Work-life policies in Great Britain: What works, where ... - DTI Home

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
RESEARCH SERIES NO. 77
Work-life policies in
Great Britain: What works,
where and how?
WERS 2004 GRANTS FUND
JULY 2007

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS RESEARCH SERIES NO. 77
Work-life policies in Great Britain: What
works, where and how?
BY
SADIA NADEEM AND HILARY METCALF, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH

About EMAR
Employment Market Analysis and Research (EMAR) is a multi-disciplinary
team of economists, social researchers and statisticians based in the
Employment Relations Directorate of the Department for Business, Enterprise
& Regulatory Reform.
Our role is to provide the evidence base for good policy making in
employment relations, labour market and equality and discrimination at work.
We do this through:
• Conducting periodic socio-economic benchmark surveys
• Commissioning external research reports
• Conducting in-house research and analysis
• Assessing the regulatory impact of new employment laws
• Monitoring and evaluating the impact of government policies
We publicly disseminate the results of this research through BERR’s
Employment Relations Research Series and other publications. For further
details of EMAR's work please see our web pages at:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/employment/research-evaluation
About this publication
The project manager for this report was Carmen Alpin, Principal Research
Officer in the Employment Market Analysis and Research branch.
Published in July 2007 by the Department for Business, Enterprise &
Regulatory Reform. URN 07/826 ISBN 978-0-85605-692-5
© Crown Copyright 2007
This BERR publication can be ordered at: www.berr.gov.uk/publications Click
the ‘Browse by subject’ button, then select ‘Employment Relations Research’.
Alternatively, call the BERR Publications Orderline on 0845 015 0010 (+44
845 015 0010) and ask for URN 07/826, or email them at:
publications@berr.gov.uk
Postal enquiries should be addressed to:
Employment Market Analysis and Research
Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform
Bay 4107
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
UNITED KINGDOM
Email enquiries should be addressed to: emar@berr.gov.uk
ii

Foreword
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)
leads work to create the conditions for business success through competitive
and flexible markets that create value for businesses, consumers and
employees. It drives regulatory reform, and works across Government and
with the regions to raise levels of UK productivity. It is also be responsible for
promoting choice and quality for consumers through competition policy and for
ensuring an improved quality of life for employees.
As part of that work the Employment Market Analysis and Research branch
(EMAR) of the Department manages a research programme to inform policy
making and promote better regulation on employment relations, labour
market, and equality and discrimination at work issues.
This is one of 14 reports commissioned by BERR under the Workplace
Employment Relations Survey (WERS) 2004 Grants Fund. The Fund is a
Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform initiative to develop
the evidence base in areas of policy interest, raise awareness of this survey
and encourage advanced data analysis based on the WERS 2004 datasets.
A call for proposals was made in November 2005. Proposals were selected
for their contribution to the evidence base and relevance to government
policy. The Fund is administered by the EMAR branch and the Skills Unit.
More details on the WERS 2004 Grants Fund can be found here:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/employment/research-evaluation/grants/wers
This report provides a comprehensive picture of work-life policies in Britain
and their effect on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and stress. It
examines a wide range of policies (e.g. reduced working-time, home working,
childcare and additional leave) and explores provision as reported by
management and as reported by employees.
We hope you find it of interest. Electronic copies of this and other reports in
our Employment Relations Research Series can be downloaded from the
BERR website, and printed copies ordered online, by phone or by email. A
complete list of our research series can be found at the back of this report.
Please contact us at emar@berr.gov.uk if you wish to be added to our
publication mailing list, or would like to receive regular email updates on
EMAR’s research, new publications and forthcoming events.
Grant Fitzner
Director, Employment Market Analysis and Research
iii

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the WERS Information and Advice Service, particularly
John Forth, Simon Kirby and Lucy Stokes for their guidance in analysing the
survey. We would also like to thank BERR’s project team, particularly Carmen
Alpin, for her guidance and support.
We acknowledge the Department of Trade and Industry, the Economic and
Social Research Council, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Services
and the Policy Studies Institute as the initiators of WERS
We also wish to record our gratitude for all the managers and employees who
participated in the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, and thank
the ESRC Data Archives at the University of Essex for making the data
available.
The authors remain solely responsible for the interpretation of the data and for
any errors.
iv

Contents
Foreword ...................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... iv
Contents ........................................................................................................ v
List of tables................................................................................................ vii
Executive summary ...................................................................................... 1
Introduction................................................................................................... 5
Introduction................................................................................................. 5
The background and design of the study.................................................... 5
The layout of the report............................................................................... 6
Methodology.................................................................................................. 8
The Workplace Employment Relations Survey........................................... 8
Data Analysis.............................................................................................. 9
Workplace characteristics and work-life policies .................................... 16
Introduction............................................................................................... 16
Work-life options offered by establishments ............................................. 16
Characteristics of workplaces offering various individual work-life policies19
Workplaces that offer a few or a comprehensive range of policies........... 26
Summary .................................................................................................. 27
Employees’ knowledge of work-life policies ............................................ 29
Introduction............................................................................................... 29
Work-life options perceived to be available by employees ....................... 29
Perceived availability of full-time flexible working options......................... 31
Perceived availability and knowledge of reduced time working options.... 33
Perceived availability and knowledge of childcare and leave options....... 35
Summary .................................................................................................. 35
Differences between employee and employer beliefs on provision....... 38
Introduction............................................................................................... 38
Characteristics of workplaces in which differences exist between
employees’ and employers’ perceptions................................................... 39
Characteristics of employees where differences exist between employees’
and employers’ perceptions...................................................................... 40
Summary .................................................................................................. 41
The impact of work-life policies on employee attitudes.......................... 43
v

Introduction............................................................................................... 43
The impact of individual option provision on employee outcomes ............ 43
The relationship between the number of policies available and employee
outcomes .................................................................................................. 46
Summary .................................................................................................. 47
References................................................................................................... 49
Annex A: Derived variables........................................................................ 52
Calculating the HR and communication index .......................................... 52
Computing educational qualification ......................................................... 54
Dividing the occupational groups into high and low status........................ 55
Calculating employee outcomes............................................................... 56
Annex B: Workplace and employee characteristics ................................ 57
Annex C: Regression outputs.................................................................... 62
BERR Employment Relations Research Series ....................................... 89
vi

List of tables
1 Provision of flexible working options 17
2 Employee groups to whom reduced time and flexitime
options are not available
3 Percentage of establishments offering childcare and leave
options
4 Perceived availability of flexible working arrangements 30
5 Perceived availability of childcare and leave options 31
6 Regression results to understand the impact of availability of
individual work-life options on employee outcomes
7 Regression results to understand the impact of availability of
work-life options on employee outcomes
A1 Calculating the HR index 53
A2 Combined qualification levels 55
A3 Calculating employee outcome variables 56
18
19
45-6
B1 Workplace characteristics 57-9
B2 Employee characteristics 60-1
C1 Predictors of flexible working time options 62-4
C2 Predictors of childcare and leave options 65-7
C3 Predictors of low/medium/high provision of work-life policies 68-9
C4 Predictors of full-time flexible working time options 70-2
C5 Predictors of reduced time flexible working time options 73-5
C6 Predictors of childcare and leave 76-8
C7 Differences in management and employees knowledge of
availability of reduced time working and flexitime
C8 The impact of availability of individual work-life options on
organisational commitment, job satisfaction and work-stress
C9 The impact of availability of multiple work-life options on
employee outcomes
vii
47
79-81
82-5
86-8

Executive summary
This report examines work-life policies in Britain and their effect on job
satisfaction, organisational commitment and stress, using the 2004
Workplace Employment Relations Survey and earlier studies.
There are differences in the provision and perceived availability of worklife
policies on the basis of industry, workplace and employee
characteristics. Larger and public sector workplaces are more likely to
offer a variety of work-life policies; workplaces with overall low provision
are significantly more likely to be in the private sector.
Substantial gaps appear to exist between managerial and employee
knowledge of the availability of work-life options. Women, older workers,
single employees, the better educated and those with young children
were more likely to have accurate knowledge than their counterparts.
Employee-reported availability of work-life options is associated with
greater organisational commitment and job satisfaction, and less work
stress. Having more policies available resulted in a stronger relationship.
Management attitudes to work-life balance also mattered. A strong
relationship was found between employee perceptions that managers
understood their responsibilities outside of work and organisational
commitment, job satisfaction and work-stress.
Aims and objectives
The paper aims to provide a comprehensive picture of work-life policies in Britain
and their effect on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and stress. It
examines a wide range of types of policies (e.g. reduced working-time, home
working, childcare and additional leave) and looks at provision as reported by
management and as reported by employees.
Background
There has been a rapid growth in the provision of work-life policies in the UK over
the last two decades, encouraged by government policy and legislative changes.
This has been reflected in enhanced coverage of work-life policies in the Workplace
Employment Relations Survey 2004 (WERS 2004), providing a greater opportunity to
understand the role of work-life policies in the workplace.
Workplace characteristics and work-life policies
The extent and type of work-life policies varied with workplace characteristics,
especially by workplace size, sector and human resource management policies.
Provision of many of the options was also associated with positive managerial
attitudes towards work-life balance, whilst the provision of reduced time options was
greater in workplaces with a high proportion of female employees.
1

Larger workplaces were more likely to offer each individual work-life option (other
than flexitime) as well as to offer a greater range of options.
Public sector workplaces were more likely to offer a greater variety of work-life
policies.
The type of provision offered varied by industry, although there was little difference in
the overall level of provision.
The workforce profile influenced the type of provision, but not the overall level of
provision. Reduced time options were more common when women formed a high
percentage of the workforce; financial help with childcare was more common when
the percentage of female managers was higher; while the chances of offering job
share was higher in workplaces with a higher proportion of professional women. A
higher education profile of the workforce resulted in higher changes of flexitime and
homeworking, options which are considered suitable for use in high status jobs.
The more comprehensive the human resource management policies were generally,
the more likely were establishments to offer work-life policies and to offer a wider
range of policies.
Positive managerial attitudes towards work-life balance and employees’ perceptions
of managerial understanding were both associated with high provision.
Employees’ knowledge of work-life policies
Employees’ perceptions of the availability (to them) of work-life practices varied with
employees’ characteristics.
For every type of provision, except homeworking (where there was no difference by
gender), women were more likely to believe that the option was available to them.
Younger employees (those under 22) were less likely to believe that home working
was available to them, but were more likely to perceive that all other flexible working
options were available to them.
Single employees and those with a shorter length of service were less likely to
believe work-life options were available to them.
The sophistication of management-employee communication systems did not appear
to affect whether employees thought they knew about availability. However,
employees who reported that their managers kept them informed about the way the
organisation was being run were more likely to say that they knew about the
availability of almost all the work-life options.
Some work-life options stood out because the characteristics of employees who
perceived them to be available were different than the others.
Home working was more likely to be perceived available by the higher educated, by
managers at higher levels, and by higher level sub-groups within occupational
groups. There was no difference for employees with and without children.
Flexitime was also more likely to be perceived available by the higher educated and
by managers at higher levels than by most lower level groups.
Reduced time options were more likely to be perceived to be available by women, by
those with young children, by the higher educated and, to some extent, by
employees in lower status occupational groups.
2

Differences between employees’ and employers’ beliefs on provision of worklife
arrangements
Differences between managers’ and employees’ beliefs about the availability of
work-life policies may affect take up. Differences in belief was examined for flexitime
and reduced working time in establishments where the manager reported the
practice was available to all staff. Both workplace and personal characteristics were
found to influence knowledge. Overall, there were more gaps in the perceived and
actual availability for reduced time working than flexitime.
The gap in knowledge was wider in: the private sector; where there was a smaller
proportion of women in the workforce; lesser job security; basic HR; industries
outside Public administration; and, for flexitime only, establishments which were part
of a larger organisation in the UK, (as opposed to those which were single,
independent establishments or sole UK establishments of a foreign organisation).
Workplace size was not associated with the gap in knowledge.
Women, older workers, single employees and those with young children were more
likely to have accurate knowledge than their counterparts. Ethnic minority employees
were more likely to indicate that they did not know whether an option was available.
Employees with shorter length of service were more likely to be ill-informed.
Regarding the status of employees, the chances of a gap in knowledge were greater
for the lower educated. Occupational group influenced the gap. Overall, employees
in Skilled trade occupations and Plant and machine operatives were the most illinformed
about the availability of flexitime and reduced time working.
The sophistication of the management-employee communication systems did not
appear to affect the gap. However, employees who felt that managers kept them
informed about the way the organisation was being run were better informed.
Impact of work-life arrangements on employees
Employees’ perceived availability of work-life options was associated with greater
organisational commitment and job satisfaction, and less work stress. This
association was found in the analysis of individual option provision, where various
flexible working options were associated with desirable employee outcomes. No
relationship was found between these employee outcomes and perceived availability
of leave options. A positive association was also found between the number of
policies perceived available by employees and employee outcomes. Having more
policies available resulted in a stronger relationship.
The relationship between workplace provision of work-life policies and employee
outcomes is not conclusive. Analysing the relationship between provision of
individual options and employee outcomes, some individual options were found to
have a positive relationship with organisational commitment and job satisfaction. On
the other hand, analysing whether workplaces offering a large number of policies
were associated with these employee outcomes, it was found that higher provision
was associated with lower organisational commitment and job satisfaction and
higher work-stress. As management-reported provision did not include coverage of
policies in the workplace, it is possible that limited coverage has negative
repercussions.
3

About this project
This research was carried out as part of the Department of Trade and Industry’s
employment relations research programme, and was funded under the Workplace
Employment Relations Survey (WERS) 2004 Grants Fund. Further details on the
Fund can be found here:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/employment/research-evaluation/grants/wers
The research reported in this report is based on secondary analysis of the 2004
WERS. It contains four linked surveys, of which two were used in this research. The
first was the cross-section survey of managers, in which data were collected using
face-to-face interviews with 2,295 managers responsible for employment relations.
The second was the survey of employees, in which over 22,000 questionnaires were
returned by employees.
About the authors
Sadia Nadeem has recently moved from the National Institute of Economic and
Social Research (NIESR), London, to join the National University of Computer and
Emerging Sciences (NUCES), Islamabad, Pakistan as an Associate Professor in
Management Sciences. Hilary Metcalf is a Senior Research Fellow at the National
Institute of Economic and Social Research.
About WERS 2004
The Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS 2004) is a nationally
representative survey of British workplaces employing five or more employees and
covering all sectors of the economy except agriculture, fishing, mining and quarrying.
More information on the survey can be found here:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/employment/research-evaluation/wers-2004/
The survey was jointly sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry, the
Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas), the Economic and Social
Research Council and the Policy Studies Institute. It follows in the acclaimed
footsteps of earlier surveys conducted in 1980, 1984, 1990 and 1998.
For further information please refer to the main published outputs from WERS 2004:
the first findings booklet (Kersley et al, 2005), a report on small and medium-sized
enterprises (Forth et al, 2006), and the 400-page sourcebook of detailed findings
(Kersley et al, 2006). The sourcebook is published by Routledge, while the first two
reports are available free BERR: http://www.berr.gov.uk/publications Please quote
the URN when ordering.
The data from WERS 2004 is now available to users through the UK Data Archive
(study number: 5294): http://www.data-archive.ac.uk
4

1
Introduction
Introduction
Since the late 20 th century, work-life balance has been a part of discussions on work
and working lives in western industrialised societies. However, the availability of
good work-life balance practices remain patchy and their take-up limited (Stevens et
al., 2004; Woodlands et al., 2003). An important influence on take-up is awareness
amongst employees of the provision. The aim of this paper is to provide a
comprehensive picture of the provision and effects of work-life policies in Great
Britain using the Workplace Employee Relations Survey 2004 (WERS 2004). The
key questions addressed are: the key characteristics of organisations providing
work-life policies; which employees perceive work-life policies to be available;
characteristics of organisations in which differences exist between employee’s and
employer’s perceptions of availability and its impact on employee outcomes; the
direct and indirect impact of perceived availability on employee outcomes
(organisational commitment, job satisfaction and work-related stress); the role of
communication systems in the latter.
The background and design of the study
The UK government’s commitment to improving work-life balance of individuals is
reflected through a series of legislative changes over the last two decades (DTI,
2007). However, legislation alone is not enough to provide change and organisations
vary significantly in their provision of policies. Hence, government and nongovernment
agencies have invested significantly to understand benefits of work-life
policies and to provide best practice and implementation guidance.
This study was carried out as a part of BERR’s commitment to improve
understanding of the provision of work-life policies, and to enhance the use of WERS
2004. The study utilises the Management questionnaire and the Employee
questionnaire of WERS 2004.
Growth in work-life policies
WERS 2004 provides a more extensive coverage of work-life policies than its
predecessor WERS 1998; this can be seen as a reflection of a growing interest in
work-life policies in the UK. WERS 1998 was the first large scale representative
employer survey in Britain which included questions on work-life policies. Other
surveys carried out over the recent years which provide information on the provision,
perceived availability and use of work-life policies include the two Work-life baseline
studies (Hogarth et al, 2001; Stevens et al., 2004; Woodland et al, 2003). The
evidence points towards an overall increase in the provision, perceived availability
and use of policies.
The growth in availability and use of policies is largely attributed to legislative and
policy development. Some recent past developments include:
5

• Parental leave was introduced by the Employment Relations Act 1999 which
gives working parents the right to take unpaid leave of up to 13 weeks for each child
born after December 1999. The coverage was later extended.
• Special paid leave for time off in emergencies was also introduced by the
Employment Relations Act 1999 which gives working parents the right to take time
off to deal with emergencies involving people who depend on them.
• Maternity leave and statutory maternity pay has been increased, with further
increases under consideration.
• The Part-time working directive 2000 was introduced to ensure that part-time
workers receive no less favourable treatment than full-time workers.
• The right to request flexible working for parents of young children and disabled
youth became effective from April 2003.
At the time of the WERS 2004 survey, this was the legislative framework under
which workplaces/organisations were operating. However, additional consultation
was on its way and the Work and Families Act 2006 has resulted in: increases in
maternity and adoptive pay; extension of the right to request flexible working (to
carers of adults); Additional Paternity Leave (up to 26 weeks of leave, some of which
could be paid if the mother returns to work). These changes become effective from
April 2007 and are presented as the first step towards delivery of some of the
measures set out in the Government response to the consultation, Work and
Families: Choice and Flexibility (DTI, 2007).
Alongside legislative changes, supportive mechanisms such as the Work-life
Challenge Fund also provide support for organisations to introduce and expand the
use of flexible working and leave policies.
Other forms of flexible working, such as agency work, also allow individuals to fit
work around domestic or other responsibilities such as caring for children or
relatives.
The layout of the report
The report aims to improve the understanding of provision and perceived availability
of work-life policies in Britain using the WERS 2004 Management questionnaire and
Employee survey. It is divided into six chapters.
After the Introduction, Chapter 2 provides details of the methodology. Chapter 3
examines workplace characteristics to understand which employers are likely to
provide work-life policies. Initially each policy is analysed individually to understand
which types of workplaces are likely to provide each option. This is followed by
additional analysis, where the focus is to understand characteristics of workplaces
where provision remains low despite legislative and policy pressures.
In Chapter 4, the focus is on the employees’ perceptions of provision. Keeping
various workplace characteristics in perspective, the report analyses which
employees perceive options to be available, to be not available, and which
employees are likely to indicate their lack of knowledge regarding availability of each
option.
After analysing the reported provision by management and the perceived availability
by the employees in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 respectively, in Chapter 5 the focus is
on characteristics of workplaces and employees in which gap exists in the
6

information available from the two sides. The analysis includes explaining the
relationship between HR practices and communication techniques, and the gap in
knowledge.
Chapter 6, the final chapter, looks at the impact of perceived availability of work-life
policies on employee outcomes. Three outcomes are derived from the Employee
questionnaire: organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and work-stress.
More information on statistical techniques and computation of variables is attached
in the annexes. A large majority of the statistical analyses are also included as
annexes.
7

2
Methodology
The Workplace Employment Relations Survey
The focus of this research project was to provide a comprehensive picture of the
provision and perceived availability of work-life policies in Great Britain using WERS
2004. WERS is a series of surveys which provide information on the state of
employment in British workplaces. WERS 2004 is fifth in the series and, like its
predecessors, provides a nationally representative account of the state of
employment in Britain. Its coverage is approx. 700,000 workplaces and 22.5 million
employees (Kersley et al., 2006).
WERS 2004 uses four key instruments to gather information; a Management
questionnaire, an Employee questionnaire, a Panel Survey and a Financial
Questionnaire. The former two are used for the analysis in this report. In the
Management questionnaire, 2,295 workplaces with 5 or more employees took part.
The response rate was 64 per cent. The Employee questionnaires were distributed
in 76 per cent of workplaces, and were returned by 22,451 employees, representing
a response rate of 61 percent. Fieldwork was carried out between February 2004
and April 2005. Further details of the coverage and sampling of WERS 2004 is
available in the report on its first findings and the sourcebook (Kersley et al., 2005,
2006).
Coverage of topics in WERS 2004
The aim of WERS survey is to provide a comprehensive picture of the state of
employment. A wide variety of topics are covered including: recruitment, training and
organisation of work; consultation and communication; payment and appraisal
systems; equal opportunities and work-life balance; establishment flexibility and
performance; employee skills, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and
stress. Information is also available on a variety of establishment and organisational
characteristics as well as employee characteristics (for details see Kersley et al.,
2006).
Regarding work-life policies, the Management questionnaire provides data on the
provision of various work-life options such as flexitime, home working, compressed
work week, changing shift patterns, changing from full-time to part-time and vice
versa, job sharing, term time working. Information is also available for various leave
and childcare options, such as: provision of fully paid maternity leave and paternity
leave; providing financial help with childcare or nursery vouchers; offering a special
paid leave for time off in emergencies; and provision of a special paid leave for care
of older adults. Generally, basic information is available on which of these options is
provided by the workplaces. For flexitime and reducing working time, information is
also available on the coverage of these policies.
8

In the Employee questionnaire, information is available on the same work-life options
as covered by the Management questionnaire. The employee responses provide
data on perceived availability or knowledge of work-life options. Limited information
is also available from selected attitude statements on work-life policies in the
Management and Employee questionnaires.
It is important to note that, for most work-life balance policies, the Management
questionnaire identified whether a policy existed, not its coverage. (the exceptions
are for flexitime and reduced working-time, as noted above.) The Employee
questionnaire identified whether a work-life balance policy covered the respondent
employee. Therefore, management and employee responses may differ where
policies do not cover the whole workforce.
Data Analysis
The report addresses questions in four key areas. The data used, the analyses and
the statistical techniques applied vary between these areas, which are discussed in
this section.
Workplace characteristics influencing policy provision (Chapter 3)
Building on the previous research into take-up of work-life practices (to be discussed
in Chapter 3), one of the key questions to be answered is which workplaces offer
work-life policies. The WERS Management questionnaire provides information on a
variety of work-life options. The question is approached in two different ways: to
understand the factors affecting the provision of each option and then to understand
which workplaces offer a more comprehensive range of policies. Logistic and
multinomial logistic regression is used to analyse the data. Results are presented in
Tables C1, C2 and C3 in Annex C.
For individual option provision, the dependent variable is dichotomous, which takes
the value of one if an option is available and zero if it is not available. Logistic
regression is used for the analyses. This analysis assumes that the decision to
provide each observed dependent variable is independent of the other options which
are provided. The list of dependent variables used is:
• Home working
• Flexitime
• Compressed work weeks
• Changing shift patterns
• Full-time to part-time
• Part-time to full-time
• Job sharing
• Term time working
• Maternity leave with full pay (for at least part of the leave period)
• Paternity leave
• Nursery linked with workplace or financial help with childcare
• A special paid leave for time off in emergencies
9

• A specific period of leave for carers of older adults
The above list includes the full range of flexible working options in WERS 2004.
‘Nursery linked with workplace’ or ‘financial help with childcare’ were combined
together because they serve the same purpose and very few establishments offer
them. In addition, they are a single item in the Employee questionnaire. For leave
options, the following choices are made: at the birth of a child, establishments
offering paternity leave were selected; for time off in emergencies, we selected
establishments which offer a special paid leave for this occasion. Another dependent
variable divided organisations into those who offer a specific period of leave for
carers of older adults and those who did not.
To analyse which organisations offer a more comprehensive range of policies, a
scale of 0-12 was formed by simply adding whether a workplace offered each of the
individual option or not (changes in shifts was excluded from the scale because most
of the findings for shift working were contradictory to patterns found in other options).
This scale was then plotted and divided into three groups; 0-3 for low provision, 4-8
for medium provision and 9-12 for high provision. Multinomial logistic regression
results, with medium provision as the base outcome, compare those with medium
provision with those with low and high provision. Results are presented in Table C3.
For the selection of independent variables, characteristics of workplaces which are
likely to influence the provision of policies were identified on the basis of past
research (to be discussed in Chapter 3). The variables which have been selected
from WERS 2004 are named below and are described in Table B1 in Annex B:
• Single/multiple establishment organisation
• establishment age
• state of market
• establishment size (while the final models included size measured in six brackets,
the same results were produced using the raw scores or a natural log of
establishment size.)
• broad sector (private/public)
• SIC code
• degree of competition
• proportion of women in the workforce
• proportion of female managers
• proportion of female professionals
• educational profile of the workforce
• understanding labour
• understanding absenteeism
• job satisfaction targets
• internal labour market
10

