Is this sexist?

But It sounds like it might amount to indirect discrimination.

If you want to find out if you can pursue this you really need proper legal advice from a lawyer with experience in discrimination cases. Indirect discrimination is a tricky case to make but it's been really powerful in some circumstances.

In general I try not to make my personal life choices the problem of my employers. It's a challenging employment environment and a useful thing you could do, rather than ask your employers to make changes which make no business sense, is to focus on opportunities to build communication and morale between the various teams and management. I certainly would not advise you to take on battles for others unless there is a clear injustice which you can articulate well.

If this is casual overtime that parents like then I'm not sure what the issue is, but I may have misunderstood.

Sorry if this has already been said; but yes it could amount to indirect sex discrimination. It’s the principle that eg means if you require all staff to do night shift if that disproportionately impacts on women (as bear more responsibility for childcare) then if there’s not a reasonable justification to do it can amount to unlawful sex discrimination.

They will be getting holiday pay as it should be based on average earnings, but they might not accrue holiday for those hours worked, but it will inflate the hourly rate of pay for holiday taken, so it evens out

What does that have to do with sexism?

If so, would the store need people on the 10 - 2 shift all the time if all the full time positions that they have open were filled? Is that the case for the 5 - 9 shift? Because there is a clear defence against indirect discrimination if there is a good business need for whatever is causing the discrimination.

If the people on the 5 - 9 shift aren't getting their hours contracted I think you'll have a hard job proving discrimination against the 10 - 2ers. If 5 - 9ers are getting their hours contracted then the question of whether the overtime is covering for hours they need worked regardless or for full-time positions they are unable to fill becomes more relevant. Don't know if their consistent inability to fill all full-time roles would have an impact on how reasonable that is as a business need. And there may be a case for discrimination against part-timers in general if the sex distribution between full-time and part-time is significant. - Note, again, IANAL and you ought to be talking to one.

I agree with nosswith's comment about organizing for the most part. When I worked retail my union constantly sold out part-timers for the betterment of full-timers, however that was decades ago so things may be better, since part time work is more significant now.

Most of the so-called flexibility in retail that comes also with zero hours contracts seems to me partly because of a lack of willingness to be organised, or so those who are somehow difficult to manage can have their hours reduced. It's not as if shop hours and demands in most areas of retailing are not predictable to a great extent.

Perfectly reasonable request to formalise the 10-2 arrangements. You can probably gather from my comments that I would like to see some additional laws on retail employment, though no chance of that with this government.

Once again, you're focusing on complaints about language rather than actual harm to the women. And until you draw a strong line between things like this and the harm you seek to redress, they remain somewhat irrelevant. (Though I really do get the annoyance).

The comments don't, by themselves, indicate a lack of respect for childcare commitments. The "all right for some" comments can often just be a casual way of saying bye while wishing you could go home too, rather than actually thinking that person has it better in some way, it's been common everywhere I've worked shifts when someone leaves and others are still working. Is there a reason why you think this is particularly about a lack of respect for women's commitments? And, since it's coming from peers rather than management, is it causing measurable harm to the 10 - 2 staff?

The "Wouldn't we all comment" could be as much a reference to part-time work as to those hours particularly. 10 - 2 is generally seen as prime working time whereas 5 - 9 is not. 5 - 9 is not as inhospitable as a night shift but more people want to work in the middle of the day than in the evenings. So there is an element of 10 - 2 being a more desirable shift than the others which makes the "wouldn't we all" comment a reflection of the reality of the labour market place rather than dismissal of the women's external commitments. (Though, even if not a reflection of sexism, it's not a great way to talk to people you manage).

So we're back to looking at what they are basing their contracting decision making on and whether it's defensible.

Could be indirect indiscrimiation which women often are subject to but not an expert.

Shift work is tricky eg DH would love to go part time but can't due to shift allowance and etc.

The need to work the 5-9 has never been questioned in the way the 10-2 has - because people are needing to fit in around in their primary job, college or school. Having to care for children doesn't seem to be a reasonable excuse not to be able to work.

What do you mean by "The need to work the 5-9 has never been questioned in the way the 10-2 has"?

Comments that indicate management dismiss external obligations that are primarily female concerns but not similar obligations that are also shared by men are useful evidence that it is sexism, but I think you need to keep your primary focus on the measurable harm that women are suffering.

I thought your issue was that employees can't get these hours contracted but can get 5 - 9 contracted? If so, keep this as your primary point - Women can't get 10 - 2 hours contracted because the managers say a "valid" reason is needed to get part time hours contracted and won't accept working around school for childcare even though they will accept working around college attendance.

But you may have a hard time showing this is the actual reason women are refused (especially if they haven't been this direct) since the hours are different - if a woman (or man) had night school to attend and asked for 10 - 2, would they get the hours contracted then? Even though the historical reason for dismissing requests for that shift to be contracted may stem from a lack of respect for women's childcare responsibilities, I think it may be hard to show.

That's why I suggested looking at how they are trying to staff the two shifts and how much stability there is in demand for staffing on the two shifts.

I might add that there aren't any women of childbearing age working full time- they are either under 30s or over 50s or men.

I think this is a tangent but women under 30 are of childbearing age.

I would get over your concern about the use of the word "mums" because sex is the protected characteristic you need to focus on and you can't do that if you aren't making it clear that the decision is sexist. If you want say "women" and explain that women want the shift because they have childcare responsibilities that men rarely take on, but don't use "parent" because that completely obliterates the sexism you are looking at resolving.

I think (and IANAL) that for a legal claim of sexist discrimination to hold up you would have to show that they are unreasonably refraining from contracting the 10 - 2 hours that pretty much only women want while being happy to contract in similar circumstances when men are in the running.

Your posts don't make clear whether lulls etc. are lulls in staffing demand (i.e. the store not wanting so many staff) or lulls in staffing provision (i.e. the store being unable to get the number staff it wants). I would think it would be important to show that the store has the same or more need for staff that isn't covered by full timers at the 10 - 2 shift as it does at the 5 - 9 shift. Or, at least, that the difference between staffing need and contracted provision is larger during the 10 - 2 shift.

Possibly they would have a defence if they are trying to hire full-time staff that would cover all the 10 - 2 overtime hours but aren't looking for full-time staff that would, if they could hire them, cover the overtime and at least some contracted 5 - 9 hours.

You really need a lawyer with experience in discrimination cases.

I could see a case for this being sexist if the staff desire to work those hours was mainly from a protected group (women) and the hours were not being contracted while staff desire for another set of hours (the evening shift) was mainly from men and was being contracted.

The status of "parent" is not a protected class, so it would need to skew security against women (or some other protected class, but I assume women is the most appropriate). i.e. more men in the store get their regular hours contracted than women do because they desire the evening shifts.

10 - 2 and 5 - 9 shifts would probably also need the same certainty of staffing level requirement for this argument to hold up.

The post itself is sexist.

Or just a reflection of what the OP observes IRL ?