A clear majority of those who work more than 48 hours a week do so largely as a result of their own choice rather than employer compulsion according to research by people management experts, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). Senior managers and professionals, who are those most likely to be able to make informed choices about their hours, are most likely to work beyond the 48-hour limit.
The survey of over 750 long hours workers, Calling Time on Working Time?, also finds scant evidence of any employer abuse of the opt-out clause. Over three quarters of staff sign the clause as a result of their own choice rather than any employer pressure. And only a minority actually sign the clause at the same time as signing their employment contracts - a key concern identified in the Commission’s consultation document which closes today, 31st March*.
Commenting on the findings, Gerwyn Davies, the report ’ s author comments, Our survey shows that long hours workers are opposed to the removal of the opt-out and in particular any moves to restrict their freedom to choose to work long hours. The issue of long hours working is complex, deep-seated and ingrained in the culture of organisations and cannot be addressed by a uniform ban. The negative effects of long hours working are evident from the report, but these are best solved by employer measures such as flexible working arrangements rather than a blanket ban on long hours working.
However, the survey also illustrates the potentially damaging effects on employee welfare and corporate productivity of long hours working. 10% of employees report damaging physical effects and 17% effects on their mental health. More significantly, more than a third of staff report that working long hours negatively affects their performance, with a significant proportion believing that they could be just as effective and productive if they cut their working hours.
Duncan Brown, Assistant Director-General comments, We believe that the debate over the working time regulations needs to be considered in the broader context of how people are managed and motivated at work. Rather than having inflexible uniform limits, employers need to be looking at more varied, creative, motivating and effective ways of increasing performance and productivity than simply increasing the workload and working hours of their staff.
Related CIPD research demonstrates that giving employees a high level of choice and involvement over how and how long they work and introducing a wider variety of more flexible working options can realise substantial gains in levels of employee commitment and corporate productivity. Yet in this study fewer than half of employees felt that they had access to flexible working options.
Davies concludes, The Working Time Regulations have had only a limited impact and removing the opt-out would not help significantly. Only six per cent of those who have reduced their working hours during the past five years have done so as a result of the working time regulations. And while UK workers welcome the intervention of their employers to reduce their working hours, they are less receptive to the involvement of the EU. The interests of both workers and organisations in promoting a better work-life balance are therefore better served by the wider use of flexible working arrangements
Headline findings:
Personal choice v compulsion
*Seven out of ten (70%) respondents stated that it was partly or totally their choice to work in excess of 48 hours. However, 30% claimed that there was an element of compulsion, which was up from 11% in 1998.
*The majority of respondents working 48 or more hours a week were putting in the extra hours consistently throughout the year. Almost three-quarters (73%) of those working 48 or more hours a week did so either most weeks or every week.
*In terms of what would enable them to work fewer hours, less work (26%) and maintaining a similar standard of living (25%) were the two critical requirements.
*Of those who had heard of the opt-out clause, nearly 4 out of 10 (37%) had signed the agreement, so they were now in a position to work longer than the 48-hour limit.
*Six out of ten respondents who had signed the opt-out clause did so after the date of signing the employment contract, with some 37% signing on the date itself.
*One in five (21%) had felt a degree of employer compulsion to sign the opt-out agreement.
Effects of long-hours working
*A number of people came up with positive aspects to working long hours, including better standard of living (51%), better quality of life (46%), improved self-esteem (38%) and promotion or career progression (24%).
*The biggest regret among respondents working 48 hours or more a week was the fact that they missed out on leisure and hobby time. This was put forward by almost 7 out of 10 (69%) people. Strain on relationship with partner (47%) was also a key concern.
One in ten (10%) of workers putting in 48 hours a week or more had suffered some form of physical problem as a result of working long hours. Furthermore, 17% of respondents had suffered from mental health problems such as stress or depression. Others reported making mistakes at work (22%) and performing less efficiently because of tiredness (36%).
Flexible working solutions
*Just under half of respondents have access to flexible working options such as job sharing; although encouragingly some 16% claimed that they had seen more flexible working patterns introduced during the last five years.
Long-hours trends
*Almost half (45%) of respondents believed that their companies encouraged the working of long hours.
*Over 4 out of 10 respondents (41%) claimed that they could maintain the same level of productivity while cutting back the number of hours worked each week,
Arguments for keeping the working time opt-out
*Only 35% would like to see the opt-out clause removed, which would in effect compel organisations to limit the working week to 48 hours.
*When explicitly asked whether the EU should have the right to limit the number of hours you choose to work, a clear majority (66%) were against the notion.
*Fewer than one in three workers can identify the number of hours set out by the Working Time Directive.
*6% of those who had reduced their hours put it down to the Working Time Regulations, although this represented an improvement on the 1998 figure (0%). A further 3% claimed the reduction was due to the Government new right to ask for flexible working options - a substantial figure, given that the right is eligible only to parents with children under 6 and those with disabled children under 18.
Arguments for removing the opt-out
*Around two thirds of long hours workers are in favour of the EU Working Time Directive - the most popular reason being that it was the only way to ensure that employees did not work excessively long hours (51%), up from 41% in 2000.
Tackling the long-hours culture
*When asked to identify moves that the organisation has made to reduce working hours, almost one-quarter (23%) put forward time sheets.
*On balance, more people favour employer attempts to restrict the number of working hours than those who don’t. Some 55% of long-hours workers believed it to be a good idea, compared with 37% who disagreed.
Working Time Directive - General
*Around 16% of respondents identified ’ greater flexibility ’ as the measure they would most welcome to improve the European Union Working Directive, making it the most popular option.
If the long-hours workers were faced with a strict rule that they were not allowed to work more than 48 hours, 50% claimed that it would have no effect on them. A further 12% indicated that they would have to get a second job and 9% change job altogether.
CIPD research shows that British workers oppose moves to end UK working time opt-out
.