Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Working hours and locations are becoming increasingly flexible for many employees. Still, employees’ opportunities to flexibly organise their working hours and location largely depend on their occupational position. Despite these notions, only a few systematic empirical studies have been conducted on the distribution of flexible working hours for different groups of workers. In order to carry out an in-depth analysis across occupations, this article distinguishes between employee-centred and employer-centred forms of flexible working hours. It examines which groups of employees benefit more from flexible working hours and which are predominantly burdened by the flexibility demands of their employers. The analysis is based on the EU Labour Force Survey 2019 ad hoc module on working hours and working arrangements and was conducted for five countries representing different working time regimes. The results show that higher-skilled workers can organise their working hours much more flexibly than lower-skilled workers. Employer-centred flexibility is also generally more common among higher-skilled employees. Employees in social services with medium or low qualifications are particularly affected by employer-centred flexibility while having little to no flexibility of their own.

Keywords

occupation class flexibilisation working time international comparison

Introduction

Working hours and locations are becoming increasingly flexible for many people. However, only some employees can use flexibilisation for their own interests, and many employees perform jobs that do not provide them with any scope for flexibility. In many cases, highly qualified office workers can flexibly organise the start and end of their working hours within a certain framework, whereas workers in production are tied to the running times of machines. Despite these obvious differences, little is known about how flexible working hours are distributed across occupations (Lu et al., 2023). Moreover, there is a notable lack of systematic quantitative studies on this issue (Chung and Booker, 2023). The present study aims to contribute to this by probing into the question of how much and in what form access to flexible working hours differs across occupations and thus across different positions on the labour market. The central questions are whether employees in privileged class positions have increased access to flexible working hours and whether employees in less privileged positions have to bear the burden of their employers’ flexible requirements on top of low incomes. Existing findings on the question of which employees experience positive or negative effects of flexible working hours refer to specific occupational groups, particular population groups such as migrants, or specific forms of flexible working hours. What is still lacking is a systematic examination of different forms of flexible work and their prevalence across occupational groups. The empirical distinction between employer-centred and employee-centred flexibilisation makes it possible to assess which employees benefit more from flexibility and which employees have to bear the costs of increasing flexibilisation.

Many studies refer to one national context; however, this risks unjustly generalising findings from individual countries. In fact, national working time regimes, characterised by national institutions and negotiation structures, play an important role in shaping these findings (Rubery et al., 1998). Against this background, a comparison of the situation in different countries can contribute significantly to clarifying whether the results are valid across different country contexts. These questions are analysed by comparing the situations in five countries.

Literature review and research questions

Forms of flexible work

Many researchers assume a fundamental distinction between employer-centred and employee-centred flexibility (Chung and Tijdens, 2013; Costa et al., 2004; Kattenbach et al., 2010; Lott, 2015, 2020), and the central question discussed is ‘Flexibility for whom?’ (Gerstel and Clawson, 2018). Employee-centred flexibility refers to employees being able to organise the start and end of the working day as well as days off or holidays according to their needs (Chung, 2018). The models used in practice are often associated with certain restrictions, such as fixed attendance times or minimum hours. This differs from the complete freedom to organise working hours, known as ‘autonomy’ (Chung and van Der Lippe, 2020; Lott, 2020). Flexibility regarding work location is often considered a form of employee-centred flexibility (Chung and Booker, 2023; Ganault, 2020; Kossek and Lautsch, 2018; Magnusson, 2021). Employer-centred flexibility, on the other hand, is geared towards the requirements of employers and places the burden on employees of reconciling these requirements with their lives. There is also a third form of flexibility, which is non-flexible working hours, such as shift work or work in service professions with fixed opening hours (Lott, 2020). In the context of this paper, this refers to the absence of both employee- and employer-centred flexibility.

The relationships between these forms of flexible working hours can be differently conceptualised (Chung and Tijdens, 2013). On the one hand it is possible to conceptualise them as poles in a continuum; that is, flexibility is either more or less employee- or employer-centred, and labour at the middle of the continuum is not flexible. However it seems more appropriate that different forms of flexible working time organisation can occur simultaneously and represent different axes in a multidimensional space (Chung and Tijdens, 2013). While the use of flexible work arrangements is often seen as a way to increase working time flexibility for employers and employees, convenient flexibility for the employer may not be in the interest of the employee, and schedules that allow workers to respond to personal or family matters on short notice can cause significant organisational problems for firms. (Berg et al., 2004). This view of the different forms of flexibilisation, wherein they at best complement each other and follow different interests, is chosen for the analyses conducted in the current research. Therefore, employee- and employer-centred flexibilisation are analysed separately and then considered together.

