You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28078690
Well hows that going to work, for shift and production workers and others.
and what excuses are management going to use to refuse or put your name on the top of the troublemaker list.
Read it again. The right to REQUEST flexible working. The employer can easily refuse on grounds of having to be in when the machines are running or the customers are in etc.
AS molgrips state its the right to request and to turn down a request there has to be a decent business reason. A whole lot of of nothing so calm yourself.
Reasons for refusal from the ACAS website
Employers should considered requests in a reasonable manner and can only refuse them if there is a business reasons for doing so, this reason must be from the following list:
•the burden of additional costs
•an inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff
•an inability to recruit additional staff
•a detrimental impact on quality
•a detrimental impact on performance
•detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand
•insufficient work for the periods the employee proposes to work
•a planned structural changes to the business
Perhaps ACAS should employ folk who have a grasp of grammar.
As has been said, it's simply the right to ask for it - no big deal.
Perhaps ACAS should employ folk who have a grasp of grammar
a vacancy for me then. 😯
Just join the Civil Service. It's almost worth working there just for flexi (it's certainly not the money!).
I really can't fathom how it's anything but a PITA for the average SME to accommodate, for a benefit an employee never envisaged when they joined.
Bye bye competitiveness!
It looks like the noose around our necks are slowly tightening then one day the chair from where we stand will disappear then no way back ... you have no more job.
Whereas those holding bureaucratic power keep milking the system for their own gains like a parasite.
🙄
If it's really a pain, it'll be pretty easy for an employer to refuse on real grounds.
My first job, as a programmer, the hours were 9am sharp to 5.30. No exceptions. There was absolutely no reason as I never met any customers or worked closely with anyone. As a recent graduate 9am was actually pretty tough, I'd far rather have done 10-6 with a shorter lunch, as I have been able to do in every other workplace since.
molgrips - Member
My first job, as a programmer, the hours were 9am sharp to 5.30. No exceptions.
My first job as operation manager, the hours were 8.30am to 7pm ... sometimes longer. 😯 I was a tool in those days but then if I did not work those hours I would starve.
Chewkw - I don't understand your post?
bearnecessities - MemberChewkw - I don't understand your post?
How do you keep your cost down with all those flexible hours? Zero hour contract? That's flexible enough?
Sorry, still don't understand your point. I think we may be agreeing, or you're all anti public sector. Not sure which!
9am was pretty tough??? What happened? Did you have a 4 hr commute? My heart bleeds for you. Most mollycoddled post ever, I'm afraid.
bearnecessities - MemberSorry, still don't understand your point. I think we may be agreeing, or you're all anti-public sector. Not sure which!
All, if not keep in check.
🙄
Still not sure what that means, or what your point is!
bearnecessities - MemberStill not sure what that means, or what your point is!
Cost. Flexible hours will cost more to the company (private/public) unless you want to be on zero hour contract? Yes!
I will just let other forum members explain while I watch the footie.
🙄
TBH, I don't think they could be arsed even if they knew what your gripe was.
(and those rolling eyes make me feel so stupid, you rotter)
I think some employers are missing a trick, if managed properly flexible working can be very good for a company and need not change productivity targets.
I requested flexible hours to make the child care years easier.
It was a perfect solution for us, but just required a bit more planning and communication from both sides. The trouble starts (and what some companies/businesses fear) when people take the piss and abuse the flexibility.
bearnecessities - Member
TBH, I don't think they could be arsed even if they knew what your gripe was.
Refer to my previous response ....
(and those rolling eyes make me feel so stupid, you rotter)
😆
I suspect that chewkw has been on the ale or doobies or both.
Still not sure what that means, or what your point is!
Is there ever a point to comedy internet personas?
•an inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff
And that covers shift workers.
....except that what this means is that managers will screw everyone else in order to accommodate the requirements of a PITA who knows their rights.
