On the back of the working xmas day thread, should having children allow you to jump the queue in going part time?

[Hammy02]

I applied to have the number of days I work per week from 5 to 4 to enable me to do a course. I got a point-blank 'No' due to the business being unable to accomodate this. 5 months later, person on same grade as me, doing same job has applied to drop 2 days a week when she comes back from maternity leave. WTF??? Either the business can accommodate dropping days or it can't.

If you have children employers should BEND OVER BACKWARDS to accommodate your every whim. Of course.

She may well have threatened to leave if they didn't acquiesce?

Hammy, i think that women returning from mat leave get the benefit of this flexibility so comapnies dont lose their staff

I thought there was a legal obligation for workplaces to be as family friendly as possible allowing part time/job share whenever possible?

Was the course you wanted to do something that would benefit your employer?

Um, I think it is the law to allow parents with children under a certain age to apply for flexible working, and for that to be properly considered - if the business cannot accommodate that request then I don't think they have to grant it, so they were not being honest with you before. Maybe things have changed in the meantime, or more likely the prospect of losing the person coming back from maternity leave was too great (as if they said no she would probably leave, whereas they say no to you and you will probably not leave)

I can understand you being upset. But legally if your employer was to turn down a young parents request for part time working they would have to have a reason that stands up to legal scrutiny. Sometimes employers can think part time working won't work, but may be afraid they can't prove it legally.

I also think tbh that 4 days a week is more problematic than 3 days a week. Getting someone in to cover 2 days is usually possible - but 1 day?

So YABU as you are assuming your employer thinks DCs are more important than your course. imo the decision is unlikely to have been made because of a value judgement.

You say she's applied but has she got what she's asked for?

If she has, is it because the things are different 5 months down the line for the company?

Either way, no I don't think those who choose to have children should be given preferential treatment over those who don't.

I knew it was all bound up in the Right to Request Flexible Working. I didn't realise it was tied to childcare, but going on the questions on the direct.gov site to determine whether you have the right to request, it appears this is indeed a factor.

Its still only a request though, either way.

Or perhaps one day was an awkward amount that they couldn't cover, whereas two is enough to be able to hire another part-time person?

If you applied again perhaps it would be accepted since covering those 3 days with another part time worker would now be easy?

Hammy02 you make a very interesting point, and one I agree with. I do work part time and I think everyone should have the opportunity to get a work/life balance that suits them, if it's feasible for the business. I worked full time for about 15 years, and went through a very difficult period about 7 years ago - no kids then. However, I would have benefited hugely from having the opportunity to reduce the number of days/hours I worked, despite not having kids. I have no intention of ever working full time again, if I can help it, because my work/life balance is worth far more to me than the money I lose from the hours I dropped.

Ironically, where I work there are 3 people who don't have kids, who actually do work part time/condensed hours/ different hours. One works 8-4, 5 days. One has every wednesday off as she used to have a business she ran on her day off, but has long since folded her other business while remaining on part time/4 days. And the last one just works 4 days 'cos that's what he wanted and got when he asked. Now though, the same requests would be knocked back if anyone was to request them.

So YANBU to suggest flexibility for non-parents too. It's just how feasible it could be, if everyone wanted it, and got it. I guess it would make the manager's life difficult trying to juggle cover for everything, but do-able if the will is there.

You don't know if they will agree her request though. They might say no to her too.

Although it is only a legal tight to request flexible working, legally your employer does have to have a good reason for turning it down and if they were taken to court would have to be able to prove it.

Yeeeeees

But most women who have got a small baby aren't inclined to start sueing the pants off people

Just saying, like.

The only women I've read about winning these types of cases are megabucks lawyers types

Not usually sally from accounts on £12K pa if you get my drift

Is legal aid available for this sort of thing?

My employers screwed me over good and proper and I didn't feel there was much I could do about it TBH

No, it should not. Obviously. Every sort of private life is equally worthwhile.

Anyone with small DCs who disagrees should think how s/he felt before DCs and how s/he will feel when childcare is no longer an issue!

Although thats true, that doesn't mean an employer won't fear a court case. And tbh its not about the money, its the paperwork and time involved. I had a very unreasonable employee who took me to court. Although the case was dismissed (as it was a load of crap) I had to put in loads of time to produce paperwork to show it was rubbish.

After that very stressful experience I would be careful not to put myself in a situation where I could be take to court again.

It's this thing where the bolshy and unreasonable people get what they want and the reasonable and straightforward and not so bolshy ones get stuffed.

Such is life!

(The reasonable, straightforward and not so bolshy person is me, obviously. I don't know if my family would agree with that description!)

Which only proves, lesley33, that costs should follow the event and that claimants should be required to have liability insurance for defendants' costs before issuing the claim!

Mine were right buggers. They were a v sexist organisation and there was loads of stuff. But they were a massive super-rich multinational and I had a 1yo and although the ACAS man said I'd have a case for constructive dismissal, it didn't feel for a moment something that I would actually pursue. I imagine lots of women just "suck it up" TBH

In fairness they are talking about changing industrial tribunals so claimants have to put up some money at the start to stop stupid claims. It is long overdue.

sardine - I totally agree! In retrospect in previous jobs I think I was probably too reasonable for my own good at times.

I don't quite agree with the idea that there would be a "queue", but yes parents do indeed have statutory rights to request flexible working (note: request, not automatically have granted). So yes, it is something that this with caring responsibilities have, which others do not. And its totally legal.

A good employer in prosperous times might be able to accommodate all flexible working requests. Perhaps those adjectives do not apply to your employer at present? But in an area where they are bound by law, not their own discretion, then it is totally right that they are abiding by the law.

sardine - I suspect when people work for large companies they may be more likely not to pursue stuff - much more daunting. I work for a very small company - 9 people - so much less daunting and much harder for teh company to be able to afford to defend.

I am trying to learn but it is hard if it goes against your personality and upbringing.

Xenia has given me some good advice and "cheerleading" so I have high hopes!