The requirement for employer-centred flexible working hours has further consequences for life. For example, employees’ social time can be negatively affected by long working days and flexible work demands (Chatzitheochari and Arber, 2012; Gerstel and Clawson, 2015: 20), and this negative influence can be exacerbated if working conditions are generally precarious (Campos Ugaz, 2022). The effects of flexible working hours on health are also evident, particularly regarding recovery from work (Brauner et al., 2019). Employer-centred flexibility – and above all, the intrusion of work into non-work areas – is experienced by many people as very negative. The feeling of being ‘always on call’ (Venz and Wöhrmann, 2023), namely, being obliged to fulfil work tasks even during free time, is perceived by employees as very stressful. However, when quantitative analyses control for overtime and work pressure, this only applies to women, and men seem to be less burdened by these time constraints (Lott, 2020). Indeed, the ability to mentally disconnect from work for a period of time is crucial for many in terms of well-being and performance (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2015).

These various implications showcase that examining the question of who benefits from flexibilisation and who is burdened by it has far-reaching significance.

Flexible working hours and social class

Around the turn of the millennium, important studies published in the United States of America pointed to employees’ unequal access to flexible working hours (Golden, 2001; Zeytinoglu and Muteschi, 2000). These analyses generally refer to employee-centred flexibilisation, showcasing that less privileged groups have fewer opportunities to use flexible work schedules (Swanberg et al., 2005). Moreover, while employees with college degrees are much more likely to work in jobs that offer flexible working hours, there are hardly any flexible working hours for employees without a high school diploma (Golden, 2001). McCrate (2005) examines the relationship between flexible working hours and various aspects of leadership roles, concluding that ‘job flexibility is in part a prerequisite of the powerful’. Meanwhile, other authors criticise the fact that analyses of working time flexibilisation frequently only refer to highly educated professionals or employees (Kossek and Lautsch, 2018; Warren, 2015). In addition to these professional factors, there is also evidence showing that origin and ethnic group membership characterise access to flexible working hours (Gerstel and Clawson, 2018; Zeytinoglu and Muteschi, 2000). More recent analyses from Europe further confirm that higher-skilled and higher-paid occupations usually offer better conditions in terms of flexible working hours (Ganault, 2020; Magnusson, 2021). These explorations lead to Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 1

Workers in higher class positions can take particular advantage of employee-centred flexible working hours.

Employees in lower classes are often affected by employer demands for flexible work hours (Gerstel and Clawson, 2014), instead of employee-centred flexibilisation. LaBriola and Schneider (2020) show that workers in low-wage occupations are increasingly confronted with fluctuating working hours, which in turn increase significantly in times of crisis, such as the 2008 financial crisis. Against this background, it is assumed that employer-centred flexibilisation varies greatly depending on occupation, and that lower-skilled workers are particularly affected by this type of flexibilisation. Based on these results, hypotheses 2 is formulated.

Hypothesis 2

Employees in lower class positions are particularly affected by employer-centred flexible working hours.

Flexible working hours in international comparison

Comparing different countries requires a typology of countries. All concepts that categorise countries into groups inevitably involve simplifications leading to a certain degree of inaccuracy when analysing the specific situations in individual countries. Despite these limitations, international comparisons are important, as they can highlight relevant issues beyond national contexts.

As a starting point, this paper draws on the typology developed by Visser (2009). This typology of European countries integrates three types of regimes: production regimes according to the Varieties of Capitalism approach (Hall and Soskice 2001), employment regimes (see Gallie 2007), and industrial relations regimes. For the analysis of working-time patterns, the third concept of industrial relations regimes is particularly relevant. This concept considers the role and influence of social partners in each country and the power relations between them. Visser distinguishes four types of industrial relations regimes in the European countries: organised corporatism, dominant in Northern Europe; social partnership, primarily found in Continental (Western) Europe; liberal pluralism in the UK and Ireland; and state-centred regimes in Southern Europe. CEE countries exhibit elements of a liberal market model, while at the same time the state tends to play a much more central role than in classical liberal countries and trade unions tend to be weak, both in negotiations with the state and with employers. Therefore this group is referred to as ‘mixed’. Based on these considerations Visser arrives at a five-group classification of countries: North, Centre-West, South, West, and Centre-East (Visser 2009). This overarching distinction guided the selection of countries examined in this study: Sweden, Austria, France, UK, and Poland.

A more specific focus on the factors that shape different working-time practices across countries can be found in the work of Berg et al. (2014). They distinguish between unilateral configurations in the US, negotiated configurations in Sweden, and mandated configurations in France. When this concept is applied to multiple countries, it becomes necessary to differentiate more precisely between the different levels at which working time is coordinated (Eurofound 2016; Lee and McCann 2011). Specifically, these levels include statutory legislation, with varying degrees of social partner involvement in its definition; sectoral agreements; company-level agreements; and individual arrangements between employer and employee. In practice, several of these forms of coordination are typically found simultaneously, although particular forms tend to dominate in each case (see Table 1). In the context of mandated configurations, this leads to a distinction between adjusted mandated and pure mandated configurations (Eurofound 2016). Also in one country several forms of regulation can apply for different groups of employees, for example unilateral regulations apply to the private sector in the UK, while in the public administration sector working time regulations are dominated by negotiations on sectoral level and company agreements (Eurofound 2016:30) (Table 2).