It seems to get worse year on year in my team/group
A. Works 4 days a week over 3 days, apart from every fourth week
B. Works 4 days a week
C. Works 1/2 day on Monday from home, long days Tues and Weds in the office then leaves the office early on Thurs
D. Etc etc
E. Everyone else think it is their god given right to WFH on Friday
Meanwhile I work 12 hours a day 7 to 7 5 days a week and end up WFH most evenings. I am tempted to request it just to cut my hours down. I am ****ing mug.
Its not always bad.
In my line of work, one thing the clients always want is contact/appointments in the evenings, and one thing many of the staff want is longer working days in exchange for more days off. Some sections of our service have married the two requests up very successfully.
We have flexible working and there's no additional costs associated with it, the same work gets done, just some people finish at 3, some at 4, others at 7pm....
We have flexible working ours and have done for years, it costs more as many of them are part-time so their shifts need covered which often means having to use overtime.
Footie break ...
It's a bad idea so I will let others explain.
Wonder if the idea comes from the Deputy PM ... crikey ... 😯
If you want flexi hour then get zero hour contract.
Sensibly, it should fit with the business model. If it does, then employers will probably already be offering it.
To enforce (the request) on all organisations that offer employment just seems daft and creating a potentially contentious issue that didn't previously exist.
I've always had flexible working: my employer provides the work, I provide the flexibility.
My only problem would be that by offering the right to request it to everyone, it runs the risk of watering down the ability of the organisation to cope with flexibility for people who really [b]need[/b] it, like carers or those with responsibility for kids, rather than those who fancy a lie in.
We have flexible working ours and have done for years, it costs more
Flexible hours will cost more to the company
The employer has the right to REFUSE on grounds of cost.
Are you lot not reading the threawd?
Bloody crackers.
you need to be at work to suit the employers requirements not personal desires. If you don't like the hours , bugger off else where surely?
I've worked 4 days a week for the past couple of years, for child care reasons. My employer only pays me for 4 days but I usually work a few hours extra to make sure I get stuff done.
When my daughter starts school I will go back to five days a week and my employer will pay me for five days.
Now, which of those will cost my employer more?
I understand this would not work in all industries but surely if the employer is happy about any change in situation, why should any one else give a shit?
molgrips - Member
Are you lot not reading the threawd?
Ya, but as you know both sides can argue so why open a can of worm eh?
I mean it is not as if the manager is going to fight very hard to not let you work flexi hour innit.
ads678 - MemberNow, which of those will cost my employer more?
I understand this would not work in all industries but surely if the employer is happy about any change in situation, why should any one else give a shit?
Does you company operate on 4 days per week? If not someone still need to cover for that one day and the associated cost.
There are many reasons why your employer might be happy with your arrangement but that should be an agreement between your company and you.
😮
[quote=bearnecessities ]Chewkw - I don't understand your post?
I'd save that for later use, as it works on just about any thread he posts on.
ninfan has nailed the only real downside to this. On the news story I read, it was explained that it would be illegal to discriminate in favour of parents or carers when deciding who could be allowed to have flexible working hours.
As fasthaggis says, I reckon my productivity improved a lot when I reduced my hours, to the point where I got almost as much done in 4 days as I did in 5 - one significant factor being that the job still had to get done.
I mean it is not as if the manager is going to fight very hard to not let you work flexi hour innit.
No? Why the hell not?
molgrips - Member
No? Why the hell not?
To avoid the hassle of having to justify the 'no' answer? I mean they need to prove that the arrangement is costly etc if you start fighting them tooth and nail ... 😯
That depends how likely it is for somebody to fight tooth and nail with an employer at somewhere they'd like to keep working.
It's good to be able to ask, it's also good to be able to turn down spurious reasons. It allows employers to keep people who are valuable in the work force is their circumstances change.
There is nothing in the rules that mean people are entitled to flexible hours, just they can ask if it is compatible with their work. It does go against shift/production workers as they are more likely to be in fixed schedules etc. which make it easy to turn down.
