'Family-friendly' working can cut costs, study finds
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE 'family-friendly' workplace is a long way from becoming the norm and may remain more 'rhetoric than reality', according to a study by the Institute of Manpower Studies.
Flexible working hours are often introduced to suit employers as much as staff, although it is more acceptable to raise family concerns in the workplace, the report by Claire Simkin and Jim Hillage says.
The initiative to introduce job sharing, term-time work, flexi-time and part-time employment usually comes from management rather than employees and their representatives, Friendly Working: New Hope or Old Hype says.
While short-term labour shortages may be the initial motive, employers have found that there is a 'deep-seated' demand in the workforce for greater flexibility and an understanding of competing demands on time.
The report says that introducing a more flexible working pattern can enable employers to match the supply of labour to the demand and overcome short-term bottlenecks, reducing the dependence on costly overtime.
Personnel departments tend to resist more flexible working arrangements because they take more time and money to administer. There are also 'set-up' costs as a consequence of introducing flexible working. These are often in addition to higher running costs such as extra training.
Interest in 'family-friendly' terms and conditions of employment has focused particularly on the provision of childcare facilities and time off for the care of dependents.
Often the provision of such facilities can be expensive in terms of the loss of productive time and the difficulties and finance involved in establishing suitable arrangements.
Creche facilities, career breaks and maternity or paternity leave are often aimed at staff with children under school age and therefore not so appropriate for employees with older, but still dependent children.
But the authors argue that the advantages of flexible working outweigh the cost. Companies can attract a larger pool of applicants, retain key skills and reduce labour turnover.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments