In this feature we discuss the growth of ‘work-life balance’ policies within the context of British employment relations. Recognising structural changes to the UK labour market, such as growing female labour market participation and intensification of competition, which have dramatically changed the market relations upon which labour is hired, we seek to place the work-life balance debate within the context of managerial relations and employee voice. 

After a brief overview of current research into the work-life balance, we highlight the need to locate this debate within a framework of the study of employment relations. We argue that the current focus upon stress, ill-health, ‘negative spill-over’, and gender inequalities need to be rooted within an analysis of the problems of enforcing external forms of job regulation and of the decline in bilateral internal job regulation.

Our analysis is based on the 2005 ’24-7 work-life balance survey’, run by the Work-life Balance Centre (Leicester), Keele and Sheffield Universities. This was an Internet survey which ran between 8th September and 31st October 2005, and received 1,654 responses. The research findings focus upon the awareness, application and enforcement of the existing Working Time Regulations, as well as the availability, utilisation and perceived effectiveness of employer policies in the area of work-life balance.

Work-life Balance: An overview

The recent emergence of a wide-ranging discourse on work-life balance is not an accident. There are a various social, political and economic changes that have served to raise the profile of work-life balance in workplaces as well as amongst policy-makers and commentators. The changing demographical composition of the labour market, especially increasing female participation, has undoubtedly served to raise the tricky issue of balancing working lives alongside household tasks. Those with caring responsibilities for people with disabilities and of the elderly also face challenges in combining their work and non-work roles. Childcare arrangements pose particular difficulties for single-parent and dual-earning parent households. But work-life balance difficulties are not confined to particular groups of employees. All workers are working longer and working harder than they have done for over a generation.

There has been some legislation to address work-life balance issues; for instance, the Working Time Regulations and a strengthening of individual employee rights such as maternity and paternity leave and improved access to childcare services. However, the legislative programme is limited and accords with Tony Blair’s boast that Britain has ‘the most lightly regulated labour market of any leading economy in the world’ (DTI, 1998). Moreover, much of the legislation introduced in the UK has largely been undertaken as part of its obligations to comply with European Community law. Moreover, the Labour Government mirrored the ‘same minimalist approach to implementation of EC social policy provisions which characterised former administrations’ with, for example, the Working Time Regulations subject to individual opt-out and parental leave arrangements made for the minimum period allowed to comply with the directive and, unlike most other European countries, unpaid (McColgan, 2000: 142-143).

The key emphasis of the UK government has rather been to encourage employers, on a voluntary basis, to extend the scope of schemes available and raise public awareness of legal entitlements, potential availability and the benefits of family-friendly and work-life balance policies. But the main thrust of these government initiatives is not an acknowledgement of work intensification per se. Central to the government’s work-life balance agenda is that flexible working options are good for business. It is claimed that employers offering more flexibility benefit from a “happier” and more motivated workforce, experience less absenteeism and have fewer retention problems.

The research findings below focus upon two sections of the 24/7 Work-life Balance Survey[i], which took place between in September and October 2005. These sections indicate the current limitations of external and internal forms of job regulation, focusing upon the awareness, application and enforcement of the existing Working Time Regulations, as well as the availability, utilisation and perceived effectiveness of employer policies in the area of work-life balance.

Working Time Regulations 1998

The UK is the EU member state that has taken most advantage of the opt-out from the 48-hour maximum working week, permitted under the Directive; an issue that has been the focus of renewed controversy during the European Commission’s ongoing revision of this Directive. The extent to which the UK legislation provides effective regulation depends, therefore, upon workers’ knowledge of their rights under the law and the extent to which the maximum 48-hour week is circumvented.

Almost three-quarters of respondents in our survey claimed that they were aware of legislation on working time. However, only just over half actually knew that the maximum working week was 48 hours and that it also provided minimum holiday entitlement. Similarly, over one-third of respondents were unsure whether they were excluded or not from the 48-hour maximum working week.

Almost one in ten claimed that they were excluded from the regulations on the 48-hour working week. Official status as executive or autonomous worker or due to self-employment were the main reasons for exclusion from the Regulations, followed by voluntary opt-out, compulsory opt-out and finally collective agreement. The last two categories are of particular interest since, firstly, under the Regulations, employers should not be able to force workers to opt out of the maximum working week and, secondly, under the Directive, collective agreements should not be used to undercut the working time and associated conditions established in the Directive.

