Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Furlough Sexism

39 replies

LastLaughLane · 01/06/2020 14:18

I work for a fairly large organisation, in customer services. There are around 30 of us who all do exactly the same job. Around 8 of the staff are men. 50% of the staff had to be furloughed, but not one male member of staff has been furloughed. This has been playing on my mind since it happened and I wondered what your opinions are- I think this is sexism. Should I complain when I return from furlough? I'm not sure if I have grounds to and wondered if any of you had any knowledge about this.

Thank you in advance!

OP posts:
HollyBollyBooBoo · 01/06/2020 16:51

@LastLaughLane out of interest why do you think the women are suffering if they're part time and have been furloughed?

Just curious.

In the beginning I thought my head was going to explode working and home schooling and would have welcomed furlough as a means of coping. Single parent and DD doesn't have any contact with her Dad so I was completely alone.

Original poster
LastLaughLane · 01/06/2020 16:45

That's what's I thought too- I think all part timers have been furloughed. But whether it's reasonable or not I'm not sure. Once again it's women suffering for working part time, usually because of childcare etc. I've seen many things about women being hardest hit by the economic effects of this virus.

OP posts:
Goosefoot · 01/06/2020 16:38

I think most people who are part time have been furloughed.

It's not uncommon for more women to work PT compared to men. If that's their main criteria it could account for the results, and it's an understandable criteria, I think.

HollyBollyBooBoo · 01/06/2020 16:31

So interesting, I've been trying to work out the stats for my team aswell.

Statistically you'd expect at least one of the guys in your organisation to have been furloughed (8 out of 30 people is 27%, half of them have been furloughed = just over 1 person).

Ours seems to have been very different in each department, some have said resolutely you're not being furloughed, others have opened it up and you have to put your name forward. Now we have to put a business case forward to get them back - I'm kind of glad I've not been furloughed as I can't help but feel these people will now be identified as surplus to requirement.

Thesuzle · 01/06/2020 16:31

Last laugh.. dont be too sure you are on the same pay grade. My daughter in local council thought she was, turned out she and her female friend were not, she eventually got the back pay

Original poster
LastLaughLane · 01/06/2020 16:25

@WhatWouldDominicDo I definitely want to tread carefully! And agree that asking that in the first instance would be the best thing.... Myself and my colleagues have been trying to consider the criteria they would have used. I definitely would have expected at least a couple of the men to be furloughed, thinking about length of service, knowledge, performance, sickness etc.

OP posts:
WhatWouldDominicDo · 01/06/2020 16:17

I'd ask on what grounds the decision of who to furlough was made, rather than go straight in with an accusation of sexism.

Original poster
LastLaughLane · 01/06/2020 16:15

@ScrimpshawTheSecond that's what I thought too, I wasn't 100% sure on the rules. I can think of one female colleague still working who has young children. There aren't many of us who would have childcare issues as the majority of staff don't have young children.

OP posts:
ScrimpshawTheSecond · 01/06/2020 16:08

some people have asked to be furloughed, often due to childcare.

Original poster
LastLaughLane · 01/06/2020 16:04

Thanks for your replies!

I don't know what their criteria was for deciding who to furlough- I think most people who are part time have been furloughed. There aren't many of us with young children- most of us who do have been furloughed. The men wouldn't be on a higher rate of pay- we all do the same job and are on the same pay grade so the only variances will be on length of service. They have furloughed some of the longer serving members of staff, but their rate of pay wouldn't be so vastly different. On performance- I can't see that this is a reason either- some of the people furloughed have the most knowledge, are the hardest working and have had the least time sick.

I can't think off the top of my head of other outright examples of sexism to be honest- we have more female managers there than men.

OP posts:
OhHolyJesus · 01/06/2020 15:49

This is shocking OP but somehow expected, to me at least.

Can I ask, would there be a financial benefit to the company by furloughing the women, I ask as I imagine the men would be paid more and so it would actually be better for the company if they had furloughed the men as they have the higher salaries?

Of course it's possible all are paid the same, or roughly the same, if all do the same job.

Does your employer have form for sexism?

LucretiaBourgeois · 01/06/2020 15:39

On the face of it that certainly looks like sex discrimination. If none of the men but more than 50 percent of the women were disadvantaged - and you were one of the disadvantaged ones - then you are certainly entitled to ask what the criteria were that they used to decide who should stay.

If they just decided to keep all the men because, men, than that's direct sex discrimination and unlawful.

If they used some other basis for the decision and it just happened that all the men and none of the women qualified, then it's indirect sex discrimination. It's still unlawful unless they can justify it for a reason not in any way related to sex. So if they just kept on the tallest 50% that would pretty certainly be unlawful discrimination. If they just drew lots, or went on performance ratings, or length of service, that might be ok, though I'd want to be sure that they have a properly fair appraisal system or that the drawing of lots was properly random, given the very unequal distribution. Hope that helps - good luck.

Original poster
LastLaughLane · 01/06/2020 15:33

Thanks for the reply.

I know from one of the men at work that he actually put himself forward to be furloughed, but they didn't furlough him. My understanding from another work friend (apologies if this is incorrect) was that you aren't able to put yourself forward to be furloughed, and they certainly didn't ask anyone's preferences. I can't imagine any of them would have been given the opportunity to state a preference as it was all done quite suddenly.

It genuinely is the case that everyone there does the same job so if they tried to argue it was for business reasons I honestly believe they would have a flimsy case. Myself and some of my female colleagues are discussing what we should do.

OP posts:
SonEtLumiere · 01/06/2020 15:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.