back to article Trade union club calls on UK.gov to extend flexible working to all staff from day one

The UK's Trades Union Congress (TUC) is backing a campaign to extend flexible working rights to everyone from their first day in the job regardless of the type of contract they sign. The move follows TUC findings that more than half (58 per cent) the UK workforce do not have access to flexible working and one in three people ( …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

    Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please.

    It is thanks to workers forming trade unions that we actually have many of the employment rights that we now take for granted nowadays.

    By all means snark at the shittier employers - they certainly deserve it - but remember that days off, fair rest time between shifts, paid holidays, equal pay, and many more, only came about thanks to people fighting for a better life. It does you no favours at all to mock those whose work you now benefit from.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

      Yes striking has brought about positive change. But it can also be really dumb.

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11403238/Tube-drivers-go-on-strike-in-defence-of-colleague-caught-drunk-at-the-wheel-twice.html

      1. jmch Silver badge

        Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

        "Yes striking has brought about positive change. But it can also be really dumb."

        Unions, like any other organisation, have (in some cases long ago) come to a point where the union's primary purpose has been achieved. Thereafter, the primary purpose of the organisation becomes the perpetuation of the organisation.

        1. Nick Kew

          Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

          The big milestone in reaching that point was the Attlee government and post-war socialism. What you describe is what happened after that, as a generation of union leaders continued to fight the battles of their own youth, turning the movement into entitled bullies and crippling the country until Mrs T. pushed back on them.

          Since then, they've been a much more balanced force. They serve a valid purpose, but it's when they do something a bit dumb that it's most likely to hit the news.

          But whoever thought that headline "dismissive"? The Reg may not be for you!

      2. Tom 7

        Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

        My dad used to read the Telegraph when I was growing up. It took me a couple of years in work to realise that it was full of shit and more interested in destroying unions than telling the truth.

        I dont know the facts of this case but I would not expect the telegraph to report them anyway.

        1. MiguelC Silver badge

          Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

          It was all over the papers when it happened. Does The Guardian suit you better?

          1. Ochib

            Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

            Ttube drivers think the breath testing apparatus is unreliable, specifically when the subject of the test is a diabetic.

            Safety first means he shouldn't drive a train that day. Due process means he should have had a fair hearing rather than being dismissed on the spot

    2. IGotOut Silver badge

      Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

      Unions often do some good, but many are still stuck in the 70's.

      I've had friends lose jobs BECAUSE of the unions. E.g. companies that had become uncompetitive to very high pay rates (think almost double market rate). Business wanted to freeze pay and reduce overtime rates.

      Unions demanded pay rises, and overtime rates to stay same. Bosses refused. Union went on strike.

      Major contracts were not renewed, company hit with penalties.

      Within six months business went bankrupt.

      400 people lost their jobs, with NO chance of getting another job even close to the pay they would of had if they had ignored their unions.

      1. Tom 7

        Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

        Care to name the company? They're bust after all. There will probably be another side to the story - like the CEO wandering off with a payoff well in excess of any of the union demands. I've seen many companies where the CEO magically gets a massive increase in remuneration a few months before the company folds.

        1. SundogUK Silver badge

          Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

          If that's what the shareholders want to do, it's their company.

    3. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

      Only job I had where I had to be a union member, I lost the job through unfair dismissal and the union wasn't interested - they were too worried about rocking the boat.

      (I stood up to management about the server room (2nd floor, south facing, floor-to-ceiling windows) needing A/C and a couple of other matters, where their IT policy contradicted best practices and auditor recommendations and the CEO didn't like my "attitude", so made me redundant, then advertised for a replacement* for my job.)

      * At least the replacement contacted me 3 months later and thanked me for the good work I'd done in documenting all the systems, while I was there.

      1. Fred Dibnah

        Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

        IANAL but I understood that redundancy applies to the position, not the person. Therefore if you were made 'redundant' and the position was still open, you would have a case to take to a tribunal for unfair dismissal.

        Again, IANAL.

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

          I did, and I won, but the union didn't want to get involved.

