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)

And thank you for the flowers!

What a lot of those women who are saying their partners/husbands can't possibly be expected to do their share of childcare/school runs are actually saying to their employers is, "my husband's employer takes priority over you." Why should the OP think that's OK?

Bird "Meanwhile in the real world" and you then list a range of situations that in the 'real world' are predominantly performed by women.

The issue is that all these situations occur and in the vast majority of cases it is women who sort it out and their work that suffers. This isn't fair. Men need to start pulling their weigh in caring situations, some women (read this thread) facilitate men in avoiding their fair share of the work.

The OP shouldn't ask but she can certainly wonder why more women don't put pressure on men to pull their weight.

Men need to start pulling their weigh in caring situations

And do you genuinely think that’s just going to start happening because you think it should? That’s not how it works. It’s very easy to put the blame on women for facilitating and enabling men to shirk the responsibilities. But that not actually a solution is it? That’s just saying it’s someone else’s problem to fix. The solution lies with everyone, government, legislators, employers, and employees, adopting an attitude shift. Making it expected that people will have situations that mean they need to leave work at short notice, or take some time off for caring. These are all situations that have existed since the dawn of time. It’s time business woke up and caught up and structured their business accordingly. That can only happen with the support of government and legislation. Which will only be available when everyone changes their attitudes. Meanwhile it’s easier to tell women to fix it.

It's a problem employers / society has created.

Everyone knows full well that your career prospects suffer if you take too many sick days off / leave early / start late /work part time, whether it's for kids or another reason.

So rather than both of your careers to suffer it makes more sense for one partner to take the hit. That's usually the mother either because she earns less, her career has already been screwed by taking maternity leave or just because she prefers to be the 'primary carer'.

When people's career doesn't suffer for taking time off then you'll get more equality.

The OP shouldn't ask but she can certainly wonder why more women don't put pressure on men to pull their weight.

‘Tis cultural expectation isn’t it? And it is up to everyone not just to women to change a culture.

I am of the firm camp that when my children were born 2 parents were made, not 1. With the exception of the extra work done carrying babies and bf and some extra during maternity leave I have expected DH to chip in 50/50 and he has.

That has been my goal as much for my daughters and son as it has been for me.

However notwithstanding that I think the work culture that supports facilitated men and childfree people or people without caring responsibilities needs to adapt to support caring roles across the board.

Givemesteel It's all very well a couple deciding that's where their priorities lie, but when it impacts the OP's business because her employee is not showing commitment, then she has a right to be pissed off about it.

Men are clearly more responsible for the disparity than women. But we all need to play our part in working for a fairer society.

Men need to do stuff and women need to stop making excuses for them when they don't.

The part with which I have to disagree though is that I wanted to be with my children so much I was prepared to compromise for them.

What would views be if there were arrangements where parents could work 5 days pw for 90% pay, banking days for when dc were sick? I am not clear why anybody should get 100% pay for less than 100% attendance excepting contractual entitlements to sick pay.

Great post from IfIWasABirdIdFlyIn2ACeilingFan

Probably, nipintheair, because they are human beings not robots - and sometimes their dc (or elderly dependents) get sick, or friends/relatives die, or they get called up for jury service, or want to attend their dc’s wedding or graduation. And because employers want good will and work beyond the letter of their contract, then mutual respect and flexibility go a long way. I have done more unpaid overtime than I’ve taken time off for family. If one stops the other would too.

I'm salaried, DH is hourly paid. My employer is ok with me doing some flexible working, his isn't. I do the drop offs and start late, he does the pick ups so I can finish late. If there are appointments etc that need one of us to take time out of work it's almost always me who does it, because I can make up the time out of hours but he can't. I'm going to work tomorrow so I can be home Monday for childcare and a nursery settle session- if I insisted dh did half of that sort of thing we would lose income that we need (and he would probably end up losing his job).

I agree artichoke but so often it isn't those who give more at other times who take the p. I always paid it forward so there was no concern when things occasionally went tits up except for one time when my dd had a serious accident that put her in a wheelchair for 12 weeks and dh's father dropped dead during what wlshoukd have been a holiday. I was due to start a/l the monday after the accident on thursday. I left work at 1pm thursday and took friday off. Monday my mother looked after dd and i went in to clear my decks and make up fhe friday. I was on a/l for two weeks. Told my boss, new in place for two weeks, that I'd need a cpl days for fils funeral after my a/l. To drive the dc to my mother's on the south coast, travel to north of england, attend funeral and drive 300 miles to collect children and get them back to London. She told me I was giving off unreliable vibes. I'd been at the org for 4l5 years and had maybe 5 days re either children or sick leave in that time, so believe me I understand.

From an HR standpoint I'd suggest you don't go there; it's quite an inappropriate problem.

