To think this woman was ridiculous

[lastqueenofscotland]

I am leaving my job and am helping interview for my replacement.

Just had an interview with a lady and were just confirming that everyone is expected to work one Saturday a month and there is some overtime (paid at 1.5x hourly rate) certain months of the year.
The woman said that wouldn’t work for her and we were like “oh it was in the job description” and she puffs out her chest and declares loudly
“But I am a mother I can’t believe you have NO flexibility for this.”

Colleague who is the mother of 4 inc an 18 month year old had to seriously bite her tongue.

It’s really annoyed me and I can’t work out why

marco thanks for replying.

Where would the money come from? There's always money available, but as with austerity the government chose to make sure the poorest of us are affected. 87% of austerity cuts hit women, and 80% of women are mothers. Why not come down hard on tax evasion instead, get companies to pay their taxes. Stop funding weapons of mass destruction, pay mothers not banks. It could be done!

If companies structured their overtime payments right there would generally be some people who wanted the antisocial shifts.

I’ve often found these shifts to be popular with people in two parent relationships who split childcare. I did 2 nights a week for a while when the DCs were little and have had many staff members request nights or weekends for this purpose. Not much use for single parents relying on paid childcare though.

Sauvignonblanche it's useful for them if other team members actively want to take those shifts so there's less resentment about them not pulling their weight.

Lady, I agree you have to hire people who can do your required hours and people have to choose their job based on what they can achieve. But at least you're letting everyone know where they stand and not eg changing people's shifts with no notice. A company which has an unpopular timeslot and a popular one could for instance offer 20% more salary to attract people for the unpopular one (and make up the difference by offering lower salaries for the popular slots). It means people needing flexibility would be lower paid and I know that's not great for the gender pay gap but I think it's unavoidable (if you want something there's always a trade off). At least everyone would be in agreement up front about who would do what as the person who applied for the unpopular time would be doing it deliberately for their own reasons.

(Before I get flamed) the specific numbers were out of the air and I appreciate might not be the right numbers, and for low wage jobs the employer couldn't reduce pay further for flexibility so would need to find some extra money to make it work (or other benefits like time and a half off in lieu or something)

PinkSparkly
You seem to think that because someone doesn’t have children they are less important.

No.
That is you making stuff up, or projecting.

I’m currently writing a thesis on flexible working hours in the modern work place and it’s impact on employees. Interesting fact!

It is interesting alright, but your previous comment that I highlighted makes me doubt it's a fact.

The rest of your post on flexibility also belies the 'fact'.

onefootinthegrave
I really like the idea of a payment (a living wage) for home carers.

I remember a few years ago being mightily flamed for suggesting it here. People were aghast that women would be paid to do something that nobody could check on, hours were up to them, how would anyone be sure the government was getting value for money. It was an eye opener.

One of my interlocutors in particular had it in her head that caring for children is not work and couldn't possibly be paid for. It turned out the same woman hired nannies and paid them to look after her own children. Interviewed them to make sure they were well qualified, reliable professionals and not random people who drifted in off the street.

It was even more dispiriting than this thread, and that is saying something...

I also support the living wage for home carers in principle- I'm not sure if it would be workable to finance it though.

Hard to finance the living wage for carers because it could be massive. E.g assume approx 20% of the population need care (children and the elderly) and we pay for one carer each. That's another 20% of people removed from the tax paying workforce. Remove some more as some of the remaining people will be elderly who don't need care but don't pay tax - assume they are 10%. So now we have 50% of the population paying tax, and from their taxes we need to fund a living wage for 20% of the population. That looks to me like a 40% tax increase (20/50) or equivalent savings to find. That's massive. These are obviously very ballpark figures and I'm very happy to be corrected - but I don't think dropping the defense budget would cover it.

I find it interesting that many of the people saying that parents shouldn't be expected to work 'unsociable shifts' are probably also the ones complaining that schools should have more events out of hours to help working parents and teachers should just 'suck it up and get with the times'. Events that are run by teachers, many of whom are also parents.

These are obviously very ballpark figures and I'm very happy to be corrected - but I don't think dropping the defense budget would cover it.

It would be a very interesting topic for a MNHQ web chat tho,' wouldn't it? If they got in some of the carer organisations and something like The Resolution Foundation and other places that research these things and might have some helpful figures and well-researched plans as to what might be needed and what it would cost.

You seem to think that because someone doesn’t have children they are less important.

No.
That is you making stuff up, or projecting.

I give up. You think it's acceptable for people without children to cover for those with children. Surely that means my right to a life outside of work is less important than theirs. My choices are just as valid as theirs. Thankfully my company doesn't work like that and therefore I'm happy to support where necessary.

From what I've seen, there's less flexible working now, than 15 years ago. Adding to the whole "we're going backwards in time" vibe .

