about flexible working?

[JessieMcJessie]

Disclaimer: I do not work in the UK and so UK employment law does not apply and there are no local laws on this. I do however work for an international company.

I have just been involved in a discussion where one boss was trying to encourage other bosses to agree to requests for flexible working arrangements made by women in their teams who had small children.

He was doing well encouraging this but the entire discussion was all about "women" and "mothers". I suggested to the meeting that if we are going to have such a policy it should not be confined to female employees. I was told afterwards that this was just muddying the water and we'd have more trouble getting it through for women if we scared colleagues into thinking that any parent could apply. Basically the pro-flexibility boss said "one step at a time". My view is that if you start out with it being a women only policy then it will always be seen as one and it should not be.

Was I being unreasonable?

I think that's exactly the point LovelyBranches you and your DH are happy that he doesn't prioritise childcare like you do. So the fact that he is not able to work flexibly is a non-issue for you as a family. But you can't then use your personal experience to support statements you make about how things "should be" for everyone.

River Tam

I do not believe that I am a more important parent than DH. I do not believe that his job should be more important than mine, or his colleagues and employers more important than mine.

Very well said.

By the way, the policy idea that we had in our company was:

1. Flexible working entirely case by case and entirely at each team boss' discretion
2. Flexible workers do not take a pay cut but have to achieve same output as when working non-flexibly otherwise privileges will be revoked
3. The flexibility is around start/finish times and ability to work from home, no part time jobs offered.

So in theory if this works for a particular team there should be no reason to view the flexible employee as sacrificing his or her career. Thus less stigma for men.

Jessie, that's not what I said. My experience doesn't shed any light because I am lucky. It is far more important for me to have flexible working patterns than my DH. I would argue that this is the case in the majority of households (again, not all). Women do take on more of the primary care roles.

As for stating how things 'should be', I'm taking a more realistic view on how thing actually are. Mumsnet is full of examples of women who do more than their DP's but are never recognised or thanked for it. I'd love to say that in everyday life I see fathers who do as much for their children as mothers do, but it just isn't the case. Maybe that's because I come from a very poor, working class background where gender roles are more entrenched? Nevertheless, on a daily basis it's mothers who I see getting the children to school, sorting out lunch, childcare, pick ups/drop offs, running a home etc etc. I wish I saw more equality, but I don't. I am an arch feminist and when we've argued for women to have it all, unfortunately the argument got turned into women doing it all.

If you want to argue for the men in your workplace to have more flexible childcare led working patterns then maybe you should ask them if they want it? Are they asking for it? Fighting for it? Campaigning? What makes you think they want this?

It's not about whether the men want it. It is about them not having a convenient excuse to give their wives when their wives ask them to take on more of a role at home.

I know that here in Ireland the public service introduced a 'term time' scheme that gave parents the opportunity to take the summer holidays off work and have their pay evened out over the remaining 10 months of the year.

Then it was extended to those caring for elderly relatives.

Now it is available to everyone and is known as the 'shorter working year' scheme.

It is unfair that so many things have to begin by being exclusively for working mums and can cause bad feeling in an organisation. But obviously it's a system that seems to work.

If only you were that thoughtful as an employer to women and their home lives.

Sorry LovelyBranches I don't understand what you mean by that?

Lovelybranches, I understand what you are saying but I absolutely don't agree with it. I have 2 DDs - say they had children and both they and their (male) parents worked for the company in question. Only my Dds would have the option of working part time, not their partners - how can that be right? But if they are in relationships with other women then both can work part time.

DH and I share childcare 50:50, most couple I know don't and I am often referred to as "lucky". This is a problem and while it is possible to argue that the part time option could help women into the workplace it should be introduced as for both sexes. If there are any roles within the company where they would prefer the employee not to work part time then they may shy from interviewing women for that position.

Eddie, I agree with you about Gay or Bi fathers having equality. I only know a couple if gay parents but even in those families there is usually one person who takes on the primary care role whilst the other works. In heterosexual families, my experience unfortunately primarily women who do the majority of childcare, whilst running a home and sorting out the family lives (there are obviously exceptions, but in my knowledge, not many). Workplaces often aren't considerate to this. For a mother who is dropping off children at nursery, then school then going to work then doing the reverse on the way home, she probably feels exhausted before the workday has started. Look at the mumsnet survey on household chores, it's depressing. Maybe if men want equality they can start at home?

It's not about whether the men want it. It is about them not having a convenient excuse to give their wives when their wives ask them to take on more of a role at home.

But that's got absolutely nothing to do with the company! Your employer is discussing introducing a change that will benefit it and solve a problem that it has -- very probably the habitual shedding of women from the workforce/leadership pipeline when they have children. Employing men isn't a problem for them.

Everything that people have said about men also being parents and carers is absolutely true, but at the moment that is not causing your employer any problems. Why try to solve a problem that isn't there?

Later on, maybe the government in the country in which you work (would be intrigued to find out what it is) will introduce legislation that does answer some of these issues. But for the moment, it's absolutely no good thinking that a company is going to be acting in any way that is not predmoninantly in its own interests.

Can't articulate it any better than FriendlyLadybird. OP, you are not unreasonable, perhaps, because there is logic and truth in what you are saying, but you are thoroughly unhelpful. The worst case scenario here is doing nothing, making no change at all. That's very likely to happen if you try to change too much too soon. You are pushing really hard in that direction.

But if you have a couple on equal salaries who have a baby and only the woman is able to work part time then there is no reason to debate at home who should do it. The woman is going to and will also do the bulk of drop offs and as she's at home more will do more of the work to be done in the home. Ok, that might be the norm for most couple but the element of choice is being removed.

DH and I both work flexible hours and it has helped us with the 50:50 childcare split. I'm the higher earner so it would be far more damaging to our family finances if a part time option was only open to me.

LoveAnchor I am not pushing hard for anything. I made one comment in a meeting and had a short chat afterwards with the person who is promoting the flexible arrangement. I'm not planning to raise it again. I fully understand that imposing radical change on principle may end up being counter productive. However I was interested to hear people's views on the subject.

FriendlyLadybird and LovelyAnchor my point is that if we want society to change then we should look beyond what is good for individual enterprises and create a structure in which the concept of men working all hours at work and women bearing the brunt of childcare responsibilities (something that Lovely Branches agrees is "unfortunate") is not fortified by unequal working practices. We're basically arguing about capitalism vs socialism...

I agree with you wholeheartedly Jessie. Until men and women are treated as equal parents by each other and employers, we will not have equal rights in the workplace.

Employers have no reason, or right, to regard women as the primary caregivers when formulating employment policies. Until all parents have the same rights women will continue to default to primary caregiver whether they, or their partner, like it or not.

It is self-perpetuating:

Women are the only ones offered flexible working so they have to become primary care giver because their partner can't, even if he wants to;

men cannot even ask for flexible working, so they and their partners don't even consider it is an option for him;

employers assume any woman they hire is going to ask for flexible working, so they would prefer to hire a man...etc...

There is no good reason to start by offering this arrangement to women only. It can be much harder to change something once it is up and running, any initial teething problems in the policy's early days can prejudice managers against any further changes; or managers might not be prepared to revisit a policy when it is still relatively new.

Just make the damn policy do what it's designed to from the start and everyone will start to see the benefits.

Eddie, I am also the higher earner, and I work full time. Flexible working for me means being able to work at home if needed, not having strict times to be in at, and being able to have a proper lunch break.

Jessie, I don't think your aims are wrong, but it is unworkable to think that you will change a culture in a workplace by giving rights to those least likely to use them. If you have flexible working practises for dads, and no dad ever uses them then nothing changes and when a mum asks for the same rights to be enforced, she will be seen as different or not pulling her weight. There wont be the same understanding that she may not have the same help and support as her male counterparts.

I am a dad with a full-time job, and both jobs I have been in since starting a family have agreed a flexible working policy with me to allow me to have days home with the DCs while my DW is at her part-time work. This has involved a combination of flexi-time and holidays.

I can see why such a policy is not appropriate for every individual employee in every individual role, and I have found it difficult to manage at times, but it has been hugely beneficial for my family. Not to offer it to men, or even to assume men would not use it, is grossly unfair to the workforce.

As long as everything is properly monitored between employee and manager, it can work out fine.

Also, as an aside, a manager in our organisation felt that those on flexible working arrangements were more productive, because:

• they did not want to be seen to be 'taking advantage' so always put in a shift
• they felt valued as employees
• they felt grateful to the organisation for being flexible (and were more likely to stay in the organisation)
• they had a better work-life balance
• they could structure their pattern to avoid noisy office distractions or pointless meetings

Exactly HFarnsworth.

Flexible working for fathers isn't so rare that people should assume no dad would ever use it. Although it is a damn sight rarer if they're not even given the opportunity!

I work part time and DH works full time. DH has a flexible working arrangement with his employer. It means that I can work almost full time and we have one less day per week to cover with childcare in school holidays.

One of my male colleagues has a flexible working arrangement. A male colleague in the last company I worked for had one. These are both SMEs by the way, not huge corporates.

It's not rare, but it should be more common.

AnnPerkins

We just couldn't have managed without a flexible arrangement. Where we live accessible childcare is basically non-existent, and DW wanted to be working (we also needed her income) so this was the best option, and it works really well.

AnnPerkins, I've never agreed with a post so strongly on MN as I do with yours.

Lovelybranches, where I work none of the men works flexible hours but the women who do aren't seen as not pulling their weight.

You take it through all the approval stages with "mother" in all the spaces & in the last draft change it to "parent"...

That'd stop any "confusion"....

It's because DH and I were abouth able to work flexibly that we were both able to maintain full time positions at work. If we hadn't been able to share one of us would have had to work part time and it would have been DH because of the greater implication for our household income if it were me. This company's policy would have been terrible for us.

There are a number of unpleasant assumptions implied in only offering flexible working to women, not least:

• men will be too worried how it affects their careers to use it (the assumption being women aren't worried about their careers)
• in their day-to-day lives, women will prioritise childcare over work (the assumption again being men will never do this).

Flexible working, working from home and flexi-time are offered to everyone in our organisation (you don't have to be a parent, either) - if you can come up with a way to do your job and work flexibly, then your manager is duty bound to consider it.

The bottom line is they need to speak to a solicitor. They could be on very dodgy ground if they go beyond existing legal rights for either sex to request flexible working, if they exclude men! I earned 10x my other half. Of course my career took priority and by the way I was delighted just to take 2 weeks off for each baby and go back full time - for plenty of high earning women short maternity leaves are brilliant and bring stability to babies too as routines and patterns of care and love are established right from the start.

Thank god that Lotus doesn't work where I do. The pressure that you probably put on women underneath you in the management chain is unbelievable if you think a two week maternity leave is enough! I had a c section and was breastfeeding. I would have given up my job if I felt I had to go back that soon. Thank goodness there are jobs out there which offer a good wage and decent rights at work.