Table 1.

Overview of welfare state models and negotiation level of working time regulations.

Industrial relations typology (Visser 2009)	North organised corporatism	Centre-west social partnership	South state-centred	West liberal	Centre-east mixed
Level of working time regulation (Berg et. al., 2014; Eurofound 2016; Lee and McCann 2011)	Negotiated: Sectoral agreements dominant, also legislation and company agreements		Adjusted mandated: Statutory legislation dominant, also sectoral and company agreements	Unilateral: Dominant, also company and sectoral agreements (public sector)	Pure mandated: Dominant role of the state, autonomous collective bargaining and collective agreements are rare
Selected countries	Sweden	Austria	France	UK	Poland

Table 2.

Class Scheme based on different work logics (see Oesch 2006).

Marketable skills	Organizational work logic	Technical work logic	Sociocultural work logic
Professional/managerial	Higher-grade managers and administratorsBusiness administrators financial managers	Technical expertsMechanical Engineers, computing professionals	Sociocultural professionalsUniversity teachers, journalists
Associate professional/managerial	Associate managers and administratorsManagers in small firms, tax officials	Technicians: Electrical technicians, safety inspectors	Sociocultural semi professionals: Primary school teachers, social workers
Generally/vocational	Skilled officeSecretaries, bank tellers	Skilled craftsMachinery mechanics, carpenters	Skilled serviceChildren’s nurses, cooks
Low/unskilled	Routine officeMail sorting clerks, call centre employees	Routine operativesAssemblers, machine operators	Routine serviceShop assistants, home helper

Data, measurements and methods

This study used data from the 2019 Labour Force Survey ad hoc module on ‘Work organisation and working time arrangements’. The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is an annual survey conducted in a total of 34 European countries. It is organised by the national statistical offices and covers the entire working-age population in each country (European Commission. Statistical Office of the European Union, 2020). Participation in the LFS is mandatory in Austria and France, while it is voluntary in Sweden, Poland, and the UK. Each year, a special module of the LFS is dedicated to a specific topic. The data of the 2019 module on ‘Flexibility of working times’ is the most recent available data providing comprehensive information on flexible working hours for both the employee- and employer-centred flexibilisation. The data makes it possible to close the gap identified by Campbell (2017) regarding the lack of empirical evidence on employee- and employer-driven flexibilisation. It is assumed that fundamental patterns in the distribution of flexible work by occupation and industry have not changed since 2019. This was verified by looking at the question of how people organise their own working hours in 2019 and 2023. This question was asked in 2019 and included in the basic program of the LFS in 2021.

The sampling rate for the module was between 0.09% (Sweden) and 0.41% (Austria) of the employed population (European Commission, Statistical Office of the European Union, 2020).

Because the working hour patterns of employees and self-employed individuals differ significantly, only employees were included in the analysis. Individuals over 65 years of age were excluded. The final sample used for the analyses included 3,680 employees from Sweden, 14,112 from Austria, 25,914 from France, 14,299 from Poland, and 27,304 employees from the United Kingdom.

Measurement of flexible working hours

The definition of employee-centred flexibilisation was based on the definition of flexible work developed by Chung and Van der Lippe (2020). Accordingly, the measure of this variable included the following three questions.

(1) Whether workers can decide their working hours (1, fully decide; 2, decide within limits; 3, employer mainly decides).

(2) The ease with which employees can take hours off (1, very easy; 2, quite easy; 3, quite difficult; 4, very difficult).

(3) The ease with which employees can take leave days (1, very easy; 2, quite easy; 3, quite difficult; 4, very difficult).

Two questions were used for employer-centred flexibilisation, as described herein.

(4) Whether employees are required to start earlier or stay longer at work (1, at least once a week; 2, at least once a month; 3, less than every month).

(5) Availability for work during free time in the last 2 months (1, contacted several times; 2, contacted a few times; 3, not contacted).

From an analytical perspective, it would have been useful to include additional questions capturing both employee- and employer-oriented flexibility – for example, whether employees can be called in to work at short notice. However, such questions were not included in the LFS.

Measurement of social class

The classification developed by Erikson et al. (2010) for class differences has long played a central role in quantitative empirical analyses. However, new production methods, and their demands for higher qualifications from many workers who were previously purely manual labourers, and a growing service sector have led to important shifts in the occupational structure. Against this background, the distinction between white- and blue-collar workers is becoming less important in terms of social class (Oesch, 2006). In addition, different activities are subject to their own functional logics, which is why vertical differences between different activities should be considered in conjunction with horizontal differences (Oesch, 2006). Oesch’s classification categorises occupations according to three distinct work logics: an organisational work logic, a technical work logic, and a socio-cultural work logic, each entailing different skill levels.

This new classification enables a contemporary and differentiated description of various forms of work while considering both hierarchical and vertical differentiation.