          1. sabroni Silver badge

            Re: I did, and I won, but the union didn't want to get involved.

            Could it just be that you rub people up the wrong way? Pissing off management and the union takes a bit of doing....

            1. Nick Kew
              Thumb Up

              Re: I did, and I won, but the union didn't want to get involved.

              A bit of doing?

              As in, Doing the Right Thing? Of course I don't know the individual circumstances, but it's entirely plausible.

      2. steviebuk Silver badge

        Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

        At the NHS someone had a beef with another member of staff regarding bullying I think. Took it up with the Union rep but it went quiet for a while. The member of staff spoke to another union member and said "Speak to the regional union rep as the person you're complaining about is mates with the Union rep you went too. Hence why nothing is being done"

    4. Fred Dibnah

      Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

      Hear, hear, OP. I've always said that companies get the unions they deserve (think British Leyland and their dreadful industrial relations). If managers treated employees with respect and decency there would be little need to organise in a trade union.

      1. Nick Kew

        Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

        British Leyland only ever existed as a government bailout of a lame duck. The first(?) of a long, long succession of taxpayer bailouts as it got reorganised under different names like jaguar, land rover, etc.

        Under the circumstances, how could it ever have been anything other than rotten?

    5. Cederic Silver badge

      Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

      Trade Union Club is a non-judgemental and accurate description of the TUC. It's not saying they're good or bad, instead merely amusing me.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please

      >Less of the rather dismissive "Trade union club", please.

      The birth of trade unions originally had some genuine grievances around the time of the Peterloo Massacre and truly dreadful mill and mine working conditions. Fast forward to the 1960s and all they seemed to want to do was bring the country to it's knees as they were riddled with communists. As someone who actually lived through the winter of discontent I'm rather burned by those experiences.

      In a climate change world, who was right about coal, King Arthur or Mrs Handbag ?

  2. big_D Silver badge

    Very general...

    It says 9 out of 10 want flexible working, but 1 in 10 job ads offer it.

    Is that for jobs where flexible working could even be considered? A lot of jobs involve being in a certain place at a certain time, and if you aren't in that place at that time, nobody else can work. A lot of manufacturing jobs, especially on production lines would be very difficult to allow flexible working hours or teleworking...

    We have a lot of flexible working where I am, in the administration side, but production is shift based and needs all the people who are on shift to be on time and at their place of work...

    Flexible working is a great goal, but not all jobs can accommodate it.

    1. Fred Dibnah

      Re: Very general...

      Flexible working also covers job sharing and part-time working, and production lines can certainly accommodate those.

      1. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble?

        Re: Very general...

        Agree with this, however the article is careful not to mention if the flexible adjustments which were requested and turned down were appropriate to the position. It is true that not all flexible working arrangements will be applicable to the job in question. The inherent problem with job sharing and part time working from an employees point of view is that you also have to accept an effective pay cut.

        1. Anomalous Custard

          Re: Very general...

          >"The inherent problem with job sharing and part time working from an employees point of view is that you also have to accept an effective pay cut."

          That depends on the person's circumstances. Going from full-time to job sharing or part-time, yes. But if you're effectively blocked from the full time market because, for example, you have a young child then being able to work in your chosen field during school hours may well pay better than the alternatives (benefits, relying on partner's pay (if you have one), gig economy jobs etc). Or health issues that prevent you working full time. Or are semi retired. And so on.

    2. Halfmad

      Re: Very general...

      Not all departments want to accommodate it, mine doesn't. I work in Infosec, could easily work from home 4 days a week but because my boss wants to see me in the office that's where I am - constantly interrupted as a result. On the couple of days I've been allowed to work from home I have no only got more done but the quality of work has been better IMHO.

      I did use to work from home a lot though so I'm very disciplined about it and if anything work harder to keep the perk.. or I did.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    For all?

