By rejecting flexible working requests, employers are shooting themselves in the foot

Studies show flexible working is beneficial to employers as well as their staff, yet the majority of workers still can’t access it. This only makes their case stronger, writes James Moore

Childcare is a bigger challenge than it ought to be – and many reasonable requests are turned down (Getty/iStock)

The start of the new school term this week brings with it a fresh set of challenges for working parents. They have the right to request flexible working with a view to meeting their children. The problem is, employers have the right to turn them down.

Far too many of them do that. Flexi-time is unavailable to over half (58 per cent) of the UK workforce, according to research released today by pollster GQR for the Trades Union Congress. The number rose to nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of those in working-class occupations.

Three in every 10 people exercising their right to request it said they were turned down, making term-time childcare challenges far more difficult than they ought to be.

This is obviously harmful to employees, in terms of their mental and physical health, but also to employers.

In July, the Harvard Business School revealed the results of a study that showed the more flexible an employer is, the more benefits accrue to them. It compared the outcomes of various flexible work arrangements at the US Patent and Trademark Office.

The results were striking.

The team found that employees with the most liberal “work from anywhere” arrangements, similar to those offered at Nasa and tech companies Akamai and Github, were 4.4 per cent more productive than those following a more traditional “work-from-home” policy giving schedule flexibility but requiring workers to live near the office.

Letting patent examiners work from anywhere brought in $132m (£108m) in extra fee revenue, and reduced hiring costs by 4.4 per cent, and office costs by $38.2m.

The hiring costs declined because workers allowed to work flexibly were more loyal. That shouldn’t be underestimated in a tight labour market, like the one in the US. And in the UK, at least for now.

I’ve discussed the issue with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which has expressed disappointment at the way progress on flexible working in Britain has stalled. Head of public policy Ben Willmott said firms are “missing out”.

Why is this happening? Willmott spoke of a “trust deficit” among some employers, which holds that if staff aren’t under supervision from nine until five, they won’t do the work they’re supposed to do.

The Harvard study shows that the reverse is true. This shouldn’t come as surprise. A number of studies have shown that workers are perfectly capable of goofing in the office should they be so inclined.

It’s possible, too, that the pettiness of power plays a role.

In response to its research, the TUC is joining the Flex for All alliance – along with Pregnant then Screwed, the Fawcett Society, Mother Pukka, the Young Women’s Trust and the Fatherhood Institute.

The campaign has launched a petition calling for a change in the law so that flexible working is open to all workers from day one in the job, with employers required to advertise all jobs on that basis.

That’s something they would likely baulk at. There would inevitably be loud calls for carve outs even if a progressive government (so not the current one) were to bring that forward.

Some might be necessary. But perhaps fewer than you might think with sufficiently skilled people management.

Too many employers don’t appear to know what’s good for them or their employees. The case for forcing them to embrace the benefits they would derive from offering flexible working arrangements only gets stronger with every request unreasonably denied.