There are fewer flexible roles available because there is often less business need for it and why should employers create reduced hours flexible roles when in fact a full time employee is of more value?
1 - How do you gauge 'less business need'?
2 - If the issue of women appearing for interviews and stating they can't fill the hours envisioned is a widespread problem (it is apparently notable enough for someone to take a pop at women for doing it) then maybe there really is a need for business to take a look at changing their personnel management model that is based on the assumption that all of their employees have a wife doing unpaid labour in the home.
(Or could it be that this thread is actually an open invitation to child-hating misogynists near and far to emerge from the woodwork and spew bile? Hmmmmm....)
3 - Is a full time employee really of more value?
To allow women to live off benefits, making little or no effort to change that and only being asked to attend interviews on the rare occasion a coveted flexible role comes available 🤔. There are fewer flexible roles available because there is often less business need for it and why should employers create reduced hours flexible roles when in fact a full time employee is of more value? I understand a high proportion of Britain believing the government ‘owes’ them XY&Z 😒 but surely that braizen entitlement can’t extend as far as private businesses and companies?
Wow.
Well I am not going to discuss the attitude towards the unemployed here...
However, I can't resist pointing out the shocking-to-the-point-of-gobsmacking lack of joined up thinking you demonstrate:
- How much less would the national welfare bill be if business offered more flexible hours and mothers could earn an income instead of relying on benefits?
- How much less would the NHS bill be for psychological/emotional issues and related physical health problems if women were able to earn and hold down a PT job that would translate into experience on a CV that would in turn offer them the promise of FT down the road?
- There are many women who are effectively excluded from the workforce while children are young and only manage to get jobs that pay NMW or thereabouts after a long period of unemployment. These are women who pay no taxes while unemployed and pay only a little (if at all) once (if) they manage to get some very low paid employment. How does maintaining such a cohort of non-taxpayers benefit either those individuals or the taxpayers who are paying for the benefits?
- In the long run, how does it benefit business to have a cohort of the population depending on benefits and who can barely make ends meet? Consumers are important.
- How much does the taxpayer currently spend on student loans that are never going to be repaid because the university graduates are never going to meet the income threshold?
Every single thing that goes around comes around.
I am not surprised to see so little evidence of any background knowledge of basic economics here.
It's always disappointing though, that so few seem to have even read Dickens.
Perhaps you should consider also ‘shaming’ women who are wilfully and intentionally irresponsible with their vaginas, expecting and feeling entitled to this becoming ‘society’s/the governments fault’!
What an execrable sentiment.