In Amman, the image of work is quietly changing. A woman works from home, moving between a virtual meeting and her child’s school assignments. A young man compresses his week into four days to pursue evening studies. An employee with a disability finds in remote work a long-awaited opportunity. This is the scene promised by Jordan’s Flexible Work Regulation No. (44) of 2024: balance, inclusion, and flexibility. Yet when viewed through a trade union lens, the picture appears far more complex than an attractive regulatory promise.
The regulation opens the door to multiple forms of work: remote work, part-time arrangements, flexible hours, compressed workweeks, and flexible working years. It requires a written agreement specifying hours, wages, and rights, and obliges the employer to respond to a worker’s request within a defined timeframe. It also affirms that core rights may not be diminished and that workers remain covered by social security. These are important safeguards at the level of text. However, international experience teaches us that the distance between law and practice can be wide, and that “flexibility,” if not surrounded by a clear protective framework, may become a redistribution of risk onto the worker.
The real test is not the diversification of work models, but the balance of power within the employment relationship. If part-time work becomes a disguised reduction in income, or if remote work turns into invisible extensions of working hours beyond the official day, then flexibility loses its social meaning and becomes flexibility in wages rather than in life. The right to clearly defined working hours, and the right to disconnect outside working time, are not regulatory luxuries. They are extensions of core international standards on working time and weekly rest. Without protecting workers’ time, the boundaries between home and office dissolve, and “balance” becomes silent exhaustion.
The regulation is also promoted as a lever to increase women’s participation. It aligns positively with the spirit of International Labour Organization Convention No. 156 on Workers with Family Responsibilities, as well as with the principles of equality and non-discrimination embodied in Conventions Nos. 100 and 111. Yet empowerment cannot be reduced to adjusting working hours. If the cost of care within the household remains an individual responsibility, unsupported by public policies such as accessible childcare, safe transportation, and meaningful paternity leave, flexibility may turn into the privatization of care. This risks slowing women’s career progression and indirectly reinforcing the gender pay gap. Equality is measured by promotion, training opportunities, and equal pay not by the number of days worked from home.
The inclusion of persons with disabilities represents another test of the reform’s seriousness. Remote work may remove physical barriers, but it can create digital isolation if clear accessibility standards are not adopted and equal opportunities for training and advancement are not guaranteed. The employer’s obligation to provide a safe and healthy working environment including preventive guidance for home based work is directly linked to the spirit of Occupational Safety and Health Convention No. 155. Genuine inclusion means removing barriers, not transferring them to a screen.
In terms of international commitments, the regulation intersects with several labor standards, but it requires rigorous implementation to ensure that flexible arrangements do not become lower-value career paths. Justice here is not a slogan; it is a precise equation: genuine voluntariness free from implicit pressure, full equality in pay and promotion, fair calculation of seniority and social security entitlements, an independent and transparent grievance mechanism, and a clear right to return to traditional work arrangements without professional penalty. The involvement of trade unions in monitoring through genuine tripartite dialogue is not a procedural formality it is a condition of balance that prevents flexibility from sliding into precarity.
Flexible work can be a bridge to broader participation and greater dignity, or it can become a channel for dismantling stability if left solely to market forces. The difference lies in guarantees, oversight, and the strength of collective voice. Ultimately, what is required is not merely flexibility in workers’ lives, but justice in its terms. When time becomes a right rather than a privilege, flexibility becomes a true social reform.
English 
Arabic