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.

She would be issuing writs faster than you can say "indirect sexism".

YANBU but individual circumstances need to be looked at, as well as the employer's policy of flexible-working/work-life balance.

Were you looking to permanently reduce your hours? Would your taking the course have a benefit to your employer as well as yourself? And do not underestimate the value of offering something in return for the flexibility.

I have a job-share but my partner and I put in a lot of work to make our proposal attractive to our employer, are flexible within reason to suit the business need, and are available on non-working days via Blackberry etc. if absolutely necessary.

Working parents do have the right to request flexible work - note request, not necessarily get! I worked in HR for a big organisation in the City. We treated non parents requests the same way that we would parents - to avoid any criticism. We did sometimes allow non-parents to work flexibly, depending on the business case they put. In the same way that we allowed parents. We also only ever did flexible working on a trial basis - and we did stop the arrangement if people were abusing it (which, sadly, some did). It all came down to whether the business could support it and each case was different. We could quite easily allow one request but refuse another which, on the surface, looked very similar. Also, business performance one year might be different another, so many many variables. I never allowed a manager to reject with out a water tight reason (parent or not!). In my experience, never a black and white situation.

Completely agree with "Every sort of private life is equally worthwhile." - there are all kinds of reasons someone might need or want to work flexibly, and I don't really see why child-related reasons should automatically get priority.

If there's any kind of priority, I guess it should be based on how much the company value a particular person's work and how keen they are to keep them!

(sorry - not suggesting that was the case for you, OP, I realise that last comment could be misinterpreted!)

It's also worth saying that if it works out after a trial period - not being abused - it can't be withdrawn later because somebody else with a better case makes a similar request and they can't both be accommodated. Sounds harsh but it has to be.

Ephiny, I don't think child related reasons do get priority. Primary carers get more rights to flexible working, regardless of the age of the person they are caring for.

It's not done to be 'nice to Mums' (though Dh had his hours changed- actually lengthened but over different days to create a predictable pattern for our asd dcs' there is carer / sn cover built into the rules too).

It's done to make it feasible for more women to carry on working given childcare costs and therefore lower the chances of them claiming increased benefits / tax credits / being destitute if the other parent lost their work or became ill. Whilst simultaneously opting for reduced tax input over no tax input.

Peachy All very fine and dandy but not if you do it by dumping on people who at a particular time have no caring responsibilities - we still have lives - or those who never had and never will have - so do they.

Yes, but people with no caring responsibilities have the kind of lives that don't involve the police and social services turning up on your doorstep if you decide to leave work 3 hours late.

Yes, MillyR, and that may be an excellent reason why in emergency somebody else may have to stay late - to be reciprocated.

It's not a reason why people with responsibilities should not be rostered for their equal share of the difficult shifts and expected to make arrangements to cover them. I know that's hard and often a big ask, but it's what going to work is about.

And even if there is a need for someone to stay late in emergency - that must be voluntary too. The person asked may be picking up a friend or relation at the airport - or have a concert ticket - or just want a quiet evening. "No" is a complete answer and must never be answered by "Why not?".

Yes, Andrew GG, I'm not sure what point you're making. Is anybody seriously arguing that people with no caring responsibilities have to work longer hours and have no choice in the matter.

The law seems to me to be fine as it stands. People with caring responsibilities can ask for flexible working and their employer can turn it down if there is a legitimate business reason to do so. This does not generally apply to people without caring responsibilities. So in that sense a business could decide that a person who had applied for a certain set of shifts could be allowed them.

Part of being in the workplace is about equality, and that doesn't mean treating everybody the same. It means that an employer, where possible, should accommodate different needs, such as the needs of somebody with a disability, and the different needs of a carer to fulfil responsibilities that they legally have to fulfil.

It's not longer hours, MillyR, it's which hours.

Anyone can ask for flexible working - with or without caring responsibilities. An employer can properly regard part time study as a good reason for allowing it; in which case it may be impossible to allow it for somebody else who later makes a similar request because of caring responsibilities if that would leave the business understaffed.

The answer to OP's original question is and remains "No"!

Andrew, anybody can ask for flexible hours, but if a person has no caring responsibilities, the employer does not have to provide a legitimate business reason why that person can't have flexible hours.

Of course if somebody has already been granted flexible hours to study part time, due to good will of the employer, the employer can't then change that person's contract simply to accommodate a new request from somebody with caring responsibilities made later if the current business situation makes it impossible.

