Flexible working time arrangements and gender equality

128 Pages·2010·3.66 MB·English

Flexible working time
arrangements and gender equality
A comparative review of 30 European countries
European Commission
This publication is commissioned under the European Union Programme for Employment and Social
Solidarity (2007-2013). This programme is managed by the Directorate-General for Employment, social
affairs and equal opportunities of the European Commission. It was established to financially support
the implementation of the objectives of the European Union in the employment and social affairs area,
as set out in the Social Agenda, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the EUROPE 2020 goals
in these fields.
The seven-year Programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape the development of appropriate
and effective employment and social legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA-EEA and EU
candidate and pre-candidate countries.
PROGRESS mission is to strengthen the EU contribution in support of Member States’ commitments and
efforts to create more and better jobs and to build a more cohesive society. To that effect, PROGRESS is
instrumental in
— providing analysis and policy advice on PROGRESS policy areas;
— monitoring and reporting on the implementation of EU legislation and policies in
PROGRESS policy areas;
— promoting policy transfer, learning and support among Member States on EU objectives
and priorities; and
— relaying the views of the stakeholders and society at large
For more information see:
http://ec.europa.eu/progress
Flexible working time arrangements
and gender equality
A comparative review
of 30 European countries
Janneke Plantenga and Chantal Remery
EU Expert Group on Gender and Employment (EGGE)
The national experts (* indicates non-EU countries)
Ingrid Mairhuber, Austria Ruta Braziene, Lithuania
Danièle Meulders, Belgium Robert Plasman, Luxembourg
Iskra Beleva, Bulgaria Ilze Trapenciere, Latvia
Chrystalla Ellina, Cyprus Frances Camilleri-Cassar, Malta
Alena Křížková, Czech Republic Janneke Plantenga and Chantal Remery,
the Netherlands
Ruth Emerek, Denmark Ania Plomien, Poland
Friederike Maier and Andrea Hilla-Carl, Germany Virgínia Ferreira, Portugal
Reelika Leetmaa, Estonia Elena Zamfir, Romania
Maria Karamessini, Greece Anita Nyberg, Sweden
Elvira González Gago, Spain Aleksandra Kanjuo Mrčela, Slovenia
Hanna Sutela, Finland Magdalena Piscová, Slovakia
Rachel Silvera, France Colette Fagan, United Kingdom
Mária Frey, Hungary Lilja Mósesdóttir, Iceland*
Ursula Barry, Ireland Ulrike Papouschek, Liechtenstein*
Annamaria Simonazzi, Italy Anne Lise Ellingsæter, Norway*
*See page 81 for the list of national reports
European Commission
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Unit G1
Manuscript completed in November 2009
This report was financed by and prepared for the use of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal
Opportunities in the framework of a contract managed by the Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or position
of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Neither the European Commission
nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this
publication.

Fondazione Brodolini
Viale di Villa Massimo 21
00161 Rome RM
ITALY
Tel. [phone]
[email protected]
http://www.fondazionebrodolini.it/
© photo 1: Getty Images
photo 2: 123RF
photo 3: iStock
1 2
3
For any use or reproduction of photos which are not under European Union copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder(s).
Europe Direct is a service to help you
find answers to your questions about
the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access
to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data as well as an abstract can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010
ISBN 978-92-79-15545-1
doi:10.2767/29844
© European Union, 2010
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium
Printed on white chlorine-free PaPer
Contents
Country abbreviations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 5
Executive summary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 7
Résumé � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 11
Kurzfassung � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 15
1 Introduction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 19
2 Working time flexibility in Europe: an overview � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21
3 Regulatory framework � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 29
4 Flexibility in the length of working time � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 39
5 Flexibility in the organisation of working time � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 53
6 Categorising working time flexibility and gender equality in employment � � � � 65
7 Policy developments � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 71
8 Summary and conclusions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 79
References � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 81
Appendices � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 87
3

