IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cposxx/v32y2011i1p21-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rights to a process for the masses or select privileges for the few? Telework policy and labour market inequality in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Diane van den Broek
  • Emma Keating

Abstract

Telework as a ‘flexible work practice’ is often mythologised as a revolutionary form of work. However, to varying degrees, teleworking opportunities have been undermined by policy instruments predicated on assumed equalities between economic actors. This research suggests that while the request-based policies in the UK are not a guaranteed right, they do provide an important basis for employees to internalise their ‘rights’ and initiate a process for flexible working arrangements. They also imbue a corresponding obligation of firms to consider delivering on those expectations. By contrast Australian privilege-based policy instruments particularly restrict access for those employed in precarious and unskilled areas of the economy. Drawing on international and national telework policy approaches, this paper reflects on tensions between what could be described as ‘rights’ and ‘privilege’ policy approaches to teleworking. It argues that if telework is to become a legitimate employee expectation, policy instruments in Australia must be based firmly on rights, rather than privileges.

Suggested Citation

  • Diane van den Broek & Emma Keating, 2011. "Rights to a process for the masses or select privileges for the few? Telework policy and labour market inequality in Australia," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 21-33.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:32:y:2011:i:1:p:21-33
    DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2010.520559
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01442872.2010.520559
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01442872.2010.520559?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:32:y:2011:i:1:p:21-33. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cpos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.