“A modest proposal?”

The Institute of Directors today tells us: help growth by removing employment rights. The right to request flexible working is cited as a culprit. Get rid of it, says IoD, and the money will come rolling in.

One has to wonder, is this dishonest politicking, or merely misinformed?

It’s interesting that the flexible working regime should be one of the areas singled out for attack. It is an easy target, because it smacks of political correctness (and IoD wouldn’t want to be seen attacking sex discrimination laws generally – though that undoubtedly is the agenda). It mainly protects women; it relates especially to childcare issues; it’s soft and touchy-feely and exactly the sort of thing that it’s easy to be cynical about. Bold brave employers need to be able to set their rotas and tough luck if your school hours don’t fit, because onwards and upwards for business and the devil take the hangers-on.

But there couldn’t, in fact, be a worse target for the IoD’s ire. Because our flexible working “rights” are a hopeless, toothless attempt at paying lip-service to proper flexibility.

The key is in the name: this is a right to request flexible working. Not a right to work flexibly. If your employer listens to your request, and can point to one of a (pretty exhaustive) list of reasons why it can’t be granted, that’s about the end of it (well, you get an appeal; the employer says no again: The End). Occasionally an employer gets it wrong, procedurally, and a Tribunal can award 8 weeks’ pay if the right buttons aren’t pushed – but as “rights” go, it’s about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

So how is this right crippling growth in the UK? No-one has spelled that out, which is unsurprising, since I imagine that your average small/medium employer isn’t troubled by the regime on flexible working for more that what, a couple of hours a year?

Now, had it been suggested that we should simply abolish a system that doesn’t help anyone very much, I might at least have conceded that the argument was intellectually honest. But instead this is thrown in as part of a generalised attack on employment rights.

Why not go the whole hog? Abolish the laws on discrimination, unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, redundancy, holidays and the minimum wage. At least then there’s an honest argument that business might save money.

But it’s an argument that forgets that the best employers have cultures that protect, encourage and develop their workforces. You don’t get the best out of your employee who returns from maternity by insisting that she works 9 till 5. But you might get her loyalty, commitment and hard work by taking a sensible approach to a request for flexibility.

Employment rights aren’t just there for the benefit of workers. Employers who respect them respect their workforce, and profit as a result. That way might lie growth; the IoD’s approach is nothing more than a race to the bottom.

Paul Scholey

Operations Partner
Head of Employment Rights