CoUntRY ABBReVIAtIons
BE Belgium
BG Bulgaria
CZ Czech Republic
DK Denmark
DE Germany
EE Estonia
IE Ireland
EL Greece
ES Spain
FR France
IT Italy
CY Cyprus
LV Latvia
LT Lithuania
LU Luxembourg
HU Hungary
MT Malta
NL Netherlands
AT Austria
PL Poland
PT Portugal
RO Romania
SI Slovenia
SK Slovakia
FI Finland
SE Sweden
UK United Kingdom
IS Iceland
LI Liechtenstein
NO Norway
5

exeCUtIVe sUmm ARY
Increasing the flexibility of working time is an impor- western EU Member States, whereas, especially in
tant element of the European employment strat- the new Member States, the traditional 40-hour
egy (Employment Guideline 21). Enterprises should working week is still very much intact. In regard to
become more flexible in order to respond to sudden the life course perspective, part-time work is least
changes in demand, adapt to new technologies and common for male employees in the prime age
be in a position to innovate constantly in order to group, suggesting that part-time work facilitates a
remain competitive. Flexibility, however, is not only com bination of work with education for the young
identified as an important ingredient in the quest for age group and phased retirement in the old age
competitiveness by employers. Also on the supply group (although the levels remain low compared
side, contemporary employees demand non-full-time to female employees). Working overtime and long
working hours and/or flexible working time schedules hours is more common in the prime age group and
in order to suit their preferred lifestyles and to recon- the older age group. In some countries, however,
cile work and family life. However, employer-friendly long hours are more common among young
and employee-friendly flexibility do not necessarily employees. The main form of flexibility in working
converge, creating new tensions between employ- time among female employees is part-time work.
ers and employees and between men and women. Although having children is an important reason
This report provides an overview on flexible working to work part-time, part-time rates in the prime age
time arrangements and gender equality in the 27 EU group are not consistently the highest.
Member States and the three EEA–EFTA countries. The
focus is on internal quantitative flexibility. On the one When looking at the overall pattern of flexibility in
hand, this refers to flexibility in the length of working the length of working time, it appears that Austria
time, such as part-time work, overtime work and long and the United Kingdom have a high ranking on all
hours and, on the other hand, to flexible organisation three indicators. The Netherlands has a high score
of working time, such as flexible working time sched- on part-time employment and working overtime,
ules, homeworking and work at atypical hours. whereas Iceland and the Czech Republic have high
scores on working overtime and working long hours.
The length of the working week is an important At the other end, four countries are the least flexible
element of the employment contract. For a long time, and score low on all three indicators: Portugal,
the trend has been towards a progressive regulation Lithuania, Cyprus and Hungary. This implies that the
and a shortening of the full-time working week. Yet, at majority of countries have some level of flexibility in
the end of the 20th century, the emphasis has shifted the length of working hours.
in favour of more flexible and individualised working
hours. In order to accommodate these developments, From a gender equality point of view, the increased
the regulatory framework has become more focused flexibility in working hours should be rated positively
on allowing tailor-made solutions within the bound- inasmuch as more individualised working hours can
aries of a commonly agreed framework. The result help employees to reconcile their work obligations
may depend on the system of industrial relations and and personal life. It is therefore likely that more indi-
the strength of the different parties involved, with vidualised working hours have a positive effect on
different roles for legislation measures, collective the female participation rate. Greater flexibility in
bargaining and bilateral negotiations between the the length of working time, however, also seems to
employer and the employee. In this respect, it should have some adverse effects on gender equality, taking
be noted that legislation does not necessarily result into account that the main form of flexibility among
in a better position for employees. In some countries female employees is part-time work. In most coun-
the strengths and coverage of collective agreements tries, part-time work is still concentrated in low-paid
may be comparable or even better than national sectors with low career and training opportunities.
legislation in other countries. It is thus difficult to claim that greater flexibility — in
terms of the length of the working time — will have
Differences in the length of working time between the desired effect of greater gender equality.
the European Member States are still very large.
For example, individualised working hours appear Whereas increased flexibility in the length of working
