Reorganization of Working Time and Modalities of Employment under the New Turkish Labour Act

Abstract

A philosophy of deregulation of social and labour law was adopted during the late 1970s and early 1980s as a response to increased pressures of global competition on the EEC.1 Flexibility in employment was highly advocated in the United Kingdom with the neo-liberal regime by the Conservative government under Thatcher. This position reflected a neo-liberal ideological commitment to labour market flexibility. This philosophy of protecting employers (particularly small enterprises) from burdensome regulations found allies in other EEC member states.2 The persistence of an employment crisis led to the development of modalities of flexibility and reorganization of working time. Flexibility was viewed as a means of increasing employment and it was identified as an important part of the EU employment strategy. Council Resolutions of Employment Guidelines provided for the Social Partners (management and labour) to be invited to negotiate agreements 'to modernize the organization of work, including flexible working arrangements, with the aim of making undertakings productive and competitive and achieving the required balance between flexibility and security' and so that 'women were able to benefit positively from flexible forms of work organization'. Flexible organization of work in a way which fulfils both the wishes of social partners and competition requirements resulted in time not only in employment promotion but also in reinforcement of the significance of the principle of equal opportunities for men and women. Greater flexibility in working time considerably increased the number of women in general, and married women with children in particular, in industrialized countries. The quest for sex equality has been the central and most highly developed issue of the EC's social policy. Women predominantly carry the burden of having to reconcile family and professional life, and statistics clearly show that working women are congregated in flexible, atypical, and deregulated forms of work. Flexible and atypical work models had to be regulated taking into consideration the issue of indirect discrimination3 as regards sex, and the development of atypical types of work facilitated women's penetration into the workforce. But, whether atypical employment decreased gender-based segregation is another important issue of concern. Seeking atypical employment may be a necessity rather than a choice for women.