Flexible hours in offices makes a lot of sense so long as work can be delivered.
checkw, you seem adamant that it's a bad idea, because it will cost more.
Cost. Flexible hours will cost more to the company
But you also seem sure that companies won't choose to use this, perfectly valid, reason to refuse requests.
It seems a very odd stance to take.
Also on the
Cost. Flexible hours will cost more to the company
Makes it sound like a rigid 9-5 is the best model for productivity, I've worked in backwards places like this and seeing people putting in time until 5pm is depressing. Also having to go home when your on a roll with something is a pain. Being able to accommodate people who work differently is worth more to a company in productivity. It's just not as simple to quantify as opposed to we need to make the receptionist work another 2 hrs.
nealglover - Membercheckw, you seem adamant that it's a bad idea, because it will cost more.
You have two questions to ascertain if this is a good idea or a bad one. For example, if a company is doing well then they will be fine, but if a company is not doing very well then you have a problem if employees insist on working flexi-hrs which will not only cost more but also lead to bad PR etc ...
But you also seem sure that companies won't choose to use this, perfectly valid, reason to refuse requests.
It seems a very odd stance to take.
Yes, they will but the problem is that some employees will insist that the company is wrong not to grant them flexi-hr so argue even more. You get a few here and there that will take on everyone. Big company doing well is not a problem but for SME that will mean trouble ahead if not handle well.
It's not an odd stance because if the company really values the employees then flexi-hr would have been in place long time ago. I bet all their HR graduates/employees have come across flexi-hrs knowledge at least 20-30 years ago ... not new concept you know.
Then out of the sudden the Deputy PM announced this is a good idea ... Cummon! Cummon! Is this micro management or what? Are British companies so backward that they need the Deputy PM to tell them flexi-hr is good for them?
Ok, the above is an illustration of evil lying employees wanting flexi-hr etc.
Now, let's say we have an evil company with an evil HR, you want flexi-hr you get it but after a period of time the evil HR will propose Zero Hour contract because if they can do well with flexi-hr, there is a further possibility to not need extra hands. A restructuring will occur to improve greedy margin even more and redundancy issues ... or wait you can be on zero hour contract. Ya, ya ... HR will make sure they comply with the rules I can assure you without be illegal.
😯
you have a problem if employees insist on working flexi-hrs which will not only cost more but also lead to bad PR etc ...
You seem to have have misunderstood what "the right to request" means.
And the companies also have the right to refuse.
It's not hard to show that there will be increased costs, if there will indeed be increased costs.
Job done.
Storm in a tea cup, lots of bluster over nothing.
nealglover - Member
You seem to have have misunderstood what "the right to request" means.
There you go slowly slowly catchy monkey ...
First you have the right to request then at a later stage it becomes law then everyone is in deep poo poo, when everyone is forced to adapt this practice.
It's not hard to show that there will be increased costs, if there will indeed be increased costs.Job done.
Storm in a tea cup, lots of bluster over nothing.
If only it is that easy to keep the morale up by rejecting the employees' request. If it is so easy to justify what is the point of the announcement by Deputy PM? Win votes?
imnotverygood - Member
....except that what this means is that managers will screw everyone else in order to accommodate the requirements of a PITA who knows their rights.
Actually, never mind - genuinely don't understand what you're saying.chewkw
All the ruling means, is that an employee can ask the question. All the employer has to do is [i]be seen to take the request seriously[/i], i.e., "Yes, great, we'll discuss this request and get back to you in a week". One week later, "No, sorry".
No-one screwing the system for a chosen few who know their rights, no managers screwing their staff (any more than usual). Just another layer of bureaucracy and paperwork.
First you have the right to request then at a later stage it becomes law then everyone is in deep poo poo, when everyone is forced to adapt this practice.
With those crystal balls would you care to share this weeks lottery numbers?