• job security
• management attitude towards work-life policies
• employees’ perceptions of managerial attitudes towards work-life policies
• HR index to measure basic or complex HR in the workplace (see Annex A for
calculation of the HR index)
The WERS dataset also contains additional information; some selected variables are
used as controls and are also shown in Table B1. Since some of the workforce
characteristics are derived from the Management questionnaire and others from the
Employee survey, only those workplaces were selected for which Employee surveys
were available.
Cross-tabulations were run during the initial analysis to understand the data, but are
not reported here. Also, the initial list of selected variables had additional covariates
which were dropped because of collinearity or, in one instance, because of a large
number of missing values. Examples of variables which were dropped included
whether the organisation competed on the basis of price or on quality and the
number of competitors an organisation had for its services or products. Other
variables were collapsed e.g. the degree of competition initially had five dummies
and has only two values in the final models. The variable which was dropped
because of missing values provided information on whether the workplace was
labour intensive, dividing organisations into those where 50 per cent or more of the
sales was accounted for by wages, salaries and other labour costs.
Characteristics of employees who perceive options to be available (Chapter 4)
To examine which employees perceive particular types of flexible working options to
be available to them, this reports carries out multivariate analysis. Exploratory crosstabulations
were run during initial analyses which are not reported. Two options were
considered for the multivariate analysis: logistic regression and multinomial logistic
regression. Logistic regression required compressing the three responses (yes –
available, no – not available and don’t know) into two. As ‘don’t know’ would be
influenced by interest in the practice, quality or organisational communication and its
availability, any grouping appeared problematic. Therefore multinomial logistic
regression, which allows for all three responses, was used. With multinomial logistic
regression, along with comparing which employees perceive flexible working options
to be available as opposed to those who do not, comparisons could also be made
between those employees who perceive the options to be available and those who
don’t know the answer.
The WERS Employee questionnaire provides information on a variety of work-life
options. The work-life policies that were used as dependent variables are:
• Home working
• Flexitime
• Compressed work weeks
• Changing shift patterns
• Full-time to part-time
• Part-time to full-time
11

• Job sharing
• Term time working
• Paternity leave
• Nursery linked with workplace or financial help with childcare
• Special paid leave for time off in emergencies
All variables, except special paid leave for time off in emergencies, have three
outputs (available, not available, don’t know). Logistic regression was used for
special paid leave for time off in emergencies as it is measured on a dichotomous
scale (available, not available).
Regarding the independent variables, there are two broad groups of characteristics
that are likely to influence employees’ perceived availability of flexible working: its
availability and knowledge of availability. Both are liable to be influenced by
workplace characteristics, including structural characteristics and existing HR
practices, information on which is available through matching employee data to the
Management questionnaire. Knowledge of availability is also liable to be influenced
by employee characteristics (both personal and work-related), as this will influence
interest in availability and, perhaps, the extent of information that an individual has
about their organisation’s policies.
Workplace characteristics which were selected from the Management questionnaire
are:
• Workplace status
• Age of the establishment in years
• State of the market
• Size of the establishment measured in employee number
• Broad sector (private/public)
• Industrial sector (SIC code)
• Degree of competition in the market
• Proportion of women in the labour force
• Job security offered to all employees
• HR index: basic, medium or complex HR
These were found to influence the provision of policies in the analysis of the
Management questionnaire (Chapter 3).
Employee characteristics which are used as independent variables are:
• Gender
• Age
• Marital status
• Childcare responsibilities including age of the youngest child
12

• Carers of disabled and elderly
• Suffering from illness, health problem or disability
• Ethnicity
• Educational qualifications (see Annex A for computation of educational
qualifications)
• Standard Occupational Classification (divided into high and low status – see
Annex A for details)
• Length of service
• Communication index based on the Management questionnaire (see Annex A)
• Communication index, derived from the Employee questionnaire
Details of the workplace characteristics are presented in Table B1 and of employee
characteristics are presented in Table B2, both in Annex B. Details of any complex
computations used to derive variables are presented in Annex A. Results of the
regression analyses are presented in Tables C4, C5 and C6 in Annex C.
Differences between employees’ and employers’ beliefs on provision (Chapter 5)
The Management questionnaire provides information on whether an option is
available to any employee in the workplace. The Employee questionnaire provides
information on employees’ perception of availability of these work-life policies.
Without information on coverage of the policy from the management, it is not feasible
to compare the employer and employee data. This information is available for only
two policies: flexitime and reduced time working.
Therefore, to identify the factors which might lead to this mismatch of perception,
analyses were conducted on the establishments where flexitime was reported by
managers as available to all and on the establishments where reduced time working
was reported by managers as available to all. Multinomial logistic regression was
used (to compare employees not knowing whether the practice was available, as
well as declaring it was or was not). The control and independent variables used are
the same as used in Chapter 4, with details in Table B2. The results of multinomial
regression are presented in Table C7 in Annex C.
The relationship between work-life policies and employee attitudes (Chapter 6)
The final question examines the impact of perceived availability of work-life policies
on employee outcomes. There are a number of statements in the Employee
questionnaire which provide information about employees’ attitudes and perceptions,
such as organisational commitment, job satisfaction, work-life conflict and workrelated
stress and happiness. Principal components analysis and factor analysis
were used to combine attitudinal variables to reduce their number whilst maintaining
the richness of information. These identified three factors which we have labelled as
‘organisational commitment’, ‘job satisfaction’ and ‘work-related stress’. Details of the
procedure and the statements are provided in Table A3 in Annex A. Regression
outputs from the factor analysis are used in the subsequent analysis.
Regression analysis is used to identify the effect of work-life policies on the identified
attitudinal outcomes. The primary interest is in the relationship between availability of
work-life policies and employee outcomes. As discussed earlier, WERS provides
information on availability of work-life options from two perspectives: the
13

Management questionnaire which reports whether an option is provided in the
workplace, but, for most policies, not its coverage; the Employee questionnaire
which provides information on employees’ perception of availability, to themselves,
of these work-life policies.
To analyse the relationship between work-life initiatives and employee outcomes, the
key work-life variables of interest are:
• availability of options in the establishment (Management questionnaire);
• employees’ perceived availability of work-life options to themselves;
• managerial responses to the statement that ‘it is up to the individual to balance
work and family life’; and
• employees’ response to the statement that ‘management is understanding about
employees having to meet responsibilities outside work’.
The analysis is carried out in two ways: analysing the impact of individual options
and analysing the impact of an index of overall provision. The latter assumes that it
would be more reasonable to analyse whether availability of the option of one’s
choice has an impact on the employee outcomes. In the absence of this information
in WERS 2004, the analysis uses overall provision. This was done through the use
of two summated indices, one for establishment provision and the other for
employees’ perceived provision.
For employees’ perceived provision, a summated index was generated from the
eleven work-life options in the Employee questionnaire. Potentially, the large number
of employees who had answered that they did not know if an option was available
was thought to preclude creating an index, as we had assumed that this group would
be heterogeneous (with very different reasons for not knowing and so very different
influences on attitudinal outcomes). However, the nature of associations between
those who perceived that options are not available and those who did not know
whether the options were available with the outcome variables were not significantly
different. Therefore, in the index, employees who perceive the option to be not
available and those who do not know whether the option is available are grouped
together. The highest calculated score was ten.
A summated index of establishment provision has already been created which
grouped workplaces into three groups: those with low provision of work-life policies;
those with medium provision of work-life policies; those with high provision of worklife
policies (see analysis for Chapter 3).
The regression models for individual and overall policy provision use the same
control and outcome variables. The workplace and employee characteristics that
were used in the analyses of the relationship between employee characteristics and
perceived provision (see analysis for Chapter 4) were used as controls.
The full results of the regression analyses are presented in Table C8 and C9 in
Annex C, and discussed in Chapter 6.
Use of weights
All regressions in the analysis are weighted. Use was made of the Guide to the
analysis of the Workplace Employee Relations Survey 1998 (Forth and Kirby, 2000)
and of the information provided by the WERS 2004 support service (NIESR, 2006).
Both workplace weights and stratum from which the workplace was sampled were
14

used to set up the weights for the Management questionnaire analysis. The
employee weight variable and the stratum variable were used to set up the weights
for the Employee questionnaire.
15

3
Workplace characteristics
and work-life policies
Introduction
This chapter focuses on characteristics of workplaces which offer work-life policies. It
starts by providing summary statistics of provision of work-life policies from the
Management questionnaire of WERS 2004. A brief comparison is made with WERS
1998 (DTI, 1999) and the Work-life baseline study (Woodlands et al, 2003) which
indicates increase in the provision a small number of policies. Following a brief
overview of past research which has identified a range of organisational
characteristics affecting adoption of work-life policies, results of the WERS 2004
analysis are discussed. Details of the analysis have been discussed in Chapter 2
and statistical tables relevant to the findings from this chapter are attached as Tables
C1, C2 and 3C in Annex C.
Work-life options offered by establishments
The work-life options offered by establishments can be roughly divided into two
groups: flexible working arrangements; and childcare, eldercare and leave options.
Availability of flexible working arrangements
The Management questionnaire enquired about a number of flexible working
arrangements, such as working from home, ability to reduce working hours, ability to
increase working hours, job sharing schemes, flexitime arrangement, changing shift
patterns, working compressed work weeks and term time working. The percentage
of establishments which offer these to any employees is tabulated in Table 1. The
most widely offered option was the ability to reduce working hours, available in 63
per cent of all establishments with five or more employees in Britain. This was
followed by the ability to increase working time from part-time to full-time (51 per
cent), the ability to change shift patterns (40 per cent), flexitime (35 per cent), job
sharing (26 per cent), homeworking (25 per cent), term time working (14 per cent)
and working compressed work weeks (11 per cent).
Table 1 also presents work-life options for establishments with ten or more
employees from WERS 2004 and compares them with the WERS 1998 data (where
information was only collected for establishments with ten plus employees). Between
1998 and 2004 there was a significant increase in the provision of the option to
decrease working hours. The provision of flexitime and home working also
increased. It is also worth referring to the Second Work-life Baseline study (WLB2)
(Woodlands et al., 2003). The WLB2 provides information on whether employees
have worked in a particular way, not if the establishment provides the option. Thus,
informal flexible working practices would be counted in the WLB2 study, while
provision without use will not be counted. Comparison with WERS 2004 shows a
16

similar pattern of working arrangements, although it appears that policies for job
sharing may be relatively more common than usage.
Table 1. Provision of flexible working arrangements
WERS 2004* WERS 2004** WERS 1998***
% workplaces with % workplaces with
five or more ten or more
employees employees
% workplaces with
ten or more
employees
WLB2****
% workplaces with
five or more
employees
Full-time to part-time 63 70 46 74
Part-time to full-time 51 57 - -
Changing shift patterns 40 45 - -
Flexitime 35 35 27 24
Job sharing 26 31 28 14
Home working 25 26 13 22
Term time working 14 20 16 16
Compressed work weeks 11 16 - 7
No policy 11 15 - -
*Source: WERS 2004 – Management questionnaire. Base: All workplaces with five or more employees. Figures are weighted percentages
and based on responses from 2,292 managers.
**Source: WERS 2004 – Management questionnaire. Base: All workplaces with ten or more employees. Figures are weighted percentages
and based on responses from 2,059 managers.
***Source: WERS 1998 Management questionnaire (DTI, 1999). Base: All workplaces with ten or more employees identified through the filter
question (see DTI, 1999 for details). Figures are weighted percentages.
****Source: WLB2 (Woodlands et al, 2003). Base: All workplaces with ten or more employees. Figures are weighted and based on responses
from 1,509 managers.
In WERS, for most flexible working practices, questions simply ask whether an
option was provided in the establishment or not. For two of the most widely offered
practices (the option to reduce working hours and the option to work flexitime),
information is also available about coverage (Table 2). This provides insight into
variations in availability between employees. The option to reduce working time is
available in 63 per cent establishments and of these, 80 per cent offer them to all
employees. In the remaining 20 per cent establishments, the key groups which were
not allowed to reduce working time were managerial employees, where 62 per cent
of the above sub-sample did not allow managerial employees to reduce their working
hours.
Flexitime is available in 35 per cent of all establishments in Britain, and of these, half
offer it to all employees. In the remaining 50 per cent of establishments (n= 422), the
key group which was not allowed to work flexitime was managerial employees,
where 30 per cent of the above sub-sample did not allow managerial employees to
work flexitime. Thus, managerial employees are less likely to have the option of
either working part-time or flexitime. For the latter, however, perhaps managerial
employees have greater discretion over their time, rather than formal availability of
flexitime.
17

Table 2. Employee groups to whom reduced time and flexitime options are not
available
Percentage for differential
availability of reduced time
options 1
% workplaces
Percentage for differential
availability of flexitime 2
% workplaces
Employees without young children 13 5
Employees without caring resp 10 3
P/t employees 8 9
F/t employees 19 18
Managerial employees 62 30
Non-managerial employees 8 17
Employees who work for short period of time 17 8
Employees not on permanent contract 12 8
Any male employees 12 3
Source: WERS 2004
1Base: All workplaces with five or more employees that offer reduced time but do not allow all employees to reduce their working time. Figures
are weighted and based on responses of 406 managers.
2Base: All workplaces with five or more employees that offer flexitime but do not allow all employees to work flexitime. Figures are weighted
and based on responses of 422 managers.
Childcare, eldercare and leave options
The Management questionnaire provides information about a variety of childcare and
eldercare facilities and leave options (Table 3). Only two per cent of workplaces
provided a nursery, and while five per cent provided help with childcare, financial
help for care of older adults was almost non-existent. Fifty-three per cent of all
establishments provide full rate of pay to female employees going on maternity
leave, either for the entire leave period or for a part of the period. The mean length of
fully paid maternity leave was 16 weeks, with a range of 1 to 52 (note that
approximately one third of the establishments which offered fully paid maternity
leave did not know the length of this period; the average above is based on those
who replied).
The most common arrangement through which establishments allow male
employees to take time off around the birth of their child is by paternity leave (57 per
cent). Although paternity leave is a statutory entitlement, the use of annual leave or
time awarded at the employer’s discretion by fathers at the birth of a child was
common practice (27 and 22 per cent respectively). Unpaid leave, parental leave,
and time off in lieu are not generally used for leave at child birth. In the
establishments which offered paternity leave arrangements, 70 per cent offered it
fully paid. The range of fully paid days varied from one to 30, with a weighted mean
of eight.
The most common way in which establishments offer time off at short notice to deal
with an emergency involving a child or a family member was as a special paid leave,
which was offered in approximately half of the establishments (Table 3). This was
closely followed by taking time off and then making it up later. Taking this time off as
leave without pay or as annual leave was offered in over one-third establishments. In
nine per cent of establishments, employees took sick leave. Note that, while special
18

paid leave for time off in emergencies is a statutory entitlement, whether it is paid or
not has been left up to individual employers.
Workplaces also offer a variety of leave options, in addition to maternity and
paternity leave or time off for emergencies (Table 3).
Table 3. Provision of childcare and leave options
% workplaces
Eldercare and childcare facilities
Nursery linked with workplace 2
Financial help with childcare 5
Financial help with care of older adults 0
Leave options
Part of maternity leave on full pay 53
A specific period of leave for carers of older adults 6
Time off by male employees around the birth of child
Paternity leave 57
Annual leave 27
Time off at employer’s discretion 22
Unpaid leave 1
Parental leave 0
Time off in lieu 0
Other arrangements 3
Has never happened, situation not arisen, no men 9
Time off in emergency
As special paid leave 47
Take time off but make it up later 45
As leave without pay 37
As annual leave 35
As sick leave 9
Others 5
Depends on individual/circumstances 4
Never been asked 2
Not allowed 0
Paid leave, in addition to maternity, paternity leave, or time off for emergencies
Unpaid parental leave 29
Special paid leave 16
Paid parental leave 10
Sick leave 10
Time off and make it up later 5
Employer's discretion 4
Other arrangements 17
No provision 3
Source: WERS 2004. Base: All workplaces with five or more employees. Figures are weighted and based on responses of managers.
Characteristics of workplaces offering various individual work-life policies
The focus of the chapter is on characteristics of workplaces which offer flexible
working, leave and childcare policies. Previous research has identified a range of
organisational characteristics affecting the adoption of work-life policies (Goodstein,
1994; Ingram and Simon, 1995; Milliken et al., 1998; Dex and Smith, 2001b; Wood et
al., 2003). These characteristics may be classified into three groups: organisational
19

characteristics and external pressures; internal or labour pressures; and
management and choice factors. WERS was analysed to explore the relative role of
these characteristics in recent provision.
Organisational characteristics and external pressures – past research
Regarding organisational characteristics and external pressures, past research
indicates that workplace size influences provision of work-life policies, where larger
organisations are more likely to offer such policies. There are various possible
explanations for this association, from better administrative capabilities for more
(formal) provision (Dex and Smith, 2001b; Dex and Schibel, 2001), to greater
visibility of such organisations thus increasing external or public pressure on them to
provide such policies (Goodstein, 1994).
Industrial sector may influence the adoption of policies; some practices may be more
compatible with jobs in certain sectors, or external pressures to adopt flexible
working may exist because of adoption in the industrial sector. Associations between
industrial sectors and adoption of work-life policies have been supported by past UK,
US and Australian studies (Dex and Smith, 2001b; Wood et al., 2003; Milliken et al,
1998; Bardoel et al., 2003). Similarly, differences have also been found to exist
between the private and public sectors, where the public sector, both in the US and
the UK, is more likely to offer such policies (Ingram and Simons, 1995; Wood et al.,
2003), though this evidence is not conclusive (Goodstein, 1994). A possible
theoretical explanation for greater provision by the public sector is that the sector
aims to improve the quality of life of the public, and hence provision of work-life
policies is in keeping with its ethos.
External pressures can also be influenced by the number of competitors an
organisation has, since organisations may be competing for a limited pool of labour.
Thus, organisations with a large number of labour market competitors and those
facing greater competition may also offer more policies.
Organisational characteristics and external pressures- WERS 2004
Workplace size, measured as the number of employees at the workplace (in six size
brackets), was a significant predictor of an organisation offering a policy in ten out of
the 13 options that were investigated; larger workplaces had greater odds of offering
the policy in all instances, and the chances of offering an option increased as the
establishment size increased. The three options where no difference was found
between organisations on the basis of workplace size were flexitime, maternity leave
(at least partly fully paid), and special leave for time off in emergencies.
The observation that organisational size influences provision of policies is consistent
with past research. As discussed earlier, this association could be due to greater
visibility of such organisations, thus increasing pressure on them to provide policies,
or greater administrative capabilities. Note that the HR index (to be discussed later)
in the model partly absorbs variance due to greater administrative capabilities.
Regarding differences in provision of policies between private and public sector, the
latter was more likely to provide job sharing, term time working, maternity leave with
full pay and special paid leave for time off in emergencies. Past research, for
example, Ingram and Simons (1995) and Wood et al. (2003), have also found that
the public sector offers more policies. However, the above models tested differences
in provision of individual policies, and differences in overall provision are discussed
in later sections.
20

For many practices, there was little difference between industries. However:
• The greatest differences between industries occurred in practices enabling
flexibility within full-time working, particularly flexitime and compressed working
week.
• Flexitime was less common in Electricity, gas and water and Construction,
Wholesale and retail, Hotels and restaurants, Transport and communication and
Education.
• Compressed working weeks were less common in Wholesale and retail,
Transport and communication and Education.
• Wholesale and retail was less likely to offer a range of practices (specifically,
homeworking, flexitime and compressed working week), as was Education
(specifically, flexitime, compressed working week and changing shift patterns).
For reduced time options,
• Hotel and restaurant was more likely to offer a shift from full-time to part-time and
vice versa. This difference could be a partial reflection of a predominantly female
workforce in the Hotels and restaurants sector; our models include a similar variable,
proportion of women in the workforce, which is significant for most reduced time
options.
• Offering a shift from full-time to part-time was also more common in Transport
and communication, Other business services, Health and Other community services
• Financial services and Other community services were more likely to offer job
share;
• Education was more likely to offer term time working;
• Hotels and restaurants were also less likely to offer special paid leave for time off
in emergencies, perhaps reflecting the causal nature of low status jobs in the sector.
Regarding leave and childcare, paternity leave was four times more likely to be
available in Financial services and nine times more likely to be available in Public
administration. The latter was also nine 11 times more likely to offer fully paid
maternity leave. Some differences also existed in the provision of a special leave to
deal with family emergencies.
External pressures to provide policies can also be influenced by the competition
faced by an organisation. The degree of competition faced by the workplace was
included in the model by dividing workplaces into two groups; those who faced very
high or high competition versus those who did not. Reduced time options (job
sharing, the option to switch from part-time to full-time or full-time to part-time, and
term time working) were less likely to be available in workplaces facing high
competition. No additional differences were found, and thus the idea that workplaces
in highly competitive environments are more likely to offer work-life policies was not
supported. WERS does not allow one to measure whether the establishment was
facing skills shortages and competing for a limited pool of labour. An additional
variable, the number of competitors of the workplace, was dropped because of
21

collinearity. Thus, one of the reasons for lack of findings could be the simplistic scale
of measurement, but it is also possible that high competition results in more intensive
labour practices.
Internal or labour pressures- past research
To understand internal or labour pressures, it is best to trace the origins of work-life
provision, where these policies were introduced to retain women returning to work
after childbirth. While during the last decade the debate has moved from working
mothers to working parents, and then better balance for all (DTI, 2000), women,
particularly those with children, are assumed to be the key driving force and main
users.
Thus, employers’ dependence on this labour groups is likely to increase its chances
of provision of work-life policies i.e. if an organisation has a larger percentage of
women in the workforce, it is more likely to offer work-life or flexible working benefits.
However, many women carry out low status jobs and may not be in a position to
influence organisational view points. The idea of powerful women stakeholders was
introduced by measuring percentage of high status women or women managers in
the organisation (Ingram and Simons, 1995; Osterman, 1995). Thus workplaces with
a higher proportion of female managers and professionals may be more likely to
offer work-life policies. Level of education of employees in an organisation has also
been an indicator of power of employees against managers since limited availability
of highly skilled labour makes organisational dependence on such labour a critical
and scarce resource. With the assumption that all employees desire at least some
form of flexibility, a higher education profile of the workforce is likely to result in
higher provision of policies. Findings in this area i.e. relating to internal or labour
pressures, from past research based on large scale firm level surveys have not
generated similar findings.
In addition to the above, another strategy for managing labour which may influence
provision of work-life policies is whether the organisation predominantly offers an
internal labour market and provides enhanced job security to its employees
(Osterman, 1995; Poleman and Sahibzada, 2004). Flexible working is also known to
improve absence, reduce labour turnover and improve job satisfaction. Hence
organisations measuring these outcomes, or having targets for them, may offer
flexible working. All these measures may be more significant for workplaces with
labour cost records and targets.
Internal or labour pressures- WERS 2004
To understand internal or labour pressures using WERS, the models included a
variable indicating the proportion of women in the workforce. Workplaces with a
higher proportion of women were more likely to provide the option to change shifts.
They were also more likely to provide all four reduced time working options (i.e. a
switch from part-time to full-time and vice versa, job sharing and term time working)
as well as special paid leave for care of older adults (Tables C1 and C2). No
relationship was found in the provision of full-time flexible working options and the
proportion of women in the workforce, thus providing one possible explanation of
inconsistent findings in past research which has combined flexible working options
and searched for associations with the proportion of women. Higher proportion of
women also meant lower chances of offering paternity leave. Overall, results indicate
22

that employers’ dependence on women is likely to increase its chances of provision
of reduced time flexible working.
The model also included two variables to test whether the proportion of women
managers or the proportion of women professionals made any difference to the
adoption of policies since higher status women are more likely to be able to influence
policy adoption in the organisation. The proportion of women managers was not
found to be associated with adoption of any of the flexible working policies. However,
establishments which had 75 to 100 per cent women managers were significantly
more likely to offer financial help with childcare or nursery vouchers than those with
lower proportion of women managers. It is not possible to further investigate the
coverage of these policies, but it is possible that the main beneficiaries of financial
help with childcare are senior female managers. Having 75 to 100 per cent women
managers decreased the chances of an organisation offering fully paid maternity
leave or paternity leave.
Some scattered differences were found in the provision of full-time flexible working
options with respect to the percentage of women professionals, all in the direction of
a decrease in the availability of full-time options with higher proportion of female
professionals. However, the chances of provision of job sharing were higher in
organisations with 75 to 100 per cent women professionals; it is not possible to
analyse further whether the main beneficiaries of this job share are senior
professionals.
The pattern in the above findings indicates that a higher proportion of women
managers and professionals in a workplace may result in greater provision of
selected policies which are considered suitable for the use of this group.
Continuing with variables which explain labour pressures on the workplaces to
provide work-life policies, a higher education profile of the workforce meant greater
odds of home working, flexitime, and lower odds of shift working. It also meant
higher odds of providing financial help with childcare or nursery vouchers.
Establishments which had practices to help understand labour costs (kept records of
labour costs, had targets for labour costs, kept records of turnover and had targets
for turnover) were more likely to provide various reduced time options such as shifts
from part-time to full-time and vice versa, and term time working. Greater record and
target keeping also meant lower chances of fully paid maternity leave. From this
pattern, it appears that certain workplaces which keep an eye on labour costs may
be using reduced time working options to reduce labour costs or that reduced time
working is associated with certain (perhaps low status) jobs, where the management
closely monitors labour costs and turnover.
While our investigation resulted in occasional significant results in provision of
individual policies and a workplace’s understanding of absenteeism and a workplace
having job satisfaction targets, no noteworthy patterns emerged (see Tables C1 and
C2 for results).
Workplaces offering job security and internal career ladders may also provide more
work-life options to retain employees. The models included two variables to
investigate this relationship. Workplaces where internal candidates were given equal
or greater chances for new positions, were more likely to offer compressed work
week, a shift from full-time to part-time and vice versa, as well as paid maternity and
paternity leave. Workplaces which promised job security to all its employees were
23

more likely to offer flexitime, compressed work week, a shift from full-time to parttime,
job sharing and paid maternity leave.
Management and choice factors- past research
The management and choice factors shift the debate towards understanding whether
organisations offer work-life policies because either the management believes that
they are responsible to improve the work-life balance of employees, or the
organisation offers a range of good practice HR policies, and work-life policies are
one of them. While these two scenarios are not mutually exclusive, the first focuses
on work-life ethos, while the second is about HR management.
In previous research, the factors elaborating management and choice have been
elaborated in different ways by scholars. For example, Bardoel et al. (2003) used a
multi-item scales to measure management attitudes, while Wood et al. (2003) used a
single item attitude statement measuring employers’ concern for employees’ worklife
balance. Overall, scholars who included managerial attitudes in their research
design usually reported support for it (Bardoel et al., 2003; Wood et al., 2003;
Milliken et al., 1998). The findings for a relationship between general HR
management in the organisation and provision of HR policies is less conclusive, for
example, in six studies which included a relationship between provision of work-life
policies and high-commitment work systems, three found support for this relationship
(Dex and Smith, 2001b; Osterman, 1995; Milliken et al., 1998), while the other three
did not (Bardoel et al., 2003; Wood, 1999; Wood et al., 2003). Similarly, such proxy
measures as having an HR specialist or department as an indicator of a more
comprehensive HR strategy have generated mixed results in the above studies.
Management and choice factors- WERS 2004
To understand the impact of managerial choice in providing work-life policies, the
model included three main items: a HR index and two indicators of managerial
attitudes. The HR index, indicating comprehensiveness of HR provision, is a sum of
policies across recruitment, pay, appraisal, training, communication and equal
opportunities (see Table A1 in Annex A for details).
An establishment offering medium or comprehensive HR policies had significantly
higher odds of offering almost all of the flexible working policies (with the exception
of term time working, where results were not significant) as well as most leave and
childcare policies than establishment offering basic HR policies.
Managerial attitudes, as expressed by the managers’ response to the statement ‘It is
up to individual employees to balance their work and family responsibilities’,
appeared to influence provision. Establishments where managers disagreed (or
strongly disagreed) with this statement (i.e. where they felt that it was the
organisation’s responsibility) were more likely to offer home working, compressed
work week, term time working, paternity leave, financial help with childcare or
nursery vouchers and special paid leave for time off in emergencies (Tables C1 and
C2).
As a further measure of managerial attitudes, employees’ assessment of these
attitudes was included in the model. Employees’ response to the statement that
‘managers were understanding about employees having to meet responsibilities
outside of work’ were associated with increased odds of availability of home working,
flexitime and providing financial help with childcare or nursery vouchers.
24