Mathanxiety, you’re obviously very articulate (if somewhat patronising at times), but you have either failed or refused to address certain fundamental flaws in your argument.

1. In the situation the OP describes, everyone in that team is required to do one Saturday a month. Everyone. If the parent asking not to do that gets the job, where do the hours someone in her role should be doing go? They don’t just disappear. It’s not as if the parent could do extra hours in the week instead - the employer specifically needs someone on Saturdays. The only way be flexible enough for the parent to not work those hours is to make someone else’s hours less flexible. You want parents to have an equal chance of getting work, but your solution is to create an inequality in working conditions.

You gave the example of women fighting to get the vote. But they were fighting for equality; fighting against men having a right that women didn’t. They weren’t saying ‘Take the vote away from men and give it to us instead’.

2. Even if everyone else in the team is childless, you’re assuming they will simply accept the change in their working conditions (i.e. working extra Saturdays) with zero pushback. Potentially people who have worked there for years doing a great job, now being told they’re going to be worse off to accommodate a new, unproven member of staff. What happens if they say ‘no’? Does the employer say ‘Do it or you’re sacked’? What happens if they fight it by appealing to senior management, or going to a union or even a tribunal? If they successfully get the decision reversed, the parent then has to do the Saturday shifts after all - so they’re no better off.

If the childless staff don’t manage to get the decision overturned, what happens if they walk? Can the company only replace them with another childless person? Even if this wasn’t illegal discrimination, it would be excluding other parents from a job opportunity - something you’re supposedly against.

3. What if other parents already employed there who accepted the monthly Saturday as part of the job become unhappy that another parent has the flexibility they’ve never had? They would have a very strong case to argue for the same terms. What happens to their Saturday shifts? Suddenly the childless team members aren’t doing the odd extra Saturday - they’re doing several.

4. Childlessness is not a permanent state. What if one day one of the childless employees becomes a parent? Do they then get sacked and replaced by someone else childless? As I’ve mentioned, that is illegal discrimination. Again, where do the hours go?

You claim to want flexibility for parents, but you provide no options for doing so other than making work less flexible for someone else. Your suggestions also make it harder for other parents looking for work - in a situation such as the OP describes, the company may rule out candidates with children who were perfectly happy to work one Saturday a month, because now they would have to follow a precedent. You talk about squaring the circle - but how do you square the circle of a business needing staff at certain times but having to discriminate against the childless to make that happen?

Ha! NOW she’s gone quiet.

I doubt everyone has to do the hours. For instance it's unlikely that the management that thinks it's a great idea will be doing one Saturday per month.

It's highly likely that the bad practice of management asking people to do as they say and not as they do means that doing the unsocial hours is seen as a reflection of an employee's lowliness, while flexible hours afforded to parents is seen as an indication of some employees being more equal than others.

Clearly there is a sense of grievance about a perceived two tier, superior/ inferior thing going on. It's the effect of 'divide and conquer' of course... So much for women fighting for equality - we have been made to fight against each other while employers laugh all the way to the bank.

I have suggested paying people a good deal more for the unsocial hours. I suspect this would eliminate the idea that there are two tiers and that one tier is being disadvantaged or having its nose rubbed in its inferiority. This is not likely in a business climate where profit is the value that trumps all others, and employees come and go and are very undervalued.

What if employees folded their arms and said to management, "Enough of this BS. Hire enough extra staff to just do the weekends." Is that likely to happen when everyone has completely lost trust with everyone else, everyone is stressed, and everyone is busy guarding their precious little patches of turf or privilege, or making sure that nobody gets an ounce more perceived favour than they get?

Even if employees stood together, is it likely that people would be hired to cover weekends in a business climate where 'management' consists mainly of power games?

The problem is not that parents are outrageously and unreasonably demanding privileges. The problem is that time off on weekends for any employee is seen as a privilege.

MidniteScribbler, I think you are putting words in many people's mouths there.

However, as it happens, my DCs all attended a school where teachers were paid an extra 10k annually for coaching or running clubs or directing musicals and dramas. Their pensions were linked to the teaching salary plus extra curricular stipend. There was no shortage of very highly committed teachers running a huge range of sports, clubs, music and drama and various academic teams, even though this might involve, as an example, getting to the school for a 5.30 am start to practice and getting home the same day after 10 pm (swimming coaches on meet days) with a full day of teaching thrown in, plus all the grading, meetings and planning that might occupy them.

Money makes unsocial hours quite palatable.

There are some jobs where weekend and evening work is essential - it's not always just a whim or ineffective management.
If it's advertised as part of the role from the outset you aren't in a position to argue about it.

