Flexible working hours are increasingly seen as a solution for the future of work, yet they are also quietly drawing new dividing lines. When such arrangements cannot be used equally, flexibility not only reshapes how work is done but also redefines who holds real choice, becoming a key indicator of structural change in the labour market.
NEW YORK, NY (MERXWIRE) – Flexible working hours have become a standard feature of workplace discussions worldwide in recent years. Following the pandemic, remote work, hybrid arrangements, and flexible start and end times spread rapidly. Many companies embraced these practices as tools for attracting talent, while policymakers viewed them as potential solutions to long working hours and work–life imbalance. As these arrangements have become more widespread, however, international research suggests that the benefits of flexible working have not been distributed evenly across the labour market.
From a broad perspective, the number of workers with some degree of control over their working time has indeed increased. OECD research indicates that roles offering greater time autonomy have expanded in certain countries and sectors, but such opportunities remain concentrated in high-income economies and knowledge-intensive occupations. Professional and managerial workers are generally more likely to enjoy flexible working arrangements, while employees in frontline services and manufacturing tend to have far fewer options.
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has also cautioned that flexible working arrangements are not a universal remedy. Its research shows that when flexibility lacks clear safeguards, working hours may become more unpredictable. In outcome-based or non-standard work settings, flexibility can sometimes lead to greater uncertainty rather than a reduced workload.
From the employee perspective, flexible working remains highly attractive. According to a global talent report released by Randstad in 2025, approximately 60 per cent of Generation Z respondents consider time autonomy more appealing than salary, and nearly half are willing to accept lower pay in exchange for flexible schedules or the option to work remotely. By contrast, a significantly smaller proportion of baby boomers report the same preference, highlighting a widening generational gap in expectations toward work arrangements.
Even when flexible working arrangements are formally incorporated into company policies, this does not necessarily mean that all employees feel confident using them. In some workplace settings, what ultimately shapes employees’ choices is not the policy itself, but the broader organisational culture. When promotion competition is intense and performance pressure is high, some employees may choose to maintain conventional working hours despite flexible options, out of concern that using such arrangements could negatively affect performance evaluations or long-term career prospects. As a result, flexibility policies may remain largely symbolic rather than actively practised.
At the same time, flexible working does not automatically translate into reduced workload or lower stress. As remote and flexible work arrangements become more widespread, some workers have experienced longer actual working hours and increasingly blurred boundaries between work and personal life. In the absence of clearly defined end-of-day expectations or response guidelines, flexibility can evolve into constant availability, effectively extending working time in less visible ways.
Differences across industries are also pronounced. Roles that rely primarily on digital tools and can be performed online are generally more conducive to remote or hybrid working models. By contrast, jobs that depend on on-site operations, shift work, or real-time service provision offer far less room for adjusting working hours. These structural differences have gradually turned flexible working arrangements into a new dividing line among labour force groups.
Policymakers have begun to take note of these disparities. Recent labour policy assessments within the European Union suggest that, without adequate safeguards, flexible working arrangements may exacerbate gender and class inequalities, particularly among workers with caregiving responsibilities or those in non-standard employment. In response, several countries have introduced complementary measures such as the “right to disconnect” and greater transparency around working time.
Overall, international data indicate that flexible working arrangements do provide greater autonomy and satisfaction for some workers, but the beneficiaries remain concentrated in specific occupations and sectors. Whether flexibility can truly improve labour conditions depends less on its availability and more on how it is implemented, supported by organisational culture, and protected through policy. As global discussions on flexible work continue, the key question is no longer whether flexibility is offered, but who is genuinely able to use it—and under what conditions.