A potential problem is that managerial attitudes (and employees’ assessment of
these) may be endogenous, influenced by organisational policies. Past researchers
have found that managerial attitudes towards work-life provision are more likely to be
influenced by individuals’ past work history and experiences than present
organisational policies. Nevertheless, to test whether endogeneity might be affecting
our other findings, we tested all models with and without the managerial choice
statements and found that the significance of other findings was not affected. The
coefficients/odd ratios had minor fluctuations.
Additional significant findings (control variables)
Differences existed in the provision of policies depending on whether the
establishment was one of a number of different workplaces in Britain belonging to
the same organisation, a single independent establishment or the sole British
establishment of a foreign organisation.
Home working was more likely to exist in single independent establishments or sole
British establishment of a foreign organisation than establishments which were a
number of different workplaces in Britain belonging to the same organisation.
Similarly, an establishment which was the sole British establishment of a foreign
organisation was nine times more likely to offer compressed work weeks than
establishments which were one of a number of different workplaces in Britain
belonging to the same organisation.
The option to change shift patterns and to change from full-time to part-time was half
as likely to be available in organisations which were single independent
establishments as opposed to an establishment which was one of a number of
different workplaces in Britain belonging to the same organisation.
Job sharing and term time working was significantly more common in an
establishment which was one of a number of different workplaces in Britain
belonging to the same organisation, as opposed to sole British establishments of a
foreign organisation.
Fully paid maternity leave, paternity leave, and financial help with childcare or
nursery vouchers were more common in establishments which were one of a
number of different workplaces in Britain belonging to the same organisation as
opposed to a single independent establishment. This may be a reflection of the
organisational size, with larger organisations finding it easier to provide these leave
and childcare provisions; our model controlled for establishment size. When
comparing establishments which were one of a number of different workplaces in
Britain belonging to the same organisation to sole British establishment of a foreign
organisation, the latter were more likely to offer at least a part of maternity leave
which was fully paid, or a special leave for time off in emergencies. They were,
however, less likely to provide paternity leave, financial care with childcare, or a
special leave for care of older adults.
A variable on the state of the market was included in the controls. This compares
whether organisations operating in a growing market were more or less likely to
provide work-life policies as opposed to those operating in a mature, declining or
turbulent market. Workplaces in growing markets were more likely to offer some of
the flexible working options; no differences existed in the provision of leave and
childcare options (Tables C1 and C2). Workplaces operating in growing markets
were:
25

• approximately three times more likely to offer home working than workplaces in
declining markets;
• approximately three times more likely to offer compressed work weeks than
workplaces in mature markets and in turbulent markets;
• approximately four times more likely to offer the option to shift from full-time to
part-time than workplace in the non-trading sector; and
• three, two and two time more likely to offer a shift from part-time to full-time than
workplaces operating in non-trading, declining and turbulent markets respectively.
Workplaces that offer a few or a comprehensive range of policies
The project also investigated the characteristics of workplaces which offered only a
few policies, and the characteristics of workplaces which offered a more
comprehensive range of policies.
Workplaces with low provision are more likely to:
• be in the non-trading sector, or not trading externally as opposed to being in a
growing market;
• be smaller workplaces;
• be in the private sector;
• have a lower education profile of the workforce;
• not offer job security to all employees;
• to have a basic, not medium or complex HR system.
• Management is more likely to believe that it is the individual’s responsibility to
balance work and family life, and employees perceive that managers are not
understanding about employees having to meet responsibilities outside of work.
No differences were found between industrial sectors, or on the basis of proportion
of women, proportion of female managers, or proportion of female professionals.
Similarly, no differences were found on the basis of degree of competition faced by
the workplace, or whether the organisation had targets or records for understanding
labour turnover and costs or whether the organisation has job satisfaction targets.
Workplaces with high provision, are:
• more likely to be in the non-trading sector, or not trading externally as opposed to
being in a growing market (like those with low provision).
• more likely to be workplaces with 100 or more employees, thus reinforcing the
previous findings that workplace size increases the chances of the organisation
providing more policies.
• less likely to be in the Wholesale and retail, Hotel and restaurant, Transport and
communication and Education sectors.
• 27 times more likely to have a complex HR systems.
There was some indication, through significant findings in a few but not all brackets,
that a high proportion of female professionals is likely to increase the chances of an
establishment being in the high provision bracket, and that workplaces which have
26

closer monitoring of labour costs and turnover are more likely to be in the high
provision bracket.
Summary
Workplace characteristics influence the provision of work-life policies. Differences
indicate workplace size and sector, and HR management to be significant predictors
of provision. Provision of many of the options was also associated with positive
managerial attitudes, and reduced time options were associated with labour
composition. Whilst, these findings replicate those of previous studies, they shed
more light on them and, at the same time, highlight some new findings.
Size has been a determinant of organisational adoption of work-life policies. This
research also found that the chances of offering individuals options as well as more
options are greater for larger workplaces. However, the provision of flexitime was not
associated with workplace size. Similar findings are reported by Forth et al. (2006:
83-87) in their analysis of WERS 2004 for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.
The research also found that public sector workplaces were more likely to offer a
variety of work-life policies, such as job sharing, term time working, maternity leave
with full pay and special paid leave for time off in emergencies. Also, workplaces with
overall low provision were significantly more likely to be in the private sector.
Differences existed in provision of individual options and industrial sectors. Overall,
Wholesale and retail was likely to provide the least number of flexible working
options. Manufacturing was less likely to provide reduced hours flexible working
options than other sectors. Job sharing and paternity leave were the two options
which had higher chances of being offered in the Financial services, a sector which
is quoted as providing exemplary work-life options. Thus, analysis of individual
option provision does not indicate any sector which was extremely better than the
others. Combined analysis of options to find out which sectors have low provision did
not yield any significant results. However, high provision establishments were less
likely to be in Wholesale and retail, Hotel and restaurants, Transport and
communication, and Education.
A high proportion of women in the workforce is likely to increase the chances of a
workplace providing reduced time options; no differences were found on this basis
on the provision of options which allow flexibility within a full-time working contract or
most leave and childcare options. Also, in the analysis for low and high provision, no
differences were found on the basis of the proportion of women. A higher proportion
of women managers was found to only increase chances of offering financial help
with childcare or nursery vouchers, while the chances of offering job share was
higher in workplaces with a higher proportion of professional women. From these
findings, it can be inferred that these options are for use by high status women and
overall provision of policies is not influenced by high status women. A higher
education profile of the workforce resulted in greater chances of flexitime and
homeworking, again options which are considered suitable for use in high status
jobs.
Regarding workplace ethos about managing labour and HR management, there was
some evidence to point out that workplaces offering internal career ladders and
enhanced job security are more likely to offer selected work-life options.
Establishments offering medium or comprehensive HR policies had significantly
greater chances of offering almost all the individual work-life options. Comprehensive
27

HR policies was also associated with high provision of overall policies, while low
provision was associated with basic HR. Self-reported managerial attitudes, and
perception of managerial understanding by employees were both associated with
high provision.
28

4
Employees’ knowledge of
work-life policies
Introduction
The interest in work-life policies has always been from two perspectives; which
employers offer work-life policies, and which employees are offered these policies.
While the previous chapter covered the former question, this chapter focuses on
characteristics of employees who perceive that work-life options are available to
them. It initially compares the provision of work-life policies from the Employee
questionnaire of WERS 2004 with the findings of WERS 1998 (DTI, 1999) and the
Work-life baseline study (Stevens et al., 2004). This is followed by a discussion of
the employee characterises which may influence perceived availability and then the
findings are presented. The procedures for the analyses have been discussed in
Chapter 2; statistical outputs are presented in Tables C4, C5 and C6 in Annex C.
Work-life options perceived to be available by employees
All employees should have access to policies which provide them with the
opportunity to improve the balance between their work and non-work interests. To
understand which employees perceive work-life policies to be available, one must
briefly trace back to the origins of the work-life debate. It was the changing
demographic composition of the workforce which resulted in organisations offering
work-life policies to attract and retain women, particularly those returning to work
after childbirth. However, recent decades have seen greater recognition, by policy
makers as well as by employers, of the needs of working fathers as well as
individuals from either gender who would like to accommodate interests outside of
work. Changes in the nature of work and technological advancements have made it
possible to offer more policies. Thus, flexible working options are no longer seen as
a way to balance work and dependant care responsibilities, but are increasingly seen
as a part of modern working lives. However, differences remain in employees’
access to policies on the basis of personal and work-related characteristics.
Differences also exist because of job-related characteristics which decrease
compatibility of selected options with certain jobs.
So, which options are perceived to be available by employees? The WERS 2004
Employee survey asked whether the employees perceived that if they personally
needed a range of flexible working practices, to be discussed below, they would be
available to them. The responses are tabulated in Table 4. Flexitime was perceived
to be the most commonly available working practice, where 38 per cent employees
thought it was available. This was followed by reducing working hours (32 per cent),
increasing working hours (31 per cent), changing working patterns including shifts
(27 per cent), compressed work weeks (20 per cent), job share (19 per cent),
29

working from home during normal working hours and term time working (both at 14
per cent).
In addition to a yes or no response, the survey also had a third option; allowing
employees to indicate if they did not know whether each of the options was available
to them. This response is also tabulated in Table 4. The highest response to this
option was 35 per cent, for job-share, while reducing working hours, increasing
working hours, compressed work weeks and term time working had a response of
30, 30, 27 and 26 per cent respectively. This response can be an indicator of poor
communication in the workplace or lack of employee interest in the option.
Table 4 also compares the perceived availability of these options with results from
earlier studies. Compared to WERS 1998, the perceived availability has increased.
Table 4. Perceived availability of flexible working arrangements
WERS 2004*
Percentage – option
available
WLB2**
Percentage – option
available
WERS 1998***
Percentage – option
available
WERS 2004*
Percentage –don’t
know)
Flexitime 38 48 33 21
Reducing working hours 32 67**** 27 30
Increasing working hours 31 - - 30
Changing working patterns
including shifts
27 - - 22
Compressed work weeks 20 30 - 27
Job share 19 41 16 35
Working from home in
normal working hours
14 20 9 15
Term time working 14 32***** - 26
*Source: WERS 2004 – Employee questionnaire. Base: All employees in workplaces with five or more employees.
Figures are weighted percentages and based on responses from 22, 415 employees.
**Source: The Second Work-Life Balance Study (Stevens et al., 2004; 48). Base: All employees. Figures are based on
responses from 2,003 employees.
***Source: 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey (DTI, 1999). Base: All employees in establishments with ten or
more employees (some questions were asked of non-managerial employees only).
****phrased as part-time working
*****only asked of parents with dependent children (base 876)
Existing analysis of WERS 2004 reports differences between employee groups in
perceived availability of work-life options (Kersley et al., 2005: 29-30; Kersley et al.,
2006: 249-274). Gender differences exist in the perceived availability of most of the
flexible working options, with the exceptions of homeworking and the ability to
change working patterns; women were more likely to perceive the remaining options
to be available. Women with dependent children as opposed to those without
dependent children also perceived that practices which involved a reduction in
working time would be available to them. Similarly some differences are reported
between the perceptions of men with and without dependent children, and
employees who cared for a family member or friend with long-term physical or
mental illness or disability.
Analysis of WERS 1998 also describes differences in perceived availability of
working options between employee sub-groups, based on gender and dependant
care responsibilities (Cully et al., 1999; Dex and Smith, 2001a). Similar sub-group
differences were reported by Stevens et al (2004) in the Second Work-Life Balance
30

Study. Broadly generalising, women, mothers and sales and services employees
were more likely to perceive that reduced time options i.e. part-time working, job
sharing and term time working were available to them. Also, employees in larger
workplaces were more likely to perceive availability of several options e.g. part-time
working, flexitime, compressed work-weeks. However, smaller workplaces were
more likely to offer term time working than larger workplaces. Differences existed in
the perceived availability of flexitime, compressed work weeks and home working
between occupational groups as well.
WERS 2004 Employee survey also provides information on childcare and leave
options (Table 5). Only five per cent employees perceived that their establishment
offered a workplace nursery or financial help with childcare costs. Paid parental
leave was perceived available by only 10 per cent employees (the Management
questionnaire reports that 10 per cent of establishments offer paid parental leave,
while 29 per cent offer unpaid parental leave). Additional leave options are also
available for time off in emergencies. While one may expect a marked increase in
the provision of leave options because of legislative changes since 1999 (see
Kersley et al., 2006: 254-265), changes in employees’ perceptions remain
conservative.
Table 5. Perceived availability of childcare and leave options
% employees
Childcare facilities:
Workplace nursery or help with childcare costs 5
(Don’t know =41; no=56)
Paid parental leave 10
(Don’t know=41; no=44)
How will employees take a day off at short notice for
family emergencies:
Use paid holiday 69
Take time off and make it up later 44
Go on leave without pay 41
Use special paid leave 25
Take sick leave 22
Some other way 14
Could not take time off 11
Does not apply to me 9
Source: WERS 2004. Base: All employees in workplaces with five or more employees. Figures are weighted and based on responses from
22,415 employees.
Perceived availability of full-time flexible working options
The analysis in this section compares perceived availability (not actual availability
nor use) with perceived non-availability or with lack of knowledge of availability using
multivariate analysis (as discussed in Chapter 2). Results for the full-time flexible
working options of home working, flexitime, compressed work week and changing
shift patterns are presented in Table C4.
For full-time flexible working options, differences existed in perceived availability and
knowledge of availability of options on the basis of gender, age, ethnicity,
31

occupational groups, length of service, marital status, education and the quality of
communication in the workplace (as perceived by employees).
For full-time flexible working options, men were more likely to perceive that the
options were not available to them (significant differences for flexitime, compressed
work week and changing shift patterns), while women were more likely to say that
they did not know whether home working and changing shift patterns was available
to them. For almost all four option, men are more likely to say that the options are
not available to them, and are less likely to say that they do not know about the
availability.
Differences existed in the perception and knowledge of availability on the basis of
age. Those under 22 year were less likely to perceive that home working was
available to them compared to all in the age brackets over 30 years or more. This
younger group was also more likely to indicate their lack of knowledge of availability.
Perhaps this difference in age groups in the perceptions of knowledge and
availability of home working is a reflection of seniority and status, as home working is
more widely used in senior position. For the remaining three full-time options, older
employees were more likely to perceive that the options were not available to them,
or indicate their lack of knowledge.
Single employees were more likely to indicate a lack of knowledge about the
availability of flexible working options. This may be a reflection of their lack of
interest. However, another explanation is the pattern of usage reinforcing
perceptions of availability; thus as employees with children (who have greater
chances of having partners) are more likely to use flexible working options, single
employees may be unsure about availability. The results also indicate that, with the
exception of home working (where no differences were found), those without children
are more likely to perceive that the option is not available or indicate their lack of
knowledge of options. On the other hand, carers of disabled and elderly people were
more likely to perceive that home working was not available to them, or indicate their
lack of knowledge. The perceived lack of availability of home working to carers of
disabled and elderly people is disturbing considering the ageing population profile,
resulting in increasing eldercare responsibilities of the labour force. However, no
significant differences were found for the other full-time options on the basis of
eldercare responsibilities.
No differences were found in the perceived availability of home working on the basis
of ethnicity. However, ethnic minority employees were more likely to indicate a lack
of knowledge. Whites were more likely to perceive that the remaining three full-time
flexible working options were not available to them.
For home working and flexitime, the more highly educated were more likely to
perceive that these options were available to them, and less likely to indicate lack of
knowledge. The differences on the basis of education are more pronounced for
home working than flexitime, and those in the highest education brackets are most
likely to perceive availability of home working.
Occupation influenced perceptions of availability of all options:
• The difference was most pronounced in homeworking, where managers at higher
levels were most likely to perceive that this option was available to them, followed by
professionals, associate professionals, and administrative and secretarial staff.
Those in blue collar jobs were more likely to perceive that this option was not
32

available to them, or to indicate their lack of knowledge. For several occupational
sub-groups, within a single occupational group, lower level employees, as opposed
to their high level counterparts, were more likely to perceive that this option was not
available to them, or to indicate a lack of knowledge. Results also indicate how some
jobs are not suitable for home working e.g. Process, plant and machine operatives at
lower levels were 19 time more likely to say that home working was not available to
them.
• Flexitime was also more likely to be perceived available by managers at higher
levels, compared to most groups. No differences existed between this reference
group of managers at higher levels and Managers at lower levels, Professionals at
higher levels, Associate professionals and technical occupations at higher levels,
and Administrative and secretarial occupations. From this pattern, it appears as if
flexitime is perceived to be available in more senior jobs and occupations. However,
the differences in flexitime are not as marked as in home working.
• Professionals were the only occupational group who had lesser perceived
availability and lesser knowledge of availability of compressed work week than the
reference group of managers at higher levels. While no other occupational group
perceived it more likely that the option was available to them, some additional groups
had lesser perceived availability and less knowledge of availability.
• Professionals, along with Associate professionals, Administrative and secretarial
occupations and Skilled trade occupations at lower levels had lesser perceived
availability and lesser knowledge of availability of changing shift patterns than the
reference group of managers at higher levels. It is noteworthy that for changing shift
patterns and for compressed work weeks, there are almost no significant differences
in the perceived availability or knowledge of availability between managers at higher
levels and Personal service occupations, Sales and customer service occupations,
Process, plant and machine operatives, and Elementary occupations. Perhaps this is
an indication of greater use of compressed work week and changing shift patterns in
the mentioned occupational groups.
Results indicate that with greater length of service, employees were less likely to say
that they did not know about the availability of any of the options as opposed to the
option being available. This was a statistically significant finding for all four options.
There were no differences in the perceived availability on the basis of length of
service.
Better communication systems in the workplace, as indicated by the Management
questionnaire, did not result in better knowledge of availability. However, employees
who reported that their managers kept them informed about the way the organisation
was being run were less likely to say that they did not know about the availability of
flexible working options.
Perceived availability and knowledge of reduced time working options
For reduced time working options, differences existed in perceived availability and
knowledge of availability on the basis of gender, age, marital status, education,
occupation, length of service and the quality of communication in the workplace (as
reported by managers). As in the previous section, the analysis in this section
compares perceived availability (not actual availability nor use) with perceived nonavailability
or with lack of knowledge of availability. Results for the reduced time
33

working options of a change from full-time to part-time and vice versa, job sharing
and term time working are presented in Table C5.
For reduced time options, women were more like to perceive greater availability and
less likely to indicate lack of knowledge. However, for job sharing, both men and
women were equally likely to indicate lack of knowledge.
Those under 22 years of age were more likely to perceive that reduced time options
were available to them. This group was also less likely to indicate lack of knowledge
of availability.
Marital status did not affect perceived availability or knowledge of availability other
than for a shift from part-time to full-time, in which case married individuals were less
likely to perceive that the option was not available and less likely to indicate lack of
knowledge. Those with childcare responsibilities were more likely to perceive that the
options were available, than those with no childcare responsibilities; differences
existed in the results on the basis of the age of the youngest child, where those with
younger children were more likely to perceive the options to be available and had
better knowledge. However, carers of disabled and elderly people did not perceive
better availability.
Overall, except a shift from full-time to part-time working, white employees were
more likely to perceive that options were not available to them, and to indicate a lack
of knowledge.
For educational qualifications, those who had higher qualifications were more likely
to report that the option to reduce working time was available to them. No other
significant differences were found. However, those with lower qualifications as
opposed to those with higher qualifications were more likely to indicate a lack of
knowledge than those who perceived the options to be available; this finding is
statistically significant for reducing and increasing working time, and for term time
working.
A number of differences were found by occupation:
• For reducing and increasing working time, Skilled trade occupations (90 per cent
of which are male) were more likely to say that the option was not available as
compared to the reference category of managers at higher levels. Administrative and
secretarial occupations at lower levels, Personal service occupations, and Sales and
customer service occupations were more likely to perceive the option to be available.
• Compared to many occupational groups, managers at higher levels perceived
that job sharing was not available to them. Managers were less likely to indicate that
they did not know about the availability of this options as opposed to perceiving it
available than Professionals at higher levels, Associate professionals at higher
levels, Skilled trade occupations at higher levels, Personal service occupations at
lower levels, Sales and customer services occupations, and Elementary occupations
at lower levels.
• For term time working, Professionals, Personal service occupations, Sales and
customer services occupations, and Elementary occupations were more likely to say
that they had the option available as opposed to being not available, and the former
two were also less likely to indicate that they did not know as opposed to perceiving
the option to be available.
34

Greater length of service meant employees were less likely to say that they did not
know about the availability of any of the options as opposed to the option being
available. This was a statistically significant finding for all four options. There were
not differences in the perceived availability on the basis of length of service except
for reducing working time, where those with shorter service were less likely to report
availability than those with longer service.
Better communication systems in the workplace, as indicated by the Management
questionnaire, did not result in better knowledge of availability. However, employees
who reported that their managers kept them informed about the way the organisation
was being run were less likely to say that they did not know about the availability of
flexible working options.
Perceived availability and knowledge of childcare and leave options
Continuing the comparison between perceived availability and reported lack of
availability and lack of knowledge, only a few differences existed in leave and
childcare options. Results are presented in Table C6. No differences were found on
the basis of: gender; age; marital status; childcare responsibilities; a persons
suffering from illness, health problem or disability; and length of service. Perhaps the
limited availability of childcare provisions resulted in lack of differences between
subgroups.
However, differences were found by occupation. Several blue collar occupations
were more likely to perceive lesser availability of financial help with childcare. For
parental leave, most occupational groups were likely to perceive lack of availability or
indicate lack of awareness compared to managers at higher levels. For special paid
leave for time off in emergencies, various blue collar occupations at lower levels
were likely to perceive greater availability.
Results on the basis of the communication system index, created from the
information in the Management questionnaire, indicate that employees in workplaces
with better communications systems were more likely to report better knowledge of
childcare provision and of parental leave than employees who perceived the options
to be available. This was reversed for awareness of special paid leave for time off in
emergencies. Employees who reported that their managers kept them informed
about the way the organisation was being run were less likely to say that they did not
know about the availability of leave options.
Summary
This section has examined the factors associated with differences in employees’
perception and knowledge of the availability of work-life practices. It has examined
perception and knowledge rather than availability, owing to the high percentage of
employees who did not know, for some practices, whether they were available.
However, employees’ perception, and not just actual availability, will matter in
respect of use of practices and of the impact of their availability on employee
outcomes.
The main findings in respect of factors associated with perceived availability of worklife
practices were as follows:
• Gender differences existed in the perceived availability of all flexible working
options. Men were less likely to perceive that the options were available to them,
except for homeworking were no differences were found in the perceived availability.
35

• Younger employees (those under 22) were less likely to perceive that home
working was available to them, but were more likely to perceive that all other full-time
or reduced time flexible working options were available to them.
• The overall pattern of availability of individual options indicates that single
employees were likely to have lesser knowledge.
• Those with a shorter length of service were more likely to indicate their lack of
knowledge regarding the availability of most full-time as well as reduced-time
options. Thus, over time, the perceived knowledge of employees increases. The next
chapter (Chapter 5) analyses whether length of service improves actual knowledge.
• No relationship was found between the communication system index, created
from the information in the Management questionnaire, and employees’ lack of
knowledge of availability of flexible working options; some differences were found for
childcare and leave provision. Overall, having a more complex communication
system was not found to decrease the chances of employees having lesser
knowledge. The role of the communication system index is discussed further in the
next chapter where gaps between employee and employer knowledge of availability
are analysed.
• Compared to the management communication index, employees who reported
that their managers kept them informed about the way the organisation was being
run were less likely to say that they did not know about the availability of almost all
the work-life options. Hence the management-reported complex communication
system index had almost no relationship with employees’ perceived knowledge,
whereas the employee-reported communication item was associated with it.
Some work-life options stood out because the characteristics of employees who
perceived them to be available were different than the others.
• Home working (during normal working hours) was the only option in which there
were no significant differences in the reported availability on the basis of gender. It
was also more likely to be perceived available by the higher educated, by managers
at higher levels, and by higher level sub-groups within occupational groups. While
most options were more likely to be perceived available by employees with children,
this difference did not exist for home working. Thus, home working appears as an
option used by high-status employees for reasons other than childcare. A similar
conclusion was drawn by Dex and Smith (2001a) in their analysis of provision of
homeworking in WERS 1998.
• Flexitime also shared some of the characteristics of home working i.e. it was
more likely to be reported available by managers at higher levels than by most lower
level groups. It was also more likely to be reported available by the higher educated.
However, the differences in perceived availability on the basis of status are not as
marked for flexitime as for home working. Flexitime was the only option whose
availability was not affected by organisational size.
• Reduced time options were more likely to be perceived available by women, and
by those with young children. The research also found that the higher educated were
more likely to report that reduced time options were available to them. As reduced
time working is often associated with low-status jobs, this is a surprising finding,
even if the outcome variable is perceived availability and not use. However, there is
some indication in results for differences in occupational groups that reduced time
36

options are more likely to be perceived available by employees in lower status
occupational groups. These differences in the perceived availability by the higher
educated and by those in high status jobs may exist because reduced time workers
are carrying out work below their potential, and when carrying out jobs for which they
are over qualified, are more likely to be able to demand suitable working patterns.
The data available for this project does not allow such an analysis, but otherwise
evidence exists to support this inference (Grant, Yeandle and Buckner, 2005).
37

5
Differences between
employee and employer
beliefs on provision
Introduction
Lack of awareness of employers’ provision of work-life policies is one of the key
reasons for its low take-up (Bond et al., 2002; Hoque and Noon, 2004; Lewis and
Lewis, 1996; Yeandle et al., 2002). In WERS 2004, the Management questionnaire
provides information on workplace’s provision of work-life policies. Information is
provided on whether an option is available to any employee in the workplace. For
only two practices is information on coverage collected. The Employee questionnaire
provides information on employees’ perception of availability of these work-life
policies. Hence, for most practices, a comparison between employees’ perception of
availability and employers’ claimed provision to identify any gaps is likely to provide
erroneous results; with no information on coverage of the policies, it cannot be
assumed that the respondents to the Employee survey have an option available to
them even if the manager is correct and the workplace provides that option.
However, information is available on the coverage of two flexible working options,
flexitime and reduced time working. Based on the Management questionnaire, 26
per cent of establishments made flexitime and 47 per cent made reduced time
available to all employees. However, not all employees in these establishments
perceived the practices to be available to them. For flexitime, 56 per cent of
employees perceived flexible working to be available to them, 17 per cent did not
know, while 27 per cent perceived it was not available to them. For reducing working
time, 39 per cent of employees perceived flexible working to be available to them, 31
per cent did not know, while 29 per cent perceived it was not available to them.
For each of these practices, this chapter aims to identify the characteristics of
workplaces and of employees which may lead to differences between employees’
and managers’ perceptions of availability. This is done through the analysis of
subsets of establishments where the practice was reported by managers as being
available to all. Thus the analysis is significantly different from that of WERS 1998 by
Budd and Mumford (2006) who addressed a similar question. The procedure for the
analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter 2 and the statistical results are presented in
Table C7.
38

For simplicity, the language used in this chapter relating to reported availability of a
practice is ‘actual availability’ (for managerial perceived availability) and ‘perceived
availability’ for employees’ reported availability. This suggests that managers’
knowledge is correct and that any contradiction is due to misinformation on the part
of employees. However, we recognise that the opposite can be the case.
Characteristics of workplaces in which differences exist between employees’
and employers’ perceptions
Employees working in an establishment which was one of a number of workplaces in
Britain belonging to the same organisation, as opposed to those working in single
independent establishments or sole British establishments of a foreign organisation,
were less accurately informed about the availability of flexitime. These employees
were more likely to say that the option was not available to them when the
management claimed that it was available to all employees. One possible reason for
this difference is that in workplaces which are one of a number of workplaces in
Britain belonging to the same organisation, the policy is defined by the head office,
and is not a reflection of the workplace’s management’s interest in the options.
Hence they are less likely to inform the employees.
Employees in the non-trading sector or in workplaces which do not trade externally
as opposed to those in growing markets were ill-informed about the availability of
reduced time working than those in growing markets. However, those in declining
markets were better informed than those in growing markets. Employees working in
establishments in mature and turbulent markets were more accurately informed
about availability of flexitime than those in growing markets.
Whereas in the analysis on availability of work-life policies, size of the establishment
was a significant predictor of availability of options in most cases, size of the
establishment was not a significant predictor of the gap between employers’
provision and employees’ perceptions. Thus employees in large and small
workplaces were equally informed about the availability of reduced time and flexitime
options to them.
Broad sector (private/public) was not a significant predictor of the gap between
employers’ provision and employees’ perceptions in findings comparing perceived
availability and knowledge of flexitime. However, private sector employees were
more likely to say that the option to reduce working time was not available to them
when their managers had said otherwise.
Differences existed in the knowledge of employees working in different industries.
There were more gaps in the perceived availability of reduced time working than
flexitime. Employees in Wholesale and retail, Hotel and restaurant, Transport and
communication, Financial services, Other business services, Public administration,
Health, Other community services were better informed about the availability of
reduced time options than those in other industries.. This may be because of limited
use of reduced time working in other industries. Employees in Hotels and
restaurants, Other business services, Public administration, Health and Other
community services were all better informed than Manufacturing employees about
the availability of flexitime. Overall, employees in Public administration were best
informed.
39

Regarding the workforce profile, a smaller proportion of women meant a larger gap
in the knowledge of employees. As discussed later, women were more likely to be
accurately informed about the availability of flexitime and reduced time working.
Employees in establishments which did not offer job security to all employees were
more likely to perceive that reduced time working was not available to them, and
hence were comparatively ill-informed. However, no differences were found on in the
knowledge of availability of flexitime.
In establishments offering a basic set of HR practices, as opposed to medium or
more complex HR, there was a larger gap in the knowledge of employees.
Employees were more likely to say that the option to reduced working time was not
available to them, and were more likely to indicate a lack of awareness of flexitime.
Characteristics of employees where differences exist between employees’ and
employers’ perceptions
Moving on from establishment characteristics to employee characteristics, gender,
age, marital status, childcare responsibilities, health problems, ethnicity, education
profile, occupational groups and length of service were all found to impact employee
knowledge.
Men were more likely to have less knowledge of availability of reduced time options
and flexitime. Also, older workers were more likely to be aware of both options being
available to them than the reference group of under 22s. Single employees were
more likely to have accurate knowledge of both options than those who were married
or living with a partner, as the chances of saying that an option was not available to
them, when the management claimed that it was, was significantly higher in the latter
group. Those with children in the age bracket of 0-4 had more accurate knowledge of
both options than those with no children. Those suffering from illness, health
problems or disability were more likely to say that reduced time working was not
available to them when it actually was. Ethnic minority employees were more likely to
say that they did not know whether the option to reduced time was available to them,
when the management claimed that it was. The lower educated were more likely to
be misinformed about whether the option of reduced time working was available to
them.
Some significant differences also existed in employee knowledge of availability of
both reduced time and flexitime working on the basis of length of service. All results
indicate that employees with less than one year of service are more likely to be illinformed
than employees with two or more years of service.
Several differences existed in knowledge by occupation. The groups which were
more likely to indicate that they did not know about the availability of flexitime were:
Professional occupations at higher levels, Administrative and secretarial occupations
at higher levels, and Skilled trade occupations at lower levels. Skilled trades
occupations at lower levels, Personal services occupations at both levels, Process,
plant and machine operatives at both levels, and Elementary occupations at lower
levels were likely to perceive that the option was not available to them. It may be
inferred from this pattern that employees in low status occupational groups and
those working at lower levels are more likely to believe that flexitime is not available
to them, while some high status employees are likely to have less knowledge of
availability.
40

For reduced time working, Administrative and secretarial occupations at higher levels
lacked knowledge of availability, while Skilled trades occupations and Process, plant
and machine operatives (both levels) were misinformed or lacked knowledge than
managers at higher levels. Employees in Personal service occupations at both levels
were better informed than managers at higher levels. Note that the former are more
likely to be female. Higher level employees in Sales and customer service
occupations were better informed about the availability of reduced time working than
managers at higher levels.
Overall, employees in Skilled trade occupations and Process, plant and machine
operatives were the most ill-informed about the availability of flexitime and reduced
time working to them. It is possible that these employees are better informed about
other work-life balance options, including other flexible working practices, which are
in common use in their occupational groups; it is not possible to carry out this
analysis on the available data.
The research also investigated the role of communication in the workplace as a
predictor of employees’ knowledge of the options. The communication index which
was derived from the Management questionnaire i.e. which provides a scale for
measuring the complexity of the communication system on the basis of information
provided by the management, was not found to be a significant predictor. However,
employees who felt that managers kept them informed about the way the
organisation was being run were better informed than employees who felt that the
managers did not keep them informed.
Summary
Several workplace characteristics were found to influence the gap between actual
and perceived availability. Employees working in an establishment which was one of
a number of workplaces in Britain belonging to the same organisation, as opposed to
those working in single independent establishments or sole British establishments of
a foreign organisation, were less accurately informed about the availability of
flexitime. It is possible that head office policies are not actively promoted in all
establishments which are one of a number of different workplaces belonging to the
same organisation.
Workplace size was not associated with the gap between perceived and actual
availability. Some differences existed between the broad sectors, where private
sector employees reported unavailability, indicating inaccurate knowledge. For
sectoral differences using SIC, Public administration employees were best informed.
Overall, there were more gaps in the perceived and actual availability for reduced
time working than flexitime. A smaller proportion of women in the workforce, lesser
job security and basic HR all increased the chances of a mis-match.
Men were likely to inaccurately perceive that both options were not available to them,
when they actually were. Older workers, single employees and those with young
children were more likely to have accurate knowledge than their counterparts. Ethnic
minority employees were more likely to indicate that they did not know whether an
option was available, when it actually was. Employees with shorter length of service
were more likely to be ill-informed.
Regarding the status of employees, the chances of a gap in the knowledge were
greater for the lower educated. Occupational group status influenced the gap: high
status occupational groups were more likely to report that they did not know about
41

the availability of flexitime, while low status occupational groups were likely to
perceive it was not available. Overall, employees in Skilled trade occupations and
Plant and machine operatives were the most ill-informed about the availability of
flexitime and reduced time working to them.
A complex communication system, as derived by this research from the
Management questionnaire, was not found to be useful in decreasing the mismatch
between employees’ and employers’ knowledge. However, employees who felt that
managers kept them informed about the way the organisation was being run were
better informed.
42

6
The impact of work-life
policies on employee
attitudes
Introduction
There is accumulating evidence for the benefits of the use of work-life balance
policies. Researchers have found associations between the use of flexible working
by employees and desirable employee attitudes, behavioural intentions and
behaviours. Examples of topics covered include the effect of use of flexible working
on employee commitment and job satisfaction (Scandura and Lankau, 1997; Haar
and Spell, 2004), citizenship behaviour (Lambert, 2000), and absenteeism, turnover
and retention (Eaton, 2003; Dex and Scheibl, 1999; Osterman, 1995).
This chapter analyses whether provision of flexible working has an impact on
employees’ attitudes such as organisational commitment, job satisfaction and workstress.
To analyse this relationship, the key work-life variables of interest are:
• availability of options in the establishment according to the management;
• employees’ perceived availability of work-life options to themselves;
• managerial responses to the statement that ‘it is up to the individual to balance
work and family life’;
• employees’ response to the statement that ‘management is understanding about
employees having to meet responsibilities outside work’.
The analysis is carried out in two ways: analysing the impact of individual options
and analysing the impact of an index of overall provision. Details of the analysis
procedure have been discussed in Chapter 2.
The impact of individual option provision on employee outcomes
The full results of the regression analysis are presented in Table C8 in Annex C, with
the results for work-life variables tabulated in Table 6.
The managerial responses regarding availability of options result in some significant
findings.
• Home working was associated with lower work-stress;
• the option to change shift patterns and the option to shift from full-time to parttime
was associated with higher organisational commitment;
43

• availability of eldercare leave was associated with higher organisational
commitment; and
• availability of special paid leave for time off in emergencies was associated with
higher job satisfaction.
The negative relationships between provision and attitudes were:
• Term time working was associated with decreased job satisfaction, perhaps
because availability to some employees reduced the satisfaction of others.
• A weak negative relationship was observed between providing financial help with
childcare or nursery vouchers and organisational commitment. From the analysis in
Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, we know that financial help with childcare or nursery
vouchers is a benefit provided to limited high status employees. It may be inferred
that the negative relationship is the result of this option being unavailable to
employees who desire it. However, it is not possible to test this inference from the
available data.
For management attitude, managers strongly agreeing that it was up to the individual
to balance work and family life was associated with lower organisational
commitment.
There were significant associations between perceived availability of flexible working
options and desirable employee outcomes. Employees who perceived home working
was available to them had higher organisational commitment and job satisfaction as
opposed to those who perceived the option was not available to them, or who did not
know whether the option was available. However, those who perceived the option to
be available also reported higher work-related stress. From Chapter 3 and Chapter 4
we know that home working is more prevalent in high status jobs. The high stress
associated with perceived availability of home working could be because of
employee status.
In addition to homeworking, flexitime, the option to change shift patterns and the
option to increase working hours were also found to be associated with higher
organisational commitment and job satisfaction. Availability of term time working was
associated with higher organisational commitment. Generally speaking, results
comparing availability versus non-availability and availability versus lack of
knowledge of availability generated similar findings, though there are more
significant and stronger findings for perceived non-availability.
Compressed work week, the option to change shifts, the option to reduce working
hours and term time working was associated with lower work-related stress. Lack of
knowledge of job sharing was associated with higher stress.
Note that there are no significant findings reported for any of the leave options for
either organisational commitment, job satisfaction or work-stress.
Regarding employees’ perceptions of managerial attitudes, those who perceived that
management was understanding about their responsibilities outside work were likely
to report higher organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and report lower workstress.
44

Table 6. The impact of individual work-life options on employee outcomes
Organisational
Commitment 1
R 2 =18.57
F=13.27***
Job
satisfaction 2
R 2 =12.77
F=7.63***
Work-stress 3
R 2 =16.79
F=10.91***
(Control variables in Table C8 in Annex C)
Mq: home working available -0.039 0.042 -0.068*
Mq: flexitime available 0.039 0.038 -0.031
Mq: compressed work week available -0.041 0.030 0.007
Mq: can change shift patterns 0.054+ 0.034 -0.011
Mq: full-time to part-time available 0.106** -0.006 -0.010
Mq: part-time to full-time available 0.050 -0.038 -0.035
Mq: job sharing available 0.005 -0.035 -0.032
Mq: term time working available -0.017 -0.080* 0.023
Mq: at least part of the maternity leave fully paid -0.008 0.016 -0.033
Mq: Paternity leave available -0.015 -0.006 -0.038
Mq: eldercare leave available 0.106* -0.039 -0.037
Mq: special paid leave for time off in emergencies available -0.002 0.073** 0.000
Mq: providing financial help with childcare or nursery vouchers -0.068+ 0.087+ 0.000
Mq: Mgt attitude: strongly agree 12 -0.283* -0.117 0.065
Mq: Mgt attitude: agree 12 -0.172 -0.178 0.123
Mq: Mgt attitude: neutral 12 -0.175 -0.138 0.093
Mq: Mgt attitude: disagree 12 -0.191 -0.204+ 0.131
Eq: perceive home working not available 13 0.189*** 0.214*** 0.196***
Eq: don’t know if home working is available or not 13 0.092* 0.093+ 0.061
Eq: perceive flexitime not available 14 0.058+ 0.199*** -0.085*
Eq: don’t know if flexitime is available or not 14 -0.011 0.048 -0.006
Eq: perceive compressed work week not available 15 -0.013 0.057 -0.093*
Eq: don’t know if compressed work week is available or not 15 -0.015 0.047 -0.022
Eq: perceive the option to change shifts not available 16 0.115*** 0.062+ -0.108**
Eq: don’t know if the option to change shifts is available or not 16 0.191*** 0.102* -0.069+
Eq: perceive the option to reduce hours not available 17 -0.011 -0.079+ -0.103*
Eq: don’t know if the option to reduce hours is available or not 17 0.001 0.001 -0.084*
Eq: perceive the option to increase hours not available 18 0.097** 0.087* 0.045
Eq: don’t know if the option to increases hours is available or not 18 0.048 0.107** 0.014
Eq: perceive job sharing not available 19 0.021 0.020 -0.048
Eq: don’t know if job sharing is available or not 19 0.004 -0.006 0.075*
Eq: perceive term time working not available 20 0.095* 0.014 -0.080+
Eq: don’t know if term time working is available or not 20 0.059 0.000 -0.028
Eq: perceive parental leave not available 21 -0.014 -0.050 -0.047
Eq: don’t know if parental leave is available or not 21 -0.032 0.023 -0.048
Eq: perceive financial help with childcare or nursery vouchers not
available 22 0.088 0.038 -0.072
Eq: don’t know if financial help with childcare or nursery vouchers
available or not 22 0.093 -0.003 -0.095
Eq: special paid leave for time off in emergencies available or not -0.051 0.061 -0.048
Eq: employees perceive management extremely understanding 23 -0.436*** -0.237*** 0.359***
Eq: employees perceive management somewhat understanding 23 -0.196*** -0.106** 0.183***
-0.418* -0.446* 0.225
45

Source: WERS 2004. Mq indicates Management Questionnaire; Eq indicates Employee Questionnaire. Base: All employees in workplaces
with five or more employees. Figures are weighted and based on responses from 13,664 employees and the managers in their workplaces.
***indicates difference between the two observations significant at the 1 per cent level; **difference significant at the 5 per cent level; *
difference significant at the 10 per cent level.
1 lower value means higher commitment
2 lower value means higher job satisfaction
3 lower value means higher work-related stress
Reference categories:
12 Management strongly disagrees that it is up to the individual to balance work and family life is the reference category
13 Home working is perceived to be available is the reference category
14 Flexitime is perceived to be available is the reference category
15 Compressed work week is perceived to be available is the reference category
16 The option to change shift patterns is perceived to be available is the reference category
17 The option to reduce working hours is perceived to be available is the reference category
18 The option to increase working hours is perceived to be available is the reference category
19 Job sharing is perceived to be available is the reference category
20 Term time working is perceived to be available is the reference category
21 Parental leave is perceived to be available is the reference category
22 Financial help with childcare or nursery vouchers are perceived to be available is the reference category
23 Management attitude not understanding is the reference category
Thus, overall, this research was able to find some evidence to support a positive
association between availability of work-life options and employee outcomes. A
strong relationship was found between employee perceptions that managers are
understanding about their responsibilities outside of work and all three outcomes i.e.
organisational commitment, job satisfaction and work-stress.
The relationship between the number of policies available and employee
outcomes
The above analysis focused on individual option provision. It would be more
reasonable to analyse whether availability of the option of one’s choice has an
impact on the employee outcomes. While this information is not available, it is
possible to analyse (subject to certain assumptions) whether having more options
available is more strongly associated with the desirable outcomes. Thus this section
discusses the results to understand the relationship between number of policies
available and employee outcomes. The full results of the regression analysis are
presented in Table C9, with the results for work-life variables tabulated in Table 7.
Results indicate that if, according to the management, the workplace offers a large
number of policies, this is likely to be associated with lower organisational
commitment, lower job satisfaction and higher work-stress. One possible explanation
is that that the management responses are about availability in the workplace and
not coverage. Limited coverage may result in perceived unfairness and hence
dissatisfaction. Further analysis is required to explore this relationship.
For management attitude, the findings remain the same between the two models –
managers strongly agreeing that it was up to the individual to balance work and
family life was associated with lower organisational commitment.
The number of policies perceived to be available by the employees had the desired
relationship with employee outcomes. The results indicate that as the number of
policies which were perceived to be available increased, the relationship became
stronger. Thus, the level of reported organisational commitment and job satisfaction
increased as the perceived number of available policies increased, while reported
work-stress decreased.
Regarding employees’ perceptions of managerial attitudes, like the model discussed
earlier, those who perceived that managers were understanding about their
46

esponsibilities outside work reported higher organisational commitment, job
satisfaction, and reported lower work-stress.
Table 7. The impact of work-life options on employee outcomes
Organisational
Commitment 1
R 2 =17.21
F=16.2***
N=14,540
Job
satisfaction 2
R 2 =10.68
F=8.76***
N=14,540
Work-stress 3
R 2 =15.44
F=12.97***
N=14,540
(Control variables in Table C9)
Mq: Work-life index, medium provision 12 0.064* 0.057+ -0.056+
Mq: Work-life index, high provision 12 0.137* 0.136* -0.256***
Mq: Mgt attitude: strongly agree 13 -0.216+ -0.042 0.048
Mq: Mgt attitude: agree 13 -0.098 -0.121 0.108
Mq: Mgt attitude: neutral 13 -0.130 -0.086 0.086
Mq: Mgt attitude: disagree 13 -0.119 -0.138 0.117
Eq: Employee perceives one policy is available 14 -0.110** -0.081* -0.008
Eq: Employee perceives two policies are available 14 -0.148*** -0.148*** 0.069+
Eq: Employee perceives three policies are available 14 -0.249*** -0.199*** 0.064
Eq: Employee perceives four policies are available 14 -0.233*** -0.240*** 0.086+
Eq: Employee perceives five policies are available 14 -0.215*** -0.339*** 0.230***
Eq: Employee perceives six policies are available 14 -0.338*** -0.351*** 0.169**
Eq: Employee perceives seven policies are available 14 -0.256** -0.363*** 0.277**
Eq: Employee perceives eight policies are available 14 -0.431*** -0.491*** 0.047
Eq: Employee perceives nine policies are available 14 -0.660*** -0.235 0.500**
Eq: Employee perceives ten policies are available 14 -0.207 -0.835*** 0.009
Eq: employees perceive management extremely
understanding 15 -0.464*** -0.266*** 0.362***
Eq: employees perceive management somewhat
understanding 15 -0.217*** -0.132*** 0.188***
Source: WERS 2004. Mq indicates Management Questionnaire; Eq indicates Employee Questionnaire. Base: All employees in workplaces
with five or more employees. Figures are weighted and based on responses from 14,540 employees and the managers in their workplaces.
***indicates difference between the two observations significant at the 1 per cent level; **difference significant at the 5 per cent level; *
difference significant at the 10 per cent level.
1lower value means higher commitment
2lower value means higher job satisfaction
3lower value means higher work-related stress
Reference categories:
12 Management work-life index indicates that the provision of work-life policies is low
13 Management strongly disagrees that it is up to the individual to balance work and family life is the reference category
14 Employee perceives that no work-life option is available is the reference category
15 Management attitude not understanding is the reference category
Summary
Results support that increased perceived availability of work-life options by
employees is associated with greater organisational commitment and job
satisfaction, and lesser work-stress. This relationship was found in the analysis of
individual option provision, where various flexible working options were associated
with desirable employee outcomes. No relationship was found between employee
outcomes and perceived availability of leave options. The positive association was
also found between the number of policies reported available by the employees and
employee outcomes. Having more policies available resulted in a stronger
relationship.
The relationship between workplace provision of work-life policies and employee
outcomes is not conclusive. While analysing the relationship between provision of
individual options, some individual options had a positive relationship with
47

organisational commitment and job satisfaction while there were also some negative
relationships. On the other hand, analysing whether the workplace offering a large
number of policies was associated with the employee outcomes, it was found that
higher provision is likely to be associated with lower organisational commitment and
job satisfaction and higher work-stress. As management reported provision does not
include coverage of policies in the workplace, it is possible that limited coverage has
negative repercussions.
48

References
Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1990). ‘The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to organisation’, Journal of Occupational
Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 1-18.
Bardoel, E. A. (2003). ‘The provision of formal and informal work-family practices: The
relative importance of institutional and resource dependent explanations versus
managerial explanations’, Women in Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 1/2, pp. 7-19.
Bond, S., Hyman, J. Summers, J. and Wise, S. (2002). Family friendly Working? Putting
policy into practice, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation/The Policy Press.
Budd, J. W. and Mumford, K. A. (2006). ‘Family-friendly working practices in Britain:
Availability and perceived availability’, Human Resource Management, Spring 2006,
Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Cully, M., Woodland, S., O’Reilly, A. and Dix, G. (1999). Britain at Work; As depicted by
the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, London: Routledge.
Dex, S. and Scheibl, F. (2001). ‘Flexible and family-friendly working arrangements in
UK based SMEs’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 411-432.
Dex, S. and Scheibl, F. (1999). ‘Business performance and family-friendly policies’,
Journal of General Management, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 22-37.
Dex, S. and Smith, C. (2001a). Employees’ access to family friendly policies and
practices: Analysis of the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, WP 16/2001,
Research paper in management studies, Cambridge: Judge Institute of Management
Studies.
Dex, S. and Smith, C. (2001b). Which British employers have family-friendly policies?
Analysis of the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, Research papers in
management studies, WP 17/2001. Cambridge: The Judge Institute of Management
Studies.
DTI (1999) 1 Workplace Employee Relations Survey 1998: Cross-section. Tabulations
provided by the ESRC-funded 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey Data
Dissemination Service at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
http://www/niesr.ac.uk/research/WERS98 (Accessed: September 2006).
DTI (2000). Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice, London: Department of
Trade and Industry.
1 The author(s) acknowledge the Department of Trade and Industry, the Advisory, Arbitration and Conciliation Service, the
Economic and Social Research Council and the Policy Studies Institute as the originators of the 1998 Workplace Employee
Relations Survey (WERS98) data, and the ESRC-funded WERS98 Data Dissemination Service as the producers of the tabulations
used in this work. None of these organisations bears any responsibility for the author’s (authors’) analysis and interpretations of the
data.
49

