Future Trends in the Regulatory Reform of Work-Life Balance in the UK

Ian RoperMiddlesex UniversityLondon

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 AgendaEquality 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 AgendaEquality 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 AgendaEquality 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 AgendaEquality 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 AgendaFlexibility

• 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 AgendaFlexibility

‘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 part-time if they wish, and find work more easily.’ (Conservative Party Manifesto 1983)

The WLB Policy AgendaFlexibility (WERS98)

Proportion of workforce being paid at lower than equivalent of NMW (1998)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

majority female workforce

majority PT workforce

majority skilled workforce

FTCs in 'core'

functional flex in 'core'

Average

• ‘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

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)

• Costs of recruitment vs retention– Transaction costs– Training costs– Employer branding and recruitment costs

New Labour: flexibility and the business case

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

• 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: Evidence (Roper et al 2003)

Social Responsibility/Ideology

Family friendlypolicies are welcomebecause they aresocially responsible

Family friendlypolicies are not

welcome becausethey represent animposition on the

rights of employersand other less

demandingemployees

Ap

pro

ve

Family friendlypolicies are welcomebecause they willlead to improvedparticipation ofemployeespreviouslymarginalised by theirhome commitments

Family friendlypolicies are not

welcome because ofthe detrimental effect

they will have oncosts

Dis

app

rove

Business Case/Utilitarianism

Employer Attitudes: Empirical Evidence

Combined Approval/Impact RankR

ank

Combination Support/opposition

for Government approach?

Probable rationale for support/ opposition

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 RankR

ank

Combination Support/opposition

for Government approach?

Probable rationale for support/ opposition

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?

6 Personally disapprove but will not affect business

(does not support or oppose government

rationale)

Ideological, not business-case hostility

Combined Approval/Impact RankR

ank

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

8 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’?

9 Personally neutral, but will adversely affect business

(diametrically opposes government rationale)

The ideal ‘business case rejection’ scenario?

Approval/Impact: Findings

rank

Combination matern

ity

paren

tal

emerg

encies

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 WLB-

oriented 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 3.57– Parental Leave 3.74– Paternity leave 3.04– Adoption leave 3.99– Flexible working hours 3.43– Continuous employment beyond retirement

2.59

Findings: General views on WLB

• Impact ratings (Likert 7-point scale)– Maternity Leave 4.66– Parental Leave 4.42– Paternity leave 4.25– Adoption leave 4.47– Flexible working hours 4.29– Continuous employment beyond retirement

3.52

Findings: General views on WLB

• Significant difference depending on job title of respondent. e.g. maternity leave approval...– HR Function = 80%– General/line manager = 53% – Director/CEO = 34%– Other management = 24%– all = 52%

• This replicated 2000 findings

Employee Voice and WLB

• Approval ratings (maternity leave)– Union consultation = 75%– Non-union reps = 62.5%– Workforce meetings = 58%– Team briefings = 55%– Intranet = 64%– Staff survey = 75%– Suggestion scheme 56%– “Open door” management philosophy 53%– (All) 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

Mechanism

Tra

dit

ion

al

Ble

ak H

ou

se

Ble

ak

Ho

use

‘p

lus’

So

ph

isti

cate

d

Hu

man

Rel

atio

ns

Co

nst

itu

tio

nal

Co

nsu

ltat

ive

Consultation with a recognised trade union (EP)

Use of a (European) works council (EP) ? ?

Use of a non-union staff consultation process (EP) ? ?

Use of regular open workforce meetings (EI)

Onl

y 1

of t

hese

Bet

wee

n 2

and

4

Bet

wee

n 2

and

5

Onl

y 1

of t

hese

Bet

wee

n 2

and

5

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) ? ? ? ? ? ?

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