    It's a lovely idea, unfortunately lots of jobs just don't suit remote working (shop assistant, bartender, vet) and other jobs cannot accommodate flexible working at all. If you service cabins on a ferry for instance, you have to be available when the ferries are in port and you have to actually be there to do it. Any job where you have to do something physical during a time defined by another process will always be inherently inflexible. And further, to take another point from the article, these do tend to be (although are not exclusively) classed as working class jobs. But they don't like it when IT or engineering automate those jobs out of existence either (ie online shopping). It's different fringe benefits of different jobs really. It's like people who work for sports direct may not be able to work flexibly, whereas I can't *ahem* borrow new trainers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: For all?

      Frances O’Grady is paid £175k and gets 47 days holiday a year (yes really). She has very little idea of what a normal job is like. Union members might want to look at where their subs are going.

      1. Roj Blake Silver badge

        Re: She has very little idea of what a normal job is like.

        That's like saying you wouldn't want a heart transplant performed by a surgeon who hadn't themselves had a heart attack.

        I could equally point to numerous Education Secretaries who have never been teachers, Defence Secretaries who have never been in the armed forces, and Chancellors without any background whatsoever in finance or economics.

        1. phuzz Silver badge
          Alert

          Re: She has very little idea of what a normal job is like.

          "That's like saying you wouldn't want a heart transplant performed by a surgeon who hadn't themselves had a heart attack."

          A few years back I had to have a cystoscopy (I bet you just crossed you legs if you read that link), and it did make me feel a lot better when the doctor doing the procedure said that he'd had it done a few years before.

          I recommend not getting bladder stones if you can possibly avoid it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: For all?

      It's a lovely idea, unfortunately lots of jobs just don't suit remote working (shop assistant, bartender, vet) ..

      That's true, but for every job that can be done entirely remotely, we must encourage remote only work.

      If only because it allows hiring from across the UK, helping even out the housing and transport issues at fairly little cost, with quick results.

      1. TheMeerkat

        Re: For all?

        If we can hire across the UK, what stops is hiring across the world where people are cheaper and don’t demand flexible hours?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: For all?

          Generally speaking, provided that the work is done to a high standard, in line with the requirements, nothing prevents your workers from doing their work in sunnier climes.

          By extension that opens your talent pool to the rest of the world, there are various visa / legal requirements which might make it easier to hire from certain countries, but generally speaking, the pool of people is global.

          I think that you have to show you have tried to hire in the UK prior to hiring abroad, but if that fails sure, hire from wherever you can find the skilled staff.

    3. Ian Johnston Silver badge

      Re: For all?

      My vets spend at most two hours a day at base, doing small animal stuff. Otherwise they are in the field, literally. It's about the most remote working job there is.

  4. Michael

    That's true, but for every job that can be done entirely remotely, we must encourage remote only work.

    No we shouldn't. Some people might like remote working. I hate it. I know of too many people working in banking where you are expected to work from home at least 2 days a week. No thanks. I've three kids, I couldn't get my job done at home. I don't have the space for a home office, I don't want to work from home and quite frankly like being able to ask someone on my team a question without relying on a remote desktop session to show them the issue.

    I also don't want to work in a large open plan office or have sales people remotely near my office space. Another moronic design decision that too many large companies seem to think make sense.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      So because you don't want it, no one else should be allowed.

      IOur country has deeply entrenched problems which you've offered no solution for, but you're alright Jack.

      Class act mate, class.

      1. doublelayer Silver badge

        Re: So because you don't want it, no one else should be allowed.

        I think the comment meant that it shouldn't be encouraged, or at least "it is not the case that we must encourage it". I'm not sure I agree with that, but I believe the intended point was weaker than you've described. There are many advantages in working remotely, and there are also disadvantages. Enforcing either could be harmful, but encouraging one over the other might not be. Fortunately, I don't think I'll have to decide on that policy at any point in my career.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Up

          Re: So because you don't want it, no one else should be allowed.

          Fair point,

          Perhaps I was a little harsh. Expressing disapproval of the idea is indeed a weaker objection than outright prohibition.

          Thank you for a reasoned response to my snark.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Try being partially deaf and working in open plan.. it's a nightmare.

