1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«This paper discusses some of the different policy options being implemented or considered to encourage work–family balance, ostensibly by giving more control to workers over their work arrangements, specifically over when and where they work. [W]e explore these policy options in Canada and elsewhere through the lens of workers’ ability to obtain work arrangements that fit their needs and their potential to transform the norm of the ''unencumbered worker''.» (p. 344)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
Données documentaires diverses

Type de traitement des données :
Réflexion critique

3. Résumé

In Canada, «while the right to request does to some extent question the prevailing norm, as with the duty to accommodate, workers must individually demand that their family responsibilities be taken into account. […] Multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the BNQ [Bureau de normalisation du Québec] standard, as opposed to those taken by individual employers, present the advantage of a higher level of legitimacy since they are built on consensus. The explicit reference to the BNQ standard in the work–family balance platform developed by unions, women’s and caregivers’ organizations in Quebec is evidence of this. As participants in the development of the standard, employers have demonstrated their will to consider integrating work–family balance in their management strategies to the extent that they feel there is a business case for doing so. The voluntary standards of today will perhaps form the basis of future legislated standards. It cannot be said that there is now a new model of the ''normal'' worker. There has however been progress toward recognizing the importance of work– family balance through a multi-pronged approach, which combines a legal recognition of employees’ limited individual right to work arrangements that favor work–family balance, the encouragement of employers to change workplace cultures and initiatives to mainstream work–family balance on the management agenda and in public policy, more generally.» (p. 354)