Flexible working or hire and fire?

Got to be careful here: many of our readers are employers or senior managers who see good sense in the Government’s Christmas-time announcement that it is to pare back the redundancy consultation period from 90 to 45 days.

For example, Tim Thomas, head of employment & skills policy at manufacturers’ organisation the EEF strongly welcomed the decision.

The move, said Thomas, would help create “the flexible labour market that industry needs” and provide a better basis for managing change in the workplace.

But I’m not convinced about the virtues of the totally flexible workforce, which the EEF and other UK employer groups seem to want.

A few years ago, when the credit bubble burst and markets contracted sharply, instead of instigating wholesale redundancies, some major process companies opted to redeploy workers or put them on part-time.

The net result was that these companies bounced back to recovery at an unprecedented rate as soon as demand picked up.

It is worth noting that many of these companies, such as the likes of German chemicals majors BASF and Bayer, adhere to strict employment regulations, whereby due regard must be given to the views of unions and work councils.

While employment flexibility may seem attractive, the danger is that a drift to a ‘hire-and-fire’ culture here will restrict rather than increase UK industry’s ability to respond to market ups and downs.

Reaching more quickly for the (now aptly named) P45s could also lessen the quality of industrial employment and undermine efforts to attract young people into our industries.