Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Osborne’s attack on flexible working will harm family life

The Chancellor has taken the axe to a regulation that boosts productivity.

George Osborne is right that businesses should be freed from the shackles of high tax and unnecessary regulation so that they can focus on driving growth in our economy by creating new jobs and wealth.

Wednesday's announcement that corporation tax will be dropped by 2 per cent from this April is welcome. As is the abolition of 43 tax reliefs and the gradual merger of National Insurance and income tax.

But the Chancellor, in his desperate rush to appear pro-business, has taken the axe to a regulation that in fact boosts productivity: the extension of flexible working rights for employees.

Clear the clutter, set businesses free from top-down diktats, is his view. The Chancellor ought to drop the ideology and cultivate a more sophisticated, evidence-based critique of regulations. Some hamper growth, and must surely be repealed, but others have proved positive for both society and business.

One such case is parents' right to request flexible working, introduced by the Labour government in 2003. Slowly, it has been expanded to more and more parents, so today over ten million with children under the age of 16 have the right to request flexible working from their employer.

The regulation has brought about a positive cultural change in our society. Between 2003 and 2007, there was a sizeable increase in flexible working arrangements available to parents – whether that be part-time working, flexitime, working from home or compressed hours.

It has contributed to increased lone-parent employment in the 2000s, ensuring that these parents can access jobs which are compatible with their familial duties. Research shows that both men and women, who report wanting to spend more quality time with their children, are now doing just that.

More businesses, many initially sceptical, have gradually embraced flexible working, the regulation helping to demonstrate its advantages. Fifty-eight per cent of employers report significant improvements in staff productivity with family-friendly working arrangements . From Microsoft and BT to Sandwell Community Caring Trust in the West Midlands, employers say productivity has improved. They open themselves up to a wider recruitment pool, enhancing their ability to attract and retain the best staff.

During the downturn at the back end of the last decade, employers reached for flexible working as a solution to cutting costs: keeping staff but reducing their hours. KPMG offered 11,000 employees a four-day week in 2009, impressively holding on to most of its staff members.

Flexible working really is the future, with nine in ten 16-year-olds aspiring to flexible work. It provides solutions to many pressing policy problems. Congestion on our transport network can be eased by staggered starting times and home working. Time is one of the principal obstacles to volunteering; flexible working gives us that time, supporting the development of the "big society".

Lamentably, Osborne's Budget has halted the extension of the right to request flexible working to parents with children between the ages of 16 and 18. It is both odd and unnecessary, as it was only a right to request, not demand, flexibility: businesses have the right to veto. What this does is send the signal to businesses, wrongly, that flexible working is burdensome.

On top of this, the moratorium for small businesses on the implementation of any new domestic regulation, coming in addition to the review of all existing regulations, threatens plans for the extension of flexible working to all, proudly trumpeted only a year ago in the Coalition Agreement. Gone are the days before the general election when the Tories talked of building a "family-friendly Britain", boasting of their plans to go further than Labour on flexible working.

Family life and the "big society", bedrocks of Cameron's Conservatism, will suffer from this careless policy.

Ryan Shorthouse works at the Social Market Foundation and was an adviser to the Conservatives on family policy before the last general election.

6 comments

Luddite's picture

The only way out of this recession is to build our way out, give business the flexibility they need to compete in a global market. What is the point of driving even more manufacturing jobs abroad, because of high corporation tax. We can no longer keep squeezing the productive in order to increase the size of the state, and why continue with high immigration into a depressed labour market, when 1 million kids are without work.

writeoff's picture

It's a regressive government, what do you expect? A race to the bottom on tax cuts for business, AKA 'The Irish Model' is hardly to be welcomed, and you misunderstand the 'boost' for businesses. They are also cutting rates on overseas earnings so our tax regime for big business will be friendlier than Switzerland - in so doing encouraging firms to outsource production to the third world and base here for tax evasion. Not good for jobs. Not good for national income. Just good for rich firms who will support the tories.

Scotty's picture

About time some people realise this is the real world - if you want to earn money you should go were the work is, and work when it is needed, and if you don't have the skills for the jobs available then get off your backside and get the skills - the opportunity is there - we in the UK do not realise how easy life is for us in this country depiste labours best attempts to tax us out of the world wide market - family life is best in a working environment and if that means moving to work then so be it.

swatantra nandanwar's picture

This is an attack on marriage, which the Coalition purports to support, and I wholly support.

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley's picture

But doesn't it seem odd and inappropriate, if not completely unnecessary to think of people between 16 and 18 in the same way as younger children? Why should people old enough to get married, get a job and start their own non-smoking family be the reason their parents need to request flexible working? Surely we don't need this kind of attention at age 16-18?

But one wonders if it's still true and correct that people age 16-18 can get married or find somebody to live with, learn to drive, get a job etc.

We used to hear about the age of consent in relation to sex. Perhaps we should expand this to the age of autonomy, given all the complexities associated with today's work/life balance and other mod. cons ie modern connections.

Miss Moggie's picture

The right to request does not mean flexible leave has to be granted. As a manager in a Local Authority I have refused two applicants.
The reasons in both cases were the applicants wanted to effectively maintain full-time pay for part-time delivery of service and make up the rest 'working at home' which was not practical for the job they were employed to deliver.
I am not against working at home if it is genuine, I have done so myself when the need arose.

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets