The Sylvan flexible working debate considered the following motion:
This house believes that the flexible working patterns of the pandemic will be sustained for the long term.
The debate took place on Monday, 7th June. Ewan McGaughey proposed the motion and Tony Koutsoumbos opposed it.
The proposition supporting the view that flexible working will continue
The proposer pointed out a potential silver lining to the terrible Covid crisis – sustained, flexible working. It will and should be sustained. This means flexibility for employees, not control of the workforce by employers. Flexibility means the option to work from home, autonomy to arrange working times and videoconferences rather than flights. It does not mean long hours or surveillance by employers. This will benefit regional development as people can work closer to home. In other words, fewer Prets and more local jobs. Flexibility and home working can drive isolation, but if done right the autonomy can lead to increased happiness. Beyond this, we should institute a three-day weekend and increase holidays – leading to working better and more productively.
The opposition against the motion
The opposer clearly argued that the debate centres on whether it will be sustained, rather than should it be. He cited doubts raised by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) on the flexible working trend. And he strongly questioned whether the benefits apply to those workers who cannot work from home. He and the proposer and other middle class jobholders can enjoy flexibility, but what about the ‘little people’?? Flexibility that would benefit all workers include things like increased parental leave and fewer meetings. There are many types of flexible working, far beyond simply the ability to work from home.
For flexibility to be sustained, it requires the employees, employers and government to support it. Employees generally want flexibility, though not all. The trend among employers is not strongly towards flexibility – for instance the tech sector is bringing workers back to offices. And governments will over time reduce Covid restrictions and start encouraging workers back to the office. Unfortunately, flexible working is going in the wrong direction.
Floor speeches from the audience of the flexible working debate
Floor speakers focused on both whether flexibility will and should continue. They tended to view flexibility in the context of the type of home working seen during the pandemic. More and more professions will be able to work from home as technology improves. Home working can equalise the power of women in firms. Different firms treat home working very differently, which seems to be driven in some cases by individual executives. The future of flexible working will be more of a ‘hybrid’ model which is some time spent at home and some in the office. Zero-hour contracts – some view them as slavery and others as flexible.
Some extolled the benefits of the camaraderie that can come from office working. Others that flexibility means choosing the best setting for an individual worker, home or office. The pandemic is a great experiment, though it will be easier for companies and governments to revert to the old pattern as those structures still exist. Unions have been smashed and are now corporate entities, and bosses will decide what will happen.
The opposer’s rebuttal in the flexible working debate
In rebuttal, the opposer re-stated that flexible working both should and will be sustained. He then dispelled four ‘myths’ propagated by the opposer. The status quo bias will mean we revert to the past due to government actions, yet the civil service will have the right to flexibility going forward. Employees don’t have the power to stand up for what they want. Face-to-face workers don’t matter or won’t benefit, yet having more holidays will benefit them. That the CIPD’s definition of flexible working holds for this debate, which includes zero-hours contracts. These are myths and we should sustain the benefits of flexible working for employees.
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer delineated the views of the audience across two dimensions – those who value personal choice and those who value equality of outcomes. The former tend to support the motion and the latter oppose. However, whether workers will continue to have flexibility depends on the power to retain that right. Do you have the power, will you have the power? We have weaker unions and the government putting pressure on employees to sell benefits. Working from home is the only type of flexible working increasing, while others decline. Yes flexibility is a good idea, but we need to reject the status quo to achieve it – and we can’t assume we’re there yet.
Result: in the final vote, the flexible working debate motion carried
The Sylvans concluded through the flexible working debate that the flexible working patterns of the pandemic will continue.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.