It looks as though the backlash is going to start here, with Out-Law being one of the places in which the CBI is airing its views on flexible working. In 2003 employees gained the right to ask to work flexibly and employers were obliged to think about it. "Think about it" is an interesting phrase here. If employers considered flexible working wasn't in the business' best interests, they had the right to say so and refuse. And yet the CBI says the administrative burden is hurting a lot of organisations. There are a few conclusions you might draw from this:
- The initial answer to the question "can I change my hours" should simply have been declined in the cases in which it's actively hurting the business, according to the law that's perfectly OK;
- The companies in question have made insufficient effort to derive any real benefits from flexible working - many organisations report a more motivated workforce and increased productivity as a result of it; if your business doesn't then it needs to think about why not rather than blame legislation that doesn't actually apply
- As a business policy, flexible working needs thinking through and careful implementation if it's going to work. Presumably the businesses concerned missed that bit out..?
Flexible working needs a lot more than just a nod to someone who wants to change their hours or work from home. There are different skills involved in managing someone working away from the office compared with an employee who's under your nose, and if you don't take that in, it won't quite work.
It's odd, though, to note a body like the CBI complaining about the admin burden when the law says they could always have said "no" and not been troubled by any of it. It would be good to know more about the individual companies that are complaining.
