Institutional Sexism

[RoseByAnyOtherName]

I received the Mumsnet weekly email today, and noticed an advert for work on the 2011 census. Having not worked since having children 7 and a half years ago I thought this would be an ideal opportunity to do some part time work and see how work fitted in with family life, without taking on a long term commitment. But guess what: the census work is between either 21st March - 6th May or 6th April - 6th May. And which major school holiday falls during that period: the 9th - 25th April are the school Easter holidays. Surely it should be illegal for a major government employment programme [they state they will be recruiting 35000 people], which is for 4 to 6 weeks only, advertising specifically to 'returning parents', to coincide with a national 2 week school holiday.

The census could be held outside the Easter holiday period without too much inconvenience to anyone. To hold it during that period actively discriminates against prospective employees with family responsibilities. Is the State breaking any (of its own) laws?

p.s. I would recommend the book "Wifework" on this thread, but I fear it would be lost on most of the posters in this non-feminist forum board section.

Wow! Am shocked at the number of posters who think the OP is being 'sexist' assuming that the impact of the government choosing to make the work available at a particular time would adversely affect parents with childcare responsibilities, and by extension, adversely impact more women than men (who on the whole shoulder a disproportionate share of childcare responsibilities.) OP - I don't know whether in this case it would be capable of challenge, but on the face of it, it could definitely be argued to be indirect sex discrimination. Employment tribunals have for a long time now accepted (prima facie) that women shoulder a disproportionate amount of childcare and do not require statistical evidence to prove this - it is treated as a fact of life by courts.

Indirect sex discrimination: Indirect discrimination applies to policies and practices which, in reality, disadvantage one gender considerably more than another although on the face of it, they seem to apply to both sexes equally. For example, a requirement to work full time might be more of a bar for women than men. To prove indirect discrimination, Tribunals have to consider four questions:

? Has the employer imposed a provision, criterion or practice?
? Does it put women at a particular disadvantage when compared with men?
? Does it disadvantage that woman?
? Can the employer show that the provision, criterion or practice is proportionate to the aim they are trying to achieve?

Employers can defend indirect discrimination, but they have to show that the provision, criterion or practice:

? Can be objectively justified on grounds other than sex
? Corresponds to a real need on the part of the employer
? Is appropriate to meeting that need
? Is necessary to meet that need

Examples of indirect discrimination are:

? Age bars, which can indirectly discriminate against women who often have taken time out from work to bring up children and therefore may acquire their qualifications later than men
? Any benefit which results from length of service may work against women who have taken time out from work to bring up their children
? Mobility clauses may discriminate. Often women are less able to relocate than men because of their family commitments or a reliance on their partner?s income as the primary wage earner
? Height or weight requirements which favour men rather than women
? Work that requires unsocial hours or a requirement to work full time may work against women with child care commitments

niceguy2 I don't think anyone is assuming childcare is a "woman's job". We're saying that women currently do the bulk of childcare and so those affected by the dates given in the OP are very disproportionately likely to be women, even though a few obviously will not be.

"The only sexism I can see is the assumption that childcare is a woman's job. As a guy who up until recently was a full time single dad, I would have been in exactly the same boat had I have wanted to apply for said job."

Fantastic post EminentlyImminent :)

It's not sexist, no.

But if the process was equality & diversity assessed, it could be argued that women are disproportionately disadvantaged as more women are SAHPs. Same as not all dinner (ahem) lladies are women, but the fact that bin (ahem) men used to get paid more than them has been challenged in various LAs citing equal pay legislation.

EminentlyImminent clearly says it all better than I!

frgr I completely agree with you - up until the point where you suggest a particular book is beyond the understanding of posters here.

Eminentlyimminent posted what I was going to say - that there is such a thing as indirect discrimination, and it could be argued that this job does indirectly discriminate against people with childcare responsibilities, who in our society are usually women.

However the census is always done in April, I don't think that it should be moved personally.

I also think that finding childcare for this sort of work on such a short term basis would be tricky.

And am interested that the fact of women statistically doing the majority of care type work in our society, is being ignored on an "each case needs to be looked at individually" basis. This basis will necessarily overlook any society-wide trends or problems and so I think it is useful to look at them where they exist.