Many women are in a position nowadays where they mus t apply for a certain number of jobs per week or face destitution. So they apply for everything in a 50 mile radius regardless of qualifications, suitability of the hours, inability to lift 50 lbs, be available on call, etc.

If someone is sent to a job interview as part of the terms of qualifying for benefits they can't argue against going no matter what hours are advertised. Very often a single woman with children simply cannot take the job if it is offered so she disqualifies herself from an offer by making it clear at the interview that she is "not a team player". It's not preciousness. It's a means of making sure her family does not end up on the streets.

And even if that is not the case, you are absolutely advised to see what flexibility there may be. If working those unsocial hours (aka hours when no childcare is available) means you put your children in danger by leaving them alone or with someone unsuitable, or having to pay so much for care that you might as well not work, then of course you should try to see what flexibility is available.

It's a pity there is such resentment of the women willing to challenge the idea that employees cannot rely on having evenings or weekends off. In many industries extra hours and weekends are required to benefit the profit margin and employees never see a penny that is generated at the cost of so much stress and inconvenience and 'making it work'.

It's a huge pity that more men do not put up a challenge.

No resentment here it's just that certain roles require working unsociable hours and there is no way around that. It may be that flexibility is offered elsewhere - as was the case when I worked in a job that required evening and weekend work. If you couldn't work unsociable hours you simple weren't hired. It was one of the essential criteria and interview questions.
Interestingly it was , and still remains, a female dominated profession.

Oh and in the sector I worked in unsociable hours had nothing to do with profit margins (university) and you weren't paid extra for those hours - but you could take the time back.

@Math

I’m unsure why you are struggling with the concept that some industries simply can’t offer that level of flexibility. There are plenty that do but some for whom it is completely impossible - for good reason. So no, I don’t believe it would be ‘nice’ if those industries offered flexibility - it would be chaos!

I’m not the first to point out to you that nurses, emergency services, checkout staff, teaches...etc all have to be kept at certain staffing levels between certain hours for the country/ society to function. Desiring flexibility in the work place for all mothers (parents) simply is not more important than this.

Plus, what point would there be in flexible working if you couldn’t rely on what times your children would be in school as their teacher was also working flexibly so now taught between 8am-11am and then 4pm-7pm - to fit around her partners work and care for her two under 5’s 🤔? you can’t offer flexible working with one hand and then expect everyone not to take advantage of it.

The situation you’re describing (of women going to interviews simply to get their benefits - taking roles they simply can’t meet) is a waste of everybodies time but the alternative is what? 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? Who could quite easily pick up their offices and shift them over to France if England (as a whole) gets too (hand out) grabby! - we should be cautious of this given our looming departure from the EU.

Now is not the time to start throwing around demands, or for those commenting on MN In the early hours of weekday mornings to feel entitled to tell billion pound companies how to structure their business model! They do no owe us, or the UK anything!

What concerns me, far more than the lack of flexible jobs, is the surplus of women who have children without any clear plan of how they intend to provide for them. If you’ve had a child, relying on the fact you’ll be able to find a flexible roll to support them after they’re here- frankly that’s silly and irresponsible! Perhaps the government shouldn’t be responsible for patching up inderviduals lack of planning or bad judgment. There are an awful lot of women out there who don’t have children, despite wanting them, as their circumstances aren’t set up for it just yet (myself included).
Now given your previous posts @math, I’m sure I will now be accused of ‘parent hating’ as that seems to be your go to fall back when someone raises a valid point you don’t like.

However, you’re quite happy to ‘shame’ the entire social construct of working hours and business in the UK - and those childless employees who dare to consider themselves equal to those with children. 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’! 😬

(We know some people do plan and then everything goes wrong. We also know that some pregnancies aren’t planned at all- (both of which deserve compassion and support!) but the vast majority (we all know the type) who have children ‘because they want a baby’ with very little regard for the practicalities. Making comments like “😮 do you know how expensive childcare is? It’s more than my wage - what will I do I can’t go back to work!” When they’re already six months pregnant and ‘just’ checked into how much daycare will cost 😠. Well I’m sorry but no empathy or compassion for those irresponsible sods!)

Teapotfairy- really? Poor people shouldn't have children? Ouch. By the way not everyone on here lives in the uk so your inferences from time of posting may be misplaced.

Employers should create flexible roles in their own enlightened self interest. It's a pool of talent not otherwise available to them and it's probably cheaper. It makes them more attractive as employers (not just to parents- lots of people say flexibility is important to them). For clarity, I am not talking about the emergency services or equivalent (I'm not sure math is either).

@aria it's not just emergency services that require people to work unsociable hours. I used to work in a university department which couldn't function or exist if staff weren't willing to work evenings or weekends. It wasn't an emergency service by any stretch but it was a requirement of the job and that will never change no matter how many people ask.