Results

The descriptive results presented in Table 3 show that employees in Sweden about one in six employees could fully decide upon their working hours, whereas only a small proportion of Polish employees could decide on their working hours completely or at least within certain limits. Taking a day off at short notice was the easiest among employees in the United Kingdom and Austria. In Austria, Sweden and the United Kingdom more than half of all employees were able to take off a day very or at least quite easy. Again it was the most difficult among employees in Poland. Taking single hours off at short notice was the easiest among employees in Sweden and the United Kingdom, this was also most difficult among employees in Poland.

Table 3.

Overview of employee- and employer-centred flexibilisation, column percentage. Labour Force Survey Ad hoc module 2019.

	Sweden	Austria	France	UK	Poland
	Employee-centred flexibilisation
Variable WK hours
Workers can fully decide	17%	9%	12%	14%	6%
Workers decide with limits	49%	30%	27%	24%	11%
Employer mainly decides	34%	61%	61%	62%	84%
Freedom taking leave days
Very easy	15%	20%	15%	21%	9%
Quite easy	43%	33%	31%	36%	36%
Quite difficult	29%	27%	27%	27%	39%
Very difficult	13%	18%	27%	16%	16%
Freedom taking hours off
Very easy	50%	20%	27%	37%	16%
Quite easy	33%	31%	28%	33%	16%
Quite difficult	11%	31%	35%	18%	36%
Very difficult	6%	19%	19%	12%	29%
	Employer-centred flexibilisation
Stay longer/start earlier
At least once a week	23%	26%	23%	22%	11%
At least once a month	23%	15%	26%	16%	17%
Less than every month	54%	59%	51%	62%	72%
Availability in free time
Contacted several times	31%	16%	11%	22%	13%
Contacted a few times	30%	21%	19%	26%	30%
Not contacted in 2 months	40%	63%	70%	53%	56%
Number of observations	3 680	14 112	25 914	27 304	14 299

Concerning the two items on employer-centred flexibilisation, approximately one in four employees were expected to stay late or start early at least once a week (26%) in Austria followed by 23% in Sweden and France. In Poland, employees were confronted with the lowest expectations of flexibility. In terms of contact by employers during employee free time, employees in Sweden were the ones that reported such contact most frequently, and this was the least frequent in France. Overall, employees in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Austria experienced the highest level of employer-centred flexibility as well as employee-centred flexibility. In Poland, both forms of flexible work are the least pronounced.

Ordered logistic regression

To summarise the items on flexibilisation, two indices were formed: one for employee- and the other for employer-centred flexibilisation. The first index comprises the answers to question 1 and the average of the answers to question 2 and question 3. The second index capturing employer-led flexibilisation is constructed by aggregating the responses to questions 4 and 5. Both indices differentiate between non-existent, medium and high flexibility. To test the hypotheses, two ordinal logistic regression models (O'Connell, 2006) were used for all six countries of interest.

In the first model, the employee-centred flexibilisation index and in the second model, the employer-centred flexibilisation index was used as the dependent variable. Class according to Daniel Oesch’s classification (Oesch 2006), was considered as an independent variable. In some of the countries, for example Austria, it is primarily mothers who reduce their working hours in order to look after their children (Riederer and Berghammer, 2020). A separate interaction variable between gender and full-time or part-time work was therefore included in the model. As working hours and the degree of flexibilisation can also depend on the sector in which the activities are carried out, this was also included in the analysis as a control variable. And since working hours in large companies are often more strictly regulated than in smaller companies, the size of the company was controlled for as well. No further control variables on the highest level of completed education or possible management responsibility were used because these are implicitly included in the occupational classification, and problems with multicollinearity would therefore be expected. To facilitate interpretation of the results and enable cross-country comparison, predictive margins by occupation were calculated for all countries and visualised in graphical form. Figure 1 displays the predictive margins for employee-centred flexibilisation, Figure 2 for employer-centred flexibilisation. The coefficients for the two logistic regression models, including information on the level of significance, are presented in detail in Tables 4 and 5 in the Appendix.

Figure 1.

Predictive margins of ordered logistic regression using employee-centred flexibilisation as the dependent variable. Labour Force Survey Ad hoc module 2019.

Figure 2.

Predictive margins of ordered logistic regression using employer-centred flexibilisation as the dependent variable. Labour Force Survey Ad hoc module 2019.

In all countries studied except Sweden, the group of managers and administrators has the best access to employee-centred flexible working hours. The higher the qualification level, the higher the rate of employees with medium or highly flexible working hours. Austria, France, and the UK stand out with particularly high values. In Sweden values are high as well but the differences are less pronounced, while in Poland, the values are the lowest overall.

Employees in the socio-cultural work logic experience the lowest level of employee-centred flexibilisation. Higher-qualified groups, such as socio-cultural professionals, differ little or not at all from unskilled service workers. This is likely due to the nature of work in the service and social sectors.