However in my last job (I'm not working right now) my childcare was indirectly questioned by my manager, not in a nasty way, he was just asking why it all came down to me. My DH works away Monday-Friday and we have no family nearby to help us so I am the only one around to deal with childcare

I completely and utterly agree with you OP. By questioning the status quo, people start to wonder why something is just the way it is.

Maybe their DHs can't, they have a much larger commute/ work away. But if they have a similar job,similar commute then why the hell should the woman have to pick up all the childcare and you're not unreasonable at all for questioning it.

DH and I have similar level careers, similar commutes and share 50/50 responsibility. Sadly I have come across problems moving jobs because at my level employers seemingly expect me to stay late/ early even though I've never needed to, it's just an expectation of management roles that just needs challenging. Although I also agree with the Scandinavian approach to work life balance too and always kick my team out if they try and work late too much.

It has absolutely nothing to do with you so I don't think you should ask.
My manager asked me once when I had to leave to collect my daughter from School unwell I never take time off or leave I said unfortunately her dads not around I'm a single parent (like her) and it was then just awkward

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

It's discrimination when 'the protected characteristic' is the reason 'the person doesn't suit the business'. The person without a protected characteristic being a better fit isn't, on its own, discrimination.

I have some sympathy for people who lack experience/a solid HR team when it comes to navigating the concept of reasonable adjustments - I still sometimes feel as though I can't do right for doing wrong and I've had significant training and have excellent support.

As the employer of the 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.

This is what the OP seems to be questioning and I tend to agree.

I've got two DCs and returned to work part-time after the 2nd was born. Yet I was shocked by the entitlement of some ambitious female colleagues in a similar position to me, who were angry that promotions they were going for had gone to full time male colleagues instead.

My attitude was and is you can't have your cake and eat it.

If I insisted dh did half of that sort of thing we would lose income that we need (and he would probably end up losing his job). But you expect your employer to suck it up and if you lost your job, you'd cry 'foul?'

As the employer of the of the mother, I am asked to accept all the flexibility required. Yet the fathers' employers don't appear to be allowing flexibility?? How come?

I completely disagree that wanting a promotion is 'entitlement'

I also dont see why women should have to go part time to ensure their DH's career isn't adversely impacted.

Is this the 1960s?

What I don’t understand is, people are right that all parents should be expected to cover their DCs illness etc. However, people (and in particular those who deliberately choose male staff for this reason) don’t seem to realise that the problem won’t leave their company if men suddenly start doing 50%. It will just mean that the men in their company will now also be requiring time off for caring responsibilities. How does that fix your problem?

When I was working full time We both did the drop off and I did the pick up from Creche. My husband finished a half hour earlier than me so would go home and make the dinner so we could all sit down together at a reasonable time. He always did the pick up on fridays though as Creche closed at the same time I finished.

However if the children were sick it was up to me to pick up as my dh is a pharmacist and in Ireland a pharmacy cannot remain open unless the pharmacist is present and he is the only one.

IfIwasaBird

Perhaps we’ll start seeing threads on which people blithely post they discard cv’s of men of “baby producing age” immediately, thus rendering men unemployable for their entire lives post puberty.

Indeed!!

Wow! Roundtheworld

Women didn't create patriarchy
They didn't create sex discrimination
They didn't create poor recruitment practice
They alone didn't create the poor business practice where employers can't cope with meeting their LEGAL obligations (some of which have been in place for several decades now)
They alone didn't screw the worldwide economy - banking is fairly male dominated!

Selfish weak and uncaring? Seriously?! WHY should they consider YOUR needs if you DON'T consider theirs?! Of course they're going to prioritise THEIR family over yours if it comes to an ultimatum, except that's not really what's happening.

It's YOUR responsibility to run YOUR business YOUR family so that it meets YOUR needs BUT you need to do so LEGALLY and fulfilling your duty of care to your employees too.

Nobody forced you to start a business, and I'll wager you didn't do so for altruistic reasons but for selfish ones.

Some business owners bitch and moan about their responsibilities, seemingly forgetting they CHOSE to start the business.

If you can't stand the heat... The rights and responsibilities are clearly laid out. If you were ill prepared, didn't research these and the costs thoroughly that's your lookout at the end of the day.

Business owners start businesses planning usually to within a few years be making good money - well that's kinda the point - it's gotta e earned. Nobody said it was easy, you want to be making good money this way there's rights and responsibilities to that.

There's been a few examples on this thread of good employers - sadly not enough which I believe is reflective of the real world. The business owners/employers who treat their staff well get that good energy returned to them not just in loyalty but in productivity! Numerous studies support this, countries where employee rights are even MORE stringent are doing very well, countries where employee rights are shit - not doing well.

