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?

Where I work now (which is very female) it is true that you get more flexibility at the higher grades - I can work from home and also work flexible hours so I get in early and leave early twice a week. Our team admin can't do either of those because she answers the phone and covers the inbox so she needs to be there for 9-5. However, it's much more common where I work for those kinds of jobs to be done as job shares, which essentially never happens at higher grades because handing over the work is a lot less smooth for other people.

Our team admin can't do either of those because she answers the phone and covers the inbox so she needs to be there for 9-5.

Why does that need to be done in an office?

Our team admin can't do either of those because she answers the phone and covers the inbox so she needs to be there for 9-5.

You're right, it doesn't - and she does sometimes work from home for the whole day. What she can't do, but I can, is, say, work 8-4 or take her lunch at the 'wrong' time, etc.

When she works from home other people have to cover the phones, though - I'm sure there are systems that allow her to do this from home but we don't have them. We can reroute our work phones to our mobiles but you couldn't do switchboard from there.

The thing is, for example, requesting part-time after mat leave is known as a "Flexible Working Request". Perhaps this isn't helping the terminology.

Basically for me, because of tax, half the hours isn't half the salary. Childcare for 2 days is 40% of my wage. Childcare for 4.5 days would have been 66% of my take home.

The post is about part time working not flexible working so OP you are unlikely to get coherent answers as the responses will be about different things.

Part time working has been around forever and I'm not sure what your solution is to your not approving of it.

There is a right to request after mat leave which I find odd as a right to ask a question isn't much of a right at all, especially as it's a question anyone can ask their employers at any time!

I asked to go part time after DD1 they said no, as was their right. So I left.

"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."

OP didn't say she was only talking about mothers or only mothers with small children.

"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."

Yes, but on a low income, that older person would not be able to live on half of something small so they'll just have to work and suffer.

I’ve often seen the opposite - yes you can work flexibly but promotion is only for full time staff working “normal” hours.

That's the thing - part time works well for me right now, but I am extremely unlikely to get a promotion or payrise. I'd also be cheaper to get rid of if redundancies happened!

I agree that PT working is a luxury for those who can afford it. Me and my partner both work PT because we are lucky enough to be able to manage on less income for a few years.

But it does come with a sacrifice. I work in a professional job and my responsibilities, career progression, pay, and people’s attitudes to my commitment have all taken a massive hit.

You don’t seem to proffer a solution to ‘MC’ women only benefiting from flexible/PT working (this sort of comment winds me up tbh. I was brought up in a single parent family on all the benefits but now have a ‘MC’ lifestyle. I tell you what, I don’t fit into any of these class tribes I’m pigeonholed into).

I’d be interested to know what you’d do differently.

YABU. Flexible working doesn’t just mean part time working. In my office, loads of men and women work slightly different hours outside of the core 9 to 5 to accommodate childcare pick ups and drop offs. One guy cares for his mum so works a compressed 4 day week. Many parents, both male and female, actually work a compressed 4 day week. It seems to work quite well.

If you have health problems, flexible working is an absolutely god send. My colleague has a condition that’s worse in the morning but every morning. On bad days, she uses her flexi hours to start later and finish later.

My organisation is very pro flexi working and it seems yours (and you!) just assumes it’s about part time hours. It’s not. You need to open your mind a bit.

Not at all. In my team everyone is offered flexible working, this includes working from home 1 or 2 days a week, and the option of compressed hours, or part time. This is taken up by all grades not just higher.

It's more usual that senior people have flexible jobs and have an element of control over how they're done that people further down the ladder don't.

Take a call centre. The managers can work from home on reports, prep, planning etc. The call handlers can't . If the manager is sick it's more than likely (in my experience) that they'll have WFH day. The call handler doesn't have that choice - if they are rostered on then they have to go sick. 3 instances they're in the disciplinary process (effectively). The managers' absences are hidden.

I agree. Flexible working is a luxury for non senior people (not sure I'd say it's a class issue). I do see a lot more professional men working part time and short days for childcare which is good but probably have underlings working extra (unpaid?) hours covering for them.

It varies by industry and area. The norm around here is the man works ft and the woman drops to 3 days a week. Childcare is done by grandparents one day each and the other is a nursery day.

Where I work there are a lot of agreements to change the working pattern mainly to make commuting less painful.

Reduced hours and days are only up to junior level.

WFH is only for senior staff when their children are ill or home emergencies etc - they are all ft but do seem to very rarely be around after 4pm but will be emailing at 11pm!

When I first went back to work after having a baby I had flexible hours and was not in any senior position at that time, it was a fairly 'ordinary' job. My colleagues had the same. It's not unusual. My husband who was in a senior, professional role also had a degree of flexibility which was extremely useful. Class didn't enter into it, all depended on what you did and for whom you worked.

We offer flexible working in my office. The staff who are over 60 use it to benefit from free their travel after 9.30am. A couple of people in their 20s and without kids use it to come in early and avoid the morning rush hour. Another woman uses it to enable her to spend more time with her husband, who works late shifts. Whilst I agree that part-time working is not accessible to all because of the consequent drop in salary, I think flexible working is.

I thunk it needed to benefit the company as well as the staff member requesting the flexibility.

I don’t think it’s fair that the full times are expected to take on more work because someone is wanting to work flexible hours etc...

As long as it doesn’t affect the workload of the remaining staff then I don’t see it being a problem. Ie other staff not being able to take holidays as flexible worker has taken them all...

Life is unfair at times and if Mrs A is married to Mr A who earns £50,000 then she probably is in a position to do 3 days a week say. Why should she not? Just because Miss B is single and can’t afford too?

@gwen I'm one of the menopausal women who would love to work less hours. Menopause together with arthritis, migraines slipped discs and hip replacements mean my day is generally pretty painful.

Being able to consider work-life balance isn't always a "luxury" or pure luck, it's also about whether your prioritise it in life. Some people prioritise money and holidays/cars/big house/kids/private school/living in London, so whatever salary they earn, even 6 figures, they spend all of it and can't consider a reduction in hours.

If work-life balance is super important to you, and you are qualified enough to do a job that pays over minimum wage (I guess that part is luck/middle-classness), then you can make it happen. I live in a small 1-bed flat with husband, have no kids and specifically choose companies that are within a 30 min public transport commute where there is a flexible office culture. I save half of my 35k salary and am contemplating going 4 days a week in the future. I purposely made the choice to structure my life like this, because having time in the evenings and weekends for my hobby is important. For some people it isn't.

The blokes on 100k aren't full-time because they NEED the money - in my experience they're usually obsessed and consumed by their job.

Agree with what you say Itis. I am financially fortunate enough to still be doing a 4 day week even though DS is now in his teens. It suits everyone- I'm good at what I do and because I've got a lot more energy over 4 days rather than 5, I think my employers are getting a pretty good deal. It also means I have a day to visit my very elderly DPs, walk the dog and do other random errands.

"You don’t seem to proffer a solution to ‘MC’ women only benefiting from flexible/PT working "

That's not OP's job is it really? I doubt she's running to be PM. I can think of a few things, but it's useful to begin with to bring the inequalities out into the open.

"Flexible working is a luxury for non senior people (not sure I'd say it's a class issue)"

Of course it's a class issue. Anything that affects people in high-paid/high status jobs differently from low-paid/low status jobs is a class issue.

"Take a call centre. The managers can work from home on reports, prep, planning etc. The call handlers can't ."

The call handlers could if they had a work-type phone at home or calls were deviated and they could log on to the system from home.