It's a bit like saying legalising gay marriage will lead to lots of straight guys all marrying each other.
All the ruling means, is that an employee can ask the question.
Did it need a govt policy to allow employers to ask questions? Before this announcement I could ask my employer anything and they can refuse if it doesn't suit them.
Without any extra rights this is meaningless waffle.
i wouldnt work anywhere that wasnt flexible anymore, unless i absolutely had to.
i do 6am - 7pm mon to weds - then eff off thursday dinner, 6am - 12. 45hrs.
Did it need a govt policy to allow employers to ask questions? Before this announcement I could ask my employer anything and they can refuse if it doesn't suit them.Without any extra rights this is meaningless waffle.
The legal bit is that they have to consider your request and use a few criteria listed on page 1 to asses your request before making a decision. Before that it was just as you said - I want to work 4 days - Piss Off.
Now the answer is we have reviewed your request and can't due to a/b/c
what is the point of the announcement by Deputy PM? Win votes?
probably, it gets some headlines in the papers at least.
Cost. Flexible hours will cost more to the company
really? i work a 4 day, 30hr week. Costs the company 20% less, I get nearly the same amount done as most full-time employees. I get a 3 day weekend, every weekend. everyone is happy.
Cost. Flexible hours will cost more to the company
It costs less in the knowledge economy, you get higher productivity and less staff turn over. This is why pretty much all high tech firms have been offering flexible working for years....
Worked in a steelworks , production worked 3 shift system, foundry and patternshop started 7.00 till 3.30, maintance and trades worked 8 till 4 .30, and office staff 9.00 till 5.00.
Except for production , nobody could ever explain the difference in start finish times.
Does you company operate on 4 days per week? If not someone still need to cover for that one day and the associated cost.
No, but nobody else works on my jobs. So there will be minimum change when my working hours go back to 5 days, they'll pay me more but i'll do more. My point was that it really probably doesn't cost any more or any less, in my situation.
I also think that some people are confusing flexible working with flexi time. Two very different things.
I also think that some people are confusing [s]flexible working[/s] shouting at the Internet with [s]flexi time[/s] a reasoned argument . Two very different things.
Fify
I've had flexi time for the last 7 years, it's the norm in my industry. It works well because it's all project based work so it allows people to build up time when there are deadlines / project demands and then work less hours when it's quiter. I'm fairly sure it improves productivity. Also means people can better manage their commute and child care so turn up at work in a better all round state.
I can see why it might not work in every industry or work place, but it shouldn't be dismissed as a some sort of scam to pander to the lazy and hammer "hard done by" employers.
I've had flexi time for the last 7 years, it's the norm in my industry. It works well because it's all project based work so it allows people to build up time when there are deadlines / project demands and then work less hours when it's quiter. I'm fairly sure it improves productivity. Also means people can better manage their commute and child care so turn up at work in a better all round state.I can see why it might not work in every industry or work place, but it shouldn't be dismissed as a some sort of scam to pander to the lazy and hammer "hard done by" employers.
Saved me a lot of typing that.
I hate to say this but I think there are elements of truth in all your arguments. I have a sneaking suspicion that extending this beyond families has something to do with age discrimination in employment law - ie the current situation benefits younger workers as they are more likely to have families so could (at a push) be challenged as being discrimination on age grounds.
In terms of how it will work...
Flexible working does help in many environments - but I can't believe any organisation that works in these areas doesn't already operate some flexible system or it would not be competitive in recruitment or output.
Flexible does not necessarily mean flexi-time - it may be part time but regular hours which is can actually be useful in areas with peak demand or don't require much continuity ie retail
There will almost certainly by the odd PITA that pushes the employer to the limit - but I assume that any company of any significant size will put in place a policy on this - all sorted through employment lawyers - probably be more or less off the shelf policies soon. Where probs will occur I imagine is in small businesses.
