Flexible working just benefits middle class women who have the luxury to consider 'work life balance' - AIBU?

[Waferbiscuit]

We had a flexible working policy at my current and last workplace. In both I managed a large (20+) team of mostly women across various grades. Flexible working - normally reduced hours or term time hours, compressed hours and wfh - was available but my general observation has been that these initiatives mostly benefit the middle class.

Reduced hours has primarily been taken by people on higher grades who can afford to work part time - virtually all the grade 7 and 8 women in my team now work part time. Those in grades 3 and 4 can't afford to reduce hours and so are still in full time often providing the continuity in the office and sometimes picking up the work of those who aren't in. A few at lower grades came back from mat leave after 6 months because they couldn't afford the drop in pay. Wfh until recently was only given to senior staff so again was exclusive and that caused a situation where senior staff weren't present and more junior staff were required to be around.

Flexible working is starting to create a chasm between the haves and have nots - those who like to go one about the importance of their work life balance in the company of women who have no choice but to work full time and can't even contemplate work life balance.

Aibu to suggest we need to rethink flexible working so it benefits all?

"Those in the higher bands have presumably worked their way up, have lots of experience worth paying for "

I see this mentality a lot on MN as if all young people are 'junior' and all older people are 'senior'. It doesn't work like that. People's salaries are down to how their skills are valued by the economy, not their age.
People in lower skilled are paid less than the higher skilled ones, regardless of age. In my 40s now, I'm paid a bit more than some of my more young colleagues in more specialised jobs, but there are people much younger than me earning incomes that I will NEVER make.

Such a sign of modern life - someone has something that I want (and can't afford) take it away immediately!

Lots of different issues here.

Household income often determines if any adult can work part-time, regardless of what the exact working arrangement is. Households with 2 working adults will usually have higher incomes with those with one and of course, more skilled and qualified people tend to be paid more. Given the middle class are often more skilled and qualified, their salaries tend to be higher and if there are 2 adults in a family, 1.5 salaries might well be enough to live on.

The people who probably struggle most are single parent families, especially if their skill set or qualifications or child caring responsibilities limit the types of jobs they can do and money they can earn. As others have said, many of those jobs are more rigid in terms of hours, being done under supervision and less open to flexibility, regardless of how many hours they might be.

I think it's a reality that some jobs have more scope for flexibility than others. Customer facing roles need a person present at set times and many of those tasks cannot be done from home or at other flexible times. These tend to be the lower paid jobs so more occupied by the working class or lower paid workers. There doesn't seem to be a lot that can be done about the nature of those jobs not being flexible.

I'm sure there are some lower grade jobs that could have more flexibility in offices. Home working and flexible starts etc are perhaps slower to be given to lower pay grades - and this could be addressed more. Employers do need to know workers will do the work and not take advantage - which is the case with all flexible working arrangements - but do people feel that lower grade workers are less trusted with regards to these things? Are lower grade workers less able to self-start and deal with difficulties as they crop up, than higher grade workers? There probably is a perception of this and it is possible that attitudes to work might differ amongst different grades if worker leading to employer reluctance. WHat do you think?

Regarding holidays etc, employers do need to look more at the bigger picture and allocate fairly. People without children or without flexible working shouldn't always be at the back of the queue - it is up to the management to handle this and not the workers who have flexible contracts themselves. Management need to take responsibility and ensure flexible working doesn't disadvantage others who don't do it.

At the end of the day though, in a system where people earn differing amounts and do different kind of jobs, those with higher skills will often earn more than those who lack them. Those people will have more choices than those who don't about types of work and indeed working patterns. Families with 2 high earners will have more options than those with just one. It is capitalism - having resources and income gives you choices which those without don't have.

I think you are confusing flexible working with part time work.
Exactly.
If you're in a low grade NHS or a customer service job your hours are often really inflexible. If you can change them (even just to 8.45-4.45 and someone else locks up) you can manage the job with wraparound care, as opposed to not managing at all.

I think you are confusing a lot of different things in your OP. I am generally suspicious of posts that appear designed to erode flexible working rights on some dodgy premise that they only benefit wealthy women, who presumably only work for lols.

Firstly flexible working normally means doing a certain number of hours generally full time but being able to have flexibility in when they are done. For example I used to start work at 7am and finish around 3pm (with a 30m break) to allow me to work full time and collect a child from nursery. How on earth can that be a privilege for middle class women.

Secondly term time only jobs tend primarily in my workplace to be lower skilled clerical type. I have never come across anyone doing it it in a higher graded job. A few high grade people (men and women) work 4 days or a compressed working week or fortnight or jobshare but again more common in my experience in lower grade jobs.

So no. I think flexible working benefits everyone, not least the employer.

I think you are confusing a lot of different things in your OP. I am generally suspicious of posts that appear designed to erode flexible working rights on some dodgy premise that they only benefit wealthy women, who presumably only work for lols

^^This.

Some of this comes down to the idea that some people hold that those in more junior roles can't be trusted to work without constant supervision. That if you are more junior, you are automatically trying to rip the company off, and that if you are allowed to wfh you won't put in the proper hours etc. Whereas senior people are all trustworthy.

Where I work now, everyone has the option of working from home except the office receptionist (for obvious reasons!) from the chief executive, to the most junior admin staff. And as a result, the loyalty to the company far exceeds anywhere I have worked before, and the absence rate is so low that when HR last submitted their returns they were questioned as to whether they had made a mistake (they hadn't).

So, in answer to the question, I think in 'office' type jobs (obviously you can't work from home in a lot of hands on jobs, so it's out of the question due to the nature of the job), the answer to making flexible working work for everyone is to extend it to all.

