Hybrid Working and Disabilities: Where the Policy Landscape Is Now
Urte Macikene
At IPPO, our work is shaped and framed by conversations with decision-makers from across the UK and devolved nations, understanding where academic evidence can support policymaking in changing circumstances and responding to Areas of Research Interest. Little in recent years has brought social change more swiftly, and with such little precedent, as the shift to remote methods in work, education, and service delivery. Understanding how this continues to impact disabled people is critical to addressing socioeconomic inequalities in UK society.
Definitions
Different people and groups can mean different things when they talk about disability, and these definitions bear significant impact on policy outcomes. In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 defines disability as ‘a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on someone’s ability to do normal daily activities’, where ‘long-term’ means 12 months or more. Under this definition, disability can be the result of physical, sensory, and mental health conditions, which do not necessarily have to be medically diagnosed. Latest estimates based on surveys conducted by the Department of Work and Pensions suggest that around a quarter of the UK population may be disabled based on this definition.
Definitions can vary around the world and even within a single country, as can approaches to disability. For example, under German law people must be negatively affected for six months to be legally defined as disabled, and the US Americans with Disabilities Act also protects ‘people perceived as having a disability’ from discrimination. In recent decades, there has been a shift away from the ‘medical’ model to the ‘social’ model of disability in European and US disability policy. This has led to a greater understanding of disability as a social construct and an increasingly rights-based – rather than charity or benefits-oriented – approach to disability. Yet while the vast majority of UN states have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, and most prohibit disability-based employment discrimination, far fewer prohibit indirect discrimination and harassment.
At IPPO, we generally work to the Equality Act definition of disability, acknowledging that self-identification is essential to ensuring this definition is not exclusive. Unlike some countries, such as France, the UK does not have a statutory ‘disabled worker’ status or mechanism through which employees can formally ‘prove’ their disability status. Although such systems can have some benefits, mainly in granting additional rights and making it easier to enforce employers’ responsibilities, it also means that many people who are not formally registered as disabled will miss out on disability-specific support.
The complexity and cost of getting a disability certificate – which usually requires a medical examination and diagnosis, not always covered by health insurance systems – discourages many from registering. In the UK, there are many reasons why someone may not have a formal diagnosis of a condition, including long waiting lists for diagnosis and not being able to access tests not offered on the NHS.
Overlaid upon this, ‘flexible’ and ‘hybrid’ working have become household phrases during the pandemic. While the wider term ‘flexible working’ covers many workplace adjustments including flexible hours, job-shares, adjustments to job descriptions and working location, ‘hybrid working’ more explicitly describes the freedom to work remotely part or most of the time, while attending in-person sessions where necessary or beneficial.
Evidence
To kick off our project, we conducted an initial review of international studies on hybrid working and disability identified by our partners, the EPPI Centre, reviewing eighteen studies conducted in OECD countries since 2018 focusing on disabled people’s experiences of remote/hybrid working. The dearth of recent studies focused on disability and remote working, despite the Covid-19 pandemic, indicates the urgent need for research and evaluation in this space to learn from changes wrought by the pandemic period.
Nevertheless, in the existing studies we found broad agreement about the benefits of flexible and remote working for disabled people, particularly in terms of their subjective experience of work: increased autonomy, flexibility, work-life balance, and ability to manage their health. Overall, the academic literature advocates for retaining flexible working methods, protecting them in law as reasonable adjustments, and putting any necessary additional support in place (e.g. equipment, training for managers) for disabled people to work remotely.
Yet it’s also clear that remote working is no panacea. An analysis of the representative UK data – albeit pre-pandemic – found that disabled people are overall less likely to work from home than non-disabled people, primarily because they are under-represented in higher-level, managerial roles where remote working is more widely available. Similarly, population survey data from the US in 2020-21 also indicates that disabled people were less likely to work from home due to the pandemic compared to people without disabilities, for the same reasons of distribution across industries. An analysis of representative national surveys in the US found that even where disabled workers are more likely to work from home, this had no impact on the disability wage gap, indicating that while home-based work may create more employment opportunities, it doesn’t help erase wage disparities.
These findings point to the need for further tracking and evaluation of measures of disability-specific support schemes to ensure evidence-driven policymaking, as well as the need to guard against viewing hybrid working as the primary corrective to the disability employment gap – wider labour market interventions are required.
Policy landscape
While all disabled workers in the UK have the right to reasonable adjustments in the workplace, these are not always met by employers. This can be because people’s definition of their own disability is not accepted by an employer, or because employers deem the adjustments too costly or onerous. This summer, the Flexible Working Act gave all employees in the UK the right to request flexible working from day one of a new job, with employers required, as defined by the Act, covers a wide variety of requests, including changes to working hours and location.
This is a step forward. Under previous legislation, employees were required to have six months service before making a flexible working request, and employers did not need to consult with an employee before denying their request. In addition, employers are now required to respond more quickly than before and the burden on employees to explain the impact the change will have on companies has been reduced. This will increase options for disabled workers who may have a hidden disability or whose diagnosis may not be recognised or accepted by their employer; it also normalises the concept of flexible working across the entire workforce.
Yet campaign organisations such as the TUC have highlighted that this legislation came in lieu of more radical proposals which were considered, such as enshrining the right to flexible working by default, or reducing the legal basis on which employers can reduce flexible working requests. The eight legal reasons employers can cite to refuse a flexible working request give them wide leeway – they include any additional costs for the business or impact on capacity to meet customer demand. These are similar to the reasons employers can reject reasonable adjustments requests, but in the case of flexible working, workers will not have recourse to employment tribunals. Campaign organisations including the TUC are now focused on ensuring that employers are forced to include information about flexible working options in job adverts, allowing people to make more informed decisions about the jobs they want to or can do.