When comparing countries overall, it becomes evident that in Sweden, moderate employee-centred flexibility predominates across all occupational groups. The proportion of employees who are unable to make use of any form of flexibility is lowest in Sweden. The situation is quite different in Poland, where flexibility is lowest across all groups of employees, and where differences between occupational groups are also the least pronounced. Austria, France and the UK show similar patterns with a high level of flexibilisation for employees in the organisational or technical field and lower levels of flexibility for persons employed in socio-cultural professions. The analysis of the situation of men, women, and part-time employees presents a nuanced picture (see details in the Appendix). Compared to full-time employed men, full-time employed women have less flexibility, with significant or highly significant results in all examined countries. However, the situation for part-time employed women is more nuanced. In Sweden and France, employee-centred flexibility decreases in case of part-time work, whereas in Austria, Poland, and the UK, it increases. This variation is likely due to the differing availability of childcare services, traditional gender roles, and the varying prevalence and use of part-time employment across countries. Overall, the results of the ordinal logistic regression confirmed and extended the findings derived from the descriptive results.

As expected, based on the descriptive results, the differences between occupations regarding employer-centred flexibilisation in most countries are slightly less pronounced than for employee-centred flexibilisation. However, the picture varies depending on the work logic considered (Oesch 2006). Managers and administrators are similarly affected by employer-centred flexibilisation as they can benefit from employee-centred flexibilisation. There are gradual differences between countries. Employer-centred flexibilisation is again most pronounced in Sweden, followed by Austria, France, and the United Kingdom. Except for managers and administrators who are less concerned, the situation in Poland is similar to that of the other countries. In Sweden, with the exception of low-skilled and low-skilled manual work, a moderate form of employer-centred flexibility predominates.

Within the field of technical work only technical experts and, to a lesser extent, technicians are often concerned with employer-centred flexibilisation. Employee-centred flexibilisation is more prevalent in this group than employer-centred forms. In all countries except Sweden, more than half of skilled and low-skilled workers are not concerned with employer-centred flexibilisation.

The situation is different for the socio-cultural work logic. This group exhibits very low values for employee-centred flexibilisation at all qualification levels. However, employer-centred flexibilisation shows relatively high values, particularly affecting socio-cultural professionals. This group is significantly disadvantaged by flexible working hours without being able to enjoy the benefits. Notably, a very similar pattern can be observed across the examined countries. Even in Poland, which generally has relatively low values for flexible working hours, similar results can be found.

Discussion

The empirical results confirm the general assumption that employees in occupations requiring higher levels of qualification have more opportunities to flexibly organise their working hours (Hypothesis 1). Thus, the results fit in with the existing findings on class differences in flexible working hours (Ganault, 2020; Golden, 2001; McCrate, 2005; Swanberg et al., 2005). The country comparison further shows that technical experts in Sweden had the highest values for employee-centred flexibilisation, whereas higher-grade managers and administrators showed the highest values in Austria, France and the UK. In all countries studied class differences do not only imply income differences but also have the form of unequal access to flexible working hours. However, the extent of the differences between classes varies among the countries studied.

A strong correlation with class was also assumed for employer-centred flexible working hours (Hypothesis 2). The results do confirm the existence of a correlation; however the observed associations do not follow the expected direction. Managers, especially those in the highest positions, show high values for employer-centred flexibilisation. Among employees in the technical field, employer-centred flexibilisation also dominates at the highest positions. In contrast, flexibility is generally low among lower-skilled groups in the technical sector. The situation is different for occupations classified under interpersonal work logic. As discussed above, these occupations show low values for employee-centred flexibilisation, whereas employees are frequently confronted with employer-centred flexibilisation. These results are similar in all countries studied. These pieces of evidence add important differentiation to previous studies (Gerstel and Clawson, 2014; LaBriola and Schneider, 2020) in the sense that low-skilled workers are not affected more by employer-centred flexibilisation per se, but rather depending on the work logic in which they are employed.

In Sweden, where a moderate degree of employee-centred flexibility predominates, even low-skilled workers and employees in the interpersonal service sector enjoy comparatively good access to flexible working arrangements. At the same time, Sweden has the highest proportion of employees affected by employer-centred flexibility. The Nordic corporatist system in Sweden results in an overall high level of working-time flexibility (Anxo, 2018).

Austria and France exhibit particularly high variability in employee-centred flexibility. Among low-skilled workers, employee-centred flexibility is very limited, while employees with a technical work logic and qualifications below an expert level enjoy strong protection from employer-centred flexibilisation. In Poland as a Central and Eastern European country, employee-centred flexibility is considerably lower overall. Unlike all other countries, both overall and across most occupational groups, employer-centred flexibilisation demands are more widespread than opportunities for employee-centred flexibility.

These findings comply with those in past research showing that flexibility is highest in Nordic and continental countries, and the lowest in Central and Eastern European countries (Magda and Lipowska, 2022). Although different configurations of the interplay between industry and company levels can be found across Sweden and Austria the dominance of negotiations in the organisation of working hours is high in both countries (Anxo, 2021; Eurofound, 2016; Müller-Jentsch, 2017; Pernicka and Adam, 2006) whereas in France the dominant form of regulations is mandated with some negotiations.