Thanks EminentlyImminent. Very useful info

I agree, the census always takes place in April. It's important to continue this for consistency's sake (just as if you wanted to take temp readings for everyday of a month to find an average, you'd do this at the same time each day). If you took the census in December, the employment data would differ from that in June, for example, which would make comparisons between years less reliable.

fwiw I imagine the recruitment scheme would have been pretty thouroughly E&D impact assessed.

If you're going to argue that this job, with it's totally flexible hours (to be done at the convenience of the worker) is sexist because school holidays are involved, what about damn near every other job going? FFS, even when I worked for Women's Aid school holidays had to be covered!

Welll yes, OldLady. My employer is great when it comes to work/life balance. Couldn't fault them really - but they're nowhere near as flexible as the job the OP's so outraged about!

How can you say it's sexist but that whether you're male or female is not relevant?

I think in this case - for all reasons lots of posters have put (Census always in April surely no coincidence start of new tax year? etc) the government would have a good and reasonable defence to any claims of indirect discrimination and as Jenai says an Equality and Diversity impact assessment would probably have been done.

OP - I think the nature of short-term temporary work is always going to be difficult for people with childcare responsibilities because of the expense/availability of short-term temporary childcare options. However, I would always apply and if you got the job, then see how flexible they could be. No harm in trying? If you ave to turn an offer down it would be a shame for you but the job could be offered to someone else - and I wouldn't be answering any questions about childcare either. The amount of times I have been questioned about childcare in interviews now really pisses me off. My DP has not been asked once.

That's the thing though over other jobs "shoter term temporary work" if you have a permanent job you have the finances and childcare set up (this job would pay for the childcare and you'd do it for free!)

I do understand it has to be in April but we're not on school holidays from 1st - 30th April.

I'm a single parent and I'm going to be applying, as this sort of work is ideal FFS. It's utterly flexible and during the Easter holidays DS can go to the local holiday kids club which is less per day than I'd earn per day, his dad can look after him one or two evenings a week or Saturday or Sunday...
But then I have always had an eye to jobs that are flexible, temporary and short term, because I have spent so much time with people who like and need casual work because they have other things going on in their lives, whether that's parenthood or artisic/musical ambitions or studying.

Did you use the word illegal? OMG. Get a grip.

not illegal not sexist,more inconvenient for some. but others may be avail to undeertake.

surely you'd need to demonstrate a purposeful exclusion and intent

SGB, your life, the OPs life, my life all work differently. Just because you can fit it into your life and it is ideal for you doesn't mean it would be for all.

It wouldn't be ideal for me (even without my disability) because I wouldn't be able to get cover during a school holiday for my children. Their dad works away and I'm alone for two weeks. All our parents work full time so no babysitters there, his step-dad also works away and his mum doesn't drive so I can't ask them to babysit evenings. Mum works in a job that can mean working 12+ hours a day five days a week plus half days on weekends so I can't rely on her babysitting. Dad leaves for work at 6:30am so when he gets back in he's shattered and tends to go to bed and he works weekends. Outside of our parents there isn't anyone who can have the children and I can't see the point in doing a job for free nor doing a job that would prevent me from spending time with my children on their holiday week which we normally fill up with family time that we can't do normally. During school hours both children are looked after, it doesn't cost me anything so I would be able to do it.

But just because you can't do the job, (and I'm sorry for your problems) that doesn't make it sexist.

I never said it did. I was commenting on:

"I'm a single parent and I'm going to be applying, as this sort of work is ideal FFS"

Just because it's ideal for you "FFS" doesn't mean it is for all of us.

Oh and thanks for the sympathy but I don't have problems that need it.

COnfuddled: My exapseration is with twats who think that just because a job has hours that don't suit everyone then it's 'sexist'.

I have applied for a job with the census actually...I will be (hopefully) working very part-time on evenings and weekends..I don't believe this is sexist employment..so it does not fit everyones needs..does every job?..

tis weird opinion...

FFS. How can the school holidays make a difference when the work is supposed to be weekends and evenings on an entirely flexible basis? Kids aren't in school weekends and evenings whether it's the school holidays or not.