DTI (2007). http://www.berr.gov.uk/employment/workandfamilies/index.html (Accessed:
August - September 2006; February 2007)
Eaton, S. C. (2003). ‘If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organisational
commitment, and perceived performance’ Industrial Relations, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 145-
167.
Forth, J. Bewley, H. and Bryson, A. (2006). Small and Medium-sized Enterprises:
Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, London: DTI.
Forth, J., Millward, N., (2000), The determinants of pay levels and fringe benefit
provision in Britain, May 2000, Dp. 171
Goodstein, J. D. (1994). ‘Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer
involvement in work-family issues’, Academy of Management Journal, 37: 2, 350-382.
Grant, L. Yeandle, S. and Buckner, L. (2005). Working below potential: women and
part-time working, Manchester: EOC working paper series No. 40.
Haar, J. M. and Spell, C. S. (2004). ‘Programme knowledge and value of work-family
practices and organisational commitment’, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 16, pp. 1040-1055.
Hogarth, T., Hasluck, C. Pierre, G., Winterbotham, M. and Vivian, D. (2001) Work-life
balance 2000: Baseline study of work-life balance practices in Great Britain, DfEE
Research Report No. 249, Nottingham: DfEE Publications.
Hoque, K. and Noon, M. (2004). ‘Equal opportunities policy and practice in Britain:
evaluating the ‘empty shell’ hypothesis’, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 18, No. 3,
pp. 481-506.
Ingram, P. & Simons, T. (1995). ‘Institutional and resource dependence determinants of
responsiveness to work-family issues’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No.
5, pp. 1466-1482.
Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S.
(2005). Inside the workplace: First Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employee
Relations Survey, London: DTI.
Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S.
(2006). Inside the workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employee Relations
Survey, Oxon: Routledge.
Lambert, S. J. (2000). ‘Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and
organizational citizenship behaviour’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5,
pp. 801-815.
Lewis. S and Lewis, J. (1996). The work-family challenge: Rethinking employment,
London: Sage Publications.
Milliken, F.J., Martins, L. L. & Morgan, H. (1998). ‘Explaining organisational
responsiveness to work-family issues: The role of human resource executives as issue
interpreters’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 580-592.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S. and McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation
of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81, No. 4, pp. 400-10.
50

NIESR (2006). http://wers2004.info/FAQ.php, WERS 2004 support service (Accessed:
August – September 2006)
Osterman, P. (1995). ‘Work-family programs and the employment relationship’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 681-700.
Poelmans, S. and Sahibzada, K. (2004). ‘A multi-level model for studying the context
and impact of work family policies and culture in organizations’, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 409 – 432.
Scandura, T.A. and Lankau, M.J. (1997). ‘Relationships of gender, family responsibility
and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction’ Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 18, pp. 377-391.
Steven, J., Brown, J. and Lee, C. (2004). The second work-life balance study: Results
from the employees’ survey, DTI Employment Relations Research Series No. 27,
London: Department of Trade and Industry.
Wood, S., Menezes, L. de & Lasaosa, A. (2003). ‘Family friendly management in Great
Britain: Testing various perspectives’, Industrial Relations, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 221-251.
Woodland, S., Simmons, N., Thornby, M. Fitzgerald, R. and McGee, A. (2003). The
second employee friendly flexible working study: results from the employers’ survey –
main report, Employment Relations Research Series No. 22, London, DTI.
Yeandle, S., Wigfield, A., Crompton, R. and Dennett, J. (2002). Employers’
communities and family-friendly employment policies, York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation/The Policy Press.
51

Annex A: Derived variables
Calculating the HR and communication index
The HR index
The HR index was created by summing items from six groups, which are detailed in
Table A1. For each subgroup, a summated index was created by selecting suitable
items from the WERS Management questionnaire. The individual establishment score
was then divided by the maximum possible score to that each subgroup had a range of
0-1; thus the contribution of each subgroup to the final scale is no longer dependent on
the number of items selected from the Management questionnaire. This HR index is
then converted into four dummy variables, dividing organisations into those who provide
limited HR policies (basic HR), to those who provide many (Complex HR). This index is
used in all calculations of the Management questionnaire.
For analysis based on the Employee questionnaire, where the models included
communication as a separate item, the HR index is based on the remaining five items.
The communication index is used separately.
The communication index
A summated communication index (range 0-32) was generated by summing the
following items:
• there is an induction programme designed to introduce the largest occupational
group to this workplace (0-1);
• there is a meeting between senior staff and employees (0-1);
• the frequency of this meeting (0-3);
• meeting between line managers and employees (0-1);
• the frequency of this meeting (0-3);
• proportion of time available for question in senior manager meetings (0-3);
• proportion of time available for questions from employees in team briefings (0-3);
• formal survey of employees (0-1);
• survey results available to employees (0-1);
• communication via notice boards, cascading of info, newsletters, e-mail, intranet,
suggestion schemes, other mechanisms (0-1 for each);
• managers share info about internal investment plans, about financial position of
the establishment/whole org, about staffing plans (0-1 each);
• consultation committees present (0-1);
• quality circles present (0-1);
• proportion of non-managerial employees in quality circles (0-2).
The result was plotted and workplaces were divided into three groups – those with low,
medium and high communication.
52

Table A1. Calculating the HR index
HR group Variable name Calculation
Recruitment score sc_recruit2 A summated index for recruitment (range 0-7) generated by giving
a point each for having special procedure to encourage
applications from women in general, members of ethnic minority
groups, older workers, disabled people, people who have been
unemployed for 12 months or more; a point each for having
personality tests or performance/competency tests.
Training score Sc_train2 A summated index for training (range 0-8) generated by: giving 0-3
points if none, 1-39 per cent, 40-79 per cent or 80-100 per cent
employees were given time off for training; 0-2 points if time given
for training was none, less than one day to less than five days or
more days; 1 point for soft skills training in addition to hard skills; 0-
2 if none, 1-39 per cent or more than 40 per cent of the LOG is
trained to do a job other than their own.
Communication Sd_commu2 Summated index (range 0-32) generated by summing: there is an
induction programme designed to introduce the largest
occupational group to this workplace (0-1); there is a meeting
between senior staff and employees (0-1); the frequency of this
meeting (0-3); meeting between line managers and employees (0-
1); the frequency of this meeting (0-3); proportion of time available
for question in senior manager meetings (0-3); proportion of time
available for questions from employees in team briefings (0-3);
formal survey of employees (0-1); survey results available to
employees (0-1); communication via notice boards, cascading of
info, newsletters, e-mail, intranet, suggestion schemes, other
mechanisms (0-1 for each); managers share info about internal
investment plans, about financial position of the
establishment/whole org, about staffing plans (0-1 each);
consultation committees present (0-1); quality circles present (0-1);
proportion of non-managerial employees in quality circles (0-2).
Pay Sf_pay2 Summated index (range 0-12) generated by summing : payment by
results or merit pay (0-1); payment by results to managers and
professionals only, or other employees as well (0-1); proportion of
non-managerial employees getting performance related pay etc.
(0-2); profit related pay (0-1); profit pay to managers and
professionals only, or other employees as well (0-1); proportion of
non-managerial employees getting profit related pay etc (0-2); any
employee share schemes (0-1); employee share ownership
schemes to managers and professionals only, or other employees
as well (0-1); proportion of non-managerial employees eligible for
employee share ownership schemes (0-2)
Appraisal Sf_apprai2 Summated index (range 0-9) generated by summing: performance
appraisals of managers and professionals only, or other employees
as well (0-1); proportion of non-managerial employees who get
performance appraisals (0-1); appraisal at least annually (0-1); top
down appraisal yes or no (0-1); 180 degree appraisal i.e.
combination of top-down and either of the other two (0-1); topdown,
peer and subordinate appraisal (0-1); appraisal results in
evaluation of training needs (0-1); appraisal results in performance
pay (0-1).
EO policy Sipolicy2 Equal opportunity policy present or not
53

Computing educational qualification
WERS 2004 provides information on academic and vocational qualifications. The
analysis in this report uses the two qualifications grouped together in a single variable;
the assumptions and procedures for deriving this variable are described below. Since
the objective is to understand whether highest qualification achieved is a predictor in
regression models, it was found necessary to combine the two so that the highest
qualification of the individual, whether academic or vocational, is known. While in the
exploratory stages, only academic qualifications were selected, many respondents with
no or low academic qualifications had higher vocational qualifications. It is perceived by
the researchers that despite assumptions made during regrouping procedures, using
the combined qualifications is likely to produce more accurate and useful results then
not using the vocational qualifications at all, or using the two individually.
Original questions in WERS
Academic qualifications:
E7 Which, if any, of the following academic qualification have you obtained? Tick all
that apply.
GCSE grades D-G/CSE grades 2-5, SCE O grades D-E/SCE Standard grades 4-7
GCSE grades A-C, GCE 'O'-level passes, CSE grade 1, SCE O grades A-C, SCE
Standard grades 1-3
1 GCE ‘A’-level grades A-E; 1-2 SCE Higher grades A-C; AS levels
2 or more GCE 'A'-levels grades A-E ; 3 or more SCE Higher grades A-C
First degree e.g. BSc, BA, BEd, HND, HNC, MA at first degree level
Higher degree e.g. MSc, MA, MBA, PGCE, PhD
Other academic qualifications
No academic qualifications
Vocational qualifications:
E8 And which, if any, of the following vocational or professional qualifications have you
obtained? Tick all that apply
Level 1 NVQ or SVQ, Foundation GNVQ or GSVQ
Level 2 NVQ or SVQ, Intermediate GNVQ or GSVQ
Level 3 NVQ or SVQ, Advanced GNVQ or GSVQ
Level 4 NVQ or SVQ
Level 5 NVQ or SVQ
Completion of trade apprenticeship
Other vocational or pre-vocational qualifications, e.g. City and Guilds, RSA, OCR, BTec
Other professional qualifications e.g. qualified teacher, accountant, nurse
No vocational or professional qualifications
54

Computed combined qualifications levels
The computation of the combined qualification levels is described in Table A2.
Table A2. Combined qualification levels
Value Academic qualifications Vocational or professional qualification
1 No academic qualifications No vocational or professional qualifications
2 GCSE grades D-G/CSE grades 2-5, SCE O grades D-
E/SCE Standard grades 4-7
3 GCSE grades A-C, GCE 'O'-level passes, CSE grade 1,
SCE O grades A-C, SCE Standard grades 1-3
(note: level 2 is equivalent to five of these)
1 GCE ‘A’-level grades A-E; 1-2 SCE Higher grades A-
C; AS levels
(note: while this is between level 2 and level 3,it is
regrouped with level 2)
4 2 or more GCE 'A'-levels grades A-E ; 3 or more SCE
Higher grades A-C
5 First degree e.g. BSc, BA, BEd, HND, HNC, MA at first
degree level
Level 1 NVQ or SVQ, Foundation GNVQ or
GSVQ
Level 2 NVQ or SVQ, Intermediate GNVQ or
GSVQ
Completion of trade apprenticeship
(note: some may be Level 3, but a distinction
cannot be made)
Other vocational or pre-vocational
qualifications, e.g. City and Guilds, RSA,
OCR, BTec (note: these are awarded at
different levels e.g. RSA are normally Level 1,
but City and Guilds are commonly Level 2 and
Level 3)
Level 3 NVQ or SVQ, Advanced GNVQ or
GSVQ
Level 4 NVQ or SVQ
6 Higher degree e.g. MSc, MA, MBA, PGCE, PhD Level 5 NVQ or SVQ
Other professional qualifications e.g. qualified
teacher, accountant, nurse
Dividing the occupational groups into high and low status
The researchers were interested in dividing the SOCs into sub-groups to differentiate
on the basis of status within each SOC. While WERS 2004 has a four digit SOC code,
the additional information can break down employees by sectors (from nine major
SOCs to 25 second level ones), but there is not information available which defines
seniority. Following the example of Forth and Millward (2000), we used the statement
‘how much influence do you have over how you do your work’ to divide the nine SOCs
into 18 SOCs.
55

Calculating employee outcomes
There are a number of statements in the Employee questionnaire which provide
information about employees’ attitudes and perceptions on outcome variables, such as
organisational commitment, job satisfaction, work-life conflict and work-related stress
and happiness. Initially, nineteen statements were short listed to extract the above
outcome variables using Principal Component Analysis and Factor Analysis. The
statements were selected on the basis of their wordings, and in some cases, their
similarities to existing scales, for example, the three organisational commitment items
are phrased similar to Allen and Meyer’s (1990) affective commitment statements.
Similarly, two of the work-life conflict statements have wordings similar to work-family
conflict scales (e.g. Netemeyer and McMurrian, 1996). Initial analysis resulted in four
key components/factors, but an orthogonal or oblique rotation with both procedures did
not result in clean components/factors; several statements loaded strongly (>.4) onto
more than one item and variance explained was less than 55 per cent.
Following a range of options, the final three factors, with the scores of individual items,
are presented in Table A3. The method used for extraction was Maximum Likelihood,
with a Varimax rotation; the rotation converged in five iterations. Variance explained
was 70 per cent, and only 5 per cent non-redundant residuals had an absolute value
greater than 0.05. The regression output variables were saved and used in further
analysis.
The inter-item reliability coefficient, alpha, was also calculated for items on each of the
main items of the finalised factors, since this statistic is commonly use to judge scale
reliability. The alpha values, which are also tabulated in Table A3, are 0.87, 0.85 and
0.79 for job satisfaction, organisational commitment and work-related stress
respectively.
Table A3. Calculating employee outcome variables
Factors
Job Organisational
Workrelated
satisfaction Commitment stress
Alpha 0.87 0.85 0.79
I share many of the values of my organisation .264 .684 .012
I feel loyal to my organisation .275 .808 .003
I am proud to tell people who I work for. .305 .783 -.050
How satisfied are you with; the sense of achievement you get from
your work
.689 .359 -.092
How satisfied are you with; the scope for using your own initiative .838 .208 -.011
How satisfied are you with; the amount of influence you have over you
.782 .225 -.083
have over your job
How satisfied are you with; the work itself? .601 .381 -.155
I never seem to have enough time to get my work done -.020 -.015 .544
I worry a lot about my work outside working hours -.016 .066 .683
Thinking of the past few weeks, how much of the time has your job
-.123 -.095 .760
made you feel each of the following; tense
Thinking of the past few weeks, how much of the time has your job
made you feel each of the following; worried
56
-.088 -.036 .793

Annex B: Workplace and
employee characteristics
Table B1. Workplace characteristics
Characteristic Code Description
single asingle Establishment one of a number of different workplaces in
the UK belonging to the same organisation, a single
independent establishment or the sole UK establishment of
a foreign organisation
Asingle1 Establishment one of a number of different workplaces in
the UK belonging to the same organisation
Asingle2 a single independent establishment
Asingle3 the sole UK establishment of a foreign organisation
Establishment age sahowlg_ln Age of the establishment in years
State of market skstamar State of the market
Skstamar1 Not applicable, as not in trading sector or not trading
externally
Skstamar2 State of the market growing
Skstamar3 State of the market mature
Skstamar4 State of the market declining
Skstamar5 State of the market turbulent
Establishment size Szallemp1 Size: no of employee 5-24
szallemp2 Size: no of employees 25-49
Szallemp1 Size: no of employees 50-99
szallemp2 Size: no of employees 100-199
Szallemp1 Size: no of employees 200-499
szallemp2 Size: no of employees >500
sector Astatus1a Public or private organisation
SIC code snsicode_1 manufacturing
snsicode_2 electricity, gas and water
snsicode_3 construction
snsicode_4 wholesale and retail
snsicode_5 hotels and restaurants
snsicode_6 transport and communication
snsicode_7 financial services
snsicode_8 other business services
snsicode_9 public administration
snsicode_10 education
snsicode_11 health
snsicode_12 other community services
Degree of competition skdegree 0=low
1=high
57

Prop of women sztotwom No of women in the establishment divided by the number of
total employees in the establishment
Prop of female managers szman_fp No of female senior managers divided by the no of all
management staff
szman_fp1 zero
szman_fp2 1 to 24.9 per cent
szman_fp3 25 to 49.9 per cent
szman_fp4 50 to 74.9 per cent
szman_fp5 75 to 100 per cent (reference category)
Prop of female professionals szpro_fp No of female professionals divided by the no of all
professional staff
szpro_fp1 Zero
szpro_fp2 1 to 24.9 per cent
szpro_fp3 25 to 49.9 per cent
szpro_fp4 50 to 74.9 per cent
szpro_fp5 75 to 100 per cent
Education profile of the workforce Education profile of the workforce ( mean from the
Employee survey divided into four groups)
edu_seq_41 Low profile
edu_seq_42 Medium profile
Understanding labour
edu_seq_43 Highly educated workforce
sk_labour A point each for: establishment records labour costs;
establishment has targets for labour costs;
establishment has targets for labour turnover;
establishment records labour turnover (five dummies)
Sk_labour1 No understanding
sk_labour2 Low understanding
sk_labour3 Medium/low
sk_labour4 Medium/Good
sk_labour5 Good understanding
Understanding absenteeism Sk_absent A point each for: establishment records absenteeism;
establishment has targets for absenteeism (three dummies)
Sk_absent1 No understanding
sk_absent2 Low understanding
sk_absent3 Good understanding
58

JS targets sktarge_10 establishment has targets for employee job satisfaction
0=no
1=yes
ILM scfill_ILM Internal applicants given preference when filling vacancies
0=no
1=yes
Job security sjobsec Job security offered to all employees in the workplace
0=no
1=yes
Management attitude 1 Asphas04 Item from MQ ‘It is up to individual employees to balance
their work and family responsibilities’ 5 point Likert scale
used as dummies
saphras041
Strongly agree
saphras042 Agree
saphras043 Neither agree nor disagree
saphras044 Strongly disagree/disagree
aphras045
Management attitude 2 From Employee survey: Mean value of 'Managers here
understand employees having to meet responsibilities
outside work'
att_seq_41 Managers are extremely understanding
att_seq_42 Somewhat understanding
att_seq_43 Not understanding (reference category)
HR index hr_index_gp Measurement in four groups of workplace offering basic HR
practices to more complex practices (see Annex A, Table
A1 for details)
hr_index_gp1 Basic HR
hr_index_gp2 Basic to medium HR
hr_index_gp3 Medium to complex
hr_index_gp4 Complex HR
59

Table B2. Employee characteristics
Characteristic Code Description
Gender se1 0 = female;
1 = male
Age Se21 Age under 22
se22 Age 22-29 years
se23 Age 30-39 years
se24 Age 40-49 years
se25 Over 49
Marital status: se3 0 = single/widowed/ divorced/separated
1 = married or living with a partner
Childcare responsibilities se4_ygst1 No children
se4_ygst2 Age of youngest child: 0-4
se4_ygst3 Age of the youngest child: 5-11
se4_ygst4 Age of the youngest child: 12-18
Carers of disabled and elderly
0=no
se5_2gp 1=yes
Suffering from illness, health problem
0=no
or disability se6_2gp 1=yes
Ethnicity (white or others)
O=other
se14_temp
Educational qualification
(See Annex A for calculations) se7_8qc1
se7_8qc2
se7_8qc3
1=white
1= No academic, vocational or professional qualifications
GCSE grades D-G/CSE grades 2-5, SCE O grades D-E/SCE
Standard grades 4-7; Level 1 NVQ or SVQ, Foundation
GNVQ or GSVQ
GCSE grades A-C, GCE 'O'-level passes, CSE grade 1, SCE
O grades A-C, SCE Standard grades 1-3; 1 GCE ‘A’-level
grades A-E; 1-2 SCE Higher grades A-C; AS levels; Level 2
NVQ or SVQ, Intermediate GNVQ or GSVQ; Completion of
trade apprenticeship; Other vocational or pre-vocational
qualifications, e.g. City and Guilds, RSA, OCR, BTec
se7_8qc4
2 or more GCE 'A'-levels grades A-E ; 3 or more SCE Higher
grades A-C; Level 3 NVQ or SVQ, Advanced GNVQ or
GSVQ
First degree e.g. BSc, BA, BEd, HND, HNC, MA at first
degree level; Level 4 NVQ or SVQ; Other professional
se7_8qc5 qualifications e.g. qualified teacher, accountant, nurse
Higher degree e.g. MSc, MA, MBA, PGCE, PhD; Level 5
se7_8qc6 NVQ or SVQ
Standard Occupation Classification
SOC: Managers and senior officials; higher levels
(see Annex A for calculations) seqsocX1
seqsocX2 SOC: Managers and senior officials; lower levels
seqsocX3 SOC: Professional Occupations, higher levels
seqsocX4 SOC: Professional Occupations, lower levels
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical Occupations,
seqsocX5 higher levels
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical Occupations,
seqsocX6 lower levels
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations, higher
seqsocX7 levels
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations, lower
seqsocX8 levels
seqsocX9 SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, higher levels
seqsocX10 SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, lower levels
seqsocX11 SOC: Personal Service Occupations, higher levels
seqsocX12 SOC: Personal Service Occupations, lower levels
seqsocX13 SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations, higher level
seqsocX14 SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations, lower level
60

seqsocX15 SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives, higher level
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives, higher level,
seqsocX16 lower level
seqsocX17 SOC: Elementary Occupations, lower level
seqsocX18 SOC: Elementary Occupations, higher level
Length of service Sa11 Length of service: less than 1 years
sa12 Length of service: 1 to less than 2 years
sa13 Length of service: 2 to less than 5 years
sa14 Length of service: 5 to less than 10 years
sa15 Length of service: 10 years or more
Communication index, management sd_commu_
2~1
Communication index, management: low
sd_commu_
2~2
Communication index, management: medium
sd_commu_ Communication index, management, high
2~3
Communication index, seq seq_com_ne
w
O=low
1=high
61

Annex C: Regression outputs
Table C1: Predictors of flexible working time options
Home working
F=3.16***
n=1462
Flexitime
F=2.92***
n=1462
Compressed work
week
F=4.8***
n=1462
Odds Ratio (Exp
Changing shift
patterns
F=3.49***
N=1462
Full-time to
part-time
F=3.51***
n=1462
Odds Ratio
Part-time to
full-time
F=3.26***
n=1462
Odds Ratio
Job sharing
F=4.3***
n=1462
Term time
working
F=6.07***
Odds Ratio (Exp Odds Ratio (Exp
Odds Ratio (Exp
Odds Ratio Odds Ratio
B)
B)
B)
B) (Exp B) (Exp B) (Exp B) (Exp B)
A single independent establishment1 2.781*** 1.440 0.916 0.552* 0.587+ 0.671 0.721 1.143
The sole UK establishment of a foreign organisation1 4.813* 2.094 9.902** 0.519 2.317 1.048 0.178* 0.134*
Natural log of the age of the establishment in years 0.827+ 0.866 0.859 0.859 0.843 0.872 1.053 0.924
State of the market: Not applicable2 2.598+ 0.746 0.352 0.554 0.248* 0.295* 1.262 0.351
State of the market mature2 0.865 1.096 0.374* 0.832 0.836 0.623 1.311 0.797
State of the market declining2 0.391+ 0.619 0.796 0.983 0.932 0.589 0.850 1.265
State of the market turbulent2 0.728 1.077 0.224** 1.169 0.854 0.861 0.867 0.899
Size: no of employees 25-493 1.405 0.716 1.520 1.385 2.286** 1.781* 1.442 3.029***
Size: no of employees 50-993 1.624 1.041 1.757 2.151** 3.841*** 2.866*** 2.071* 5.172***
Size: no of employees 100-1993 1.652 0.979 2.108+ 2.212* 6.419*** 2.651** 2.182* 6.240***
Size: no of employees 200-4993 1.558 0.681 2.107 4.168*** 5.714*** 4.472*** 4.024*** 7.050***
Size: no of employees >5003 4.525*** 0.898 3.845** 15.931*** 12.469*** 11.309*** 6.998*** 15.491***
Sector (private) 0.559 2.446 2.482 1.274 1.314 0.984 2.441+ 4.821*
Electricity, gas and water, and Construction 4 0.622 0.159*** 0.809 0.673 1.158 0.788 1.133 1.586
Wholesale and retail4 0.404+ 0.504+ 0.124*** 1.055 1.453 1.335 0.909 0.457
Hotels and restaurants4 0.228* 0.409+ 0.576 2.242 3.702* 2.749+ 1.604 0.950
Transport and communication4 1.368 0.278* 0.325 0.737 2.747+ 0.534 0.873 0.304
Financial services4 0.863 0.446 0.423 0.130*** 1.505 2.402 3.075+ 1.621
Other business services4 1.374 0.921 0.136*** 0.532 1.235 2.332* 1.422 0.543
Public administration4 1.226 0.722 0.659 0.359 2.569 3.450 1.102 1.678
Education4 0.943 0.060*** 0.042*** 0.158** 0.806 0.719 0.797 7.801*
Health4 1.127 0.643 0.945 1.562 2.694+ 2.060 1.532 0.888
Other community services4 0.905 0.578 0.744 1.577 2.354+ 1.482 2.210+ 1.001
Degree of competition 1.191 0.725 0.825 0.731 0.452** 0.310*** 0.468** 0.508*
62
n=1459

