Forum menu
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.