I disagree.it helps a lot of single parents who cannot afford child care or who don't want their children going home to an empty house.
Yours was quite a sweeping statement.
There are many who are not financially secure but work flexible hours for other reasons than visiting a spa or preparing for a dinner party.

And,sorry I sent to quickly,carers who look after elderly relatives who have hospital appointments,they can't take time off for that and the other endless tasks involved in caring for someone.

My husband works flexibly and he's a manager in a global corporation.

OP you are confusing flexible working and part-time working.

Yes those with more money (or indeed fewer outgoings) will be able to afford part-time working. Not everyone who works PT has a rich husband, they may just cut their cloth and drive a cheaper car and have a smaller house.

But you should be able to offer flexible working to those who need or want to remain full time eg amending working hours, or compressed hours etc. It should not matter what grade you are, if the job doesn't need to be done 9-5 from the office.

Are the staff at lower grades doing their maths? How much is their child care costing if they are working full time?

I have to work part-time as I actually lose money if I work full time because nursery costs are more than my salary+cost of commute.

I see this mentality a lot on MN as if all young people are 'junior' and all older people are 'senior'.

I didn’t actually mention age. I do presume those in Band 7/8 are more experienced or skilled though. This may come with age.

" I do presume those in Band 7/8 are more experienced or skilled though."

More skilled yes, but why more experienced? In most jobs people don't start at the bottom and even in places where they do there are fast track options.

Yes, I'm always suspicious of these kinds of posts. Questions posed by think tanks pretending to be discussion but designed to create resentment and erosion of workers' rights?

"Some of this comes down to the idea that some people hold that those in more junior roles can't be trusted to work without constant supervision. That if you are more junior, you are automatically trying to rip the company off, and that if you are allowed to wfh you won't put in the proper hours etc. Whereas senior people are all trustworthy. "

Yes, though I have to admit that if you're job is extremely boring and pointless, the temptation to go on FB is hard to resist.

The OP is too narrow-minded. My experience is that there are a number of reasons for people to work PT or FT, compressed hours or not, able to benefit from flexible working hours etc...

Someone might be working PT because they have a partner who earns well enough that they can afford it, they want to work but also to have more time to enjoy life.

Another person might be working PT because they are single with 3 young kids and they get top off from benefits.

Someone older might be working PT because the reality is that it becomes harder to work FT as you get older and for some, once menopause hit, with all the shit that comes with it, working PT is all they can manage.

I've worked in places where only lower paid grades could work PT because even though the policy applied to everyone, it was not the done thing for managers to do so, even when they did, and it was granted, their workload remained as before, so they ended working the same amount of hours, whether later days or working at home, yet getting less money for it.

Then there are jobs that make flexibility very difficult, smaller teams, those who provide a service that require a certain level of staff at specific hours etc..

In my current and last workplace it was the other way round, with lower paid women at lower bands more likely to be part time round childcare, and women at higher bands being more career orientated and therefore less likely to be part time.

Very few ( no) men taking up flexible working though, unfortunately.

More skilled yes, but why more experienced? In most jobs people don't start at the bottom and even in places where they do there are fast track options.

I’m presuming this is the NHS?

Maybe someone working within the sector can clarify. I know my SIL did a Masters over a two year placement within a particular department and was moved up a band and then after another year was moved up again-I forget what she’s on now-maybe a 7 or 8? So, she moved bands through skills and experience-I would have thought that was pretty common.

With larger salaries and higher levels an employer tends to own you and your time. I would think for the enormous pound of flesh and detriment to a good family life, flexible hours are a must.
Who wants to work outside the house full time anyway. Boring

This is the exact opposite of my experience. The women I know with 'career' type jobs all work full or near full time after having DC, the women I know in lower paid work all don't because of the cost of childcare and because they don't have the same concerns about not being able to get back to the same place if they take time out.

Another reminder here that "flexible working" isn't synonymous with part-time hours.

I think that leaders need to be very clear on their organisation's core needs and aims, and which working patterns are genuinely possible or desirable. You normally can't have a remote receptionist, or on-site maintenance staff. You often can have analysts and tech staff who work different hours or from non-office locations, especially when work patterns across the whole team are complementary.

I've managed people, male and female, junior and senior, who worked a range of flexible patterns:

• compressed hours,
• arriving and leaving the office early or late,
• from home for some or all of the time,
• remotely from another office, sometimes overseas, and occasionally another timezone (which meant the team had almost 24 hour coverage of a particular area - great!)

It was clearly helpful for mothers with childcare responsibilities. It was also great for the man with a very elderly and disabled mother who couldn't be home alone, the woman whose father was dying of cancer 200 miles away, and the man who had followed his wife and to another country so that she could take a promotion.

Good staff did their job well no matter where they were or what time it was. They were generally online or on the phone at the times they agreed and added to their email signatures, or at meetings/events entered in the team diary. If they achieved their objectives and contributed to the team, they would get a good appraisal.

Consistently low-performing staff have tended to be low-performing any time and any place. If someone isn't doing their job, their appraisal and future prospects should reflect this regardless of working pattern.

It's the other way where I work. Lower salaried people go part time whereas more senior staff don't because of their roles. They might get compressed hours but it's much harder for a chunk of their role to be covered by someone else.

Hmmmm. No. I disagree. Childcare is so fucking expensive it’s cheaper to take a reduction in hours for most!

I dont necessarily agree with this. I can see your argument but I think women who are paid very low couldn't go back to work full time because of the childcare costs. I am a middle level staff member and my partner doesnt earn much more than me. We'd struggle if I worked full time as childcare expenses would be the same in comparison to earnings yet I'd see my toddler less.

The issue is childcare costs and lack of support for all parents on a wider scale IMO as this feels like a bit of generalization and someone will always be worse off if we think in these ways.