UK’s 2014 Right to Request Flexible Work and Adult Care

Overview

This series examines whether the UK’s 2014 expansion of the Right to Request Flexible Work changed who provides unpaid adult care, and how. It separates eligibility, workplace access, use, and care consequences, then follows the evidence from policy design to care participation, intensity, schedule autonomy, household allocation, and mental health. The IZA study finds more within-household care among men—especially those with prior care ties—and less very-high-intensity care among potential female caregivers, with no universal increase in care or proof of equal sharing. The mechanism is greater control over when work happens, while formal services, family networks, employer culture, information, and the continuously employed sample set important boundaries. OECD and DWP evidence place the UK findings within wider care-system constraints.

Learning outcomes

The 2014 expansion changed reported access to flexible work, but a right to request did not guarantee approval or equal relief from care conflicts.
The clearest care shifts were more within-household care by men and less very-high-intensity care among potential female caregivers, not a universal rise in care.
The most plausible mechanism was control over when work happened, with little evidence of broad reductions in total work hours.
Flexible work can support sharing while also enabling unpaid care to expand; formal services, family networks, employer culture, and information determine sustainability.

Keywords

Right to Request Flexible WorkAdult careInformal careCaregivingWork schedulesTime autonomySocial careMental healthGender

Chapters

UK’s 2014 Right to Request Flexible Work: Who Provides Adult Care

Why schedule timing matters more than total working hours

11 min · Why schedule timing matters more than total working hours

11 min

UK’s 2014 Right to Request Flexible Work: Policy Design and Evidence

From eligibility to workplace use and care consequences

11 min · From eligibility to workplace use and care consequences

11 min

UK’s 2014 Right to Request Flexible Work: Gendered Care Shifts

Why participation and intensity moved differently

8 min · Why participation and intensity moved differently

8 min

UK’s 2014 Right to Request Flexible Work: Time Control and Care

How schedule autonomy changes household trade-offs

9 min · How schedule autonomy changes household trade-offs

9 min

UK’s 2014 Right to Request Flexible Work: When Choice Is Usable

Why recognition, information, safety, and support determine real options

9 min · Why recognition, information, safety, and support determine real options

9 min

UK’s 2014 Right to Request Flexible Work in the Care System

Where work-time control helps, and where it transfers burden

9 min · Where work-time control helps, and where it transfers burden

9 min

Preview every chapter · Unlock full text, audio, and video from chapter 4

Plans

Ch.1-3 FreeCh.4-6 Premium

FAQ

What did the UK’s 2014 Right to Request Flexible Work change?

It expanded eligibility to request flexible working to employees with at least 26 weeks’ continuous service, including those supporting adults with care needs. It increased reported workplace access and use, but employers could still refuse on recognised business grounds, so eligibility was not a guaranteed arrangement or care outcome.

Did the reform increase the amount of unpaid adult care?

It did not show a universal increase in the total amount of unpaid adult care. It was associated with more within-household care among men, especially those with prior care ties, and fewer potential female caregivers above 50 hours a week.

How can flexible work change who provides adult care?

It can change care by moving work around time-specific tasks rather than by removing paid work. Schedule autonomy can let another household member attend appointments or share routines; the evidence treats household reallocation as mechanism-consistent, not a fully observed transfer.

When does flexible work fail to make care sustainable?

It may fail when the arrangement does not match the care task or when family, formal services, money, information, or workplace support are missing. The right can remain formally available while one worker absorbs more unpaid care; the study does not establish long-term sustainability.