18

Flexible working Bill - I don't get it?

Hi all,

Now I think this may be me fundamentally misunderstanding/overthinking this bill, so apologies for the possibly dimwitted questions in advance.

Example scenario: you hire a full time employee, and on their first day they can show up and request to work only 3 days per week. I think the bill require employers to consider this request, e.g., hiring another part timer for the 2 days not worked?

But then what happens if that two days a week person wants to reduce to one day? Etc.

I know we can refuse requests, but won't this just cause an awful lot of admin and more importantly, resentment? What's the point of the bill? How are employers meant to workforce plan if employees can be constantly requesting to change hours? You think you've secured a great full timer, but actually they want to be part-time but three other employees now want less hours as well, but they may all change their minds in a few months. In my experience of working somewhere that already default considers more than one flexi working request in a 12 month period, people don't know what they want and switch and change things up a lot. 

I thought it sounded good at first, but thinking about it in practice, it seems like it'll just cause headaches all round (provided I've understood it, which I'm not convinced I have).

726 views
  • We allow this as a day one right anyway and its not that big an issue. Insisting people have X amount of service has always seemed pointless anyway as people only request it if they need it rather than for frivolous or arbitrary reasons.

    If they request it on day one or day 1001 it doesn't make a lot of difference to me - we look at if it can be accomodated and if not then what we can

  • Steve Bridger

    | 0 Posts

    Community Manager

    13 Jun, 2023 08:54

    Tagging our very own  

  • Steve Bridger

    | 0 Posts

    Community Manager

    13 Jun, 2023 08:55

    In reply to Steve Bridger:

    Crossed with . Thanks, Keith.
  • How are employers meant to workforce plan if employees can be constantly requesting to change hours?

    IIRC, the bill increases the permitted requests per annum from one to two, so not exactly "constantly". The grounds for refusal remain the same, of course. So if you have legitimate grounds to decline, you just decline. If you don't have legitimate grounds to decline, you agree.

    If you are doing recruitment properly, you should be deciding at the point of advertising whether or not part-time working is feasible and including a statement to that effect in the advert, which should dramatically reduce incidents (even given that they are fairly few to begin with).

    The more pertinent question really revolves around - as ever - remote working as employers seem to have a permanent struggle to explain, exactly, why many white collar roles cannot be performed remotely.
  • Broadly speaking I'm in agreement with Keith. FWRs are considered in the order they're received and considered using the prevailing circumstances. Having said that, this can cause resentment and/or upset when Employee 1 has their FWR approved and Employee 2 is required to compromise on their requested change or have it declined. In my experience it's this aspect that often causes resentment and/or upset, which can be difficult to deal - this of course would be the case regardless of length of service. When FWRs become a day one right, I can envisage the situation where HR managers work to recruit the right person, are unable to accommodate a FWR and the new person leaves the company within the first 3 months, which for me as a stand-alone HR Manager has the potential to create lots more work (as well as operational disruption)!
  • In reply to Robey:

    It's only two?! Ah, this will be the glaring info I somehow missed!

    Following Covid, we became a fully remote company with some visiting our HQ if they want to. We also have flexitime and our adverts offer fully flexible arrangements in most instances (e.g., some want term time, part time, full time - we can usually accommodate most things). We already allow more than one flexi request a year anyway and we've never declined yet.

    My question was more around at the point of hiring, if you'd agreed something with someone and then they instantly change their mind. We've worked hard to become a very flexible workplace and are probably a lot more flexible than most already, it was more the practicalities that I was getting hung up on - and for some reason I thought it was unlimited requests which I could see causing issues between colleagues!
  • In reply to Sue Eakin:

    Thanks Sue, yes this is the sort of thing I'm thinking about too, also standalone HR Manager.
  • In reply to Keith:

    That's interesting, thanks Keith. Perhaps my vision of new starters requesting this a lot is unrealistic
  • In reply to Robey:

    Sorry I didn't quite finish my thought there, or express it very coherently!

    That's exactly what I'm getting at, if you've done recruitment properly, you've already determined whether the role should be part-time or full time or whatever it might be, so allowing FWR from day one seems a bit pointless, an employer is bound to decline, causing resentment.

    However, there are loads of other things that can be requested in a FWR aside from just reducing hours, so it still makes sense I suppose.
  • In reply to Rosie :

    No they are not bound to decline. They will have engaged with the employee by then and may well be more willing to consider it. Where as declaring it before hire is far more likely to get a blanket no.
  • In reply to Keith:

    I see what you're saying Keith, if an employer has gone to the time and effort of hiring someone, they're going to be more willing to accommodate them as they'll want to keep them rather than excluding that person before they even get a look in. I hadn't considered that angle. Perhaps I've been overly pessimistic in my assessment of some employers.

    Alright, I'm back to thinking it's a good idea.
  • In reply to Rosie :

    Also, the line isn't always black and white for all jobs. Flexible working arrangements like compressed hours, 9-day fortnights, remote working, job shares etc can all be used to achieve the outputs of a full-time job whilst offering the employee valuable flexibility.
  • In reply to Rosie :

    We see it happen from time to time with brand new employees, most recently advertising a FT office based position. As soon as contracts were signed and actually before their start date, the requests came to reduce the hours and work from home 2 days per week. Even when you are clear on what the business wants there is a chance that the employee will ask for something different very early on. We have compromised, reducing daily hours and allowing one day from home, not ideal but a compromise.
  • In reply to Susan:

    If you advertise a role as FT, office based, then you should have already undertaken a review of the role to determine whether there is any flexibility in that definition and it should then be emphasized during the selection process what flexibility is and isn't available.

    If you don't undertake these steps, an employee asks for flexibility *and then you give it*, then you've probably missed out of 10-15% more, potentially better candidates who would have applied had you indicated in the advert what flexibility was available.
  • In reply to Rosie :

    I would assume those discussions would be more likely to happen at the interview stage and/or when negotiating the contract then afterwards, particularly if you've been upfront about what you can offer in terms of flexibility. (It's how I've always tackled it for myself, having worked 4 days for the last 9 years, sometimes by applying for full-time roles and negotiating the hours down).