The Taylor Review and the Good Work Standard
The Taylor Review and the Good Work Standard examines the UK's policy framework for defining and measuring work quality, and its direct implications for WFM practice in BPO operations, multinational governance, and scheduling fairness.
Overview
The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices, published July 2017 and led by Matthew Taylor (Chief Executive, Royal Society of Arts), was commissioned by the UK government to examine the implications of modern business models — particularly the gig economy, zero-hours contracts, and platform work — for worker welfare. Its core argument: national success should be measured not just by the quantity of employment (unemployment rate) but by the quality of work available.
The subsequent Good Work Plan (December 2018) codified several recommendations into policy, and the Good Work Standard (launched by the Mayor of London, 2019) provided a voluntary framework for employers to demonstrate work quality. Together, these create a policy-backed framework that defines what "good work" looks like — providing WFM practitioners with an external standard against which scheduling practices, flexibility provisions, and worker treatment can be evaluated.
For contact centers — particularly UK BPOs and multinational operations subject to UK governance — the Taylor framework moves scheduling fairness from an internal preference to an externally referenced standard.
The Taylor Review
Context and Mandate
Commissioned October 2016 by PM Theresa May. Scope: "to consider how employment practices need to change in order to keep pace with modern business models." The review examined:
- The rise of platform work (Uber, Deliveroo, TaskRabbit)
- Zero-hours contracts (900,000+ workers in 2016)
- The "gig economy" and worker classification
- Agency work and temporary contracts
- The changing nature of employment relationships
Seven Principles of Good Work
Taylor proposed that all work should satisfy seven principles:
- Satisfaction — overall satisfaction with work and working conditions
- Fair pay — payment that allows a decent standard of living; not just minimum wage but "living" compensation
- Participation and progression — voice in workplace decisions; opportunities for advancement
- Well-being, safety and security — physical and psychological health protected; employment security adequate
- Voice and representation — mechanisms to raise concerns and influence decisions
- Autonomy — degree of control over tasks, timing, and method
- Fair and decent with realistic scope for development and fulfilment — the overarching principle integrating all others
Key Recommendations (Selected)
| Area | Recommendation | WFM Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Schedule predictability | Workers on variable schedules should have the right to request a more predictable contract | Directly affects scheduling flexibility assumptions |
| One-sided flexibility | Address situations where flexibility benefits only the employer, not the worker | Zero-hours and on-call scheduling practices |
| Agency workers | Equal pay for agency workers; extension of Swedish derogation limits | BPO staffing model implications |
| Worker status | Clearer tests for employment status; rename "worker" to "dependent contractor" | Gig economy classification for flexible staffing models |
| Information rights | Right to a written statement of terms from day one (not 8 weeks) | Clarity on schedule expectations and flexibility |
| Holiday pay | Calculate based on preceding 52 weeks (not 12) | Impact on variable-hours cost calculation |
The Right to Request Predictability
Section 1A of the Taylor recommendations, codified in the Employment Rights (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 (effective September 2024):
Workers have the right to request a predictable work pattern after 26 weeks of service. Employers can refuse only on specified business grounds (burden of additional costs, inability to reorganize, adverse effect on demand coverage, insufficiency of work during proposed periods).