to be relatively widespread in the northern and time can be relatively easily documented from labour
7
FLExIBLE WORKING TIME ARRANGEMENTS AND GENDER EqUALITY
force survey data, the increased flexibility in the From a gender perspective, it is generally assumed
organisation of working time is much more difficult to that a flexible organisation of working time supports
ascertain. This is partly attributable to the fact that the the reconciliation of work and private life and as such
flexible organisation of working time is often nego- should favour gender equality. Yet, flexible working
tiated at the level of the firm, independently from time schedules should be carefully designed in
statutory regulation and/or the system of collective order to take the preferences of the employees into
bargaining. As a result, the statistical processing of account. In addition, the organisational culture has
these developments is far from complete. Never- a large impact on the actual use of these schedules.
theless, despite the statistical deficiencies, it can As long as flexibility is still considered a ‘female’ way
be concluded that also on this dimension Europe of organising working time, flexible working time
displays large differences, particularly with regard to schedules are more likely to confirm gender differ-
flexible working time schedules. Flexible working time ences than to change them. A flexible organisation of
schedules refer to arrangements such as staggered working time may also contribute to the blurring of
working hours, flexitime arrangement and working boundaries between work and leisure/private time.
time banking. Flexible working time schedules are Flexibility in this respect demands a certain level
rather widespread in Denmark and Sweden with at of self discipline. If there are no strict boundaries
least 60 % of men and women having access to flexible between paid work and leisure, there is a danger
working time schedules. Also Germany, Finland and that evening or weekend work becomes normalised,
Norway score relatively high with a little more than which may put a strain on private and/or family life.
half of all employees working with some kind of flex-
ibility in their working hours. Low scores are concen- It is possible to categorise the different realities of
trated in the southern EU Member States and in the the EU Member States and classify the different
new Member States of eastern Europe. Member States in terms of gender equality working
time regimes by combining the national scores on
Furthermore, the mix of flexible working time working time flexibility and on gender equality
schedules is different across countries. In Denmark in employment. Gender equality is measured by
flexitime arrangements and (to a lesser extent) the standardised gender gap in employment, the
working time banking are common, whereas in gender pay gap and the working time dissimilarity
Sweden staggered hours are an important form of index. Working time flexibility is charted using the
flexible working time schedules. In Germany working shape of the working time distribution (kurtosis) of
time banking is the main form and it is also the all employees; the percentage of employees usually
country with the highest share of employees having working at home and the percentage of employees
access to this schedule. In the southern and eastern making use of flexible working time schedules. On
European Member States, working time banking is the basis of this categorisation, Denmark, Finland,
still an unfamiliar phenomenon. The limited flexibility France, Slovenia and Sweden are placed in the upper
mainly refers to staggered hours and flexibility in right quadrant; they score above average in terms
starting and ending the working day or determining of both gender equality and flexibility. A number of
personal working schedules. The available infor- countries, most notably Spain and Greece, perform
mation with regard to homeworking suggests that poorly in both gender equality and flexibility and
the incidence of, for example, telework has increased are placed in the lower left quadrant. Both countries
significantly over the past decade as a result of new combine a relatively large gender employment gap
technologies. At the same time, however, the number with relatively little flexible working time schedules
of full-time teleworkers remains relatively small as a and homeworking. The Netherlands, Austria, the
proportion of the overall workforce. Finally, infor- United Kingdom and to a lesser extent Germany and
mation on atypical hours indicates that the (male and Luxembourg combine flexibility with relatively low
female) share of persons working on Saturday and/ gender equality. Especially for the Netherlands and
or at night has remained relatively stable. There is a Austria, the poor rating in gender equality is to a large
slight increase in the share of employees working in extent due to the larger share of women working
the evening, on Sunday and in shifts, but the devel- part-time compared to men. Finally, Lithuania,
opments do not seem to indicate a trend towards a Portugal, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Bulgaria and
‘24-hour’ economy. Romania combine low flexibility with high levels of
8