The deep cuts to health and disability benefits announced in the Government\u2019s Pathways to Work<\/a> green paper were widely condemned, and eventually lead to a U-turn. However, it is unfortunate that the Department of Work and Pension\u2019s plans have overshadowed other potentially more positive policy proposals. For example, the Get Britain Working<\/a> White Paper last Autumn set the welcome goal of increasing workforce participation among disabled people who can, and want to, work, and has commissioned a review by Sir Charlie Mayfield of employers\u2019 role in creating healthy and inclusive workplaces.<\/p>\n However, my new research<\/a> on flexible working and disability inclusion with my KCL colleagues Professor Ben Geiger and Professor Kim Hoque suggests that the labour market is broken for disabled people wanting to return to work \u2013 the sorts of flexible working practices that can be essential for them to obtain and remain in employment are virtually non-existent for new entrants to the organisation.<\/p>\n What working conditions do disabled people need?<\/p>\n Fitness for work is rarely black and white. I am one of many disabled people who find themselves in a grey area when it comes to work capability \u2013 a grey area that is too-often filled in with prejudiced assumptions about our character and motivations. But a DWP-commissioned survey<\/a> of over 3,000 people in receipt of health and disability benefits reveals some of the nuances around work capability and the role of employment practices in determining whether we are able to work. In particular, it finds the workplace would be much more accessible were the following more widely available:<\/p>\n Part-time working: 66 per cent of disabled people said they would need to work part-time, including 39 per cent who needed to work 16 hours a week or less due to their health condition; While some disabled people will not need all three elements of flexibility, others will \u2013 including many people with fluctuating energy limiting conditions, for example (which comprises 34 per cent of working age disabled people). Hence the rationale for the model of Flex Plus working \u2013 a model of employment that combines all three of these elements of part-time hours, worktime flexibility and home-based working \u2013 in our new report.<\/p>\n The dearth of Flex Plus jobs<\/p>\n Worryingly, data on the UK jobs market shows that the share of job vacancies that provide even one dimension of the Flex Plus model is very small. According to Timewise<\/a>, in 2023 only 12 per cent of jobs were advertised as part-time; and only 4 per cent of job adverts mentioned worktime flexibility. And analysis by the Work Foundation<\/a> reveals that just 0.6 per cent of vacancies within the DWP\u2019s jobs portal at the start of 2025 offered fully remote working. Jobs offering the Flex Plus combination of these elements of flexibility are, therefore, close to non-existent.<\/p>\n Why are there so few Flex Plus jobs?<\/p>\n The starting point for our research among employers was to explore the barriers to implementing Flex Plus working, and how to overcome them.<\/p>\n there is some evidence of willingness to accommodate employees through Flex Plus working where possible. However, this applies only to existing employees and not for new entrants to the organisation.<\/p>\n The research finds that, despite operational constraints in many roles, and cultural barriers in some organisations, there is some evidence of willingness to accommodate employees through Flex Plus working where possible. However, this applies only to existing employees and not for new entrants to the organisation. There are four main reasons why so few Flex Plus jobs are offered to new entrants at the point of hire.<\/p>\n First, there is the unproven nature of new hires: flexible working is often only extended to those have proven their trustworthiness over time through previous performance, putting those entering the organisation for the first time at a clear disadvantage.<\/p>\n Second is employers\u2019 unwillingness to create and advertise posts on a part-time basis, despite there being a demand for such posts.<\/p>\n Third, there is a lack of clarity for jobseekers about whether, and when, they should negotiate flexible working arrangements. Few hiring managers, it seems, look kindly on candidates who apply for a full-time role but then say they can only work significantly reduced hours from the outset.<\/p>\n Disclosing a disability in order to advocate for flexible working requirements is not only fraught with risk of discrimination for jobseekers but goes against many employers\u2019 well-intentioned strategies for unbiased recruitment.<\/p>\n Fourth, there are unintended consequences of diversity hiring practices. Disclosing a disability in order to advocate for flexible working requirements is not only fraught with risk of discrimination for jobseekers but goes against many employers\u2019 well-intentioned strategies for unbiased recruitment.<\/p>\n These factors combined create stark disadvantage for disabled jobseekers requiring any level of flexibility, let alone Flex Plus, as a precondition of employment.<\/p>\n The way ahead<\/p>\n Our report contains 39 recommendations to employers and government (hence its title \u2013 The 39 Steps) on how to implement Flex Plus working. More than half are measures that employers can take now to supporting their existing workforce. This is likely to be crucial for keeping people in work as research shows<\/a> those who develop a health condition in work are four times more likely to leave the labour market if they have no flexibility at work.<\/p>\n But it\u2019s clear that the government has a crucial role to play in making Flex Plus working more widely available, especially to jobseekers, as part of its work with employers. Thus far its proposed measures for boosting disabled people\u2019s employment prospects are mostly limited to improving the offer of employment support. This still focuses only on the supply side of the employment equation, i.e. equipping disabled people to better fit into the jobs market, rather than examining whether existing jobs are the right fit for people who need them. We hope the Mayfield Review will provide a much-needed change of focus regarding this, and in doing so recommend the promotion of the Flex Plus model among employers.<\/p>\n The government\u2019s current proposals to require employers with 250 or more employees to report their disability pay gaps and the proportion of their workforce that is disabled will also help concentrate employers\u2019 minds on the practices they need to adopt to better support disabled employees.<\/p>\n Flex Plus working is the pathway to work that many disabled people need and want. Ultimately, unless employers ensure their workplaces become more accommodating of this way of working, it is extremely unlikely the government\u2019s goal of increasing the proportion of working-age disabled people in employment will be met.<\/p>\n Enjoyed this post? Sign up to our\u00a0newsletter<\/a>\u00a0and receive a weekly roundup of all our articles.<\/p>\n All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.<\/p>\n Image credit: FooTToo<\/a> on Shutterstock<\/p>\n
\nFlexible working hours: 70 per cent said fluctuations in their conditions were a significant barrier to employment, with just 18 per cent saying they could do a job with fixed shift patterns.
\nHome-based working: Over three-quarters said they faced transport-related barriers to work, whilst a quarter of this group said they could work if the job was entirely home-based.<\/p>\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/printfriendly-button.png\")