Overcoming the time difference: how the UKís working hours are changing

Blue and white collar workers are increasingly sharing the same basic working hours and flexible working arrangements, according to research released today (11 August 2004) by IRS Employment Review, published by LexisNexis.

Though blue collar workers have traditionally had a longer basic working week, pressure to reduce hours, increase work-life balance and harmonise arrangements across the workforce seem to be having an effect as employment terms converge.

Six out of 10 organisations surveyed had common hours for all, compared with fewer than half in 2002. And the research found few instances where white collar staff are able to vary their working hours while manual workers are not - all in the public sector.

IRS Employment Review surveyed 77 organisations covering 196 employee groups (more than 70,000 people) to establish how UK employers organise working hours, the ways in which they implement the opt-out, and their thoughts on the European Commissionís suggestions for change. The full survey will be available in issue 806 of IRS Employment Review ().

Key points

A quarter of respondents have made changes to working time in the past five years, most frequently cutting hours and introducing work-life balance initiatives.

More than three in ten employers offer variable hours, although they are available to just a quarter of employee groups. A smaller proportion of employers (25%) offer flexitime to at least some workers, compared with 37% reported in an IRS survey of 2002. Less than one fifth (18%) of employee groups surveyed can work flexitime.

Almost half the employers surveyed have asked their staff to sign an individual opt-out from the maximum average 48-hour working week, and nearly nine out of ten (86%) would oppose the abolition of the opt-out.

Opt-outs are more common in chemicals, construction, engineering, food, drink and tobacco, general manufacturing, paper and printing and transport and communications. They are less common in finance, general services, retail and wholesale and the public sector.

Several employers said that abolishing the opt-out would adversely affect employeesí earning. Others said they would have to employ more staff, or might be unable to meet customer requirements at peak times. A few were worried that costs would rise and productivity or profitability might drop.

While two-thirds of those employers asking for opt-out clauses had then gone on to ask some staff to put in more than the usual maximum number of hours, in most cases the number of employees affected was small.

Survey respondents generally supported tighter conditions on the use of the opt-out.

IRS Employment Review managing editor, Mark Crail said:

ìWorking time can be a contentious issue. In 2003/04 alone, Acas dealt with more than 7,500 individual disputes involving working time - more than twice the number of applications in relation to race discrimination or equal pay. And there has been a heated war of words between employer and employee bodies this summer as the European Commission considers the future of the UK opt-out from the 48-hour maximum average working week.

ìIt is interesting to note, however, that although employers are strongly opposed to the abolition of the opt-out, they recognise that its use could be tightened up and would support moves to prevent abuses of the system. This is unlikely to be enough to satisfy trade unions - which want to see the opt-out scrapped altogether - but it could prevent thousands of people feeling forced into signing away their employment rights.î