Content area
Full Text
The concept of flexibility for employers began in the 1980s in response to recession and uncertainty; flexibility offered a way of reducing rigidity and was thought of as being key to economic efficiency and social progress, a win-win for employers and employees. It was supported by such international organizations as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). An increase in flexibility has seen a decline in collective bargaining coverage and union density, especially in English-speaking countries. This decline has slowed in recent years but employers, especially in the private sector, have more flexibility as they are not as constrained by collective bargaining measures.
Countermeasures to flexibility can be seen in two main themes:
Employee flexibility – Employees want more flexibility and rights in managing work-life balance and in areas such as anti-discrimination, employment standards (minimum wages, parental leave, annual leave entitlements), and protection (dismissal protection).
Flexicurity – This aims to combine both flexibility and security for employees. This is promoted in Denmark with its “Golden Triangle” of flexicurity. It has more flexibility with fewer legislative regulations but more emphasis on collective bargaining and unions. The state intervention comes not from regulations but from generous welfare, unemployment benefits, and re-training measures. Flexicurity is being discussed in New Zealand, but it is difficult to see how barriers to it could be overcome. Employers would appreciate the flexibility aspects but not the security aspect or welfare and unemployment benefits from the state.
Flexibility in New Zealand
There have been two major reforms in New Zealand which have shaped their approach toward...