Future Trends in the Regulatory
Reform of Work-Life Balance in the
UK
Ian Roper
Middlesex University
London
Future Trends in the Regulatory
Reform of Work-Life Balance in the UK
• Background to Policy agenda
– Incrementalist approach to equality
– ‘Flexibility’
• Employer attitudes: some empirical evidence
• Recent developments
The WLB Policy Agenda
Equality and Incrementalism
• Basic Issue: who should bear the ‘burden’ of
childcare?
– The family?
– The state?
– Employers?
• Policy framework therefore straddles equality,
welfare, employment
The WLB Policy Agenda
Equality and Incrementalism
• Linda Dickens (2007)
– Approach to employment equality disjointed
– Different internal sources of pressure
• Campaigns; ‘shocks’ e.g. Disability Discrimination Act
1995; Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
– Different external sources
• Influence of US civil rights movement; EU
– EU influence significant
• Gender, race, disability, parental leave, PT and temp
worker rights
The WLB Policy Agenda
Equality and Incrementalism
• Paid maternity leave since 1975
• Since 1997
– extension of maternity leave to 12 months
– limited right to parental leave
– limited right to paid paternity leave
– right to ‘request’ flexible working
The WLB Policy Agenda
Equality and Incrementalism
• EU influence: Social Chapter
– Parental Leave Directive
– Equalisation of PT and temp workers rights
• Greater emphasis on equal pay systems in
public sector (Corby 2007)
– NHS, local government, education
The WLB Policy Agenda
Flexibility
• 1979-97 ‘the flexible firm’ (Atkinson 1984)
• The role of legislation
– Curtail individual rights
– Restrict union’s ability to ‘resist change’
• Example:
– 1979 eligibility to claim unfair dismissal = 6
months employment
– 1997 = 24 months
The WLB Policy Agenda
Flexibility
‘We shall go on reducing the barriers which discourage
employers from recruiting more staff, even when they
want to. And we shall help to make the job market more
flexible and efficient so that more people can work parttime if they wish, and find work more easily.’
(Conservative Party Manifesto 1983)
The WLB Policy Agenda
Flexibility (WERS98)
Proportion of workforce being paid at
lower than equivalent of NMW (1998)
Average
functional flex in 'core'
FTCs in 'core'
majority skilled workforce
majority PT workforce
majority female workforce
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
New Labour
• ‘Flexibility and fairness’
• Explicit link to equality diminished
• Emphasis on ‘business case’ and ‘best
practice’
• Additional link to “welfare to work” policy
(Douglas and Freedland 2007)
New Labour
There will be no going back. The days of strikes
without ballots, mass picketing, closed shops and
secondary action are over. Even after the changes
we propose, Britain will have the most lightly
regulated labour market of any leading economy
in the world. But it cannot be just to deny British
citizens basic cannons of fairness... (Tony Blair:
Foreword to Fairness at Work White Paper:
HMSO 1998)
New Labour: flexibility and the
business case
• Costs of recruitment vs retention
– Transaction costs
– Training costs
– Employer branding and recruitment costs
New Labour: flexibility and the welfare
to work issue
“Flexible working arrangements, particularly home
working and term-time work, are a further key factor in
facilitating a mother’s return to paid employment” (Work
& Parents Green Paper 2000, p26)
New Labour: flexibility and the ‘social
justice case’
Labour’s Policy Agenda
• Employment Relations Act 1999
– extension of maternity leave to 12 months
– limited right to parental leave
– limited right to paid paternity leave
– right to ‘request’ flexible working
• Incremental additions to maternity leave
• Incremental additions to paternity leave
Labour’s Policy Agenda
• Related importance of EU Directives on...
– Parental leave
– Working time
– Part time workers
– Temporary workers
As things stand...
• Maternity leave = paid 9 months; 3 months unpaid
• Paternity leave = 2 weeks paid
• Parental leave = up to 13 weeks unpaid parental leave for
each child to age 5
• Right to transfer maternity leave between parents
• Right to request flexible working hours (good business reason
required if refused)
• Right to (unpaid) time off for ‘family emergencies’
Maternity Pay Details
(with thanks to Alex Heron)
• All are entitled to 12 months unpaid maternity leave
• ‘Statutory Maternity Pay’ (SMP) paid by employer and
claimed back from gov’t
• SMP entitlement requires 26 weeks continuous service
• Rate of SMP:
– First 6 weeks @ 90% full pay
– Next 33 weeks @ capped rate (currently £125 pw)
– Final 13 weeks unpaid
New Labour: the impact of
employment regulation
WLB and Employee Voice
• “right to request” principle in WLB implies link
• employment rights enhancements individual
not collective (Smith and Morton 2001;2006)
• …leaving gap in enactment
• Voice conventionally distinguished as being
• Employee Participation (e.g. collective bargaining)
• Employee involvement (one way; unitarist oriented)
Employer Attitudes: Evidence
• Some employer buy-in to WLB business
case, however
• WERS2004 manager attitudes:
–WLB viewed as individual choice
» 69% in private sector; 47% in public
» more frequent in SMEs
» less frequent where union recognised