You want your business to do well? Get your head out your arse, invest in your employees, not just financially.

Brings to mind a couple of quotes

"To be the best place to buy be the best place to work. Treat your employees the way you want your customers treated, maybe even better"

"Train your employees well enough to leave. Treat them well enough to stay"

The most successful companies treat their employees well - I've noticed this in my own employment history. There were 2 brand names I worked for who for a short time seemed to be doing well BUT they've since gone bust. Treated their employees like shit! 3 others I've worked for are extremely successful, globally so, and they are very well known publicly and within the companies and industries for treating staff extremely well. I know the next excuse I'm gonna get is 'well it's easy for big successful companies to treat their staff well and adhere to all the laws' but NO business starts out big and successful, one of the companies I worked in their 2nd shop so when they were still very much a small business and even at that point they DID treat their employees very well.

Shorter easier to remember quote:

You get what you give!

As the business owners/employers you don't wait for staff to show their loyalty, investment in the company. YOU have to make the first move.

"What about all those work shy men? I know a few of those" I know more than a few! There are problem employees (from an employers perspective) in ALL demographics - younger employees can be late in/take more sick days due to nights out/hangovers, older employees can be unreliable due to lack of energy/failing health, any demographic can potentially have caring responsibilities for older relatives, disabled employees need adjustments made including fewer hours, arrogant employees can be "not my job" types, there are employees of all demographics that are just work shy - this is why discrimination is in fact a nonsense! Employers I've worked with who are the types TO discriminate then end up with employees who are work shy, prescriptive, unwilling to go above and beyond, piss off customers, piss off connected businesses and colleagues because they're blind to what ACTUALLY constitutes a good employee - also because they get a reputation for discrimination/being shit to work for so decent employees don't even apply to work there!

Like ifiwasabird I'm a Lp. I'm currently not working due to ill health. But as a Lp I have been a full time student gaining a good degree, I was then a full time employee in an industry that pretty much operated solely in anti-social hours (weddings/event planning) for 2 years. During which time even with my own health issues and an at that time undx disabled child I was a valued employee who gave my all. I then went on to work at an engineering firm (Xing will hate that!) again full time. Unfortunately I then took ill and had to stop working.

As a result of being first an army brat and then an army wife I've had more employers than most. I've worked since I was 14, full time since I was 16, sometimes 2 jobs at a time at one point was a student AND holding down 2 jobs too. I've never let an employer down, but had plenty let me or their customers down! I've worked overtime at short notice, cancelled leave, been paid late (or not at all! In the case of 2 who went bust!).

"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." Wow!

A - what makes you think it's an employers place to comment on what childcare parents choose? Also those choices can be ltd by finances. Which of course are determined by...oh wait! Yes EMPLOYERS! If you REALLY want your employees to have flexible childcare you need to PAY them well enough!

"One may have to take a back seat whilst the other, perhaps with better prospects goes for it." Have you been reading this thread?! That's exactly what posters have been saying they ARE doing. Again - down to EMPLOYERS. If you want it to be YOUR female employees who are the ones who are committing more to YOUR business you need to PAY them better and ensure they are the ones that HAVE the better prospects.

"My children are grown up. I had a career break, worked part-time, coasted full time for many years" so what? Now you want to pull up the ladder behind you? Common problem with female bosses sadly.

IfIwasabird 👏👏👏

"Thankfully legislation is catching up with the needs of the workforce and not just prioritising the needs of the business" that is kinda the problem though - they're NOT mutually exclusive, this is what business owners and managers are NOT getting - taking care of the needs of the workforce HELPS BUSINESS there's an incorrect perception that the opposite is true, that taking care of your employees is detrimental to your business.

Amen to we aren't asking for 'special treatment' just FAIR treatment! Lose the sarcasm, unnecessary digs, lack of appreciation!

OhDearGod - no, they're being pragmatic and saying IF you want me to prioritise this job over my partners/husbands it has to be worth prioritising.

Myself and others on this thread have REPEATEDLY asked the employers on the thread what If anything they're doing to encourage their male employees to work flexibly, take time off for family reasons etc - certain posters who are the most vocal about not liking that their female employees don't get their partners to do this, have also been very reluctant to answer this if they have at all.

Ifiwasabird - yes it takes a whole society change. One way to make that happen would be making it easier for employers who aren't playing by the rules to be brought in line. It shouldn't need huge long expensive employment tribunals brought by employees who are the ones with the least power.

OhDearGod - how about maybe it's more productive - rather than being "pissed off about it" and treating employees like shit, they look at finding ways to support their employees, to be more flexible, more creative and thus end up with loyal, committed and productive employees who help them build their business? Who feel invested in businesses where they've felt valued and appreciated?