It should be noted that unionisation did have an impact on awareness and enforcement of the working time regulations. Unionised workers were significantly more likely than non-union workers to be aware of the legislation, to know the legal maximum working week and to be aware of holiday entitlement. They were more likely to know whether they were excluded from the 48-hour week and less likely to be excluded.

The overall picture to emerge, therefore, is one of a limited knowledge among workers of their legal rights, which creates additional problems for workers trying to obtain an improved work-life balance. There are particular concerns over the proportion of workers who are unsure whether they are covered by working time legislation, and over the use of collective agreements and enforced opt-outs among those who have identified themselves as excluded workers.

Employer policies

The UK government has praised the virtues of flexible working practices for employers and employees alike. This year’s 24-7 survey attempted to ascertain the availability of a range of different flexible working options, support services and workload management initiatives and determine the level of awareness of such schemes and their success in the workplace measured by usage and usefulness.

There were wide variations in terms of the availability of different flexible working options. The most widely available option was flexible start and finish times. The least likely option available was term time working. Other arrangements available to the majority of those in the survey were the option to work from home at times and job share or part-time working. Only around a third of employees had the option of contracted or annualised hours or flexible shift patterns.

Despite availability, employee take-up of flexible working practices was generally low. Whilst slightly more than half of those surveyed had used the options of home working and flexible start and finishing times (where available), take-up of the other four schemes was very low, ranging from 3.8% to 20.3%. More positively, however, for those who had used one or more of the flexible working schemes, there was generally a high degree of satisfaction in terms of usefulness, with over half finding five out the six schemes useful.

It is worth noting that support services (help with childcare or elderly care, employee counselling schemes, stress management training and massage and aromatherapy sessions) were unavailable to most workers in the survey. Furthermore, usage rates for all four support services were uniformly low with the most pertinent finding pertaining to help with care arrangements; whilst two-fifths of people in the survey had caring responsibilities only 2.5% of respondents reported using such a service.

Union presence does also have a slight positive impact on both the availability and usage of work-life balance policies. Trade union members were more likely than their non-union counterparts to have access to all flexible working practices with the exception of the option to occasionally work from home. However, the option to work from home is typically confined to those in professional occupations or senior members of staff. In most cases, union members were considerably more likely than non-union members to have access to support services. Statistically, at least, there is some evidence to support the view that union presence impacts on the availability of work-life balance practices. Similarly, we found a positive relationship between union membership and employee take-up of work-life balance policies with three of the four support services at work more likely to be used by union members. Nevertheless, overall the differences, either way, are relatively small and despite trade union campaigning work-life balance policies remain on the whole illusive for union and non-union members alike.

Given the shortcomings of external regulation and the limitations of employer policies, it is not surprising that the survey results indicate long working hours. Indeed, there is a wide discrepancy between contractual and actual weekly working hours. Almost three-quarters of respondents were contracted to work between 35 and 40 hours, fewer than one in ten were contracted to work between 40 and 60 hours and less than one in hundred were contracted to work longer than 60 hours. However, only around one-third of people actually worked between 35 and 40 hours, with over two-fifths actually working between 40 and 60 hours and over one-tenth working over 60 hours. The survey findings indicate that almost three-fifths of workers took work home with them; three-fifths of these up to five hours a week and almost one-quarter up to 10 hours. Yet while a significant proportion of respondents were taking additional work home, just under two-fifths of respondents took fewer than three lunch breaks per week while at work. Only one-third taken a lunch break every day.

These findings would suggest a culture of long working hours, the intrusion of work into many workers’ home lives and pressure on workers to maintain heavy workloads, even at the expense of meal breaks. In fact, the dominant reason for working beyond contractual hours was ‘to keep up with my workload’. In terms of workers’ perceptions of their work-life balance, the impact of excessive hours was also significant. Over half found it difficult to balance work and their family/private life some of the time and almost one-third claimed this to be the case all the time, raising serious questions about workload and work intensification.

The impact of work upon the lives of many of the survey respondents is clear. Over one-third of workers stated that they were not always able to take holiday entitlement, almost half of those surveyed claimed that it took time to wind down when on holiday; almost one-quarter had actually cut holidays short as a result of work commitments and one-third of workers claimed that they did not feel rested when returning to work after a holiday. Over two-fifths of respondents admitted to coming into work when they were ill due to their workloads.