Employer Attitudes: Evidence (Roper
et al 2003)
• broad support for ‘family friendly policies’
• more support for the abstract principle than
practical advantages:
• ideological basis of support among managers
outweighed opposition...
• Whereas business-case opposition outweighed
business-case support
Employer Attitudes: Empirical
Evidence
Family friendly
policies are welcome
because they are
socially responsible
Family friendly
policies are not
welcome because
they represent an
imposition on the
rights of employers
and other less
demanding
employees
Family friendly
policies are welcome
because they will
lead to improved
participation of
employees
previously
marginalised by their
home commitments
Family friendly
policies are not
welcome because of
the detrimental effect
they will have on
costs
Business Case/Utilitarianism
Disapprove
Approve
Social Responsibility/Ideology
Combined Approval/Impact Rank
Probable rationale for support/
opposition
Rank
Support/opposition
for Government
approach?
Combination
1
Personally
neutral, but will
improve business
(supports government
rationale)
The ideal ‘business case support’
scenario?
2
Personally
approve and will
improve business
(supports government
rationale)
Convergence of views: unclear if
‘rights based’ approval affects
perception of effects
3
Personally
disapprove, even
though it will
improve business
(potentially supports
government rationale)
Logic of this rationale unclear–
implies ‘spitefulness’ as basis of
opposition?
Combined Approval/Impact Rank
Probable rationale for support/
opposition
Rank
Support/opposition
for Government
approach?
Combination
4
Personally
approve and will
not affect
business
(does not support or
oppose government
rationale)
Instrumentalist: ‘approve’ but do
they already comply?
5
Personally neutral
and will not affect
business
(does not support or
oppose government
rationale)
Agnostic, instrumentalist?
Personally
disapprove but
will not affect
business
(does not support or
oppose government
rationale)
Ideological, not business-case
hostility
6
Rank
Combined Approval/Impact Rank
Combination
Support/opposition
for Government
approach?
Probable rationale for support/
opposition
7
Personally
disapprove, and
will adversely
affect business
(opposes government
rationale)
Convergence of views: unclear if
ideological hostility affects
perception of effects
Personally
approve but will
adversely affect
business
(diametrically opposes
government rationale)
Dissonance: ‘should do it anyway’?
(or) don’t like to be seen
disapproving ‘on principle’?
Personally
neutral, but will
adversely affect
business
(diametrically opposes
government rationale)
The ideal ‘business case rejection’
scenario?
8
9
Approval/Impact: Findings
maternity
parental
emergencies
rank
Combination
1
Personally neutral, but will improve
business
1
3
2
2
Personally approve and will improve
business
79
58
83
3
Personally disapprove, even though it will
improve business
8
11
7
4
Personally approve and will not affect
business
128
46
97
5
Personally neutral and will not affect
business
71
33
49
6
Personally disapprove, but will not affect
business
15
27
13
7
Personally disapprove and will adversely
affect business
116
219
125
8
Personally approve, but will adversely
affect business
44
55
74
9
Personally neutral, but will adversely affect
business
23
29
28
2007 Follow-up
• Survey follow-up to 2000 survey (2007)
• Ask approval and benefit of range of WLBoriented policies
• Voice categorised to WERS terminology
• Significant problems with data collection
– no response bias data and low response rate (190)
– uses restricted to use as pilot
Findings: General views on WLB
• Approval ratings (Likert 7-point scale)
– Maternity Leave
– Parental Leave
– Paternity leave
– Adoption leave
– Flexible working hours
– Continuous employment beyond retirement
3.57
3.74
3.04
3.99
3.43
2.59
Findings: General views on WLB
• Impact ratings (Likert 7-point scale)
– Maternity Leave
– Parental Leave
– Paternity leave
– Adoption leave
– Flexible working hours
– Continuous employment beyond retirement
4.66
4.42
4.25
4.47
4.29
3.52
Findings: General views on WLB
• Significant difference depending on job title of
respondent. e.g. maternity leave approval...
– HR Function =
– General/line manager =
– Director/CEO =
– Other management =
– all =
80%
53%
34%
24%
52%
• This replicated 2000 findings
Employee Voice and WLB
• Approval ratings (maternity leave)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Union consultation =
Non-union reps =
Workforce meetings =
Team briefings =
Intranet =
Staff survey =
Suggestion scheme
“Open door” management philosophy
(All)
75%
62.5%
58%
55%
64%
75%
56%
53%
54%
Employee voice and implied
management style
• Proxies created from hybrid
• Range of models
• Purcell (1987) Storey and Bacon (1993) Marchington
and Parker (1990), Sisson (200), Guest & Conway
(1999)
• Participation = yes/no
• Involvement = cumulative
Employee voice and implied
management style
• Voice mechanisms =
– Collective, ‘participation’
– Union recognition, EWC
– Individual, ‘involvement’
– Non-union reps, team briefings, intranet, staff survey,
suggestion schemes
– No voice
– None of above, or only ‘open-door management philosophy’
Employee voice and implied
management style
Consultative