Prop of women 0.995 1.000 1.006 1.018*** 1.026*** 1.018*** 1.008+ 1.022***
Prop of female managers 5 (zero) 1.585 1.217 0.622 0.942 1.180 1.229 0.678 1.032
1 to 24.9 percent 5 1.260 1.199 0.929 0.993 1.107 0.975 0.878 0.686
25 to 49.9 percent 5 1.195 1.118 0.919 1.018 1.112 1.082 0.895 0.918
50 to 74.9 percent 5 1.145 0.991 0.919 0.931 1.137 1.100 0.926 1.084
Prop of female professionals 5 0.754 1.511 0.724 1.714 1.252 1.483 0.548+ 1.198
1 to 24.9 percent 6 1.550 1.263 1.028 0.978 0.875 1.300 0.726 0.751
25 to 49.9 percent 6 1.400+ 1.766*** 1.282 0.986 1.691+ 0.970 1.153 1.244
50 to 74.9 percent 6 1.043 1.177 1.370* 0.987 1.163 1.197 0.786* 1.006
Education of the workforce:
Medium education profile 7 2.116+ 2.017** 1.663 0.553* 1.227 1.001 1.414 0.997
High education profile 7 3.243** 2.319** 0.831 0.372*** 1.083 0.838 1.220 1.528
Understanding labour: low understanding 8 1.372 1.021 0.443+ 0.706 2.053* 1.686 0.984 1.342
Medium understanding 8 1.730 1.237 0.700 0.747 2.668** 2.037* 1.170 2.204*
Medium high understanding 8 1.187 1.247 0.560 0.839 2.145+ 1.283 1.582 2.736*
Good understanding 8 0.826 0.931 0.709 1.822 3.038* 2.622* 1.027 1.252
Understanding absenteeism: medium understanding 9 0.956 0.934 0.661 0.736 1.141 0.943 0.756 0.444*
Good understanding 9 1.061 1.149 0.744 1.196 2.094* 1.611 1.182 0.699
JS targets 0.678 1.347 1.307 0.952 0.470* 0.835 0.961 1.864
ILM 0.899 0.887 1.737+ 1.217 1.691+ 1.585+ 1.534 1.498
Job security 1.413 2.114* 2.269* 0.816 2.788* 1.191 3.549*** 1.048
Management attitude 1: strongly agree 10 0.641 1.048 1.085 1.837+ 0.562 0.953 0.594 0.386+
Agree 10 0.612+ 0.748 0.544+ 1.251 0.721 1.011 0.930 0.510*
Neutral 10 1.404 1.189 0.523 0.743 0.902 0.554+ 0.719 1.157
Management attitude 2: Extremely understanding 11 3.063* 2.435** 0.888 0.556+ 0.936 1.058 1.304 1.081
Somewhat understanding 11 2.077+ 1.948* 1.524 0.541* 0.828 1.320 1.505 0.733
HR index: basic t o medium 12 0.994 0.858 1.913 1.867* 1.526 1.068 1.478 1.534
Medium to complex 12 1.143 1.664 1.881 2.308** 2.029* 1.722+ 1.625 1.302
Complex HR 12 2.797+ 3.582** 6.057** 2.122 5.709* 2.125 3.326* 2.451
63

Reference categories:
1 Establishment one of a number of different workplaces in the UK belonging to the same organisation is the reference category
2 State of the market growing is the reference category
3Size: no of employees between 1-24 is the reference category
4 Manufacturing is the reference category
5 75 to 100 per cent female managers is the reference category
6 75 to 100 per cent female professionals is the reference category
7 low education profile is the reference category
8 No understanding of labour is the reference category
9 no understanding of absenteeism is the reference category
10 management strongly disagrees that it is up to the individual to balance work and family life is the reference category
11 management attitude not understanding is the reference category
12 Basic HR is the reference category
Source: WERS 2004. Base: All workplaces with five or more employees and for which matching employee data is available.
Figures are weighted and based on responses from 1,462 (Column 1 – Column 7) and 1,459 (Column 8) workplaces. ***indicates difference between the two observations significant at the 1 per cent level; **difference significant at the 5 per cent
level; * difference significant at the 10 per cent level.
64

Table C2: Predictors of childcare and leave options
At least part of
maternity leave is
fully paid
F=3.27***
n=1422
At childbirth, men take
time off using paternity
leave
F=3.58***
n=1450
The organisation provides
financial help with childcare
or nursery vouchers
F=4.48***
n=1459
There is a special paid
leave for time off in
emergencies
F=2.34***
n=1462
There is a special paid
leave for care of older
adults
F=5.45***
n=1459
Odds Ratio (Exp B) Odds Ratio (Exp B) Odds Ratio (Exp B) Odds Ratio (Exp B) Odds Ratio (Exp B)
A single independent establishment 1 0.590* 0.406** 0.310* 1.275 0.654
The sole UK establishment of a foreign organisation 1 5.017** 0.287+ 0.007*** 3.658* 0.009***
Natural log of the age of the establishment in years 0.915 1.138 0.800 1.125 1.081
State of the market: Not applicable 2 0.533 1.042 1.810 1.179 0.897
State of the market mature 2 0.833 0.988 0.746 1.353 1.747
State of the market declining 2 1.241 1.023 1.269 1.446 0.867
State of the market turbulent 2 1.144 1.193 1.012 0.898 1.111
Size: no of employees 25-49 3 0.804 1.958* 1.259 0.815 0.498
Size: no of employees 50-99 3 1.283 3.503*** 0.831 1.212 2.144
Size: no of employees 100-199 3 0.727 7.185*** 1.145 0.765 1.859
Size: no of employees 200-4993 1.232 5.396** 2.461+ 0.813 2.174
Size: no of employees >500 3 1.951 14.663*** 11.850*** 1.185 3.354*
Sector (private) 4.908** 1.748 0.551 3.160* 2.784
Electricity, gas and water, and Construction 4 1.118 0.655 0.816 3.188* 0.211
Wholesale and retail 4 1.470 0.929 0.228 1.012 0.682
Hotels and restaurants 4 1.178 1.126 0.572 0.224* 0.476
Transport and communication 4 1.525 0.802 0.701 1.536 1.567
Financial services 4 2.509 3.954+ 0.771 2.526 2.930
Other business services 4 1.617 0.896 2.484 1.117 1.464
Public administration 4 11.531*** 8.765+ 8.243 0.355 0.539
Education 4 3.641* 1.429 2.399 1.046 0.358
Health 4 1.097 2.307 6.132 1.065 1.111
Other community services 4 2.302+ 1.110 5.401 2.016 1.316
Degree of competition 1.355 1.318 1.621 1.093 0.546
65

Prop of women 1.000 0.971*** 0.990 0.995 1.026**
Prop of female managers 5 (zero) 1.146 1.090 0.306* 1.122 2.145+
1 to 24.9 percent 5 1.169 1.061 0.507* 0.886 1.062
25 to 49.9 percent 5 0.991 1.116 0.610** 1.201 1.204
50 to 74.9 percent 5 1.186+ 1.250* 0.776* 1.062 1.132
Prop of female professionals 5 0.664 1.153 0.625 0.896 0.755
1 to 24.9 percent 6 0.273*** 2.702* 0.421** 0.871 0.572
25 to 49.9 percent 6 0.533*** 1.240 0.877 1.048 1.024
50 to 74.9 percent 6 0.741* 1.052 1.087 1.008 0.939
Education of the workforce:
Medium education profile 7 1.415 1.319 2.955+ 1.487 1.032
High education profile 7 1.428 1.610 3.775* 1.506 0.719
Understanding labour: low understanding 8 0.732 1.077 1.353 0.856 0.895
Medium understanding 8 0.517+ 0.906 1.483 0.919 0.974
Medium high understanding 8 0.236*** 2.520+ 2.622 0.663 0.503
Good understanding 8 0.386* 0.832 0.992 1.319 0.851
66

Understanding absenteeism: medium understanding 9 1.667+ 1.111 2.204 1.411 0.393+
Good understanding 9 1.659 1.465 4.086* 1.805 1.098
JS targets 1.286 0.792 0.483+ 1.174 2.065
ILM 0.659+ 0.640+ 1.196 0.763 0.957
Job security 4.385*** 0.892 1.807 1.432 0.728
Management attitude 1: strongly agree 10 1.198 0.255** 0.346+ 0.453* 0.303
Agree 10 0.844 0.211*** 1.042 0.689 0.455
Neutral 10 0.733 0.266** 1.133 0.846 0.518
Management attitude 2: Extremely understanding 11 0.915 0.888 1.158 0.915 0.452
Somewhat understanding 11 1.047 1.503 2.211+ 0.783 0.788
HR index: basic t o medium 12 1.301 1.246 0.993 1.819* 0.601
Medium to complex 12 1.441 1.865+ 1.104 2.106* 2.047
Complex HR 12 2.960* 0.821 9.443** 3.466** 4.177
Reference categories:
1 Establishment one of a number of different workplaces in the UK belonging to the same organisation is the reference category
2 State of the market growing is the reference category
3Size: no of employees between 1-24 is the reference category
4 Manufacturing is the reference category
5 75 to 100 per cent female managers is the reference category
6 75 to 100 per cent female professionals is the reference category
7 low education profile is the reference category
8 No understanding of labour is the reference category
9 no understanding of absenteeism is the reference category
10 management strongly disagrees that it is up to the individual to balance work and family life is the reference category
11 management attitude not understanding is the reference category
12 Basic HR is the reference category
Source: WERS 2004. Base: All workplaces with five or more employees and for which matching employee data is available. Figures are weighted and based on responses from 1,422 (Column 1); 1,450 (Column 2); 1,459 (Column 3); 1,462
(Column 4) and 1,459 (Column 5) workplaces. ***indicates difference between the two observations significant at the 1 per cent level; **difference significant at the 5 per cent level; * difference significant at the 10 per cent level.
67

Table C3. Predictors of low/medium/high provision of work-life policies
Note: medium is the reference category Lower than average
provision of work-life
policies
Higher than average
provision of work-life
policies
F=4.24*** N=1,411
Odds Ratio (Exp B) Odds Ratio (Exp B)
A single independent establishment 1 1.529 0.712
The sole UK establishment of a foreign organisation 1 0.590 0.189
Natural log of the age of the establishment in years 1.134 0.966
State of the market: Not applicable 2 3.460* 7.319*
State of the market mature 2 1.139 1.925
State of the market declining 2 0.903 0.278
State of the market turbulent 2 1.104 2.578
Size: no of employees 25-49 3 0.508* 1.848
Size: no of employees 50-99 3 0.188*** 1.571
Size: no of employees 100-199 3 0.242*** 2.622+
Size: no of employees >200 0.122*** 3.700*
Sector (private) 0.272* 2.480
Electricity, gas and water, and Construction 4 1.370 0.116
Wholesale and retail 4 1.404 0.115*
Hotels and restaurants 4 0.883 0.037*
Transport and communication 4 2.057 0.089*
Financial services 4 0.455 1.599
Other business services 4 0.918 0.149+
Public administration 4 0.178 0.142
Education 4 1.120 0.024**
Health 4 0.689 0.171
Other community services 4 0.465 0.196
Degree of competition 1.503 0.420
Prop of women 0.993 1.012
Prop of female managers 5 (zero) 0.815 0.991
1 to 24.9 percent 5 0.934 0.785
25 to 49.9 percent 5 0.945 1.318
50 to 74.9 percent 5 0.877 1.197
Prop of female professionals 5 1.290 0.793
1 to 24.9 percent 6 1.677 0.301**
25 to 49.9 percent 6 0.826 1.217
50 to 74.9 percent 6 0.974 0.917
Education of the workforce:
Medium education profile 7 0.445** 1.388
High education profile 7 0.386** 1.348
Understanding labour: low understanding 8 1.290 1.170
Medium understanding 8 0.798 3.807*
Medium high understanding 8 1.179 2.908
Good understanding 8 1.190 2.701
68

Understanding absenteeism: medium understanding 9 0.751 0.441
Good understanding 9 0.513 1.005
JS targets 0.807 1.026
ILM 0.957 0.863
Job security 0.250** 1.488
Management attitude 1: strongly agree 10 2.238+ 0.307
Agree 10 2.357** 0.615
Neutral 10 1.818 1.127
Management attitude 2: Extremely understanding 11 0.504+ 0.689
Somewhat understanding 11 0.694 0.870
HR index: basic t o
medium 12 0.542+ 5.840
Medium to complex 12 0.463* 5.299
Complex HR 12 0.052*** 26.930*
Reference categories:
1 Establishment one of a number of different workplaces in the UK belonging to the same organisation is the reference category
2 State of the market growing is the reference category
3Size: no of employees between 1-24 is the reference category
4 Manufacturing is the reference category
5 75 to 100 per cent female managers is the reference category
6 75 to 100 per cent female professionals is the reference category
7 low education profile is the reference category
8 No understanding of labour is the reference category
9 no understanding of absenteeism is the reference category
10 management strongly disagrees that it is up to the individual to balance work and family life is the reference category
11 management attitude not understanding is the reference category
12 Basic HR is the reference category
Source: WERS 2004. Base: All workplaces with five or more employees and for which matching employee data is available. Figures are
weighted and based on responses from 1,411 workplaces. ***indicates difference between the two observations significant at the 1 per cent
level; **difference significant at the 5 per cent level; * difference significant at the 10 per cent level.
69

Table C4. Predictors of full-time flexible working time options
Home working
F=10.61***
n=17,396
Flexitime
F=7.65***
n=17,373
Compressed work week
F=8.09***
n=17,379
Changing shift patterns
F=7.7***
N=17,378
no Don’t know no Don’t know no Don’t know no Don’t know
Odds Ratio (Exp Odds Ratio (Exp Odds Ratio (Exp
Odds Ratio (Exp Odds Ratio (Exp Odds Ratio Odds Ratio (Exp
B)
B)
B) Odds Ratio (Exp B) B)
B) (Exp B) B)
A single independent establishment1 The sole UK establishment of a foreign
0.583*** 0.646*** 0.630*** 0.750** 0.858 0.914 0.899 1.017
organisation1 0.817 0.990 0.744 0.895 1.242 1.512+ 1.374 1.624*
Natural log of age of the establishment in years 1.041 1.043 1.043 1.090* 1.055+ 1.019 1.066* 1.025
State of the market: Not applicable2 0.544* 0.614* 0.859 0.860 1.137 0.960 1.694** 1.349+
State of the market mature2 1.324+ 1.329* 0.788* 0.748** 0.969 0.907 1.099 1.007
State of the market declining2 1.269 1.238 0.710* 0.630*** 0.866 0.725* 0.928 0.794+
State of the market turbulent2 1.222 1.164 0.853 0.903 0.973 0.916 1.080 1.041
Size: no of employees 25-493 1.364+ 1.397* 1.392** 1.155 1.275* 1.131 1.084 0.976
Size: no of employees 50-993 1.445* 1.333+ 1.331* 1.310* 1.185 1.183 1.196 1.093
Size: no of employees 100-1993 1.334+ 1.200 1.262+ 1.024 1.141 1.073 1.072 1.073
Size: no of employees 200-4993 1.468* 1.267 1.405** 1.100 0.935 1.050 0.703** 0.752*
Size: no of employees >5003 1.148 1.093 0.985 0.850 0.750* 0.797+ 0.684** 0.793*
Sector (private/public) 2.103** 1.936** 1.054 1.146 1.185 1.216 1.172 1.204
Electricity, gas and water4 0.456* 0.723 0.704* 0.895 0.561* 0.769 0.967 1.086
Construction4 0.751 0.898 0.894 0.889 0.755 0.835 1.583* 1.337
Wholesale and retail4 1.018 0.936 0.773+ 0.937 0.640** 0.734* 0.764* 0.677**
Hotels and restaurants4 0.459* 0.396** 0.483*** 0.489*** 0.342*** 0.280*** 0.293*** 0.242***
Transport and communication4 0.882 0.697 1.274 0.952 0.680* 0.621** 0.589*** 0.515***
Financial services4 1.026 0.842 1.110 0.890 0.922 0.902 1.369* 1.133
Other business services4 0.377*** 0.466*** 0.641** 0.594*** 0.611*** 0.670** 1.054 1.016
Public administration4 0.451** 0.589+ 0.167*** 0.108*** 0.255*** 0.402*** 0.587** 0.657*
Education4 1.057 0.546+ 1.726** 1.154 1.097 0.676+ 1.705** 0.927
Health4 0.595+ 0.576* 0.507*** 0.635** 0.323*** 0.422*** 0.399*** 0.492***
Other community services4 0.634+ 0.572* 0.649* 0.611** 0.503*** 0.508*** 0.586*** 0.559***
Degree of competition 0.847 0.946 0.948 1.073 1.050 0.980 1.024 0.935
Prop of women 1.006* 1.005* 1.001 1.000 0.997+ 0.998 0.999 0.998
Job security 0.766+ 0.800 0.863 0.904 0.963 1.054 0.871 0.980
70

HR index: basic t o medium 5 0.885 0.861 0.902 0.917 0.998 0.948 0.856 1.007
Complex HR 5 0.689* 0.710* 0.761* 0.748* 0.809+ 0.837 0.705** 0.948
Gender 0.916 0.768** 1.162** 0.941 1.488*** 0.892 1.122* 0.825**
Age 22-29 years 6 0.751 0.745 1.873*** 1.303* 1.980*** 1.337* 2.013*** 1.565***
Age 30-39 years 6 0.518** 0.467*** 2.420*** 1.460*** 2.151*** 1.352* 2.092*** 1.465**
Age 40-49 years 6 0.521** 0.435*** 2.234*** 1.169 2.250*** 1.268+ 2.475*** 1.513**
Over 49 6 0.590* 0.394*** 2.117*** 0.945 2.124*** 0.999 2.805*** 1.449**
Marital status: 0.836* 0.823* 0.941 0.904+ 1.017 0.999 0.951 0.858*
Age of youngest child: 0-4 7 1.015 1.133 0.758*** 0.833+ 0.653*** 0.794* 0.846* 1.019
Age of the youngest child: 5-11 7 0.918 0.944 0.744*** 0.724*** 0.697*** 0.749** 0.854* 0.880
Age of the youngest child: 12-18 7 1.084 1.034 0.955 0.869 0.764*** 0.749** 0.939 0.966
Carers of disabled and elderly 1.216* 1.275* 0.937 0.924 0.945 0.968 0.981 1.010
Suffering from illness, health problem or disability 0.903 0.923 1.052 1.059 1.031 0.951 1.074 1.030
Ethnicity (white or others) 0.958 0.624** 1.590*** 1.148 1.554*** 1.224+ 1.237* 0.991
Educational qualification 2 8 1.036 1.123 0.814 0.911 0.891 0.734* 0.923 0.966
Educational qualification 3 8 0.800 0.829 1.028 1.048 1.068 1.162 0.890 0.996
Educational qualification 4 8 0.698* 0.638* 1.124 0.841+ 1.087 0.907 0.958 0.856
Educational qualification 5 8 0.432*** 0.442*** 0.995 0.687*** 1.059 0.963 0.988 0.781*
Educational qualification 6 8 0.238*** 0.262*** 0.791+ 0.539*** 0.972 0.814 0.902 0.816
SOC: Managers and senior officials; lower levels 9 1.232 1.360+ 1.004 0.900 1.118 1.044 1.190 1.448*
SOC: Professional Occupations, higher levels 9 1.451* 2.041*** 1.109 1.182 1.472* 1.642** 1.649** 2.355***
SOC: Professional Occupations, lower levels 9 1.791*** 2.003*** 1.500** 1.118 1.675*** 1.480* 2.034*** 2.130***
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical
Occupations, higher levels 9 2.002*** 2.112*** 1.077 1.059 1.015 1.285+ 1.294* 1.898***
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical
Occupations, lower levels 9 2.416*** 2.370*** 1.522*** 1.426* 1.020 1.122 1.352* 1.625***
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations,
higher levels 9 3.488*** 4.037*** 0.938 1.217 1.190 1.668*** 1.607*** 2.337***
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations,
lower levels 9 3.937*** 3.716*** 1.046 1.084 1.150 1.565** 1.563*** 2.023***
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, higher levels 9 6.294*** 2.778*** 1.819*** 1.539* 1.380+ 1.098 1.316 1.408+
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, lower levels 9 8.541*** 3.493*** 1.955*** 1.877*** 1.082 0.973 1.794*** 1.531*
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, higher levels 9 6.437*** 5.613*** 1.945*** 2.034*** 1.455* 1.217 0.832 0.880
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, lower levels 9 6.069*** 4.206*** 2.100*** 2.399*** 1.300 1.228 0.859 1.044
SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations,
higher level 9 5.304*** 3.283*** 1.463* 1.289 0.844 1.002 0.650* 1.055
71

SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations,
lower level 9 9.446*** 7.075*** 1.755*** 1.607** 1.038 1.283 0.776 1.187
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives,
higher level 9 9.156*** 4.118*** 2.338*** 1.809*** 0.956 0.822 1.067 1.055
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives,
higher level, lower level 9 19.307*** 9.960*** 2.360*** 1.761*** 1.187 0.839 1.118 1.071
SOC: Elementary Occupations, lower level 9 11.020*** 6.145*** 1.476* 1.389* 1.524** 1.208 1.023 1.210
SOC: Elementary Occupations, higher level 9 9.863*** 6.603*** 1.865*** 2.255*** 1.223 1.270 0.977 1.115
Length of service: 1 to less than 2 years 10 0.814+ 0.737* 1.051 0.831+ 0.975 0.898 0.913 0.865
Length of service: 2 to less than 5 years 10 0.834+ 0.680*** 1.013 0.652*** 0.863+ 0.666*** 0.944 0.760**
Length of service: 5 to less than 10 years 10 0.997 0.618*** 1.123 0.631*** 0.957 0.590*** 0.904 0.665***
Length of service: 10 years or more 10 1.022 0.595*** 1.060 0.585*** 0.915 0.570*** 0.906 0.652***
Communication index, management: medium 11 0.820 0.870 0.918 0.957 0.911 0.934 0.927 0.941
Communication index, management, high 11 0.994 1.074 0.871 0.940 0.845 0.908 0.821+ 0.829+
Communication index, seq 0.793*** 0.729*** 0.861** 0.863** 0.870* 0.918 0.928 0.903+
Base outcome is option perceived available by respondent
Reference categories:
1 Establishment one of a number of different workplaces in the UK belonging to the same organisation is the reference category
2 State of the market growing is the reference category
3No of employees less than 25 is the reference category
4 Manufacturing is the reference category
5 Basic HR is the reference category
6Age: less than 25 is the reference category
7No children is the reference category
8Lowest education qualification is the reference category
9SOC: Managers and senior officials; higher levels is the reference category
10Length of service: less than a year
11Communication index, management: low is the reference category
Source: WERS 2004. Base: All employees in workplaces with five or more employees. Figures are weighted and based on responses from 17,396 (Column 1 and Column 2); 17,373 (Column 3 and Column 4); 17,379 (Column 5 and Column 6) and
17, 378 (Column 7 and Column 8) employees and the managers in their workplaces. ***indicates difference between the two observations significant at the 1 per cent level; **difference significant at the 5 per cent level; * difference significant at the
10 per cent level.
72

Table C5. Predictors of reduced time flexible working time options
Full-time to part-time (reduce hours)
F=11.74***
n=17,351
Part-time to full-time
F=7.79***
n=17,096
Job sharing
F=10.17***
n=17,366
Term time working
F=16.84***
n=17,073
no Don’t know no Don’t know no Don’t know no Don’t know
Odds Ratio (Exp Odds Ratio (Exp
Odds Ratio (Exp Odds Ratio (Exp Odds Ratio Odds Ratio (Exp Odds Ratio
B)
B) Odds Ratio (Exp B) B)
B) (Exp B) B) (Exp B)
A single independent establishment1 The sole UK establishment of a foreign
0.830+ 0.879 0.788** 0.889 0.791* 0.921 0.933 0.961
organisation1 1.820* 1.773* 1.620+ 1.901** 1.357 1.617+ 1.723 1.923
Natural log of age of the establishment in years 1.032 1.052+ 1.062* 1.069* 0.987 1.003 1.035 1.029
State of the market: Not applicable2 1.657** 1.448* 1.610*** 1.417* 0.947 0.893 0.950 0.985
State of the market mature2 0.963 0.922 1.033 0.997 1.015 0.941 0.769 0.747+
State of the market declining2 0.715* 0.733* 1.093 0.976 1.191 1.092 1.083 1.009
State of the market turbulent2 0.900 0.934 0.998 0.981 0.975 0.925 0.618** 0.727+
Size: no of employees 25-493 1.070 1.107 1.003 0.951 1.165 1.190 0.637** 0.664**
Size: no of employees 50-993 1.034 0.993 0.916 0.983 1.459** 1.537*** 0.690* 0.843
Size: no of employees 100-1993 0.947 0.989 0.838 1.010 1.170 1.179 0.587** 0.636*
Size: no of employees 200-4993 0.768* 0.848 0.724** 0.850 1.251+ 1.292* 0.563*** 0.632**
Size: no of employees >5003 0.768* 0.787* 0.728** 0.830+ 1.228 1.210 0.726+ 0.971
Sector (private/public) 0.547*** 0.722* 1.073 1.144 0.484 0.718* 0.468** 0.644+
Electricity, gas and water4 0.782 0.826 0.839 1.073 0.892 1.209 0.818 1.023
Construction4 0.748 0.778 0.662* 0.650* 0.879 0.813 0.774 0.713
Wholesale and retail4 0.426*** 0.483*** 0.554*** 0.595*** 0.767+ 0.825 0.659+ 0.729
Hotels and restaurants4 0.209*** 0.209*** 0.319*** 0.283*** 0.313*** 0.371*** 0.222*** 0.245***
Transport and communication4 0.445*** 0.378*** 0.552*** 0.487*** 0.86688 0.651* 1.232 1.019
Financial services4 0.474*** 0.641** 0.552*** 0.733* 0.621* 0.725+ 1.033 1.224
Other business services4 0.474*** 0.529*** 0.646*** 0.716** 0.789 0.761 0.937 1.089
Public administration4 0.237*** 0.323*** 0.364*** 0.390*** 0.319*** 0.458*** 0.341*** 0.499*
Education4 0.732+ 0.656* 1.216 0.876 0.589* 0.607* 0.072*** 0.103***
Health4 0.339*** 0.414*** 0.506*** 0.520*** 0.529*** 0.581** 1.418 1.604+
Other community services4 0.370*** 0.458*** 0.598*** 0.620*** 0.608* 0.639* 0.557* 0.666
Degree of competition 1.062 0.951 0.990 0.941 0.920 0.926 1.050 1.120
73