Many studies have attested to the benefits hybrid and remote working have brought to disabled (and non-disabled) employees in terms of work-life balance, ability to manage their health, and meet caring responsibilities. In a labour market with over a million vacancies, flexible working is increasingly something employees expect from an attractive job offer. Research from the CIPD has found that six million employees have left a job or changed careers in the last year due to a lack of flexible working options; employees with disabilities are notably more likely to be part of this group. Yet debate continues over what the ‘new normal’ will look like, with large employers including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan mandating all employees back to the office full time, and many others like Google and Amazon requiring at least three days per week.
These companies are allowing exceptions to the return-to-work mandate, stating that some employees may have ‘valid’ reasons for continuing to work from home (disability or health conditions, for example). But this creates a new divide between disabled and non-disabled employees, and disabled workers are concerned that even if they are ‘allowed’ to continue working from home, they will be overlooked for promotion or career development in favour of those who commute to the office. Research from the University of Lancaster has highlighted that disabled people face particular challenges when working remotely and may require additional support.
The Department for Business and Trade is currently consulting on non-statutory flexible working to consider how informal flexible working arrangements can benefit workers and businesses alike, and the current National Disability Strategy sets out commitments to supporting people to stay in work, including making flexible working the default. Whilst important steps have been taken, we are still far from flexible working being the default for all jobs.
While all disabled workers in the UK have the right to reasonable adjustments in the workplace, these are not always met by employers. This can be because people’s definition of their own disability is not accepted by an employer, or because employers deem the adjustments too costly or onerous. This summer, the Flexible Working Act gave all employees in the UK the right to request flexible working from day one of a new job, with employers required to consider the request and give a detailed reason if the request is rejected. Flexible working, as defined by the Act, covers a wide variety of requests, including changes to working hours and location.
This is a step forward. Under previous legislation, employees were required to have six months service before making a flexible working request, and employers did not need to consult with an employee before denying their request. In addition, employers are now required to respond more quickly than before and the burden on employees to explain the impact the change will have on companies has been reduced. This will increase options for disabled workers who may have a hidden disability or whose diagnosis may not be recognised or accepted by their employer; it also normalises the concept of flexible working across the entire workforce.
Yet campaign organisations such as the TUC have highlighted that this legislation came in lieu of more radical proposals which were considered, such as enshrining the right to flexible working by default, or reducing the legal basis on which employers can reduce flexible working requests. The eight legal reasons employers can cite to refuse a flexible working request give them wide leeway – they include any additional costs for the business or impact on capacity to meet customer demand. These are similar to the reasons employers can reject reasonable adjustments requests, but in the case of flexible working, workers will not have recourse to employment tribunals. Campaign organisations including the TUC are now focused on ensuring that employers are forced to include information about flexible working options in job adverts, allowing people to make more informed decisions about the jobs they want to or can do.
Many studies have attested to the benefits hybrid and remote working have brought to disabled (and non-disabled) employees in terms of work-life balance, ability to manage their health, and meet caring responsibilities. In a labour market with over a million vacancies, flexible working is increasingly something employees expect from an attractive job offer. Research from the CIPD has found that six million employees have left a job or changed careers in the last year due to a lack of flexible working options; employees with disabilities are notably more likely to be part of this group. Yet debate continues over what the ‘new normal’ will look like, with large employers including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan mandating all employees back to the office full time, and many others like Google and Amazon requiring at least three days per week.
These companies are allowing exceptions to the return-to-work mandate, stating that some employees may have ‘valid’ reasons for continuing to work from home (disability or health conditions, for example). But this creates a new divide between disabled and non-disabled employees, and disabled workers are concerned that even if they are ‘allowed’ to continue working from home, they will be overlooked for promotion or career development in favour of those who commute to the office. Research from the University of Lancaster has highlighted that disabled people face particular challenges when working remotely and may require additional support.
The Department for Business and Trade is currently consulting on non-statutory flexible working to consider how informal flexible working arrangements can benefit workers and businesses alike, and the current National Disability Strategy sets out commitments to supporting people to stay in work, including making flexible working the default. Whilst important steps have been taken, we are still far from flexible working being the default for all jobs.
Conclusion
We are swiftly running out of time to evaluate and embed the lessons of the pandemic into ‘normal’ life, before the post-pandemic paradigm has fully solidified in the policy and employment landscapes. Existing evidence is clear that flexible working is valued by all employees, but has particularly important benefits for disabled people. It is essential that research continues to gather evidence on its benefits to encourage employers to adopt best practice, as well as undertaking rigorous impact evaluations and comparisons looking at quantifiable long-term outcomes to understand the real impact of hybrid working on disabled people’s careers (which may challenge subjective benefits).
Flexible working is not a silver bullet, and disabled people still face significant labour market inequalities even with the rise of hybrid working. To ensure effective policy, more robust evidence is needed on the effectiveness of wider disability-specific employment support schemes aimed at supporting disabled people into the workforce and their desired industries.
In autumn 2023, IPPO is running a programme of work to synthesis and share evidence around disability and hybrid working, including an expert roundtable, an international policy scan from INGSA, a policy briefing synthesising current evidence and best practice, and a series of blogs on the IPPO website.
If you are interested in re-publishing our work on other platforms, or sharing our work, please email us