As set out in our response to the government’s Work and Parents Green Paper, Kidding Aside are in principle opposed to any legislation which discriminates between employees on the basis of whether or not they have children. We feel that it is not only parents but all employees who face the task of getting a correct work-life balance and therefore see no philosophical or political justification for extending any rights to parents which are not extended to the childfree and childless of this country.

Given that the Government has decided to move ahead with their proposals, we hope that our comments below will enable you to put in place a positive structure that will soon be extended to all workers.

Kidding Aside is committed to the implementation of flexible working hours for all. However, we also realise that this could be very difficult for small businesses in particular. For example, a small business where a consultant employs an administrator to deal with office administration, including telephone enquiries. In this kind of situation the ability of an employer to offer flexible working and guarantee clients times during which they can contact the office are extremely limited. As per other employment legislation, we believe that providing the employer can prove that they have acted in a reasonable way in denying an employee the right to work flexible hours this should be acceptable. However, the onus must be clearly upon the employer and not the employee.

Kidding Aside believe that all workers should have the right to flexible working wherever possible and therefore there should be no cut off point for this right, whether it is dependent upon the age of the child or whether or not an employee has children.

We believe that where flexible working is possible, staff should be able to work flexibly on a permanent basis. As mentioned above, the extent to which a member of staff may do this will be determined by the demands of the job. Kidding Aside believe it is impossible to set a limit on how often and when requests can be made as individual employers’ needs vary so widely. Any short term needs for flexible working hours should be handled by existing legislation on the right for parents to take emergency days off or by taking holiday leave. Please note that Kidding Aside believes that legislation should be amended so that all workers can take emergency leave for domestic emergencies. This is a right that is not extended by existing legislation (see the "time off for domestic incidents" provisions of the Employment Relations Bill 1998/99 according to which childless people have no statutory right to time off even if their house burns down) and we feel that this is an opportunity to right this particular legislative inequality.

If the process outlined in section e below is adopted, employers should be required to respond to the request in writing with an obligation upon them to show that the rejection of the request is reasonable.

Kidding Aside recommend that a process is established which is similar to that which will be used for appeals against rejection of part time working requests. This is another piece of legislation which Kidding Aside feel should apply equally to all and not just to those with children.

If flexible working is determined by the needs of the business with an obligation upon the employer to act in a reasonable way then varying work patterns should also be dealt with in the same way. For many employers it would be possible to establish boundaries for start and finish times within which flexible working should happen thus providing some guarantees for employer and employee.

The Work-Life Balance Trust has produced a number of good publications that should be publicised more widely. Professional bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the Institute Of Directors can provide models of good practice and support for employers through briefings to members.

The biggest risk is that the perceived and growing inequalities in UK employment law are affecting the morale of the childfree and childless workers of this country (due to reach 25% of the population by 2010). There is a growing feeling of discontent as the needs of nonparents are ignored and they are forced to pick up more and more of the slack left by their childed co-workers or leave their own work at short notice and cover for staff who are absent as a result of entitlement under this legislative trend. A few of the examples quoted to us are:

• An organisation which has flexible start (and finish) times where staff can start work between 8.30 and 10.30 yet parents without constraints at the end of the day choose to start work at 10 or 10.30 and then have additional time off when there are childcare problems to sort out. So flexible working patterns do not necessarily dissuade parents from taking short-term time off as a result of domestic demands.
• The childfree person who found that her brother had a terminal illness and wished to spend more time with him in his last 12 months of life. She had no rights to paid or unpaid extended leave and no right to work part time. Leaving her job was her only option.
• Numerous reports from people of colleagues who leave work to deal with a childcare problem such as a child being sick at school and take the whole day (or more) off. The legislation provides for parents to make emergency alternative arrangements but this seems to be commonly interpreted as undertaking the care themselves. There is therefore a risk that flexible working time will be seen as a perk aimed not at helping parents to find alternative arrangements for their domestic commitments but as an excuse for ignoring their commitments to their employer.
• Parents taking advantage of flexible working to fit in their own domestic arrangements but then not being willing to provide flexibility for the employer when other staff have domestic problems. This occurs both at the level of short-term time off and at the level of holiday leave. Further inequalities in employment law can only make these inequalities more acceptable and more common.
• Staff taking advantage of this legislation even when they are not the primary carer. E.g. a member of staff who has a partner who does not work taking time off because the arranged childcare that their partner arranged because of a social engagement, has fallen through.