So it is entirely possible that a situation could arise where a person without caring responsibilities might have more flexible shifts because that was what had contractually been agreed. But an employer can treat two requests for flexible working differently based on caring responsibilities.

Well yes Andrew but how would you have felt if Dh had lost his job (the only alternative as boys were becoming seriously distressed by routine changes and I could not cope alone) and you ended up paying his keep from your taxes? Those were unfortunately our only two options at that time. Or I guess palce the more violent one in care, something I could not consider.

AFAIK nobody else asked for the hours; in fact Dh took on more hours so covered some of their shifts: just over a regular 5 days rather than 4 on / 4 off (one day was Sunday so not skipping weekends either). Lots of his colleagues actively liked the 4 on 4 off system as it gave them time for hobbies / breaks away.

Flexible work does not have to be short hours etc, it can be a lot of things.

It should be noted as well there is and was no cover for our boys above and beyond us. That is also the case for many caring families, SSD have no duty to help with work- rightly or wrongly. And the little Sn childcare that exists cost £££££££ more than the standard variant; my friend is Nanny to two asd boys, neither aggressive, she gets £30k PA.

The years of having an under-whatever-age-it-is are very short when taken as a whole of a working life: for most people the years where they can't qualify will vastly outnumber the ones they can have the right to ask, and for those other years someone else will get precedent: given the % of people who never have children or caring responsibilities (relatively small) it does tend to balance on the whole, for most people. Is it fair on that small number? probably not; but it's probably easier for them to do something about it wrt to flexibility of choice given their lack of responsibility. Fair no, but what ever is?

In the end, though, Peachy, if for example A does not work Saturdays in a line of work where there has to be a Saturday rota, then B, C, D must work more Saturdays. And the temptation will be to lumber B who has no caring responsibilities rather than C or D who have and that is just not fair. Is it?

Wella ctually DH's bosses were far more creative.

Firstly, Sunday was by far their busiest day: so they had extra coverage when needing it (should point out as well it was perm nights so sunday was really a saturday night IYSWIM).

So, others were all on 4 on / 4 off, so no more weekends on than before, just they had extra cover when needed and DH could do his work as and when: he was one of the specialists so able to dib in and out and quite a bit didn;t matter specifically what day it was done on.

But it is a balance of fairness- why is it fairer to restricts employment cahnces, or even the chance to keep a child in a family, than to restrict working choices for his colleagues? Surely it's less severe if his colleagues HAD been amde to do a slightly different shift pattern than the alternative consequnces to us / state finances of the other choices?

As it is DH is now self employed anyway, but nobody ever complained as they knew that frankly there were no choices involved for DH and he had worked those shifts without complaint for many years.

Funny thing is, he could not keep going- was impossible, was existing on 2 hours sleep a day when boys were home on old system plus safety issues- but he is wrong if he asks for flexible working, and now now he is self employed but low earning he is wrong to much of MN- at what point can he ever be right I wonder?

Although- I do think that incentives to promote flexible working should be promoted regardless of carer / parent status, job sharing etc can work for people in so many ways.

But it is a balance of fairness- why is it fairer to restricts employment cahnces, or even the chance to keep a child in a family, than to restrict working choices for his colleagues? Surely it's less severe if his colleagues HAD been amde to do a slightly different shift pattern than the alternative consequnces to us / state finances of the other choices?

Because your colleagues are not among those responsible for providing your child care.

As I have said on a parallel thread, I'm much more easy-going in RL than I am here and if had been one of those colleagues I would probably in practice have been helpful and supportive but nobody has to be.

The reference to state finances is out of order; if we work and pay our taxes to support the state's finances that's our bit done.

Peachy, you don't need to justify your own circumstances on here. Especially as you have said that colleagues were not put upon and were supportive.

I don't think it is about colleagues providing childcare. To go back to the OP's original point:

1. You do not have a right to time off work for training. You have the right to ask for it, but the employer does not have to give a reason for refusing.
2. You do not have a right to flexible hours if you have children. But if you do ask for it, your employer has to give a legitimate business reason why you cannot have these hours.

This is going to lead to many situations where people with caring responsibilities are going to have asked for, and received, different contractual shifts to those without caring responsibilities. Colleagues are then not doing carers a favour by working these different shifts; they are simply contracted to do different shifts.

If an employer has turned down a request for flexible working hours, then the carer has no more right to pick and choose their shifts then other staff.

I don't think that's out of order Andrew- it's what tehy call a full picture.