WFM implications are direct:
- Scheduling systems must be capable of accommodating individual predictability requests
- "Zero-hours" scheduling where agents don't know next week's hours until Friday becomes legally challengeable
- Schedule stability — once established — becomes a worker right, not a management preference
- WFM must balance predictability requests against service level requirements using documented, defensible methodology
The Good Work Plan (2018)
Legislative Changes
The Good Work Plan translated Taylor recommendations into law:
Day-one rights:
- Written statement of employment particulars from first day (previously after 8 weeks)
- Must include: working hours, days, variability, pay periods, benefits
Agency worker rights:
- Abolition of Swedish Derogation (which allowed agencies to pay workers less between assignments)
- Key information document provided to workers before engagement
Holiday pay calculation:
- Reference period extended from 12 to 52 weeks
- Captures seasonal variation more fairly for variable-hours workers
Contract stability:
- Right to request a more stable contract after 26 weeks
- Employer must respond within one month with evidence-based reasoning if refusing
The "Good Work" Definition
The Good Work Plan defines work quality across multiple dimensions:
| Dimension | Description | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Pay and benefits | Living wage, fair overtime, transparent deductions | Pay ratio, living wage accreditation, benefit access rate |
| Contract stability | Predictable hours, secure employment, low involuntary variable contracts | % on guaranteed hours, average notice period for schedule changes |
| Skill development | Training access, progression opportunities, qualification support | Training hours per employee, internal promotion rate |
| Working conditions | Physical safety, manageable workload, appropriate tools | Health & safety incidents, workload satisfaction scores |
| Voice and representation | Consultation mechanisms, union recognition or alternative representation | Forum participation rates, issue resolution rates |
| Autonomy | Control over methods, schedule input, decision authority | JCM autonomy scores, self-scheduling access rate |
| Work-life balance | Predictable hours, flexible working access, leave policies | Schedule notice period, flexibility request approval rate, overtime voluntariness rate |
The Good Work Standard (Mayor of London, 2019)
Structure
A voluntary accreditation framework for London employers, organized into four pillars:
1. Fair Pay and Conditions:
- London Living Wage accreditation
- Sick pay above statutory minimum
- Transparent and fair tip/commission structures
- No exploitative zero-hours contracts
2. Workplace Well-Being:
- Mental health first aiders
- Health and safety beyond minimum compliance
- Manageable workloads
- Work-life balance policies
3. Skills and Progression:
- Training and development investment
- Internal progression pathways
- Apprenticeship and skills programs
- Career conversation frameworks
4. Diversity and Recruitment:
- Inclusive recruitment practices
- Pay gap reporting and action
- Accessible workplaces
- Diversity at all organizational levels
Participating Organizations
Major employers with Good Work Standard accreditation include Transport for London, the Greater London Authority, and multiple large private sector employers. The framework provides a concrete benchmark that WFM practitioners can reference when designing scheduling policies.
What Works Centre for Wellbeing
Evidence Synthesis
The What Works Centre for Wellbeing (established 2014, UK government-funded) synthesizes evidence on factors affecting well-being, including workplace factors. Key findings relevant to WFM:
Work quality > work quantity:
- Having any job is better than unemployment for well-being
- But poor-quality work can be worse for well-being than unemployment (Chandola & Zhang, 2018)
- The quality threshold: autonomy, security, fairness, purpose
Schedule control as well-being determinant:
- Workers with schedule control report well-being equivalent to a £20,000 pay increase (Wheatley, 2017)
- Schedule unpredictability is an independent well-being risk factor (separate from total hours or pay)
- The perception of control matters as much as actual flexibility
Social relationships at work:
- Workplace relationships are the strongest work-related well-being predictor
- Quality of manager relationship dominates other factors
- Time for social interaction within working hours is not "waste" — it is well-being infrastructure
WFM Applications
Schedule Fairness Framework
Taylor principles, codified into WFM practice:
Predictability:
- Publish schedules with maximum advance notice (minimum 2 weeks; target 4 weeks)
- Changes after publication require consent (not just notification)
- On-call expectations clearly defined and compensated
- Patterns should be consistent enough for workers to plan personal lives
Equity:
- Desirable shifts (Monday-Friday, day shifts) distributed fairly across the team — not reserved for senior staff
- Undesirable shifts (nights, weekends, holidays) shared equitably or compensated with premium pay AND schedule benefits (extra days off, shorter shifts)
- Part-time workers receive proportional access to desirable shifts (not just leftovers)
