The Employees & Manufacturers Association thinks it’s an “oxymoron”; Business New Zealand reckons it will limit workplace flexibility; and the Council of Trade Unions says it’s necessary to support the quality of family life.
The Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill attracted possibly predictable array of submissions at its hearing before the Transport & Industrial Select Committee last month.
The bill aims to give employees with young or disabled children the statutory right to request flexible working conditions – including reduced or changed hours. Such flexibility is needed to meet economic, social and family demands that 21st century workers face, according to CTU secretary Carol Beaumont who was presenting submission on behalf of more than 300,000 workers.
But, as Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O’Reilly points out, the bill would give statutory right to request changed hours only to certain group of workers and wouldn’t take into account those that require flexibility for other reasons (such as aged parents or sick spouses).
“The better alternative is to provide information to employers and employees about the options available and the fact that flexibility is often good for business.”
Legislating employers into straitjackets won’t work and there’s been no research done on the need for such law, according to EMA (northern) employment services manager David Lowe.
“Far better progress can be made when employees work with their employers to come up with more flexible ways of working that suits them both.”
The select committee is due to report on the bill by the end of next month.
Why leaders need empathy during difficult times
Guest Contributor
October 2, 2024
In the current economic climate many employees are worried about their income and job security which can fuel workplace anxiety that leads to wellbeing and productivity issues. Sarah Bills writes that
