do their job, can the organisation function with this employee working remotely for a period of time, can the employee undertake the duties in her personal life without working remotely etc?

I guess my concern is that if caring responsibilities aren't explicitly identified as a valid reason for making a request for flexible working, then it increases the risk of indirect discrimination towards women.

Yes, 'brought it in' was the wrong phrase. He meant reorganised some departments to better facilitate it.

I may well be seeing it wrong. The whole discussion was very male-centric and this just struck me as another way to inadvertently sideline the needs of working women as men's jobs and needs are nearly always seen as more important than those of women at work.

Might be useful to think in terms of equity versus equality - if you have a standard policy that treats everyone the same, then in theory you are treating everyone fairly. Except you are not because different people have different needs so one size doesn't fit all.

On the other hand having bespoke solutions leaves the decision makers open to accusations of favouritism/bias etc.

Makes sense to me.

They have the "formal" flexible working request system (say so Jenny can formally request to work compressed hours and this is contractually agreed)

...but also an informal one (Mark might ask if he can start/finish 30mins earlier to alleviate a crap train connection, but it's goodwill/non-contractual).

The reason for wanting flexible working doesnt really matter. Its wether the business can support it.

My flexible working request included working from home one set day a week. But if I could do it there was no reason my colleague, who didnt have children, couldnt request it on another day. Which I agree with.

More companies could work flexibly for all their colleagues. I think we need to move towards that for all employees. Where possible.

” I guess my concern is that if caring responsibilities aren't explicitly identified as a valid reason for making a request for flexible working, then it increases the risk of indirect discrimination towards women.”

There’s no such thing as a “valid reason” for flexible working. The reason an employee is making a flexible working request is none of the employer’s business and certainly shouldn’t be any kind of factor in the decision-making process as to whether to grant the request or not!

If an employer started listing things that it considered to be “valid reasons” in a policy, it would immediately run into trouble/risk of claims from employees who don’t have any of the “valid reasons” but want to reduce their hours. And an employer who refused a flexible working request because it didn’t feel the reasons for the request were good enough would also be in trouble very quickly.

If anyone feels they are being discriminated against, directly or indirectly, they can put in a grievance and they don’t need to demonstrate that a specific other policy has been broken.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The reason has nothing to do with whether it's approved or not.

When I worked in banking, a colleague and I both dropped our hours for a temporary period. Me because I had caring commitments as my mother was ill and her because she wanted to spend time with her new dog. The business was able to accommodate both requests and we both benefited.

I do see that, but it's the favouritism/bias and the grey area of 'whether the business can support it' that concerns me.

I'm self-employed btw, so no personal investment.

And yes I know that people have recourse to legal processes if they feel that they are being discriminated against, and internal grievance policies, but I sort of think that most people don't want to take that route.

Anyway, happy to concede I'm looking at the wrong way. And I agree that employers should organise their businesses to promote flexible working when possible, but as always with these issues it's the grey areas where it all the problems arise.