The results of studies regarding the effects of the form of coordination of working hours on the degree of flexibility point towards strong effects of union representation on working time flexibilisation (Burgoon and Raess, 2009: 571). Burgoon and Raess argue that in these negotiations flexibility is traded for job security and lower working hours for the core workforce (Burgoon and Raess, 2009: 571). Richbell et al. (2011) also found a strong employee voice associated with a higher use of nonstandard working time. Our results confirm these results for the Nordic organised corporatism and for centre-west social partnership, where working-time regulations are also predominantly negotiated. Despite differences in the dominant levels of working-time regulation, the situation in France is quite similar to that in Austria. In the UK being classified as a West-liberal country, differences in employee-centred flexibility between occupations are considerably less pronounced than in the countries discussed so far. This is likely a result of the emphasis on unilateral regulations, although some employees are also covered by sectoral or company agreements. Regarding employer-centred flexibility, the UK differs little from the other countries considered. In Poland employee-centred flexibility is generally limited, possibly due to the near absence of collective bargaining structures. However, concerning employer-centred flexibility, the differences between Poland and the other countries are less pronounced. These finding suggest that purely statutory regulations, when influenced primarily by market forces, tend to promote employer-oriented flexibilisation and neglect the employee-oriented flexibilisation.

The logistic regression model controlled for gender, part-time work, and part-time work by women. It is often assumed that women, especially those with children, prefer flexible working hours in order to better reconcile their work with caregiving responsibilities (Chung, 2022; Lott, 2015; Lott and Chung, 2016). However flexible working hours seem not to change traditional gender roles (Lu et al., 2023). In fact, evidence shows that this form of division of labour can even contribute to reinforcing the extant, traditional patterns of the division of care work (Chung and Booker, 2023). Both forms of flexibilisation studied here occur less frequently among women than among men. This is in line with a study conducted in the United States of America (Peterson and Wiens-Tuers, 2014). Various forms of flexible working hours are reportedly less common in female-dominated sectors than in mixed- or male-dominated sectors (Chung, 2019; Glauber, 2011; Magda and Lipowska, 2022; Magnusson, 2021). The findings of this analysis contribute to these results.

Conclusions

The analyses show that the distinction between employer- and employee-centred flexible working hours and the choice of different work logics (i.e. activity type and context) and classes (Oesch 2006), as a central analysis category, generates important and new results. Occupational and class differences play a major role in access to employee-centred flexible working hours, as employees in higher-skilled and better-paid occupations often have the opportunity to flexibly organise their working hours. However, there are substantial differences depending on whether the work involves administrative tasks, technical occupations, or socio-cultural work. Socio-cultural workers are particularly frequently affected by employer-centred flexibilisation, often with very limited scope for shaping flexible working hours.

The greatest cross-country differences are observed in Sweden, a country where, within the framework of organised corporatism, negotiations play a major role in regulating working time. Sweden is followed by Austria and France. In Austria, sectoral-level agreements are predominant, while in France, mandated regulations are supplemented and adapted by sectoral and company-level agreements. In the United Kingdom, negotiations between individual employees and employers are dominant, with sectoral and company-level bargaining relevant only for a portion of the workforce. Poland shows by far the smallest differences across occupational groups.

Overall, a strong correlation between class and employer-centred flexible working hours is identified, although the influence of class is significantly lower (vs employee-centred flexible working hours). Contrary to the formulated hypothesis, higher-qualified employees are more affected by employer-centred flexibilisation than lower-qualified employees. Employees working in interpersonal logic, most of them providing services to others, are subject to strong employer-centred flexibilisation.

When evaluating these results, it should not be overlooked that employee-centred flexible working hours have many positive implications but at the same time are customarily accompanied by longer working hours on the employee side, which is also referred to as the ‘flexibility paradox’ (Chung, 2022). Large gender discrepancies remain in the outcomes of flexible working for the division of labour and workers’ work–life balance. With flexibility, men invest more in their jobs and women invest more in the family (Chung and van Der Lippe, 2020). The results of this study further show that women tend to have less access to flexible working hours than men; this emphasises the need for considering, in developing flexible working hours regulations/policies, strategies to try and secure the positive effects of flexible working hours for as many employees as possible without reinforcing the negative effects, such as long working hours. For research, this means developing new indicators (Lott et al., 2022), for example, that can differentiate more clearly between partially flexible and highly flexible working hours. Research also shows that working hours regulations and related documentation have positive effects on work–life balance (Bonvin et al., 2022; Lott and Ahlers, 2021). Here, indicators are also needed to analyse the interplay of various related factors.

