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?

I think that's the long and short of it, yes. We all know vaginas are what designed the global economy and also are required for housework and looking after kids.

The best flexible work is working for yourself.
I don't think we can expect employers to allow working from home in place of paying for childcare.
I don't think it's confined to middle class.
There are thousands working pt flexible hours who are on low income.
You can't get more flexible than zero hour contracts.

Dh works flexible but still equating to full time hours. It enables us to provide our disabled child with the care he needs. Without the flexible hours our life might be so difficult that ds wouldn't be able to live with us.

@Gwenhwyfar

Can you understand that not every workplace is like yours though? Doing the cleaners' job for them is not going to lead to advancement for most people, and doing a job at a higher level has just been completely forbidden at the places I've worked.

Sorry for the slow reply.

I do get that different workplaces are different, but what I've come across in a few is a certain type of person who is always comparing their tasks against another person's, questioning every single personnel decision on projects etc etc etc. They look entirely at their own performance and advancement, trying to define the minimum possible effort to justify promotion.

Quite apart from wasting so much time counting buttons, when you compare that type of person to someone who is willing to help colleagues, improve processes, get their hands dirty or even mostly just do something really boring but useful then it makes a massive difference to the company.

It's that sort of person I'm talking about, rather than the technicalities of what their being asked to do.

YABU
You are also confusing flexible working with Part time working which are two completely different things.
It is nothing to do with class, nor is it anything to do with earning power (flexibility).
Obviously, if you are a higher earner then the prospect of being able to work PT is more likely - but, as has been said - that is nothing to do with working flexibly.

Your staff at grades 3-4 are doing the work of those twice their grade because the higher ones don't want to work full time and the company hasn't hired enough to make up the difference? I'm hoping I read that wrong.

It’s part time working you are talking about. I work full time but with flexible hours which mean as a single mother I can earn a good salary and generally not worry about my daughter being sick etc as I could work from home and juggle my work patterns, unless my presence is necessary. Even then I can often phone or video call in. What I couldn’t afford to do is drop a day or two, as it would impact on my pay - so I couldn’t go part time. I can flexibly work though. In fairness, I’m almost forty and have worked in this sector all my life. Previous jobs involved shift work etc and would never have been flexible.

A few at lower grades came back from mat leave after 6 months because they couldn't afford the drop in pay.

Assume they are blessed with the benefit of free/very cheap childcare though - can't be that low paid that going back to work is actually worthwhile after childcare costs. Some of the 'middle class' (who often will have studied/worked to get to the level they are before having children, rather than having it at a low grade where they can't fully afford to) you refer to, won't have that.

I think you are right to a certain extent but not wholly.

I work in the NHS, in a management position. I'm a Band 8 and asked if I could work flexibly (9 day fortnight which I've done before). I was refused for no good reason. my manager just doesn't like people working flexibly. It's very frustrating.

Like many other posters, flexible working does not just mean part time or redu, Ed hours. Flexible working means - working your hours flexibly around your life - often with core w hours. WFH too. I find it fairly odd that you think flexible working is just for middle class women.....
Next you'll be saying people wfh don't work...
However, I agree flexible working should be for all roles if possible. Not just seniors.
Be prepared for a significant backlash though... Taking away flexible working is going back to the dark ages...

YABVU

From your extensive pool of what, 20 women?!

Flexible working is for those who work full time too. Working from home, working around their child’s concert at school... so many ways it can benefit everyone.

It was most beneficial to me when I was a single parent. I lost out on money but I needed to be around for my kids in the holidays, and their Dad was useless and childcare prohibitive. I had no choice but to do term time only and I resented having to fight for it, which I did, to people who just thought I was laying around. Other women have granny to step in or whatever or a husband to help, I did not.

Assume they are blessed with the benefit of free/very cheap childcare though - can't be that low paid that going back to work is actually worthwhile after childcare costs. Some of the 'middle class' (who often will have studied/worked to get to the level they are before having children, rather than having it at a low grade where they can't fully afford to) you refer to, won't have that.

I never know when I read these comments whether I'm being very naive and privileged about what you're classing as a middle class wage, or whether you're being a bit privileged about 'not worth working' means. I've seen people say that it isn't worth them working because half their salary would be spent on childcare - well, me too but we can't afford to go without the other half! Surely for childcare to completely cancel out your salary after your first child (I appreciate it's different if we're talking about multiple children) then you have to be earning a wage that very few people would consider middle class?

@LisaSimpsonsbff

My point still stands. If they were on NLW (using the more generous £8.72 rate that doesn't start until apriL) at 35 hours a week that equates to £15,870 salary, a £1,194 take home per month.

No free hours. A quick google of a nursery local to me, weekly fees for 8am to 6pm are £228. Let's be generous and say only 4 weeks in a month £912. So left with £282 a month, which is less than SMP.

Obviously up it to £25k a year and you can be £200 better off per month vs SMP. But my thought is that if you really are reliant on returning to work full time to get an extra £200 above SMP, you probably can't really afford a baby in the first place. If it was planned, why not wait until a better financial position?

Aren't something like 50% of babies unplanned?
And I bet more than 50% of job changes that reduce income, and splits from partners, are unplanned.