To think flexible working is mostly a myth unless you’re already senior or child-free?

It exists and is available, but unfortunately it limits career opportunities and growth as there is always someone else willing to work the longer unsociable hours

Yes they stick to it, it’s highly unionised so the right to a work/life balance is taken very seriously. It was quite a revelation when I moved from the private sector, I wouldn’t work anywhere else now!
edit to add the answering emails at 8pm would be unheard of.

I reckon this depends on industry and how much its already seen as acceptable within that company.
My dh has been laughed at and forced out of some companies when he asked for flexible working so he could do one school drop off/ pick up even told "you have a wife for that" they questioned his work ethic for even asking.
He Joined a young London company and it's all as long as the job is done (within reason) have flexibility. It very much works both ways though and he is often doing different shifts to cover when they need him/on call in the am. He also does have many years experience etc so leverage.

If you're unlucky enough to find yourself needing a flexible job from day one or whilst you prove yourself if you're a carer/have a child with additional needs or illness/had to retrain then you're screwed.Entry level jobs are the least flexible and pay the least to even cover the care you would need to find (if it exists) to even be at the job in the first place.

Not in my organisation. Loads of the younger working do flex hours.

The most junior person in my team has the most flexible conditions to drop off and pick up her small kids at will. Because a. I'm not a dick and b. because she is flexible in return, good at her job and I don't want to lose her.

No it doesn't, it says child-free.

I do think being "senior" helps, but so does being really good at your job regardless of what "level" of the organisation you're at. You can have leverage at any level if you've made yourself an asset that the organisation wishes to hold onto - most organisations will bend over backwards to retain really good people, but they're much less likely to agree to flexibility for an average worker who would be easy to replace, unless there is genuinely no negative impact on operations.

Agree it depends on the sector you work in, I've gone from retail where there was 0 flexibility to civil service, where I feel I hit the jackpot, WFH and can work flexibly between 6.30am - 7pm.

In my experience, flexible working for senior people tends to mean "you can occasionally nip out for your kid's school assembly without having to ask permission but you're expected to be available at all times, including when you're on holiday". Which is... not an ideal trade off, imo.

I think this is the point that OP is making

It depends on company's culture I think. In my previous company, it was pretty diabolical. One of the board directors always argued that women didn't need any flexibility at work because she herself returned to work 3 months after maternity leave and still managed to work full time and didn't see why it had to be different for other women. I once asked if I could come to work by 9:15 am instead of 9:00 am because my son's school never opened its doors until 8:50 am and I struggled to get in on time. "No" was the answer despite the fact that I said I'd be happy to either reduce my lunch break or leave later.

My current employer doesn't care when you turn up and when you leave as long as the work is done.

I don't know why you'd think it's easier to get flexible working if you're child-free. In my experience, it's the opposite, and child-free people are expected to pick up the slack for everyone else. It would be easier for me to get flexible working because I have kids, than it would be for the child-free in my office, anyway.

The majority of staff in my NHS department are on flexible working, I'm the only only full timer on normal hours and I'm 63. All the parents work flexible hours.

In response to your OP, not in every organisation or industry, no.

In response to your thread title - why on earth would you think being child-free would mean it's more likely you get flexible working agreed? In my experience it's absolutely the opposite and being child-free means you're expected to be available if needed, unlike parents.

As @KimberleyClark said - it’s the opposite! Flexible working is seen as something for parents

depends where you work surely? I work for an LA and flexible working is pretty standard, much easier for junior staff if anything tbh

Depends where you work, in my workplace (University) every other person has a flexible working request or at least picks their own start/end time, within reason.

Depends on your sector. There’s loads in mine (HE).

Yes, real flexibility comes with seniority. I don’t see why that is surprising. Companies don’t want to lose certain assets and are willing to make compromises to keep them.

Massively organisation and sector specific I think.

My DH has flexible working - as long as he does his work and hours they don't care how or where particular. He's not particularly senior and we have children. It means he can do school runs some days and finish early to spend time with them if he has had a few later days of meeting earlier in the week.

I have a reduced hours contract now (30 hours a week). It wasn't hard to get approved - I am bottom of the ladder and have kids (hence the reason for reduced hours for school pick ups) BUT I have no flexibility within that - I have to work in the office and hardly any flexability in the hours I work on a day to day basis

I agree a bit.

I’m not “senior” as such in that I’m not at manager level but I am senior in my role. I’ve been there over 20 years.

They’ve never said no to me because I’m good at what I do. Not everyone is. I do have some sway because of my long term experience with the firm.

Massively depends on the organisation. In mine, everyone gets very flexible working no matter what level they are. I’m sure in others that’s not the case.