Finally, the study identifies differences in the variability between occupations in the countries analysed regarding flexible working hours. This calls for further research into the effect of national systems of regulation on the organisation of working hours and the levels at which working hours are managed. For example, the extent to which employees’ highly flexible working hours are accompanied by long and unbounded working hours.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material - Flexible working hours: Benefit or burden? A study of occupational differences in five European countries

Supplemental material for Flexible working hours: Benefit or burden? A study of occupational differences in five European countries by Bettina Stadler in European Journal of Industrial Relations

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

No writing or editing assistance was received for this article. ChatGPT was used for translations and improvement of English language.

ORCID iD

Bettina Stadler

Ethical considerations

For this article only secondary data provided by Eurostat was used.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data used for this publication can be received from Eurostat, stata-do-files for the calculations can be provided upon request.*

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online.

Author biography

Bettina Stadler is postdoctoral reasearcher at the University of Graz, Austria.

References

Anxo

(2018) Decent work for all the crucial role of flexicurity and the Swedish industrial relations system. Economia e Lavoro LII: 19–32.

Anxo

(2021) Industrial relations, social dialogue and the transformation of the world of work: the Swedish experience. In: Vaughan-Whitehead

Ghellab

De Bustillo Llorente

(eds) The New World of Work: Challenges and Opportunities for Social Partners and Labour Institutions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 466–490.

Berg

Appelbaum

Bailey

, et al. (2004) Contesting time: international comparisons of employee control of working time. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 57(3): 331–349.

Berg

Bosch

Charest

(2014) Working-time configurations - a framework for analyzing diversity across countries. ILR Review 67(3): 805–837.

Bonvin

J-M

Cianferoni

Kempeneers

(2022) What happens when working time is not recorded. Social policy lessons from a Swiss case study. Sozialpolitik 2: 1–21.

Brauner

Wöhrmann

Frank

, et al. (2019) Health and work-life balance across types of work schedules: a latent class analysis. Applied Ergonomics 81: 102906.

Burgoon

Raess

(2009) Globalization and working time: working hours and flexibility in Germany. Politics & Society 37(4): 554–575.

Campbell

(2017) Working-time flexibility: diversification and the rise of fragmented time systems. In: Grimshaw

Fagan

Tavora

(eds) Making Work More Equal: A New Labour Market Segmentation Approach. Manchester University Press, 108–125.

Campos Ugaz

(2022) Time precarity at work: nonstandard forms of employment and everyday life. Social Indicators Research 164(2): 969–991.

10.

Chatzitheochari

Arber

(2012) Class, gender and time poverty: a time‐use analysis of British workers’ free time resources. British Journal of Sociology 63(3): 451–471.

11.

Chung

(2018) Dualization and the access to occupational family‐friendly working‐time arrangements across Europe. Social Policy and Administration 52(2): 491–507.

12.

Chung

(2019) Women’s work penalty’ in access to flexible working arrangements across Europe. European Journal of Industrial Relations 25(1): 23–40.

13.

Chung

(2022) The Flexibility Paradox: Why Flexible Working Leads to (Self-)Exploitation. 1st ed. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

14.

Chung

Booker

(2023) Flexible working and the division of housework and childcare: examining divisions across arrangement and occupational lines. Work, Employment & Society 37(1): 236–256.

15.

Chung

Tijdens

(2013) Working time flexibility components and working time regimes in Europe: using company-level data across 21 countries. International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(7): 1418–1434.

16.

Chung

van Der Lippe

(2020) Flexible working, work–life balance, and gender equality: introduction. Social Indicators Research 151(2): 365–381.

17.

Costa

Akerstedt

Nachreiner

, et al. (2004) Flexible working hours, health, and well-being in Europe: some considerations from a SALTSA project. Chronobiology International 21(6): 831–844.

18.

Erikson

Goldthorpe

Portocarero

(2010) Intergenerational class mobility and the convergence thesis: england, France and Sweden. British Journal of Sociology 61(s1): 185–219.

19.

Eurofound (2016) Working Time Developments in the 21st Century: Work Duration and Its Regulation in the EU. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

20.

European Commission, Statistical Office of the European Union (2020) EU labour force survey ad hoc module 2019 on work organisation and working time arrangements: quality assessment report. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2785/71618

21.

Gallie

(2007) Production regimes, employment regimes, and the quality of work. In: Gallie

(ed) Employment Regimes and the Quality of Work. Oxford University Press Oxford, 1–34.

22.

Ganault

(2020) Occupational inequalities in temporal autonomy: a multidimensional perspective. SocArXiv 1–25.

23.

Gerstel

Clawson

(2014) Class advantage and the gender divide: flexibility on the job and at home. American Journal of Sociology 120(2): 395–431.

24.

Gerstel

Clawson

(2015) Inequality in work time: gender and class stratify hours and schedules, flexibility, and unpredictability in jobs and families. Sociology Compass 9(12): 1094–1105.

25.

Gerstel

Clawson

(2018) Control over time: employers, workers, and families shaping work schedules. Annual Review of Sociology 44(1): 77–97.

26.

Glauber

(2011) Limited access: gender, occupational composition, and flexible work scheduling. The Sociological Quarterly 52(3): 472–494.

27.