- Flexibility should be genuinely bilateral — not just employer ability to change schedules
Autonomy:
- Self-scheduling options where service level permits
- Shift-swap mechanisms without excessive approval gates
- Break timing choice within windows
- Start-time flex bands
Security:
- Guaranteed minimum hours for all non-casual workers
- Overtime voluntary first, mandatory only as documented last resort
- Schedule reduction requests treated as flexible working requests (legal framework)
- Pattern changes through consultation, not imposition
Compliance Checklist for UK BPO Operations
| Requirement | Source | WFM Implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Day-one written statement including working hours | Good Work Plan 2018 | Scheduling system exports individual schedule patterns for employment contracts |
| Right to request predictable hours (after 26 weeks) | Employment Rights (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 | Process for receiving, evaluating, and responding to predictability requests; documented service-level-based reasoning for refusals |
| 52-week holiday pay reference period | Good Work Plan 2018 | Payroll/WFM integration captures variable hours accurately over 52 weeks |
| Agency worker equal treatment (after 12 weeks) | Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (amended) | Scheduling treats agency workers identically to direct staff after qualifying period |
| Flexible working request (from day one, April 2024) | Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 | All schedule variation requests processed through formal framework with documented reasoning |
Multinational Governance
For contact center operations spanning multiple jurisdictions:
- UK operations: full Taylor/Good Work Plan compliance required
- EU operations: similar protections via Working Time Directive, Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions Directive (2022)
- US operations: no federal equivalent (state-level predictive scheduling laws in Oregon, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco provide partial coverage)
- Global operations: use Taylor principles as internal minimum standard regardless of local legal requirements (reputational risk of dual standards)
The Business Case for Good Work
Organizations resist "good work" requirements on cost grounds. Evidence for ROI:
- Retention: Costco (good work employer) turnover: 12% vs. industry average 60%+ — recruitment cost savings dwarf wage premium
- Productivity: Zeynep Ton's "Good Jobs Strategy" (2014): retailers paying above market and investing in workers outperform on revenue per labor dollar
- Reputation: Glassdoor scores correlate with customer satisfaction and stock price; scheduling fairness is a frequent Glassdoor theme
- Absence: Fair scheduling reduces stress-related absence by 15-25% (Schneider & Harknett, 2019)
- Quality: Engaged workers (product of good work) produce higher quality (Harter et al., 2002: +41% fewer defects)
Maturity Model Position
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| Level 1 — Non-Compliant | Scheduling practices below legal minimum; unpredictable hours; zero-hours default; one-sided flexibility; no response to predictability requests |
| Level 2 — Compliant | Meets legal minimums (day-one statement, responds to requests); schedules published with statutory notice; no proactive quality focus |
| Level 3 — Fair | Taylor principles informing schedule design; predictability exceeds minimum; equity in shift distribution; bilateral flexibility developing |
| Level 4 — Good Work Aligned | Full Good Work Standard principles embedded; self-scheduling available; advance notice >4 weeks; autonomy comparable to knowledge-worker roles; well-being monitored |
| Level 5 — Exemplary | Scheduling fairness externally benchmarked; Good Work Standard accredited; practices exceed any jurisdiction's legal requirements; worker voice directly shapes schedule policy; organization is cited as sector exemplar |
See Also
- Measuring Employee Well-Being — From Annual Surveys to Pulse Systems
- The Job Characteristics Model
- Schedule Preference and Employee Autonomy
- Predictive Scheduling Laws and WFM Compliance
- Working Time Directive and EU Labor Regulations
References
- Chandola, T., & Zhang, N. (2018). Re-employment, job quality, health and allostatic load biomarkers: Prospective evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 47(1), 47-57.
- Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2018). Good Work Plan. HM Government.
- Employment Rights (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023. UK Public General Acts.
- Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023. UK Public General Acts.
- Greater London Authority (2019). The Good Work Standard. Mayor of London.
- Schneider, D., & Harknett, K. (2019). Consequences of routine work-schedule instability for worker health and well-being. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 82-114.
- Taylor, M. (2017). Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.
- Ton, Z. (2014). The Good Jobs Strategy: How the Smartest Companies Invest in Employees to Lower Costs and Boost Profits. New Harvest.
- What Works Centre for Wellbeing (2017). Job quality and wellbeing. Evidence review.
- Wheatley, D. (2017). Autonomy in paid work and employee subjective well-being. Work and Occupations, 44(3), 296-328.