Use of a (European) works council (EP)




?
?
Use of a non-union staff consultation process (EP)



?
?
Use of regular open workforce meetings (EI)


Use of regular team briefing (EI)

Use of staff intranet and/or newsletter (EI)

Staff survey conducted within the last 2 years (EI)

Use of a staff suggestion scheme (EI)

Appliance of “open door” management policy (EI)
?
?
?
Only 1 of these
Between 2 and 5
Between 2 and 4
Bleak House
Only 1 of these
Traditional
?
Between 2 and 5
Consultation with a recognised trade union (EP)
Bleak House
‘plus’
Constitutional
Sophisticated
Human Relations
Mechanism
?
?
Employee voice and implied
management style
WLB opinion
WLB availability
Corr.
T-ratio
Corr.
T-ratio
% permanent f-t
-0.046
-0.6
-0.182
-2.5
% male
-0.131
-1.8
-0.194
-2.7
% Managerial
0.055
0.7
0.032
0.4
% Professional
0.022
0.3
0.176
2.4
Voice mechanisms 0.269
3.8
0.281
3.9
Employee voice and implied
management style
• Positive association between approval of
bundle of WLB policies and presence of
collective voice
• Positive association with general presence of
voice mechanisms
New Research and Caveats
• Further analysis of existing data:
• Multivariate analysis indicates complex interaction
between gender composition and skill-mix of
workforce
• Existing dataset is limited for further analysis
• New survey?
• “things have moved on”…
Things have moved on
1. The recession
– Essence of Govt approach (voluntarism; best practice)
undermined?
– Employer using flexibility to mitigate against redundancy?
– The ‘new backlash’ (Christine Brewer; Katherine Hakim)
2. General Election (May 2010)
– New Labour’s new enthusiasm for equality?
– ‘Red Toryism’?
New-New-Labour?
• Consolidation of equalities
– Equalities and Human Rights Commission
– Equalities Bill 2010
• The rediscovery of income inequality
– Institutional barriers
– Active duty to promote equality by public bodies
Election 2010
Labour Manifesto
• More flexibility to transfer maternity leave
after 6 months
• ‘Fathers Month’ paid leave
• Extend ‘right to request’ to grandparents
‘Red Tories’?
(Philip Blond)
• 2007: Cameron ‘detoxifying’ the brand
• 2007: No longer the ‘mouthpiece of big business’
• Circa 2008: Conservative Women’s Policy Group
(circa 2008)
– Retain all existing
– Strengthen equal pay audit system
– Extend right to request flexible working (but with no
compulsion)
‘Red Tories’?
• ...or ‘same old Tories’?
– Renewed hostility to EU
– Opt-out of Working Time Directive
– Married couple’s tax allowance
– Means-test family tax credits
Election 2010
Manifesto
• Extend ‘right to request’ to
– All parents with child under 18
– Everyone in public sector
– ...eventually to everyone
• Extend right to request flexible working (but with no
compulsion)
Summary
• UK regulatory approach to WLB framed by...
– Incrementalism
– Link to welfare agenda
– Link to flexibility
• Seems to have reached new political
consensus
– ‘WLB is good’
– But strongly tied to business-case and voluntarism
– May lead to polarisation in labour market segments