  5. clyde666

    employment rights

    This all academic now anyway.

    Given a government who are talking about ignoring laws passed by parliament, which they don't like, do you really think they're going to care one iota for the work/lifestyle worries of the plebs ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: employment rights

      No, the current shower don't care but they won't be there for ever.

      The wheels are falling are off the bus at present, but we will be getting back to normal at some point.

      London having many more jobs available than the rest of the country, by allowing people to telecommute, can help get us back working after the night of the soggy crisp.

      1. Nick Kew
        FAIL

        Re: employment rights

        No, the current shower don't care but they won't be there for ever.

        They're looking a bit like 1970s Labour. Stuck in a horrendous tribal ideology.

        Trouble is, the face of the opposition is himself a relic of 1970s Labour.

        1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

          Re: employment rights

          Jeremy Corbyn's positions on most things are more-or-less the same as Tony Blair's were in 1997. It shows how astonishingly far to the right New Labour moved and how unsurprisingly terribly their "as evil as the Tories but less competent" schtick failed.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: employment rights

            Dianne Abbot.

            As much as I dislike Boris, I cannot vote for any party with her in the cabinet.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: employment rights

          I'm not sure that that's fair, Wilson had triple the majority enjoyed by the current administration.

          I think Corbyn is somewhat hampered by the content and delivery of his speeches.

          But the things that Labour identifies as wrong with the country and the proposed solutions seems broadly in line with fairly reasonable positions.

          Paying people more, looking after the elderly, and the young, giving the rest of the population a fair crack at the whip.

          I'm up for a bit of that, I'd like to legalise and tax drugs, and spend the money on education. We've a better chance with someone from the 1970, who keeps disappearing off too the allotment, and occasionally seems inappropriately relaxed about things.

          1. Fred Dibnah

            Re: employment rights

            Corbyn doesn't come over well in the HoC, possibly because it's a bear pit based on a private school debating society, and he's not good at dealing with the braying from the other side. IMHO his public speeches are generally very good.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: employment rights

              I agree, he seems polite, and genuine.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: employment rights

      "Given a government who are talking about ignoring laws passed by parliament"

      What, like ""The result of the EU Referendum is legally binding and CANNOT be changed" and "Article 50 says we WILL leave after the set period expires"? Or maybe "We will only have one referendum on Scottish Independence"?

      Cameron and the government of the time - ALL PARTIES, not just the Tories, which means Labour, the Lib Dems and any others like the Greens etc all had their say and are equally culpable - drafted a whole lot of legislation so that the result of the 'Leave/Remain' Referendum was set in stone and *could not* - let me say that again *COULD NOT* - be repealed under any circumstances. It was even worded in a similar way to the Scottish Independence referendum so that there was (supposed to be) no way to have another vote on the subject.

      Of course, these laws were drafted by the same experts who told Cameron that he could not fail, that the UK would vote Remain and the vote was merely a formality - and they got it completely and utterly wrong. (And, strangely, these are the same experts who are now crying into their cups about the impending doom if we dare to ignore their advice and continue on our "self--destructive" journey towards leaving the EU. But just because they have been completely fricking wrong on everything so far is no reason to think they are a bunch of completely fricking useless buttholes)

      And suddenly, laws allegedly set in stone regarding things like "no u-turns" and "no second chances" are completely ignored - along with the minor inconvenience that the majority voted Leave. Which is how Democracy is supposed to work, not by some rich lawyer taking the country to court because she doesn't like losing or the appalling behaviour of a bunch of arrogant layabouts who promised to do what the voters wanted but then decided the vote doesn't matter, they can and will do just what they want.

      Shame there's no way of turning all the lying two-faced oxygen thieves who promised to support the result of the Referendum but are now doing everything they can to stop it bright green. Then there would be no question about who should be allowed to stand for re-election (or is being guilty of fraud no longer a bar to serving as an MP?)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: employment rights

        There is no interest in checking we'd like a no-deal exit.