The survey results also highlight the impact on family life and friends. Almost half of all respondents noted that family and friends had commented on the amount of time they spent at work, over one-third had been resentful of the time spent at work away from family and friends and a similar proportion had been forced to miss family and other special occasions due to work. As a result almost one-quarter of respondents claimed they did not see their children enough, over one fifth stated that work had had an impact upon the relationship with their partner/spouse, with over-work manifesting itself by making almost one quarter of respondents frequently too tired for sex. 

The negative impact of work on the work-life balance was further demonstrated by the fact that almost one-third of workers would actually consider changing to a less demanding job, were it not for financial reasons, while one-quarter of respondents would consider changing jobs if their current working conditions were to continue.

In terms of health, over four-fifths of workers claimed that they had experienced work-related stress. Almost half of respondents felt stressed or pressured at least sometimes and a further one-third claimed unequivocally that this was the case. Furthermore, over almost three-fifths felt that they had suffered ill-health as a result of work-related stress. When exploring the links between stress and ill health, more than two-thirds of those who felt stressed at least some of the time also stated that they had been ill. Of those reporting work related ill health the most common symptoms were: fatigue/extreme tiredness; sleeplessness; irritability with colleagues/family/friends; lack of concentration; headaches or migraine; depression; and anxiety/panic attacks.  

Of greater concern however, was the finding that over one in ten respondents reported that they had made a serious error at work as a result of over-working and workplace stress. These included: ‘loading the wrong chemical into a reactor which could have been potentially catastrophic’; ‘contaminating self or others with bacteria and chemicals’; ‘a dispensing error that caused hospitalisation of a patient’; and ‘the wrong blood product transfused.’

A significant proportion of respondents identified relationships with managers and other staff to be central to improving their situation at work. For example, almost half of all respondents identified better communication between management and staff as the key factor that would improve work. Central to this appears to be the need to cut bureaucratic red tape, identified as a problem by over two-fifths of workers, and to deal with workload allocation. Thus, one-third of respondents want to see a more positive approach towards managing workloads and solving problems and better workload planning; and over one-quarter want greater discussion and control in respect of workload allocation.

However, the most popular solution to workload allocation is more practical, namely the identification from almost half of workers for more staff and resources, and this, according to around one-third of respondents, should be supported by less cost-cutting. Over one-third of workers would like to see more flexible working hours; one-quarter would like more holidays and more time to spend with the family and over one-fifth would like more opportunities to work from home. However, it is interesting to note that relatively few respondents see improved training; policies on bullying; or counselling as appropriate ways to address workload and work-life balance issues. Rather, according to around two fifths of workers, an alternative approach to addressing these issues for the additional work to be properly rewarded through a higher salary and better pay and promotion prospects.

Summary

The findings on work, workloads and work-life balance describe a rather complex, but worrying picture. The survey clearly highlights problems associated with a work-life imbalance (excessive hours; expanding workloads; a loss of control over job content; and work-related stress and illness) and the limitation of existing legal regulation and employer policies to address these. In terms of policy, more flexible working opportunities and more regulation of workloads (primarily through more staffing and greater openness and participation in the determination of work allocation) are viewed as key to addressing work-life balance issues. Furthermore, where workloads have increased significantly, workers want this recognised through better pay and promotion. This identification of expensive solutions to workers’ work-life balance problems – additional staff, less cost-cutting and higher pay – provides a significant challenge to UK employers attempting to derive extra profit (or in the public and not-for-profit sectors, greater value for money).

Nevertheless, the cost to employers in terms of the potential demotivation of workers, the cost of increased sickness levels, and serious workplace mistakes highlight a strong business case for addressing long hours and unsocial working. The findings also indicate that trade union strategies aimed at promoting flexible working patterns are not a solution by themselves and must be combined with more traditional union policies. Negotiation over pay, terms and conditions and over job content remain central to improving the work-life balance of workers. 

References

DTI (1998) Fairness at Work, London: Department of Trade and Industry, HMSO

McColgan, A (2000) ‘Family Friendly Frolics: The Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999’, Industrial Law Journal, Vol. 29, No.2

An extended version of this feature was published in the European Industrial Relations Review (EIRR) and be downloaded here

[i] Hurst, J., Baker, S., Daniels, G. and French, S. (2006) The 24-7 Work Life Balance Survey. This report is available online from: http://www.24-7survey.co.uk/   

Gary Daniels and Steve French, Centre for Industrial Relations, Keele University

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)