The Labour government’s new bill on employment rights could make flexible working a “default” entitlement for employees.
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, who will present the bill next month, said he wanted to end a “culture of presenteeism” championed by previous Conservative governments and some major businesses. Reynolds said flexible working, including the ability to work from home where possible, has been shown to “contribute to productivity” and improve staff “resilience”.
Conversely, Amazon, one of the world’s largest employers, said this week that it would order all corporate staff to return to the office five days a week from January, bar extenuating circumstances. Having operated with a hybrid work system since the Covid pandemic, chief executive Andy Jassy said the experience had “strengthened our conviction about the benefits” of having staff in the office full-time.
What did the commentators say?
The UK has one of the highest rates of remote working in Europe, but flexible employment arrangements have become a divisive concept among businesses and employees.
Research from 2022 suggested that workers “felt more productive” when working from home, highlighting the “ability to concentrate without the usual office noise” and the “capacity to structure their day” as positive factors, said the i news site. The time- and money-saving aspect of the “elimination of the daily commute” was also a driver for greater job satisfaction for employees.
For businesses, meanwhile, working from home means being able to “hire workers from a broader geographical talent” and cut costs on office space.
But the overall figures on job satisfaction and productivity “are inconclusive”, said The Times in a leader article, questioning whether employees “misuse time” when “shirking from home”. A new “de facto four-day week” also hurts the British economy in other ways, the paper said, “depriving shops and transport systems of customers”.
Amazon CEO Jassy said the primary motivations for corralling employees back into the office were to “strengthen our culture” and have “more effective” sessions of “collaborating, brainstorming, and inventing”.
That decision goes “against the evidence” that mandatory office attendance will improve work productivity and job satisfaction, said Cary Cooper, professor of organisational psychology and health at the University of Manchester, speaking to The Guardian.
Allowing “flexible work” gives greater “autonomy” to workers, he added, making it more likely that “they’ll work better” and “you’ll retain them”. Companies who “micromanage” won’t see “productivity gains” and won’t “attract the next generation”, Cooper said.
The “remote work revolution” is a “gift” primarily for “older and more senior workers”, said Alice Thomson in The Times, but it can be a “disaster” for the young. Younger workers are unlikely to have suitable “home offices or garden sheds” to work in and are more likely to feel “lonely, depressed and demoralised” by a lack of interaction with co-workers. They are also the workers that will benefit most from “in-person feedback and mentoring”. However, that also “involves senior executives turning up as well”.
What next?
Even if the new employment rights bill includes protections for flexible working, employers must “reach a satisfactory middle ground themselves” when it comes to interpreting the legislation, said Thomson.
A “balanced approach” would prevent staff from feeling “detached” but also avoid a “show of presenteeism” without tangible benefits. Employers should focus on “establishing clear expectations” with workers, setting “realistic performance goals” and “giving recognition” to “elevate the well-being of all employees regardless of where they work”, said Euronews.
Enshrining flexible working as a “default right” could be “incredibly challenging” to impose on companies “hell-bent on presenteeism”, said Helen Coffey in The Independent. Until “greater flexibility for employees” is “secure”, it seems workers may have to “just have to roll with the punches for a longer while yet”.