Employment and social policy: Julie Girling

Flexible working can benefit workers and employers and foster innovation, writes Julie Girling

Flexicurity is the latest employment buzzword to make its way into commission publications but is this esoteric noun here to stay and will it affect the latest review of the working time directive (WTD)?

At EU level the term flexicurity is difficult to define due to its inherent abstract and abstruse nature. The term certainly implies a shift from job security to employment security, combining flexibility in the labour market with employment and income security.

Following the recent first and second-phase consultations on the review of the WTD, one thing was made abundantly clear: there is urgent need for greater flexibility within the current framework, especially in the wake of various European Court of Justice rulings which have made the practical application of this directive very difficult.

A combination of factors – such as the pace of globalisation, technological advances and the increased importance of the services sector – have meant that working patterns have evolved beyond all recognition over the past decade.

It is clear that the WTD has not evolved in tandem with the realities of working life. Thus, while ensuring better reconciliation of work and family life must be considered a priority, we must examine whether the burdensome nature of the current application of the WTD is the right course of action to achieve this.

We need to make sure that we have greater flexibility both with regard to the substantive rules within the current framework and the procedural application of these rules.

In the past few years we have seen a huge expansion of flexible forms in the organisation of working time.

We need to create a framework in which both companies and employees are able to take advantage of new working patterns such as flexitime arrangements, teleworking, part-time and staggered working hours.

We must endeavour to ensure that the framework will in no way hinder the development of these and other flexible working patterns.

Flexicurity can benefit both workers and employers; the term flexibility should no longer have negative connotations. This is old fashioned thinking. A common misconception is that flexible working patterns equate to longer working hours.

In addition, flexicurity will foster innovative adaptability within the workplace. This would be able to accommodate a more diversified workforce, with more people working beyond 65, as well as a greater percentage of women occupying the upper echelons.

In order to suit the needs of such diversified workforces, we must be able to create much more individualised working patterns.

If the WTD is not reformed in a pragmatic and sensible way member states will have to take unilateral action to mitigate the application of this directive.

The ultimate manifestation of this is the fabled opt-out. The perception of the opt-out has dramatically changed in recent years.

In 2000, only the UK took advantage of this option and subsequently faced some stern criticism for doing so. However, there are now 16 member states currently using the opt-out in some way, of which five use the opt-out irrespective of the working sector.

The opt-out has evolved a sensible way to instil flexibility into labour markets. Member states clearly feel that certain provisions with the directive both hinder and impede flexibility and pragmatism.

The increased use of the opt-out is, and will continue to be the ultimate critique of an out-dated and burdensome piece of legislation.

Julie Girling is a member of parliament's environment, public health and food safety committee