Prop of women 0.991*** 0.995*** 0.998 0.998 0.992*** 0.997+ 0.980*** 0.981***
Job security 0.791* 0.955 0.844+ 0.891 0.700** 0.798* 0.937 1.007
HR index: basic t o medium 5 0.963 0.911 0.970 0.907 1.065 1.071 1.527** 1.488**
Complex HR 5 0.748* 0.749* 0.934 0.883 0.893 0.948 1.304 1.501*
Gender 2.157*** 1.357*** 1.844*** 1.183** 1.791*** 1.107 1.721*** 1.217*
Age 22-29 years 6 1.905*** 1.897*** 1.699*** 1.938*** 1.242 1.077 3.550*** 2.505***
Age 30-39 years 6 1.915*** 1.978*** 1.893*** 2.169*** 1.226 0.987 4.369*** 2.538***
Age 40-49 years 6 2.244*** 1.876*** 2.124*** 1.908*** 1.433* 1.043 4.395*** 2.120***
Over 49 6 2.108*** 1.595*** 2.220*** 1.784*** 1.559** 0.912 4.786*** 2.155***
Marital status: 1.068 1.068 1.171** 1.109+ 0.976 1.000 0.986 0.920
Age of youngest child: 0-4 7 0.653*** 0.557*** 0.609*** 0.676*** 0.787** 0.729*** 0.796** 0.534***
Age of the youngest child: 5-11 7 1.039 0.840* 0.712*** 0.757*** 0.886 0.688*** 0.661*** 0.346***
Age of the youngest child: 12-18 7 1.052 0.994 0.850* 0.810** 0.951 0.808* 0.844+ 0.494***
Carers of disabled and elderly 0.986 0.946 1.079 1.183* 1.035 1.030 1.024 1.065
Suffering from illness, health problem or disability 1.096 0.971 1.106+ 0.996 0.990 0.827** 1.053 0.967
Ethnicity (white or others) 0.925 0.813* 1.267* 1.155 1.433** 1.319* 1.430* 1.343*
Educational qualification 2 8 1.003 0.828 0.867 0.712** 1.068 1.056 1.116 0.973
Educational qualification 3 8 0.768** 0.911 0.880 0.907 0.925 1.127 0.809 0.673**
Educational qualification 4 8 0.881 0.824* 0.953 0.843+ 1.061 1.110 0.766+ 0.544***
Educational qualification 5 8 0.868 0.793* 0.904 0.813* 0.883 0.911 0.830 0.606**
Educational qualification 6 8 0.773+ 0.708* 0.926 0.842 0.806 0.911 0.947 0.655*
SOC: Managers and senior officials; lower levels 9 1.082 1.102 1.090 1.149 0.745* 0.941 0.978 1.111
SOC: Professional Occupations, higher levels 9 0.801 1.284 0.839 1.507** 0.712* 1.335+ 0.481*** 0.691
SOC: Professional Occupations, lower levels 9 0.862 1.159 1.033 1.560* 0.748+ 1.277 0.432*** 0.547**
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical
Occupations, higher levels 9 0.952 1.235 0.920 1.321+ 0.775+ 1.404* 0.819 1.209
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical
Occupations, lower levels 9 0.859 1.137 0.934 1.339* 0.769+ 1.234 0.838 1.081
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations,
higher levels 9 0.934 1.397* 0.934 1.696*** 0.585*** 1.240 1.052 1.472+
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations,
lower levels 9 0.737* 1.333* 0.821 1.465** 0.555*** 1.079 0.915 1.466+
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, higher levels 9 1.837* 1.653* 0.827 1.176 1.323 1.633* 0.917 0.897
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, lower levels 9 1.874** 1.557* 1.185 1.495* 1.081 1.379 0.932 0.888
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, higher levels 9 0.714+ 0.770 0.660** 0.742+ 0.942 1.238 0.455** 0.524*
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, lower levels 9 0.560*** 0.851 0.595*** 0.997 0.989 1.566* 0.346*** 0.445**
74

SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations,
higher level 9 0.499*** 0.887 0.572*** 1.062 0.823 1.424+ 0.643+ 0.900
SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations,
lower level 9 0.578** 0.954 0.737+ 1.022 0.890 1.641* 0.493** 0.843
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives,
higher level 9 1.146 1.178 0.786 0.899 0.717+ 0.979 0.813 0.945
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives,
higher level, lower level 9 1.329 1.093 0.842 0.828 0.806 1.092 0.740 0.718
SOC: Elementary Occupations, lower level 9 1.206 1.065 1.144 1.133 0.770 1.110 0.524** 0.535*
SOC: Elementary Occupations, higher level 9 0.964 0.981 0.596*** 0.814 1.156 1.725** 0.455** 0.693
Length of service: 1 to less than 2 years 10 0.935 0.707*** 1.057 0.725*** 0.951 0.694*** 0.892 0.761*
Length of service: 2 to less than 5 years 10 0.755*** 0.543*** 1.094 0.704*** 0.828+ 0.571*** 0.949 0.730**
Length of service: 5 to less than 10 years 10 0.744** 0.475*** 1.066 0.585*** 0.938 0.585*** 1.007 0.565***
Length of service: 10 years or more 10 0.775** 0.443*** 1.289** 0.614*** 0.809+ 0.430*** 1.015 0.516***
Communication index, management: medium 11 1.095 1.139 1.129 1.113 1.010 1.110 1.098 0.966
Communication index, management, high 11 0.979 1.014 1.062 1.146 0.922 0.993 0.900 0.728*
Communication index, seq 0.776*** 0.858** 0.878** 0.910+ 0.903+ 0.968 0.742*** 0.836*
Base outcome is option perceived available by respondent
Reference categories:
1 Establishment one of a number of different workplaces in the UK belonging to the same organisation is the reference category
2 State of the market growing is the reference category
3No of employees less than 25 is the reference category
4 Manufacturing is the reference category
5 Basic HR is the reference category
6Age: less than 25 is the reference category
7No children is the reference category
8Lowest education qualification is the reference category
9SOC: Managers and senior officials; higher levels is the reference category
10Length of service: less than a year
11Communication index, management: low is the reference category
Source: WERS 2004. Base: All employees in workplaces with five or more employees. Figures are weighted and based on responses from 17,351 (Column 1 and Column 2); 17,096 (Column 3 and Column 4); 17,366 (Column 5 and Column 6) and
17, 073 (Column 7 and Column 8) employees and the managers in their workplaces. ***indicates difference between the two observations significant at the 1 per cent level; **difference significant at the 5 per cent level; * difference significant at the
10 per cent level.
75

Table C6. Predictors of childcare and leave
Workplace nursery or financial help with
childcare
F=4.52***
N=16,824
Paid parental leave
F=4.69***
N=16,858
Special leave
F=6.43***
N=17,106
(logistic regression
results)
no Don’t know no Don’t know (Yes/No)
Odds Ratio (Exp B) Odds Ratio (Exp B) Odds Ratio (Exp B) Odds Ratio (Exp B)
A single independent establishment 1 1.231 1.134 0.905 0.924 0.934
The sole UK establishment of a foreign organisation 1 2.016* 2.111* 1.241 1.352 1.031
Natural log of age of the establishment in years 1.013 1.009 1.019 1.012 1.016
State of the market: Not applicable 2 0.937 0.981 0.864 0.831 1.315
State of the market mature 2 1.354 1.353 1.061 1.006 1.447**
State of the market declining 2 1.045 1.010 0.952 0.997 1.254
State of the market turbulent 2 1.504+ 1.473+ 1.030 1.035 1.230
Size: no of employees 25-49 3 1.335 1.300 1.319* 1.433** 0.912
Size: no of employees 50-99 3 0.873 1.025 0.950 1.252+ 1.109
Size: no of employees 100-199 3 1.002 1.113 0.789+ 1.012 0.998
Size: no of employees 200-4993 0.437** 0.568* 0.832 1.178 0.817
Size: no of employees >500 3 0.246*** 0.383*** 0.711* 1.037 1.134
Sector (private/public) 0.944 1.220 0.845 1.030 1.812**
Electricity, gas and water 4 0.379* 0.373* 0.623* 0.672 1.264
Construction 4 0.588 0.784 0.693 0.792 0.957
Wholesale and retail 4 0.509+ 0.714 0.680* 0.954 0.855
Hotels and restaurants 4 0.249*** 0.319** 0.615+ 0.892 0.253**
Transport and communication 4 0.526+ 0.613 0.568*** 0.602** 2.234***
Financial services 4 0.530 0.726 0.611* 0.823 2.027**
Other business services 4 0.526+ 0.706 0.648* 0.790 1.149
Public administration 4 0.430+ 0.504+ 0.534** 0.694+ 1.360
Education 4 0.343** 0.401* 0.728 0.782 1.472+
Health 4 0.255*** 0.344** 0.825 0.849 1.675*
Other community services 4 0.184*** 0.278*** 0.448*** 0.611* 1.331
Degree of competition 1.002 1.052 1.004 0.872 0.835
76

Prop of women 0.995 0.998 1.000 1.005* 0.996+
Job security 0.940 1.050 0.835 0.904 1.080
HR index: basic t o medium 5 1.150 1.161 0.893 0.981 1.185
Complex HR 5 0.764 0.799 0.733* 0.863 1.320
Gender 0.895 0.947 1.054 1.015 1.068
Age 22-29 years 6 1.009 0.888 1.098 1.143 0.902
Age 30-39 years 6 1.044 0.890 1.003 0.990 0.887
Age 40-49 years 6 0.931 0.764 1.079 0.956 0.980
Over 49 6 1.053 0.857 1.259 1.144 0.929
Marital status: 1.180+ 1.096 1.013 1.006 1.133+
Age of youngest child: 0-4 7 1.019 0.894 1.035 0.957 1.119
Age of the youngest child: 5-11 7 1.062 0.927 0.957 0.888 1.013
Age of the youngest child: 12-18 7 1.033 0.980 1.083 1.164 1.023
Carers of disabled and elderly 0.866 0.890 0.830* 0.813* 1.105
Suffering from illness, health problem or disability 0.893 0.932 1.046 1.067 0.968
Ethnicity (white or others) 1.197 0.930 1.357* 1.118 1.016
Educational qualification 2 8 0.885 0.746 0.928 0.906 0.864
Educational qualification 3 8 1.030 1.019 0.837 0.866 1.255+
Educational qualification 4 8 1.010 0.909 0.935 0.832 1.188
Educational qualification 5 8 1.018 0.937 0.794+ 0.786+ 1.254+
Educational qualification 6 8 0.784 0.863 0.618** 0.711* 1.306
SOC: Managers and senior officials; lower levels 9 1.280 1.302 1.281 1.358+ 0.860
SOC: Professional Occupations, higher levels 9 0.914 0.750 1.180 1.166 1.210
SOC: Professional Occupations, lower levels 9 1.399 1.263 1.421+ 1.419+ 0.888
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical Occupations, higher levels 9 1.090 1.033 1.197 1.264 0.961
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical Occupations, lower levels 9 1.413+ 1.473+ 1.815*** 1.798*** 0.932
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations, higher levels 9 0.985 0.881 1.021 0.920 1.122
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations, lower levels 9 1.195 1.238 1.739*** 1.877*** 0.933
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, higher levels 9 1.134 0.930 1.185 0.889 0.920
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, lower levels 9 1.680 1.428 2.619*** 2.278** 0.825
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, higher levels 9 0.786 0.714 0.837 0.785 0.850
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, lower levels 9 1.357 1.171 2.189*** 1.991*** 0.619*
SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations, higher level 9 1.532 1.505 1.100 1.012 0.868
SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations, lower level 9 1.957* 2.347** 1.620* 1.916*** 0.734
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives, higher level 9 2.070* 1.769 1.561* 1.368 0.828
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives, higher level, lower level 9 2.104+ 1.663 1.670* 1.283 0.455**
77

SOC: Elementary Occupations, lower level 9 2.598** 2.338** 1.486+ 1.318 0.763
SOC: Elementary Occupations, higher level 9 2.452** 2.078* 2.406*** 2.026*** 0.554**
Length of service: 1 to less than 2 years 10 1.184 1.114 0.910 0.870 1.076
Length of service: 2 to less than 5 years 10 1.141 1.078 0.989 0.988 1.023
Length of service: 5 to less than 10 years 10 1.195 0.993 0.912 0.811+ 1.012
Length of service: 10 years or more 10 1.221 0.992 1.013 0.918 1.140
Communication index, management: medium 11 0.537** 0.484*** 0.805+ 0.812+ 1.262+
Communication index, management, high 11 0.502** 0.480** 0.719** 0.714** 1.350*
Communication index, seq 0.692*** 0.946 0.591*** 0.786*** 1.243***
Base outcome is option perceived available by respondent
Reference categories:
1 Establishment one of a number of different workplaces in the UK belonging to the same organisation is the reference category
2 State of the market growing is the reference category
3No of employees less than 25 is the reference category
4 Manufacturing is the reference category
5 Basic HR is the reference category
6Age: less than 25 is the reference category
7No children is the reference category
8Lowest education qualification is the reference category
9SOC: Managers and senior officials; higher levels is the reference category
10Length of service: less than a year
11Communication index, management: low is the reference category
Source: WERS 2004. Base: All employees in workplaces with five or more employees. Figures are weighted and based on responses from 16,824 (Column 1 and Column 2); 16, 858 (Column 3 and Column 4) and 17,106 (Column 5) employees
and the managers in their workplaces. ***indicates difference between the two observations significant at the 1 per cent level; **difference significant at the 5 per cent level; * difference significant at the 10 per cent level.
78

Table C7. Differences in management and employees knowledge of availability
of reduced time working and flexitime
(option perceived available by the employees is the reference category)
Perceive that
reduced hours
option is not
available
Odds Ratio (Exp
B)
Reduced time
F=4.63***
Don’t know
whether reduced
hours option is
available
Odds Ratio (Exp
B)
Perceive
that
flexitime is
not
available
Odds Ratio
(Exp B)
Flexitime
F=2.78***
Don’t know
whether
flexitime is
available or not
Odds Ratio (Exp
B)
A single independent establishment 1 0.890 0.925 0.596* 0.707
The sole UK establishment of a foreign
organisation 1 1.397 1.697 0.388* 0.912
Natural log of age of the establishment in
years 1.025 1.015 1.031 1.108
State of the market: Not applicable 2 1.571* 1.770* 0.638 0.674
State of the market mature 2 0.966 1.041 0.537** 0.722
State of the market declining 2 0.439*** 0.585* 1.208 1.172
State of the market turbulent 2 1.190 0.937 0.952 0.506*
Size: no of employees 25-49 3 0.962 1.115 1.307 0.998
Size: no of employees 50-99 3 0.964 0.985 1.117 1.248
Size: no of employees 100-199 3 0.894 1.122 1.094 0.900
Size: no of employees 200-4993 0.726* 0.884 1.331 1.178
Size: no of employees >500 3 0.852 0.861 1.322 1.136
Sector (private/public) 0.645+ 0.678 1.171 1.062
Electricity, gas and water 4 0.985 1.229 0.538 0.249*
Construction 4 1.226 0.959 0.898 0.766
Wholesale and retail 4 0.425*** 0.720 0.688 0.617
Hotels and restaurants 4 0.189*** 0.244*** 0.422+ 0.440
Transport and communication 4 0.570+ 0.442** 0.727 1.016
Financial services 4 0.474** 1.157 0.952 0.541
Other business services 4 0.544** 0.861 0.736 0.252***
Public administration 4 0.366*** 0.595+ 0.085*** 0.049***
Education 4 0.917 1.100 1.460 0.485
Health 4 0.437** 0.838 0.607 0.442*
Other community services 4 0.336*** 0.650 0.470+ 0.541
Degree of competition 1.233 0.984 1.334 1.544+
Prop of women 0.994* 0.993** 1.005 1.008+
Job security 0.704* 0.838 0.917 0.860
HR index: basic t o medium 5 0.689** 0.911 1.501 1.618+
Complex HR 5 0.653* 0.815 1.426 1.446
79

Gender 2.032*** 1.183 1.483* 1.120
Age 22-29 years 6 1.817** 1.808** 2.424** 1.113
Age 30-39 years 6 1.701* 1.950*** 3.067** 1.625
Age 40-49 years 6 1.760* 1.570* 1.901+ 0.943
Over 49 6 1.675* 1.334 2.020+ 0.734
Marital status: 1.220+ 0.951 1.447* 0.937
Age of youngest child: 0-4 7 0.644** 0.450*** 0.849 0.563*
Age of the youngest child: 5-11 7 1.157 1.012 0.922 0.775
Age of the youngest child: 12-18 7 1.225 1.182 1.033 0.741
Carers of disabled and elderly 0.983 1.054 1.017 1.142
Suffering from illness, health problem or
disability 1.260* 1.055 0.974 1.063
Ethnicity (white or others) 0.814 0.669* 0.932 1.030
Educational qualification 2 8 0.940 0.775 0.945 0.817
Educational qualification 3 8 0.650* 0.796 1.419 1.223
Educational qualification 4 8 0.637* 0.596** 1.443 0.890
Educational qualification 5 8 0.665* 0.611** 1.163 0.980
Educational qualification 6 8 0.544* 0.466*** 1.345 0.608
SOC: Managers and senior officials; lower
levels 9 1.364 0.844 1.339 1.547
SOC: Professional Occupations, higher levels 9 0.891 1.077 1.343 2.570*
SOC: Professional Occupations, lower levels 9 1.410 1.264 1.559 1.961
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical
Occupations, higher levels 9 0.990 1.215 0.716 0.786
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical
Occupations, lower levels 9 0.858 1.250 1.443 1.934
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial
Occupations, higher levels 9 1.242 1.480+ 1.385 1.988+
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial
Occupations, lower levels 9 0.943 1.359 0.942 0.925
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, higher
levels 9 1.950+ 2.251* 1.259 1.585
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, lower
levels 9 2.850* 2.429* 2.384+ 4.278**
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, higher
levels 9 0.790 0.516* 3.158* 2.131
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, lower
levels 9 0.530* 0.799 3.162* 1.517
SOC: Sales and Customer Service
Occupations, higher level 9 0.560+ 0.931 1.017 2.271
SOC: Sales and Customer Service
Occupations, lower level 9 0.753 1.157 1.960 1.868
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives,
higher level 9 1.662 1.975+ 5.141** 2.606
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives,
higher level, lower level 9 2.177+ 2.083 4.013** 1.246
SOC: Elementary Occupations, lower level 9 1.417 0.959 1.606 0.857
SOC: Elementary Occupations, higher level 9 1.197 1.246 2.495* 1.510
Length of service: 1 to less than 2 years 10 0.947 0.808 0.821 0.699
Length of service: 2 to less than 5 years 10 0.782+ 0.626*** 0.694+ 0.709
Length of service: 5 to less than 10 years 10 0.866 0.559*** 0.787 0.687
Length of service: 10 years or more 10 0.690* 0.446*** 1.067 0.620+
Communication index, management:
medium 11 1.094 1.089 1.093 0.863
Communication index, management, high 11 1.125 1.155 0.993 0.798
Communication index, seq 0.772** 0.901 0.761* 0.814
80

Base outcome is option perceived available by respondent
Reference categories:
1 Establishment one of a number of different workplaces in the UK belonging to the same organisation is the reference category
2 State of the market growing is the reference category
3No of employees less than 25 is the reference category
4 Manufacturing is the reference category
5 Basic HR is the reference category
6Age: less than 25 is the reference category
7No children is the reference category
8Lowest education qualification is the reference category
9SOC: Managers and senior officials; higher levels is the reference category
10Length of service: less than a year
11Communication index, management: low is the reference category
Source: WERS 2004. Base: All employees in workplaces with five or more employees and where managers said that reduced time option was
available to all (Column 1 and Column 2) or flexitime option was available to all (Column 3 and Column 4). Figures are weighted and based
on responses of 11,222 employees (Column 1 and Column 2) and 4,217 employees (Column 3 and Column 4). ***indicates difference
between the two observations significant at the 1 per cent level; **difference significant at the 5 per cent level; * difference significant at the 10
per cent level.
81

Table C8. The impact of availability of individual work-life options on
organisational commitment, job satisfaction and work-stress
Organisational
Commitment
Job satisfaction Work-stress
R2 =18.57 R
F=13.27***
N=13,664
2 =12.77 R
F=7.63***
N=13,664
2 =16.79
F=10.91***
N=13,664
A single independent establishment1 -0.172*** -0.030 -0.027
The sole UK establishment of a foreign organisation1 -0.142 0.028 0.046
Natural log of age of the establishment in years -0.035** -0.008 0.036**
State of the market: Not applicable2 -0.047 0.022 0.082
State of the market mature2 -0.033 0.041 -0.043
State of the market declining2 0.064 0.164** -0.026
State of the market turbulent2 0.071 0.108* -0.042
Size: no of employees 25-493 0.011 -0.022 0.070*
Size: no of employees 50-993 -0.054 0.005 0.100**
Size: no of employees 100-1993 0.012 0.079* 0.074*
Size: no of employees 200-4993 -0.009 0.070+ 0.139***
Size: no of employees >5003 -0.022 0.051 0.238***
Sector (private/public) 0.194** 0.080 -0.110
Electricity, gas and water4 0.153 0.075 0.070
Construction4 -0.087 -0.058 -0.043
Wholesale and retail4 -0.218*** -0.047 0.068
Hotels and restaurants4 -0.222** -0.091 -0.190*
Transport and communication4 -0.236** -0.024 -0.039
Financial services4 -0.020 0.026 -0.150*
Other business services4 -0.158** -0.078 -0.030
Public administration4 0.205* -0.107 0.163*
Education4 -0.318*** -0.282*** -0.170+
Health4 -0.141* -0.311*** -0.009
Other community services4 -0.184** -0.116+ 0.139*
Degree of competition 0.091** -0.031 -0.018
Prop of women 0.000 0.002* -0.001
Job security 0.014 0.108* 0.076
Communication index, management: medium5 -0.053+ 0.015 -0.106***
Communication index, management, high5 -0.106** -0.001 -0.143***
HR index: basic t o medium6 -0.046 0.023 -0.044
Complex HR6 -0.027 0.094* -0.032
82

Gender 0.042 -0.036 -0.043
Age 22-29 years 7 0.010 -0.170*** -0.166**
Age 30-39 years 7 -0.048 -0.165** -0.096
Age 40-49 years 7 -0.117+ -0.110+ -0.105+
Over 49 7 -0.218*** -0.192*** 0.102
Marital status: -0.074** -0.037 -0.066*
Age of youngest child: 0-4 8 -0.054 0.065 0.099*
Age of the youngest child: 5-11 8 -0.090* -0.017 0.028
Age of the youngest child: 12-18 8 -0.028 -0.064+ 0.063
Carers of disabled and elderly 0.005 0.080* -0.059
Suffering from illness, health problem or disability 0.002 0.055+ -0.137***
Ethnicity (white or others) 0.084 -0.091+ 0.105+
Educational qualification 2 9 0.043 0.008 -0.103
Educational qualification 3 9 0.098* 0.043 -0.047
Educational qualification 4 9 0.111* 0.097+ -0.085
Educational qualification 5 9 0.114* 0.164*** -0.119**
Educational qualification 6 9 0.134+ 0.141* -0.148*
SOC: Managers and senior officials; lower levels 10 0.114+ 0.023 -0.061
SOC: Professional Occupations, higher levels 10 0.181* 0.269*** 0.012
SOC: Professional Occupations, lower levels 10 0.130* 0.260*** -0.133+
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical Occupations,
higher levels 10 0.239*** 0.105+ 0.177*
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical Occupations,
lower levels 10 0.178** 0.197** 0.116+
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations, higher
levels 10 0.181** 0.335*** 0.309***
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations, lower
levels 10 0.310*** 0.364*** 0.284***
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, higher levels 10 0.420*** 0.105 0.472***
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, lower levels 10 0.560*** 0.213** 0.447***
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, higher levels 10 0.099 0.179* 0.295***
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, lower levels 10 0.077 0.336*** 0.230**
SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations, higher
level 10 0.461*** 0.248** 0.388***
SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations, lower
level 10 0.315*** 0.293*** 0.288***
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives, higher
level 10 0.531*** 0.316** 0.560***
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives, higher
level, lower level 10 0.475*** 0.538*** 0.439***
SOC: Elementary Occupations, lower level 10 0.417*** 0.349*** 0.448***
SOC: Elementary Occupations, higher level 10 0.441*** 0.468*** 0.636***
Length of service: 1 to less than 2 years 11 0.074+ 0.063 -0.120**
Length of service: 2 to less than 5 years 11 0.053 0.090* -0.115**
Length of service: 5 to less than 10 years 11 0.047 0.017 -0.147***
Length of service: 10 years or more 11 0.024 -0.026 -0.268***
Communication index, seq -0.097*** -0.049+ 0.036
Mq: home working available -0.039 0.042 -0.068*
Mq: flexitime available 0.039 0.038 -0.031
Mq: compressed work week available -0.041 0.030 0.007
Mq: can change shift patterns 0.054+ 0.034 -0.011
Mq: full-time to part-time available 0.106** -0.006 -0.010
Mq: part-time to full-time available 0.050 -0.038 -0.035
Mq: job sharing available 0.005 -0.035 -0.032
Mq: term time working available -0.017 -0.080* 0.023
Mq: at least part of the maternity leave fully paid -0.008 0.016 -0.033
Mq: Paternity leave available -0.015 -0.006 -0.038
Mq: eldercare leave available 0.106* -0.039 -0.037
Mq: special paid leave for time off in emergencies
available -0.002 0.073** 0.000
83

