Flexible working: the right idea, but the wrong remedy

From 2027, employers will be required to meet with staff before rejecting a request to work flexibly, to consider alternatives, and to set out their reasoning in writing. This will be subject to a new ‘reasonableness test’ – the topic of a second consultation later this year.

This article sets out why a more robust framework for change is good for individuals, businesses and the economy, but argues that the proposed measures fall well short of the change Britain’s workforce actually needs.

Tess Lanning: "Cultural norms - including assumptions about what a committed worker looks like – suppress requests before they are ever made."

The case for change

Nearly 9 in 10 people in the UK work or want to work flexibly. Large rises in the numbers of dual earning families and women, older workers, people with disabilities and caring responsibilities in paid employment mean that flexible working is now a mainstream concern – crucial for many to find, stay and progress in work.

Global surveys now show that work-life balance has overtaken pay as workers’ top priority.

The business case is equally compelling. The post-pandemic surge in hybrid working has led to productivity and retention gains. And evidence from sectors where work generally cannot be done remotely – from logistics and construction to education, childcare, health, social care and retail – shows that better control over working patterns improves rates of staff satisfaction, recruitment, absence and retention, with evidence that these benefits typically outweigh any upfront costs.

A system that relies on the individual

Against this backdrop, any measures to strengthen flexible working should be welcomed. The new legislation provides much-needed guidance to support responsible employers to meet staff and organisational needs, including consideration of trials to test how it can work in practice. 

Yet the new legislation, like its predecessor, is built on the individual employee making a formal request – and hoping their manager responds well. This model can work well for some, but is poorly suited to the workplaces where flexible working matters most. 

Many workers have low awareness of their rights, limited bargaining power, and little confidence that raising a request will go in their favour. Cultural norms - including assumptions about what a committed worker looks like – suppress requests before they are ever made.

Men in particular are deterred from requesting flexibility, partly due to gendered expectations that remain deeply embedded in many workplaces.

Even when requests are made, outcomes depend heavily on the knowledge and attitudes of individual line managers. Many managers report feeling ill-equipped to navigate employment rights, and the Government has already ruled out giving employees the right to bring a staff representative to the meeting. 

A ‘Path to Yes’ framework could be more helpful for employers in navigating flexible working requests. Photograph: iStock

Employers will also retain the right to reject requests for a broad range of business reasons. The detail of the new ‘reasonableness’ test will be critical, but many employers, particularly in operationally complex sectors, will find it straightforward to reject a request to enable flexibility even where it is achievable.

Finally, enforcement remains a weak link. The proposals do not include a right to appeal. Instead, employees who believe a decision is unreasonable must pursue their case through the employment tribunal system. Yet in practice very few employees have the emotional or financial resources to bring a tribunal claim.

Legal aid is not available for employment cases, and the tribunal system currently faces a significant backlog. For a worker seeking a fairer schedule, the prospect of a long and stressful legal process is not a realistic remedy.

What real change looks like

Real flexibility by default requires a shift in approach, focused on supporting wider cultural and operational change across businesses 
and sectors. 

As a minimum, the Government should provide decent guidance for employers. This must go beyond statutory compliance to encourage ambitious approaches that improve flexible working for all staff. It should include a ‘Path to Yes’ framework and sector-specific examples to showcase the possibilities and potential organisational benefits. 

Critically, the reactive, case-by-case model that has defined UK flexible working policy needs to give way to something more collective.

Team and organisation-wide approaches in strengthening staff input and control over working patterns are more effective at changing workplace culture than individual requests ever can be. 

The Government should consider how to strengthen the ability of workers to input into their schedules, supported by sector-wide agreements and coordinated investment in employer capability.

The stakes are high

The connection between inflexible work and ill-health is well established. The sectors most associated with excessive, insecure and poorly designed hours – health, social care, retail, construction, food, transport – also have the highest rates of economic inactivity due to ill-health. Improving work-life compatibility is not just a quality-of-life issue: it is a labour market, public health, and productivity issue.

The Government’s flexible working reforms are a step in the right direction. But without stronger enforcement, wider cultural change and a more collective approach to work design, the risk is that they make very little difference where it matters most – in the frontline workplaces where millions of people are working schedules that are damaging their health and constraining their lives.

Tess Lanning is director of programmes at Timewise – a non-profit organisation dedicated to creating healthier working lives by working with employers to increase access to fair, secure, flexible work. For more information, see:
timewise.co.uk