Golden

(2001) Flexible work schedules: which workers get them? American Behavioral Scientist 44(7): 1157–1178.

28.

Hall

Soskice

(2001) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

29.

Kattenbach

Demerouti

Nachreiner

(2010) Flexible working times: effects on employees’ exhaustion, work‐nonwork conflict and job performance. Career Development International 15(3): 279–295.

30.

Kossek

Lautsch

(2018) Work–life flexibility for whom? Occupational status and work–life inequality in upper, middle, and lower level jobs. The Academy of Management Annals 12(1): 5–36.

31.

LaBriola

Schneider

(2020) Worker power and class polarization in intra-year work hour volatility. Social Forces 98(3): 973–999.

32.

Lee

McCann

(2011) Negotiating working time in fragmented labour markets: realizing the promise of ‘regulated flexibility. In: Hayter

(ed) The Role of Collective Bargaining in the Global Economy: Negotiating for Social Justice. Edward Elgar Publishing, 51–75.

33.

Lott

(2015) Working-time flexibility and autonomy: a European perspective on time adequacy. European Journal of Industrial Relations 21(3): 259–274.

34.

Lott

(2020) Does flexibility help employees switch off from work? Flexible working-time arrangements and cognitive work-to-home spillover for women and men in Germany. Social Indicators Research 151(2): 471–494.

35.

Lott

Ahlers

(2021) Flexibilisierung der Arbeitszeit. Warum das bestehende Arbeitszeitgesetz und eine gesetzliche Arbeitszeiterfassung wichtig sind. WSI Report 68: 16.

36.

Lott

Chung

(2016) Gender discrepancies in the outcomes of schedule control on overtime hours and income in Germany. European Sociological Review 32(6): 752–765.

37.

Lott

Kelliher

Chung

(2022) Reflecting the changing world of work? A critique of existing survey measures and a proposal for capturing new ways of working. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 28(4): 457–473.

38.

Wang

Olsen

(2023) Revisiting the “flexibility paradox”: degree of work schedule flexibility and time use patterns across gender and occupational groups. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10(1): 790.

39.

Magda

Lipowska

(2022) Flexibility of working time arrangements and female labor market outcome. IZA Discussion Paper 14812: 1–20.

40.

Magnusson

(2021) Flexible time – but is the time owned? Family friendly and family unfriendly work arrangements, occupational gender composition and wages: a test of the mother-friendly job hypothesis in Sweden. Community, Work & Family 24(3): 291–314.

41.

McCrate

(2005) Flexible hours, workplace authority, and compensating wage differentials in the US. Feminist Economics 11(1): 11–39.

42.

Müller-Jentsch

(2017) Strukturwandel der industriellen Beziehungen: ‘industrial citizenship’ zwischen Markt und Regulierung. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft, Vol. VS.

43.

Oesch

(2006) Coming to grips with a changing class structure: an analysis of employment stratification in Britain, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland. International Sociology 21(2): 263–288.

44.

O’Connell

(2006) Logistic Regression Models for Ordinal Response Variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

45.

Pernicka

Adam

(2006) Collective bargaining and working time in Austria. In: Keune

Galgoczi

(eds) Collective Bargaining on Working Time: Recent European Experiences. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute for Research, Education, and Health and Safety, 31–44.

46.

Peterson

Wiens-Tuers

(2014) Work time, gender, and inequality: the conundrums of flexibility. Journal of Economic Issues 48(2): 387–394.

47.

Richbell

Brookes

Brewster

, et al. (2011) Non-standard working time: an international and comparative analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management 22(4): 945–962.

48.

Riederer

Berghammer

(2020) The part-time revolution: changes in the parenthood effect on women’s employment in Austria across the birth cohorts from 1940 to 1979. European Sociological Review 36(2): 284–302.

49.

Rubery

Smith

Fagan

(1998) National working-time regimes and equal opportunities. Feminist Economics 4(1): 71–101.

50.

Sonnentag

Fritz

(2015) Recovery from job stress: the stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36(Suppl 1): S72–103.

51.

Swanberg

Pitt-Catsouphes

Drescher-Burke

(2005) A question of justice: disparities in employees’ access to flexible schedule arrangements. Journal of Family Issues 26(6): 866–895.

52.

Venz

Wöhrmann

(2023) Always on call: is there an age advantage in dealing with availability and response expectations? Work, Aging and Retirement 9(4): 342–357.

53.

Visser

(2009) The quality of industrial relations and the Lisbon strategy In: European Commission. Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (Eds) Industrial Relations in Europe 2008, Employment & Social Affairs. Industrial Relations & Industrial Change. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 45–73.

54.

Warren

(2015) Work and social theory. In: Edgell

Gottfried

Granter

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of the Sociology of Work and Employment. London: Sage Publications, 34–51.

55.

Zeytinoglu

Muteschi

(2000) A critical review of flexible labour: gender, race and class dimensions of economic restructuring. Resources for Feminist Research 27(3): 97–120.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB