Summary of the Submission on the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill by the bill’s author, Sue Kedgley, MP

New Zealanders work longer but produce less The average New Zealander works 1,826 hours per year. This is higher than the average for all OECD nations of 1,778. And yet, productivity per hour worked for in New Zealand is just $26.4 compared to the OECD average of $34.7. Source: OECD

600 New Zealanders 29% believe that their current working hours are undermining family life. 50% were working more than 40 hours a week. 44% of New Zealanders were working hours a week compared to 27% of Australians. Source: Kelly Services Recruitment Agency, 2002.

New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Thirty Families study Our ingrained culture of ‘long, unreasonable and excessive working hours’ was taking a toll on employees, especially those with families. Employees said they were able to spend less and less time with their families, missing out on key milestones in their children’s development. Source: NZCTU, 2003.

New Zealand parents want flexible working hours 93% of 4,475 parents recently surveyed identified flexible working as the change that they would most like to see in workplaces. Parents are finding it difficult to juggle paid work and parenting, and feel unsupported by workplaces. Flexible working hours was the most important requirement identified in the survey, regardless of age, gender or ethnicity. Source: New Zealand Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, 2005.

The UK legislation The UK government acknowledges that families are facing huge challenges in balancing their home and work responsibilities. One of the explicit goals of the legislation is to ensure that children have the best start in life. It also seeks to give families more choice about how to balance these responsibilities.

Gerry Sutcliffe UK Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs Considers the legislation has been a ‘tremendous success’. ‘These employers know that flexible working arrangements enable them to raise their staff morale and decrease unplanned absenteeism, retain skilled staff and reduce recruitment costs.’ Flexible working ‘enables them to react to changing markets conditions more effectively’. Source: speech made 19 October 2005.

UK Employers’ Responses 76% of employers had little difficulty with the new right. 60% of employers did not believe that the new rights had tipped the balance too far in favour of working parents. 90% reported no significant problems complying with the new requirements. This is despite the fact that prior to the legislation the burden of additional costs was a main concern for the business community. Source: UK Chartered Institute for Personnel Development, 2003.

UK Employers’ Responses 75% of managers said there were minimal or no costs involved in introducing family friendly working practices. 66% of managers who provided some form of flexible working considered it to be cost effective. Source: UK Department of Trade and Industry, 2003.

Benefits for Employers Managers of flexible workers rated them as out- performing their traditional full-time colleagues. Employers who offer flexibility achieve a rate of more than 90% of women returning from maternity leave. 90% of employers with flexible work practices think they are cost effective. 39% of employers with flexible work practices think their performance outstrips their competitors. Source: UK Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, 2004

Small Business Employers They are the least likely to refuse a request to work flexibly. Flexible working is intrinsically a part of their workplace culture, and enables them to retain their best employees. Source: UK Department of Trade and Industry, 2005.

Benefits for businesses with flexible working practices Increased goodwill A more flexible attitude on the part of employees Increased productivity Increased numbers of parents returning to work after having children Significantly lower staff turnover rates Reductions in staff sickness absences Source: UK Department of Trade and Industry, 2004.

New Zealand employees are reluctant to raise issues of flexible working with their employers ‘Some workers are not in a strong position to successfully negotiate solutions with their employers, and many employees do not even feel that they can raise these issues with their employers.’ Source: NZ Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, 2004.

Gerry Sutcliffe UK Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs ‘A safety net of legislation is required to protect those employees who do not benefit from working for progressive employers.’ Source: speech made 19 October 2005.

In the UK, the legislation has given employees more confidence to approach their employers ‘I have more confidence to ask, knowing that I have certain rights.’ ‘It means that my employer has to take my request seriously.’ ‘My employer had previously rejected all requests.’ Source: Working Families, 2004.

Since the UK legislation was passed There has been an increase in uptake of flexible working practices by 20%. More than a million employees have made a request to work flexibly. Almost a quarter of parents of children under 6 have asked to change to a more flexible working pattern. Source: Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development, 2005.

Since the UK legislation was passed 8 out of 10 requests have been granted, and a compromise reached in a further 1 out of 10 requests. Around 800,000 UK families have secured flexible working hours. The number of refused requests has declined by around half, with only 10% of requests being turned down. Source: UK Department of Trade and Industry, 2004.

Most requests have been made by women who want to… Work part time – 38% Work flexible working hours – 25% Work reduced hours – 13% Work from home – 10% Source: UK Department of Trade and Industry, 2004.

How requests are made in the UK 79% are made verbally 20% are made in writing Source: UK Department of Trade and Industry, 2005.

The business grounds for refusing a request Inability to reorganise work among existing staff Inability to recruit additional staff Detrimental effect on quality Detrimental effect on performance Insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work Planned structural changes