Mq: providing financial help with childcare or nursery
vouchers -0.068+ 0.087+ 0.000
Mq: Mgt attitude: strongly agree 12 -0.283* -0.117 0.065
Mq: Mgt attitude: agree 12 -0.172 -0.178 0.123
Mq: Mgt attitude: neutral 12 -0.175 -0.138 0.093
Mq: Mgt attitude: disagree 12 -0.191 -0.204+ 0.131
Eq: perceive home working not available 13 0.189*** 0.214*** 0.196***
Eq: don’t know if home working is available or not 13 0.092* 0.093+ 0.061
Eq: perceive flexitime not available 14 0.058+ 0.199*** -0.085*
Eq: don’t know if flexitime is available or not 14 -0.011 0.048 -0.006
Eq: perceive compressed work week not available 15 -0.013 0.057 -0.093*
Eq: don’t know if compressed work week is available or
not 15 -0.015 0.047 -0.022
Eq: perceive the option to change shifts not available 16 0.115*** 0.062+ -0.108**
Eq: don’t know if the option to change shifts is available or
not 16 0.191*** 0.102* -0.069+
Eq: perceive the option to reduce hours not available 17 -0.011 -0.079+ -0.103*
Eq: don’t know if the option to reduce hours is available or
not 17 0.001 0.001 -0.084*
Eq: perceive the option to increase hours not available 18 0.097** 0.087* 0.045
Eq: don’t know if the option to increases hours is available
or not 18 0.048 0.107** 0.014
Eq: perceive job sharing not available 19 0.021 0.020 -0.048
Eq: don’t know if job sharing is available or not 19 0.004 -0.006 0.075*
Eq: perceive term time working not available 20 0.095* 0.014 -0.080+
Eq: don’t know if term time working is available or not 20 0.059 0.000 -0.028
Eq: perceive parental leave not available 21 -0.014 -0.050 -0.047
Eq: don’t know if parental leave is available or not 21 -0.032 0.023 -0.048
Eq: perceive financial help with childcare or nursery
vouchers not available 22 0.088 0.038 -0.072
Eq: don’t know if financial help with childcare or nursery
vouchers available or not 22 0.093 -0.003 -0.095
Eq: special paid leave for time off in emergencies available
or not -0.051 0.061 -0.048
Eq: employees perceive management extremely
understanding 23 -0.436*** -0.237*** 0.359***
Eq: employees perceive management somewhat
understanding 23 -0.196*** -0.106** 0.183***
constant -0.418* -0.446* 0.225
84

Reference categories:
1 Establishment one of a number of different workplaces in the UK belonging to the same organisation is the reference category
2 State of the market growing is the reference category
3No of employees less than 25 is the reference category
4 Manufacturing is the reference category
5Communication index, management: low is the reference category
6 Basic HR is the reference category
7Age: less than 25 is the reference category
8No children is the reference category
9Lowest education qualification is the reference category
10SOC: Managers and senior officials; higher levels is the reference category
11Length of service: less than a year
12 Management strongly disagrees that it is up to the individual to balance work and family life is the reference category
13 Home working is perceived to be available is the reference category
14 Flexitime is perceived to be available is the reference category
15 Compressed work week is perceived to be available is the reference category
16 The option to change shift patterns is perceived to be available is the reference category
17 The option to reduce working hours is perceived to be available is the reference category
18 The option to increase working hours is perceived to be available is the reference category
19 Job sharing is perceived to be available is the reference category
20 Term time working is perceived to be available is the reference category
21 Parental leave is perceived to be available is the reference category
22 Financial help with childcare or nursery vouchers are perceived to be available is the reference category
23 Management attitude not understanding is the reference category
Source: WERS 2004. Base: All employees in workplaces with five or more employees. Figures are weighted and based on responses from
13,664 employees and the managers in their workplaces. ***indicates difference between the two observations significant at the 1 per cent
level; **difference significant at the 5 per cent level; * difference significant at the 10 per cent level.
85

Table C9. The impact of availability of multiple work-life options on employee
outcomes
Organisational
Commitment
Job satisfaction Work-stress
R2 =17.21 R
F=16.2***
N=14,540
2 =10.68 R
F=8.76***
N=14,540
2 =15.44
F=12.97***
N=14,540
A single independent establishment1 -0.200*** -0.043 -0.037
The sole UK establishment of a foreign organisation1 -0.149 0.031 -0.004
Natural log of age of the establishment in years -0.035** -0.004 0.037**
State of the market: Not applicable2 -0.083 0.038 0.019
State of the market mature2 -0.030 0.053 -0.029
State of the market declining2 0.082 0.171** 0.003
State of the market turbulent2 0.067 0.104* -0.025
Size: no of employees 25-493 -0.007 -0.028 0.066*
Size: no of employees 50-993 -0.050 -0.003 0.093**
Size: no of employees 100-1993 0.025 0.065+ 0.074*
Size: no of employees 200-4993 -0.005 0.060 0.154***
Size: no of employees >5003 -0.031 0.044 0.274***
Sector (private/public) 0.217** 0.085 -0.068
electricity, gas and water4 0.118 0.105 0.097
Construction4 -0.073 -0.026 -0.087
Wholesale and retail4 -0.201*** -0.047 0.094
Hotels and restaurants4 -0.153* -0.081 -0.180*
Transport and communication4 -0.239** 0.002 -0.067
Financial services4 -0.015 0.060 -0.139+
Other business services4 -0.146** -0.072 -0.060
Public administration4 0.160+ -0.101 0.206**
Education4 -0.387*** -0.223** -0.127
Health4 -0.133* -0.270*** 0.011
Other community services4 -0.169** -0.070 0.154*
Degree of competition 0.066+ -0.040 -0.026
Prop of women 0.001 0.001* -0.001
Job security -0.011 0.123** 0.055
Communication index, management: medium5 -0.068* 0.018 -0.107***
Communication index, management, high5 -0.097* 0.000 -0.132**
HR index: basic t o medium6 -0.015 0.019 -0.070*
Complex HR6 -0.017 0.081+ -0.051
86

Gender 0.045 -0.043 -0.072*
Age 22-29 years 7 0.019 -0.164** -0.194***
Age 30-39 years 7 -0.029 -0.162** -0.134*
Age 40-49 years 7 -0.088 -0.115* -0.159**
Over 49 7 -0.183** -0.196*** 0.043
Marital status: -0.088** -0.037 -0.069*
Age of youngest child: 0-4 8 -0.050 0.071 0.095*
Age of the youngest child: 5-11 8 -0.083* -0.010 0.016
Age of the youngest child: 12-18 8 -0.023 -0.062 0.058
Carers of disabled and elderly 0.011 0.078* -0.054
Suffering from illness, health problem or disability 0.008 0.046 -0.151***
Ethnicity (white or others) 0.062 -0.053 0.101+
Educational qualification 2 9 0.031 -0.005 -0.078
Educational qualification 3 9 0.076+ 0.045 -0.026
Educational qualification 4 9 0.089* 0.088+ -0.082
Educational qualification 5 9 0.079+ 0.145** -0.134**
Educational qualification 6 9 0.069 0.101 -0.184**
SOC: Managers and senior officials; lower levels 10 0.139* 0.050 -0.099
SOC: Professional Occupations, higher levels 10 0.185** 0.298*** 0.023
SOC: Professional Occupations, lower levels 10 0.159* 0.292*** -0.088
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical Occupations,
higher levels 10 0.257*** 0.128* 0.227***
SOC: Associate Professional and Technical Occupations,
lower levels 10 0.209*** 0.237*** 0.144*
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations, higher
levels 10 0.219*** 0.356*** 0.371***
SOC: Administrative and Secretarial Occupations, lower
levels 10 0.346*** 0.407*** 0.353***
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, higher levels 10 0.460*** 0.157* 0.539***
SOC: Skilled Trades Occupations, lower levels 10 0.593*** 0.224** 0.521***
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, higher levels 10 0.118+ 0.214** 0.369***
SOC: Personal Service Occupations, lower levels 10 0.115+ 0.352*** 0.310***
SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations, higher
level 10 0.516*** 0.312*** 0.4558**
SOC: Sales and Customer Service Occupations, lower
level 10 0.394*** 0.352*** 0.341***
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives, higher
level 10 0.583*** 0.364*** 0.601***
SOC: Process, Plant and Machine Operatives, higher
level, lower level 10 0.522*** 0.573*** 0.488***
SOC: Elementary Occupations, lower level 10 0.456*** 0.375*** 0.531***
SOC: Elementary Occupations, higher level 10 0.484*** 0.500*** 0.711***
Length of service: 1 to less than 2 years 11 0.091* 0.040 -0.123**
Length of service: 2 to less than 5 years 11 0.076* 0.065+ -0.127***
Length of service: 5 to less than 10 years 11 0.073+ 0.000 -0.171***
Length of service: 10 years or more 11 0.044 -0.028 -0.278***
Communication index, seq -0.093*** -0.047+ 0.034
Mq: Work-life index, medium provision 12 0.064* 0.057+ -0.056+
Mq: Work-life index, high provision 12 0.137* 0.136* -0.256***
Mq: Mgt attitude: strongly agree 13 -0.216+ -0.042 0.048
Mq: Mgt attitude: agree 13 -0.098 -0.121 0.108
Mq: Mgt attitude: neutral 13 -0.130 -0.086 0.086
Mq: Mgt attitude: disagree 13 -0.119 -0.138 0.117
Eq: Employee perceives one policy is available 14 -0.110** -0.081* -0.008
Eq: Employee perceives two policies are available 14 -0.148*** -0.148*** 0.069+
Eq: Employee perceives three policies are available 14 -0.249*** -0.199*** 0.064
Eq: Employee perceives four policies are available 14 -0.233*** -0.240*** 0.086+
Eq: Employee perceives five policies are available 14 -0.215*** -0.339*** 0.230***
Eq: Employee perceives six policies are available 14 -0.338*** -0.351*** 0.169**
Eq: Employee perceives seven policies are available 14 -0.256** -0.363*** 0.277**
87

Eq: Employee perceives eight policies are available 14 -0.431*** -0.491*** 0.047
Eq: Employee perceives nine policies are available 14 -0.660*** -0.235 0.500**
Eq: Employee perceives ten policies are available 14 -0.207 -0.835*** 0.009
Eq: employees perceive management extremely
understanding 15 -0.464*** -0.266*** 0.362***
Eq: employees perceive management somewhat
understanding 15 -0.217*** -0.132*** 0.188***
constant 0.114 0.007 -0.151
Reference categories:
1 Establishment one of a number of different workplaces in the UK belonging to the same organisation is the reference category
2 State of the market growing is the reference category
3No of employees less than 25 is the reference category
4 Manufacturing is the reference category
5Communication index, management: low is the reference category
6 Basic HR is the reference category
7Age: less than 25 is the reference category
8No children is the reference category
9Lowest education qualification is the reference category
10SOC: Managers and senior officials; higher levels is the reference category
11Length of service: less than a year
12 Management work-life index indicates that the provision of work-life policies is low
13 Management strongly disagrees that it is up to the individual to balance work and family life is the reference category
14 Employee perceives that no work-life option is available is the reference category
15 Management attitude not understanding is the reference category
Source: WERS 2004. Base: All employees in workplaces with five or more employees. Figures are weighted and based on responses from
14,540 employees and the managers in their workplaces. ***indicates difference between the two observations significant at the 1 per cent
level; **difference significant at the 5 per cent level; * difference significant at the 10 per cent level.
88

Employment Relations
Research Series
Reports published to date in the BERR Employment Relations Research Series
are listed below. Adobe PDF copies can be downloaded either from the
Employment Market Analysis and Research web pages:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/employment/research-evaluation/errs (click on the
‘Employment Relations Research Series’ pages on the right-hand side).
Or via the BERR Publications page: http://www.berr.gov.uk/publications
(click ‘Browse by Subject’, then select ‘Employment Relations Research’)
For printed copies, you can place an order via the Publications page above
Alternatively please call the BERR Publications Orderline on 0845 015 0010(+44
845 015 0010) and provide the publication’s URN, or email them at:
publications@berr.gsi.gov.uk with your details.
Anyone wishing to be added to our mailing list for printed copies of this series
should email their details to us at: emar@berr.gsi.gov.uk
No. 1 Involving employees in Total Quality Management: employee attitudes
and organisational context in unionised environments. Margaret Collinson, Chris
Rees, Paul Edwards with Linda Inness. URN 98/507. June 1998
No. 2 Industrial Tribunals, workplace disciplinary procedures and employment
practice. Jill Earnshaw, John Goodman, Robin Harrison and Mick Marchington.
URN 98/564. February 1998
No. 3 The dynamics of union membership in Britain – a study using the Family
and Working Lives survey. Richard Disney, Amanda Gosling, Julian McCrae and
Stephen Machin. URN 98/807. January 1999
No. 4 The individualisation of employment contracts in Britain. William Brown,
Simon Deakin, Maria Hudson, Cliff Pratten and Paul Ryan. URN 98/943.
February 1999
No. 5 Redundancy consultation: a study of current practice and the effects of
the Regulations. Jill Smith, Paul Edwards and Mark Hall. URN 99/512. July 1999
No. 6 The employment status of individuals in non-standard employment.
Brendan Burchell, Simon Deakin and Sheila Honey. URN 99/770. July 1999
No. 7 Partnership at work. John Knell. URN 99/1078. September 1999
No. 8 Trends in earnings inequality and earnings mobility 1977-1997: the
impact of mobility on long-term inequality. Abigail McKnight. URN 00/534.
February 2000
No. 9 Costs and benefits of European Works Councils Directive. Tina Weber,
Peter Foster and Kursat Levent Egriboz. URN 00/630. February 2000
89

No. 10 Explaining the growth in the number of applications to Industrial
Tribunals, 1972-1997. Simon Burgess, Carol Propper and Deborah Wilson. URN
00/624. April 2001
No. 11 Implementation of the Working Time Regulations. Fiona Neathey and
James Arrowsmith. URN 01/682. April 2001
No. 12 Collective bargaining and workplace performance: an investigation using
the Workplace Employee Relations Survey 1998.Alex Bryson and David
Wilkinson. URN 01/1224. November 2001
No. 13 Findings from the 1998 Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications
(Surveys of Applicants and Employers). URN 03/999. February 2004
No. 14 Small firms' awareness and knowledge of individual employment rights.
Robert Blackburn and Mark Hart. URN 02/573. August 2002
No. 15 Awareness, knowledge and exercise of individual employment rights.
Nigel Meager, Claire Tyers, Sarah Perryman, Jo Rick and Rebecca Willison.
URN 02/667. February 2002
No. 16 Working long hours: a review of the evidence. Volume 1 – Main report.
Volume 2 – Case studies (and appendices). J Kodz et al. URN: 03/1228.
November 2003
No. 17 Evaluation of the Partnership at Work Fund. Mike Terry and Jill Smith.
URN 03/512. May 2003
No. 18 Retirement ages in the UK: a review of the literature. Pamela Meadows.
URN 03/820. July 2003
No. 19 Implementation of the Working Time Regulations: follow-up study. Fiona
Neathey. URN03/970. July 2003
No. 20 The impact of employment legislation on small firms: a case study
analysis. Paul Edwards, Monder Ram and John Black. URN 03/1095.
September 2003
No. 21 Employee voice and training at work: analysis of case studies and
WERS98. Helen Rainbird, Jim Sutherland, Paul Edwards, Lesley Holly and Ann
Munro. URN 03/1063. September 2003
No. 22 The Second Work-Life Balance Study: Results from the Employer
Survey. Stephen Woodland, Nadine Simmonds, Marie Thornby, Rory Fitzgerald
and Alice McGee. URN 03/1252. October 2003
No. 23 The business context to long hours working. T, Hogarth, W.W. Daniel,
A.P.Dickerson, D. Campbell, M.Wintherbotham, D. Vivian. URN 03/833.
November 2003
No. 24 Age matters: a review of the existing survey evidence. Dr. Peter Urwin.
URN 03/1623. February 2004
No. 25 How employers manage absence. Stephen Bevan, Sally Dench,
Heather Harper and Sue Hayday. URN 04/553. March 2004
No. 26 The content of new voluntary trade union recognition agreements 1998-
2002: Volume one – An analysis of new agreements and case studies. Dr Sian
Moore, Dr Sonia McKay and Helen Bewley. URN 04/1084. August 2004
90

No. 27 The Second Work-Life Balance Study: Results from the Employees’
Survey. Jane Stevens, Juliet Brown and Caroline Lee. URN 04/740. March 2004
No. 28 2003 Compendium of Regulatory Impact Assessments. Employment
Market Analysis and Research. URN 04/743. April 2004
No. 29 Trade union recognition: statutory unfair labour practice regimes in the
USA and Canada. John Godard. URN 04/855. March 2004
No. 30 Equal opportunities policies and practices at the workplace: secondary
analysis of WERS98. Tracy Anderson, Neil Millward and John Forth. URN
04/836. June 2004
No. 31 A survey of workers’ experiences of the Working Time Regulations.
BMRB Social Research. URN 04/1165. November 2004
No. 32 The evaluation of the Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund. Adrian Nelson,
Kathryn Nemec, Pernille Solvik and Chris Ramsden. URN 04/1043. August
2004
No. 33 Findings from the Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications 2003.
Bruce Hayward, Mark Peters, Nicola Rousseau and Ken Seeds. URN 04/1071.
August 2004
No. 34 Employment relations monitoring and evaluation plan 2004. Employment
Market Analysis and Research. URN 04/1256. September 2004
No. 35 Findings from the 1998 survey of representatives in Employment
Tribunal cases. P.L.Latreille, J.A. Latreille and K.G. Knight. URN 04/1530.
August 2004
No. 36 Employment attitudes: Main findings from the British Social Attitudes
Survey 2003. Harjinder Kaur. URN 04/1868. December 2004
No. 37 Job separations: A survey of workers who have recently left any
employer. Volume one – Main analysis report. Tania Corbin.URN 04/1920.
December 2004
No. 39 Results of the Second Flexible Working Employee Survey.Heather Holt
and Heidi Grainger. URN 05/606. April 2005
No. 40 2002 Compendium of Regulatory Impact Assessments. Employment
Market Analysis and Research. URN 05/582. April 2005
No. 41 2004 Compendium of Regulatory Impact Assessments. Employment
Market Analysis and Research. URN 05/1018. April 2005
No. 42 The age dimension of employment practices: employer case studies.
Stephen McNair and Matt Flynn. URN 05/863. June 2005
No. 43 The content of new voluntary trade union recognition agreements 1998-
2002. Volume two – Findings from the survey of employers. Dr Sian Moore, Dr
Sonia McKay and Helen Bewley. URN 05/1020. May 2005
No. 44 Employment Relations monitoring and evaluation plan 2005,
Employment Market Analysis and Research. URN 05/1019.July 2005
No. 45 Review of research into the impact of employment relations legislation.
Linda Dickens, Mark Hall and Professor Stephen Wood.URN 05/1257. October
2005
91

No. 46 People, Strategy and Performance: Results from the Second Work and
Enterprise Business Survey. The Work Foundation. URN 05/1392. September
2005
No. 47 ‘Small, flexible and family friendly’ – work practices in service sector
businesses. Lynette Harris and Carley Foster. URN 05/1491. October 2005
No. 48 2005 Compendium of Regulatory Impact Assessments. Volume 1 and
Volume 2. Employment Market Analysis and Research. URN 06/627 (Volume 1)
and 06/669X (Volume 2). March 2006
No. 49 Survey of employers’ policies, practices and preferences relating to age.
Hilary Metcalf and Pamela Meadows. URN 05/674. April 2006
No. 50 Maternity and paternity rights and benefits: survey of parents 2005.
Deborah Smeaton and Alan Marsh. URN 06/836. March 2006.
No. 51 Employment Rights at Work: Survey of Employees. Jo Casebourne, Jo
Regan, Fiona Neathey, Siobhan Tuohy. URN 06/ 837. April 2006.
No. 52 2001 Compendium of Regulatory Impact Assessments. Employment
Market Analysis and Research. URN 06/927. July 2006
No. 53 1999 Compendium of Regulatory Impact Assessments. Employment
Market Analysis and Research. URN 06/955. July 2006
No. 54 Findings from the Survey of Claimants in Race Discrimination
Employment Tribunal Cases. URN 06/1059. Mark Peters, Ken Seeds and Carrie
Harding. September 2006
No. 55 The Experience of Claimants in Race Discrimination Employment
Tribunal Cases. Jane Aston, Darcy Hill and Nil Djan Tackey. URN 06/1060. April
2006
No. 56 How have employees fared? Recent UK trends. Grant Fitzner. URN
06/924. June 2006
No. 57 International review of leave policies and related research. Peter Moss
and Margaret O'Brien (editors). URN 06/1422. June 2006
No. 58 The Third Work-Life Balance Employee Survey: Main findings. Hülya
Hooker, Fiona Neathey, Jo Casebourne and Miranda Munro.URN 07/714. March
2007
The Third Work-Life Balance Employee Survey: Executive summary. URN
07/715 (replacing July 2006 version, URN 06/1372/ES). March 2007
No. 59 The right to request flexible working: a review of the evidence. Grant
Fitzner and Heidi Grainger. URN 07/840. March 2007
No. 60 2000 Compendium of Regulatory Impact Assessments. Employment
Market Analysis and Research. URN 06/1164. July 2006
No. 61 The settlement of Employment Tribunal cases: evidence from SETA
2003. Paul L. Latreille. URN 07/1149. July 2007
No. 62 The First Fair Treatment at Work Survey: Main findings. Heidi Grainger
with Grant Fitzner. URN 07/692. March 2007
92

No. 63 The First Fair Treatment at Work Survey: Executive summary – updated.
Heidi Grainger and Grant Fitzner. URN 07/803 (replacing June 2006 version,
URN 06/1380). March 2007
No. 64 Review of judgments in race discrimination Employment Tribunal cases.
Alison Brown, Angus Erskine and Doris Littlejohn. URN 06/1691. September
2006
No. 65 Employment flexibility and UK regional unemployment: persistence and
macroeconomic shocks. Vassilis Monastiriotis. 06/1799. December 2006
No. 66 Labour market flexibility and sectoral productivity: a comparative study.
Vassilis Monastiriotis. 06/1799. December 2006
No. 67 1997-1998 Compendium of Regulatory Impact Assessments.
Employment Market Analysis and Research. URN 06/1840. September 2006
No. 68 Union modernisation fund: interim evaluation of first round. Mark Stuart,
Andy Charlwood, Miguel Martinez Lucio and Emma Wallis. URN 06/1803.
September 2006
No. 69 Employee representation in grievance and disciplinary matters – making
a difference? Richard Saundry and Valerie Antcliff. URN 06/2126. December
2006
No. 70 Changing job quality in Great Britain 1998 – 2004. Andrew Brown, Andy
Charlwood, Christopher Forde and David Spencer. URN 06/2125. December
2006
No. 71 Job quality in Europe and the UK: results from the 2005 European
Working Conditions Survey. Grant Fitzner, Nigel Williams and Heidi Grainger.
URN 07/632. March 2007
No. 72 Embedding the provision of information and consultation in the
workplace: a longitudinal analysis of employee outcomes in 1998 and 2004.
Annette Cox, Mick Marchington and Jane Suter. URN 07/598. February 2007
No. 73 Patterns of information disclosure and joint consultation in Great Britain –
determinants and outcomes. Riccardo Peccei, Helen Bewley, Howard Gospel
and Paul Willman. URN 07/599. February 2007
No. 74 2006 Compendium of Regulatory Impact Assessments. Employment
Market Analysis and Research. URN 07/669. April 2007
No. 76 Reassessing the ‘family-friendly workplace’: trends and influences in
Britain, 1998-2004. Gillian Whitehouse, Michele Haynes, Fiona Macdonald and
Dionne Arts. URN 07/827. July 2007
No. 77 Work-life policies in Great Britain: What works, where and how? Sadia
Nadeem and Hilary Metcalf. URN 07/826. July 2007
No. 80 International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research. Peter
Moss and Karin Wall, eds.URN 07/1232. July 2007
No. 81 Doing the right thing? Does fair share capitalism improve workplace
performance?. Alex Bryson and Richard Freeman. URN 07/906. May 2007
93

No. 82 Part-time work and the gender pay gap in British workplaces: Findings
from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Karen Mumford and
Peter N. Smith. URN 07/1238. August 2007
No. 83 The costs and benefits of Employment Tribunal cases for employers and
claimants. Kathy Armstrong and David Coats. URN 07/1151. July 2007
No. 84 The influence of legal representation at Employment Tribunals on case
outcome. Geraldine Hammersley, Jane Johnson and David Morris. URN
07/1150. July 2007
94

Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. www.berr.gov.uk
First published July 2007. © Crown copyright. 7/07/NP. URN 07/826. ISBN: 978-0-85605-692-5