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?

"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?"

I don't think anyone is trying stop Mrs A from going part time, just pointing out the unfairness that some people are denying.

My current and previous job, the men and the women took advantage of flexible working.

Well both are more than flexible. As long as you get your job done, and your diary shows when you're not available, you can WFH, take time out for dentist, school plays, school runs etc as you fancy. And the men and the women do it. It's great TBH.

but op meant part time I think.

op meant part time I think

In which case op can redress the perceived imbalance by offering flexible hours to her FT "lower grade" workers.

Yes - every company I've worked in has flexi-hours, so as long as you do 7.5 hours a day and are around say 10-4, then you can do the rest whenever. I love it because I come in early, leave at 4:30-5 and can go to evening classes and volunteering. Also they have mandated WFH once a week because the office is overcrowded, lol. Means I can go to the dentist or doctor without having to ask or take time off.

I wouldn't accept a job unless they had this - though in my role there is literally no reason not to, and there's a shortage so they have to offer attractive policies.

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

In theory, they could. Almost all of them don't. Even where the technology is in place, lack of trust means the employer wants to see all the workstations filled.

I think it’s naive to think that only higher paid people work part time. Even for lower earners, it’s often that you gain virtually nothing from working full time if you have children in paid childcare, even with tax credits and similar.

I'm working class and low paid. I work school hours only. I get my income topped up by tax credits. Lots of my friends in the same situation work part time as well.

"Even where the technology is in place, lack of trust means the employer wants to see all the workstations filled."

Yes, I understand. I mentioned it above myself. One of the reasons there are so many open plan offices now.

"I'm working class and low paid. I work school hours only. I get my income topped up by tax credits. Lots of my friends in the same situation work part time as well."

I suppose they all have children. As a childless person, I don't think I'd be able to work part time and get tax credits to an equivalent of a full time wage so not an option for me, and OP didn't specify her post was just about mothers.

"Also they have mandated WFH once a week because the office is overcrowded, lol. "

So, do they pay for your heating, equipment, etc.

In theory, they could. Almost all of them don't. Even where the technology is in place, lack of trust means the employer wants to see all the workstations filled.

Aren't there also data protection issues? When my friend did a data entry job for a private health insurer it was a sackable offence to get your phone out at your desk because of the sensitive and financial data so I can't imagine they'd have let him have access from home.

Where I work there is quite a lot of flexibility but what that flexibility is differs a lot according to role. Some have to be on site between particular hours. Others don't. The men take just as much flexibility as the women.

That said aside from the child care and maternity leave years it is definitely the case that those who tend be part time long term or who buy extra holiday tend to have higher earning partners. If you don't have one of those, it tends to mean you are the one who works full time or more than full time hours.

Gwenhwyfar yes, with children.

Love flexible working however as the main wage earner in a two income household for me flexible working for me means that I work longer hours four days a week and am still classed as full time but have a day off in the week to reduce childcare costs.

Flexible working for some of my friends who are single parents means they work 2-3 days a week but get their wages topped up with universal credit. Both scenarios are great, but I don't think it's just middle class women with high earning husbands that are benefitting from the arrangement

Im not middle class, im working class and only worked part time/term time. I was a civil servant administrative assistant.

When you go to work, everyone should be treated equally and your personal situation at home shouldn't come into it.

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.

This is true (and I'm a manager). The first thing I did when I took over my team was arrange for them to have laptops and work mobiles. They all have the option to work flexibly from home if needed, including if they are feeling poorly. It works well - everything gets done, everyone's happy because they are treated like adults rather than kids, and nobody takes the piss. Fine to WFH if you have a cold, but D&V means a sick day and they know that. Fortunately my firm doesn't use the Bradford score and allows managers to apply common sense to absence management.

My affording to go part time is nothing to do with what DH earns and everything to do with my work & my choices. I chose to start a family later and maximise career progression first. I chose to work my backside off in my 20s and attain financial security. Flexible working has been a godsend for me.

There's never going to be a quick fix for low earners, of course you can't work part time unless you can afford to.

"My affording to go part time is nothing to do with what DH earns and everything to do with my work & my choices. I chose to start a family later and maximise career progression first. "

What an attitude. You're lucky you have the talent and skills to have a career, that's all. Many women don't, whether they have children or not.

" only worked part time/term time. I was a civil servant administrative assistant."

Somebody, whether your DH or the state, was presumably funding you to go part time or work term time only as an independent administrative assistant couldn't live on half their wage.

Lots of people work part time or have flexible hours at my work place, which is fairly unusual for our industry, despite it being an easy industry to work remotely. As a result being flexible or part time doesn’t alter your prospects, I got a good promotion despite being a part time worker.

I work a combination of part time and flexible, I’m contracted to work three days a week, I do them over four shorter days and I do some work at home a few times a week. It means my son needs minimal after school care and he doesn’t need any on a Friday.

It is a well paid industry so people generally have the luxury of working fewer hours, it’s one of the reasons I chose it as my career.

Gwenhwyfar

Many people don't have the skills/talent.

For anyone under 45 it really has nothing to do with being a woman.

Skills are acquired through hard work. I am not talented. I chose a really unglamorous nerdy job that most people would look down on as boring. Many many people could do my job, in fact there's often a shortage of applicants for junior roles.

I'm just about to drop to 4 days. I'm the main earner and 3yo dd has just become entitled to 30 hours of free childcare. We couldn't afford for either of us to go pt when 9yo ds was little. I started a family late(ish) at 32, went back ft and did the same when dd was born. I wfh 2 days a week but commute 2.5 hours each way to London two days so am out of the house for a good 12 hours on those days. I realise how lucky I am with the flexibility I've got and will continue to fight for others to have that too - and to encourage men to take it. I'm not sure it's a middle class thing, all I know is that I'm 41yo and chose to go back to work ft after having dc to keep my career going. For the first time we're comfortable enough for me to spend a bit more time with dd before she goes to school next September. After that, I want to re-train and do something else. Oh, and I'm public sector which often strives to be more flexible to offer women more choice about their advancement.

"Skills are acquired through hard work. "

Plenty of people work hard in unskilled or low skilled jobs.