In places that run shifts, particularly skilled manufacturing, I think the options will be limited and that the reasons to refuse are readily justifiable.
So fundamentally a fuss about nowt unless you are a small business with arsey workers
[img] 
?v=1361805933[/img]
The pic there illustrates one of the biggest problems where people confuse turning up every day with being productive at work.
I just applied for flexible working last month.
I'm hoping to drop my Fridays (7hrs).
Reasoning is simple: I want to spend more time with my kids (who are 1 and 4) and child care is so expensive that dropping a day and looking after them myself doesn't actually cost us very much.
Applying involves filling out forms explaining what you want, why, what impacts you think this will have on the business and how you think they can adapt.
The company are free to say no with a suitable justification.
I really don't see what the issue is? 8 till 6, five days a week, doesn't suit everyone for their entire life. And most companies would rather retain staff they know and trust, even if they work less hours.
Of course, the unwritten and realistic fact is 'what happens to those who avail themselves of the right'?
I witnessed close hand a case whereby a request for flexible working was initially told by their manager that it would be unlikely to be granted, but when it went through the process, HR department overruled (as it was a perfectly reasonable request, and other similar ones in different departments had been granted) - Of course the inevitable happened and the manager then set about on a crusade to force this person out...
I just applied for flexible working last month.
I'm hoping to drop my Fridays (7hrs).
That'd be cool as ****. Don't think I can quite get that, but afternoons here and there, working from home etc. is all go as unless I actually have to meet face to face (which being an IT spod I actively avoid of course :-)) I could work anywhere with a decent connection. And often doo.
irc - Member
Without any extra rights this is meaningless waffle.
+1 and very suitable for a Cleggy manifesto/policy promise!
Flexible working has pros and cons and is more suitable to some environments than others. I find that this is often approached largely from the "me, myself, I" perspective rather than the team or company perspective (ok appreciate that theses can and should be aligned) but I find flexible working is often a major PITA for others - a fact that is easily overlooked.
That'd be cool as ****. Don't think I can quite get that
Well, thanks to this legislation, you can at least ask and they have to consider it. 🙂
I could work anywhere with a decent connection. And often do
I already work on my own in a remote serviced office.
I find flexible working is often a major PITA for others - a fact that is easily overlooked.
All workplaces already have to accommodate staff holidays and people off sick, which can happen any time. I'd say that regular reduced hours are generally much easier to accommodate.
First you have the right to request then at a later stage it becomes law then everyone is in deep poo poo, when everyone is forced to adapt this practice.
Ok I see, so your argument against this boils down to what you have [i]imagined[/i] will happen in the future.
Glad we have cleared that up 🙄
Are there any other future events you have made up, that you disagree with ?
We've had quite a few staff resign over the years due to personal circumstances, eg family emigrating, moving back home etc etc. In all cases the company has offered them flexible working, working from home, etc as it's cheaper to accommodate that than hire someone new and spend years getting them up to speed.
We now have two people in Oz (12 hours out of sync, working from home), someone WFH in Poland and a dozen or so WFH in the UK.
No, but nobody else works on my jobs. So there will be minimum change when my working hours go back to 5 days, they'll pay me more but i'll do more. My point was that it really probably doesn't cost any more or any less, in my situation.
I dunno, presumably the company employs you as you turn a profit? It costs them X per day to employ you, but the goods or services you produce earn them X+Y.
So if they employ you 5 days a week, they earn 5Y a week. If you drop to 4 days, they've lost one Y worth of profit....they're not spending as much, but they're not making as much either...so there is a cost there.
Flexible working has pros and cons and is more suitable to some environments than others. I find that this is often approached largely from the "me, myself, I" perspective rather than the team or company perspective (ok appreciate that theses can and should be aligned) but I find flexible working is often a major PITA for others - a fact that is easily overlooked.
If your or your colleages work equipment involves no more than a PC and it is a major PITA if someone works from home then your company has too many meetings involving too many people and/or the senior management have control issues.