        Given the narrowness of the result and the issues thrown up since, not least NI / GFA.

        Given both of those points, please stop citing a very dodgy result which was won by leave, as if we the vote outweighs the point of not being a good idea.

        In other words, if we vote to shoot ourselves in the foot, are we allowed to decline to do so, as shooting our foot will hurt, and we can't repair the foot again, we'll still walk but we'll be less agile than before.

        Again for what? We voted? Who voted? and would they vote again in the same way?

        Unless you are actually prepared to check, your claims of democracy ring hollow.

        1. SundogUK Silver badge

          Re: employment rights

          "..as if we the vote outweighs the point of not being a good idea."

          It does. Otherwise who gets to decide whether it's 'not a very good idea'? You? Or the largest exercise of democracy in the UK's history?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: employment rights

            It does. Otherwise who gets to decide whether it's 'not a very good idea'? You?

            Reality gets to decide if something is a good idea, see the Darwin awards for examples.

            As an objective measure, all that the referendum established, was that advertising works.

            You can make a weak assertion that the referendum results expresses an actual preference for leaving the European Union. I can make an equal assertion, that the results express a desire to give Cameron a slap, with the understanding it was advisory.

            Or the largest exercise of democracy in the UK's history?

            The 1992 general election is not relevant in this discussion.

            And yes, I decided it was a bad idea, as it's clearly not in my interest to have food, fuel, and medicine shortages.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: employment rights

        You're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but I wish you wouldn't keep saying that the EU Referendum was legally binding. It wasn't, as was made clear in the High Court.

        (Assuming you're the same AC who keeps saying this ad infinitum)

  6. soni singh

    Trade union club

    Yes people can get their right by strikes, its has both positive side as well as negative. May be they success to convince their boss either they may have to face job loss.

    But unions must be there and company management should listen their union, because sometimes only work of these employee can take you towards success, never underestimate yours team.

    And there should be flexible working schedule, because many people dot like the politics of offices, in same time there may be some problems, by side of family or any other things. At least there should be an option , who are able to come they are free, but if someone have difficulty so he/she can troubleshoot their problems.

  7. Warm Braw

    Flexible working rights

    Isn't that what Uber, Deliveroo, et al, claim their employeescontractors have?

    There's an increasingly thin line between "flexibility" and "casualisation" - persuade businesses that they don't need full time staff and they're likely to pick the option with externalised costs.

  8. Mike 137 Silver badge

    flexible working for contractors?

    There seems to be some confusion here. Genuine contractors (legitimately outside IR35) are not bound by a contract of service - they're signatories to a contract for services. Consequently, the employment right to request flexible working, which is a concession under contract of service, does not and should not apply. The terms of a contract for services can be any lawful terms, including working away from or at the client's site under any arrangement that is mutually agreed.

    There is a distinct danger in the proposal for "flexible working" for contractors in that it will blur the already challenged distinction between the two kinds of contract - "of service" and "for services", making it easier for HMRC to hammer genuine contractors, who will still not receive the other benefits of employment status such as holiday pay and employer pension contributions.

  9. BuckeyeB

    Why is this a Right?

    Too often after a perk has become normalized, it somehow magically becomes a right. It seems to me that employers are paying for x work to be done at their location of business. Why should the employee demand that it be done differently? From the linked article: "We’ve heard countless stories of how the unavailability of flexible working can impact on workers’ lives and careers.....It’s not right that so many people are being denied something that will make them both happier and more productive at work." This is just anecdotal evidence, not a scientific study. Perhaps, if the employee might offer to take a pay cut to make up for the "flexibility" that might be an agreement you could make with an employer.

    I know that my anecdotal story says that I get more work done at work than at home. In fact, when I work from home, I tend to work more hours to get the same amount done due to the distractions of being at home(wife, children, television or other distractions). I also tend to do better work when I'm dressed in a suit vs dressed casually. Of course, my anecdotal story can be disregarded just as much as others might disregard the ones in the linked story.

    So again, I ask. Why is this a right and not a perk.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon