To ask my employees why their DH’s aren’t pulling their weight when it comes to childcare?

[TheHoneyHunt]

So I know that my DH and me are fairly unusual in that we have a very equal approach to childcare and household chores. To be fair I wasn’t born lucky. My first H was an abusive freeloader, and I swore never to make that mistake again. However, I’ve now got so used to this way of living that I now find it normal.

I’m now lucky enough to have got to the stage in my career where I manage a large team. These are well paid jobs, paying £40k+, but do require some out of hours working.

Two of my team are on maternity leave. In discussing their return to work they both seem to be assuming that they will do all the childcare. Every pick up, every drop off. Their DH’s don’t seem to appear in the equation. As the employer of the mother, I am asked to accept all the flexibility required. And yet they are still talking about wanting to be treated as equals with their male counterparts.

If the want to be treated as equals in the workplace, AIBU to question why their childcare arrangements aren’t equal?

(I know there is an official “HR” answer to this...which will definitely go along the lines of “don’t even go there”....but what I want to know is am I being unreasonable to think this)

Jeez Ming really stop digging trolling

@BlueBug45 you’ve misunderstood my post. Flexible working can work in my roles- I have 3 people on compressed hours for example- but people can not bring to ridiculous proposals and expect them to be accepted. It’s just not the real world.

On MN everyone seemed to have odd jobs were they have no dependencies, interaction with others or set workloads/ outcomes. That’s just simply not how the majority of jobs. Especially corporates operate.

Encouraging people to expect to work ridiculous patterns like the ones I’ve described and calling it flexible working is unprofessional and shows a total lack of understanding as to how most jobs operate.

Xingming the discrimination you describe is not positive. You didnt recruit an "old biddy"(not in the least bit condecending word choice) because you wanted to increase employment opportunities for this cohort , or diversify your work force; you did it because you wanted someone who you believed wouldnt have caring responsibilities. Ergo discriminating against those of child bearing age. That is against good employment practice, and those discounted by virtue of having a functioning womb have solid case for taking you to an employment tribunal.
Suggest you stop posting before you are identified and they do just that.

I do find it odd that people use the excuse of their company being in such poor financial shape that they can’t afford a maternity leave. If you can’t afford to comply with the law, you’re not a viable company. You’re likely to go bankrupt soon- this sort of thing is a sign of it.

Read Ming's posts with growing amusement. Ming you do realise that ET's know all the tricks in the book for SME's to get around their blatent discrimination tactics right? They'd take one look at your recruitment patterns over the years and would know straightaway what you've been up to.

Might be time to review your insurance policies, I can recommend a company that covers up to £5mil for tribunals but they are pretty expensive.

YANBU to question it yourself as it seems a common thing now, however YABU to ask as it's their business. I had a manager who was hardly at work as kids were sick, kids had this on etc and often asked myself why but it's a complex issue that goes deeper into who earns more etc. Also for me going back to work would be a nightmare as because of my husband's job he doesn't have the option to just take time off, and he may have to go away short notice with no choice. But our family benefit most from the job he is in.

It's something that does need addressing but it's not usual that both partners earn the same and have the same flexibility, it's more usual that one earns more so that role takes priority.

show me where there is discrimination when an agency gives you five CVs, all female, with similar qualifications for general admin duties. You choose the person who suits your business and who you like and want to work with.

It is discrimination where "the person who suits your business" is "the person who does not have a protected characteristic".

@XingMing you are not allowed to discriminate based on certain characteristics including; age, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability etc

It's utterly terrifying that people don't know this. You and your husband are not fit to run a business and I say that as someone with plenty of experience in the same industry as you. If you're found out you'll be sued for so much money you'll be bankrupted.

@glintandglide the vast majority of the places that have flexible working have core hours when everyone needs to be at work. These hours tend to be from 10 to 3/3.30. This avoids any arguments over hours, and actually does ensure more men do drop offs or pick ups of their children.

In addition you are expected to indicate on your calendar when you aren't available to work and this tends to make people more consistent in the hours they work.

Even then if you are working with people from other time zones you, as an individual, have to be flexible. This can mean having a telephone/online meeting very early in the morning, very late a night or having a proper break until after 2pm but making others aware of what you are doing and why.

In other words flexible working is a two way street.

That’s all I was ever saying bluebug. I’m in total agreement it’s a 2 way street

I have read all these posts with such interest. Women complain that they are not treated equally/paid equally/valued equally. Yet if their employers ask more if them, they complain that they are asked to do too much and it interferes with their childcare responsibilities- which some of you admit that you do 90 - 100 per cent of “because you want to”. Well, I’m not going to jeopardise my business because you all are too selfish, weak, uncaring enough to consider my life. My business will not go under and my children will not go on the breadline because you refuse to get your beloved partner to step up and take on half of the responsibilities for the lives they helped create. Women create a lot of the problems they suffer from. And if all the companies in the UK that are in poor financial health were to simply close down as some of you suggest, the economy will tank and you and the beloved husbands who you do not expect to lift a inger - will suffer. If someone is ill, you don’t kill them off - same thing with a business- if it’s ailing, you nurse it back to health. This thread made me realise why so many businesses do not hire women of childbearing age.

Wow @Roundtheworld hope you have your hard hat handy today....

BlueBug45
That to me is a really sensible set up. I like the idea of core hours and then make the rest up around your home life.

I think there are ways to promote and support flexible working.

What I don't like is the expectation from some women that they can take a 9-5 job and then it's always them wanting to come in late, take half a day here, have another day here, need to leave early as and when it fits their man's schedule. Any problems seem to always get directed to women because the men in their life are far too important to pull their weight and it's employers of women who get hit by this view of 'but I have kids so...'

I have a friend who teaches. Her DP struggles to get holidays off in the school holidays because 'he doesn't have kids'. Seemingly the fact that him and his partner can only go away in the school holidays is less important because a bunch of mum's kick off if they can't have their days and he gets some off in the school holidays. Ignore the fact him and his partner go away with his brother and family (with kids) in the holidays and have wider family events. Nope. Some women think they get priority because they popped a kid out like it's a golden ticket.
That sort of attitude breeds resentment eventually, and understandably.

Women complain that they are not treated equally/paid equally/valued equally. Yet if their employers ask more if them, they complain that they are asked to do too much and it interferes with their childcare responsibilities

All women? So you won’t employ any women because some women prioritise their families?

What about all those work shy men? I know a few of those. Come in late, doss around pretending to be busy, take a long lunch, come back late with beer breath and snooze in the staff room, take super long toilet breaks, and leave at ten to 5. I guess you don’t employ any men either because some men are shit employees, eh?

@maisypops you're absolutely right. I used to manage a team and our role was to run and/or attend events. These often started early, or were in the evenings, at weekends and involved travel. It was all laid out in the job description. We had a number of women who returned from maternity leave and suddenly didn't want to do the early starts or evenings - one actually refused to ever ask her DH to have the kids so she could do her job. The resentment from those staff that either didn't have children was palpable. It created a toxic atmosphere.
I ended up putting my foot down and made sure events were distributed evenly.
I found it particularly frustrating as we offered so much flexibility ( more than any other organisation I've ever worked at) but some people seemed to think that having children made them exempt from parts of their job.

@roundtheworld all women? Really?

I think roundtheworld has a point. If women want equal opportunity they have to expect to render a full contractual service. It is not reasonable to expect all the breaks for less.

Whilst companies ahould be flexible in terms of give and take the employee has no right to expect to take more than they are able to give.

Families need to compromise and that includes men and there needs to be proper objective decision taking by mothers AND fathers.

Children have to be cared for either by their parents or subcontracted to nannies/nurseries/childminders. Parents need to be aware of prevailing infection levels at the various providers. A childminder may take a child and give abs three days into an ear infection; a nursery probably won't, the nanny will cover most eventualities.

Parents need to decide what they want both individually and as a partnership. One may have to take a back seat whilst the other, perhaps with better prospects goes for it. In other relatio ships both parties may elect to work 4 days pw with only three days of childcare to fund.

Ultimately childcare is the responsibility of the parents not the employer. Whilst good employers have schemes that are family friendly, the person who is absent for two in three years and returns needing odd days off, usually when a key meeting is scheduled for 2/3 years cannot expect to be in the same position for promotion etc, as the man or WOMAN who has been there reliably, every day, catching the balls and giving 110%.

It would be great to have it all but often having it all at work means compromising at home and vice versa.

My children are grown up. I had a career break, worked part-time, coasted full time for many years because I could not commit 110% to the organisation. I always paid it forward so when my DC were 18 I went for director. I have the privilege of holding a senior role, providing I perform, for another ten years due to revision and equalisation of the pension age.

DH and I set our stall out at the very beginning. When we bought our first house together our mortgage was on the basis of one income. It was a compromise at the time designed to buy choice. It was a good decision because our first child had more hospital admissions than I have fingers in the first year.

Success is in the planning.

@nipintheair

Women should have equal opportunity and yes that should mean fullfilling all contractual requirements - no argument there.

It is possible to have it all and not have to compromise home or work life. It just means both parents have to take responsibility

NipInTheAir
You raise good points.
round making sweeping comments about 'women' and how they understand companies not hiring women in a certain age range does not raise good points.

Whilst companies ahould be flexible in terms of give and take the employee has no right to expect to take more than they are able to give.
This so true though.
Piss takers, shirkers, people who don't pull their weight, think they can/should do less than others in any line of work will annoy their colleagues, create resentment and irritate their managers.

It doesn't matter whether you're someone who's always off for the slightest sniffles or someone who is always having a 'childcare emergency', it builds resentment in a team. If anyone proves themselves to be unreliable then they can't expect to be viewed the same as someone who is reliable.

How lucky for you that you could do that nip

Some of us functional uterus owners don’t have husbands or partners that can work full time facilitated by wee wifey at home. Some of us are IT. It begins and ends with us. The bringing in the income, the childcare, the sick days, the hospital admissions. We have to do it all, and we have to listen to people slagging us off for not committing “110%” to the job. Fuck that shit. I’m entitled to try and make a fucking living as a single parent. I wont be in a position to take directorship of a bag of fucking crisps when my youngest is 18 because I simply didn’t and don’t have the support at home to allow me to build a career that will allow it. Do you realise how smug you come across? I’m working 2 jobs and am applying for others that will make a third job. As well as trying to keep my children (one who has SEN) from falling apart because their father wont give them the steam of his piss. So no, I simply do not have it in me to commit “110%” to any job. And you know what, not one single employer would actually appreciate what that is worth. So yes, I will continue to work as a female, and yes I will continue to request as flexible working conditions as I need, and yes I will continue to deal with my sick children before I deal with an email complaining about a mis priced item. Or perhaps o should just fulfil the expectations of the stereotype and give up all my jobs to go on benefits? Until they’re all cut that is.

standing ovation for bird here

And here 🤘🏼

Very interesting discussion, but it's very noticeable that the OP has only posted once.

bird you do an amazing service both to you, to anyone who employs you and to your children as mother, father and provider. It is women like you that I would go the extra mile for and who frankly I would expect anyone service head in my departments to cover for when necessary.

I am deeply sorry if I offended you but my comments were aimed at women who are in stable partnerships.

FWIW I hope your ex H hburns himself on the steam from his piss. I am sorry you are in this situation and I wish I could make it better. More than once I have said to employees in similar situations "I can't give you any more paid compassionate leave but you can give me a fit note that says "stress due to caring responsibilities" and hope someone does that for you.

you do an amazing service both to you, to anyone who employs you and to your children as mother, father and provider.

As much as I wish that were true, it just isn’t. It’s not possible to be amazing at all those things simultaneously. I am juggling plates and they regularly drop. This is the reality of the situation, not a sob story BTW, it’s just how it is. No-one could be amazing at all those things without a team behind them picking up the slack.

I am deeply sorry if I offended you but my comments were aimed at women who are in stable partnerships.

Meanwhile in the real world the workforce isn’t made up of women in stable relationship and the odd single parent. It’s made up of single parent employees, married parent employees, people in abusive relationship employees, disabled employees, mentally ill employees, carers for sick relative employees. Everyone is entitled to work to support themselves. Thankfully legislation is catching up with the needs of the workforce and not just prioritising the needs of the business. Yes business matters, profit matters, efficient working practise matters, but so do the actual people doing the work. To write off an entire sex because humans have babies is disgusting. Those babies will be wiping our arses, paying for our NHS, paying our pensions and deciding on what level of care we can expect in our winter years. I personally want those people to be well rounded indiviuals who had parents that were available to meet their needs as babies without being stressed to the eyeballs because Mr Williams wants them in to stack toilet roll. I don’t want endless paid time off. I just don’t want the dirty looks, eye rolling and being looked over for promotion because my child vomited in school. Humans have been around for long enough now to realise that little humans need to be cared for until they can do it themselves. Why is it still a surprise that sometimes parents need to leave work to do that? Why has the workforce not been created around that pretty important feature of human existence? Oh yeah, because penis.