Having a significant proportion of people who are not always available in the office drives good behavious from the people that are.
Obviously all bets are off if the work you do is more tangible but most office work isn't.
dunno, presumably the company employs you as you turn a profit? It costs them X per day to employ you, but the goods or services you produce earn them X+Y.So if they employ you 5 days a week, they earn 5Y a week. If you drop to 4 days, they've lost one Y worth of profit....they're not spending as much, but they're not making as much either...so there is a cost there.
Yes sort of, there will always be a payoff some where but assuming i work an extra few hours in the 4 days i work, they are getting something for free. When I go back to 5 days I could justifiably only work the hours i'm paid for. At the moment i work extra as i need to because i don't want to be swamped the next week. So it's never quite as simple as a+b=c.
Like i said earlier it won't always work in all environments but peoples needs change through their lives and this ruling gives people more of a chance to accommodate the changes. These changes could be child care, but could also be looking after a sick partner or relative or just looking after their own mental health. Flexible working is something that could really help some people but at the moment lots of people don't know it exists and lots of company's are in the dark ages when it comes to employee welfare and modern life.
I think most people doing a 4 day week are as productive as if they were doing 5 days a week, so the company just gets the same work done for 80% of the cost.....
If your or your colleages work equipment involves no more than a PC and it is a major PITA if someone works from home then your company has too many meetings involving too many people and/or the senior management have control issues.
Thanks for the advice. Actually engaging brains and talking to each other helps. But I will bear my control issues in mind! Having wasted lots of time this week already negotiating a plethora of flexi- time arrangements, I will also stick by my own judgement all the same.
[quote=footflaps ]I think most people doing a 4 day week are as productive as if they were doing 5 days a week, so the company just gets the same work done for 80% of the cost.....
I reckon that relatively speaking I got about 4.5 days work done for 4 days pay.
I think most people doing a 4 day week are as productive as if they were doing 5 days a week, so the company just gets the same work done for 80% of the cost.....
Depends entirely on what the job is.
In 4 days, I would get 4 days work done.
Those wanting 3 days week will say they can do 4 days work yet deliver 100% effort saving the company even more.
Looking into the future ... looking into crystal ball ...
Companies will then have to redesign the entire structure to deal with flexi-hr because which employees do not want one eh? I would.
In order to deal with flexi demand companies will move towards "earn as you work" kind of/similar to zero hour contract with others being assigned as "contractors". Yes, if HR wants then HR will find a way. Not difficult to be frank. Outsource the rest to individual contractors so you work where ever and when ever you like. As for job security etc you are on your own.
Otherwise, they cannot compete with other low cost companies all over.
😈
True, but there is a lot of evidence that more hours does not increase productivity. A nice summary here: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_week/
Also, another take on the 4 day week, from a different persective: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/01/uk-four-day-week-combat-stress-top-doctor
NB I worked 4 days a week for about a year, but figured I was still doing 5 days worth, just paid less. Ended up going back full time.
Those wanting 3 days week will say they can do 4 days work yet deliver 100% effort saving the company even more.
If folk can live on 3/5ths of their current salary and the company is happy for them to do so then why not? Who says that work has to be 9 till 5 (or 8 till 6) five days a week?
Companies will then have to redesign the entire structure to deal with flexi-hr because which employees do not want one eh? I would
So this is something you actually want, but you're against it?
GrahamS - Member
If folk can live on 3/5ths of their current salary and the company is happy for them to do so then why not? Who says that work has to be 9 till 5 (or 8 till 6) five days a week?
If that is the case then the job can be outsourced or reduce the day on contract accordingly. I seriously doubt some works can be cramped into or adjust at will to fit the employees, yes some can but not all.
So this is something you actually want, but you're against it?
I am on zero hr contract yet I am doing as much as those on "flexi-hr". 🙄 Shouldn't they be on zero hour contract as I do?