Parents wfh and the furloughed for childcare

[baskininjoe]

I am childless, currently by choice because I am in my twenties but do plan to have a child in the future at some point.

AIBU to be getting annoyed with the short end of the stick that the childless are getting right now with everything regarding childcare and lockdown.

I have so many colleges who are currently wfh whilst looking after children. I completely sympathise and understand this is hard but I am really starting to get annoyed with them being less productive, and logging less hours for the same pay (no reduction), whilst the rest of us are expected to pick up the slack, and work more hours to make sure tasks still get completed, whilst not being paid anymore for our extra time and effort. I know there is no perfect solution but it really grates on me that they aren't being paid for what they complete which could therefore compensate the rest of us for the extra we are having to do because they are not fully fulfilling their role.

On top of this with the idea of school provisionally going back in June some of these parents have said they will not be sending their DC to school, despite a place being open and available to them, and therefore expect the rest of us to continue to pick up their slack because they can't work as productively whilst looking after their children.

My housemate (shared house) works in a place where many parents have been furloughed for childcare reasons, despite their being lots of work to do, just because they've asked to be. This means that my housemate has been incredibly stressed as the workload is still high but the team is now smaller, whilst many of their colleges are receiving 80% on the taxpayer, despite their actually being work for them to do, all because they complained to their employer that it was too hard working with children and thus asking to be furloughed. This is especially grating as it is taxpayer money that is being used to pay them, despite their actually being a job they could do and be payed for.

I am not at all against the furlough scheme, another of my housemates work in a restaurant and is also on furlough and this is absolutely the right thing as they can not work, despite wanting to, as their place of work is not allowed to open.

However I think:

1. Some employers and employees are taking the piss by allowing staff to be furloughed/asking to be furloughed despite their actually being a job to do. Which then negatively affects the rest of the teams as the work level remains the same but there are less people to do the work so the remaining people have to work harder with no extra pay.

1. Employers need to be understanding but also firm with parents that although some productively will be affected by having DC at home, a certain level still needs to be consistently met or they are not doing their job properly and that negatively affects the business and the rest of the team.

1. Employers need to be especially understanding and grateful to employees still working, who are picking up the slack for those not being as productive because of DC at home/furloughed for childcare reasons despite their still being work. And actually need to consider financially compensating them for the high level of extra work and overtime and/or promise to look at these people first for upcoming promotions as as they have shown serious dedication to the business.

1. Employers should not be allowing parents to choose not to send DC to school when they can if it continues to affect the parents productivity level.

I understand this is a hard time for everyone, and parents do have it hard with few childcare options for DC, however that is not the problem of their colleagues and they should not be negatively affected by being expected to work far far more for no extra gain. My housemate and I are stressed beyond belief both having to work 10-12 hours every day for what would be a 9-5 office job in order to pick up the slack for colleagues whilst not being paid anymore whilst these colleagues are only completely 4-6 hours a day yet continuing to be paid the same as us. And on top of this are expecting it to continue despite their child being able to go to school soon because they are choosing not to send them.

it is entitled to expect full pay if you cannot deliver close to full hours/work

Are you going to acknowledge the impact of a government shut down of childcare, or are you going to make like this didn’t happen?

My friend and her husband get up at 5.30 am and work for 2 hours before the kids get up. Then one works a full day whilst the other does childcare for the 2 and 4 yo and then that one works into the evening. Then they swap. Both have people on their team furloughed and they're both working at LEAST the same number of hours as usual. Is it conceivable that the issue isn't these lazy parents but your company?

@oblada what about the big picture consequences. Do I sue the childcare providers/schools/government for my lost wages to compensate for the 6hrs a day childcare that I am now doing instead? It's all a grand balance of society's workload as a whole. It can't be looked at as one job/task/company in isolation. Otherwise you are asking parents to absorb the whole hit!

Advice that they will no doubt consider in the context of their overall attitude to their staff @Oblada. Our HR team also advised the exec this was a legal option. But they see the bigger picture

"Are you going to acknowledge the impact of a government shut down of childcare, or are you going to make like this didn’t happen?"

Absolutely agreed. Hence the need to be flexible - employers should accept working practices that they would not normally consider in normal circumstances. So some in my team start at 7am when we normally start at 8am so that they can finish earlier. Some work week-end. Some do more ad hoc hours. Some have reduced hours and pay in a way we wouldn't normally agree but it is reasonable to agree right now.
(Although if you want to be technical they didn't shut down childcare completely - private nannies were always an option).

Gonzales - you wouldn't have a claim anyway. But no I don't think parents should absorb it all. Employers need to be flexible. Flexible doesn't mean paying full pay when the employee cannot work/deliver in full (or close to). It means finding creative solutions that work for both parties.

Joan - most of my clients are small businesses so cannot afford to pay full pay for significantly less than full work. Otherwise they'd go under....

Although if you want to be technical they didn't shut down childcare completely - private nannies were always an option

We have already covered the issues with supply and demand here, btw.

It has to be give and take
Yers. Employers should give parents their full pay, as the lack of childcare is government mandated. And employees should take advice from a union if they're treated differently to non-parents during – and excuse me for repeating myself but several of you seem to be missing the point, and the news – a global pandemic and unprecedented lockdown of UK society.

This thread almost makes me think it would have been easier being a SAHP (stay at home peasant) during the plague. Sure we wouldn't have Hey Duggee with which to entertain the DC and Mr Shakespeare would get to hog all the career glory while we pushed hoovers around mud huts with several toddlers hanging off our hips, but at least we wouldn't have to deal with HR.

But no I don't think parents should absorb it all. Employers need to be flexible. Flexible doesn't mean paying full pay when the employee cannot work/deliver in full (or close to). It means finding creative solutions that work for both parties.

You pretty much are saying parents should absorb it all. All you’re requiring of businesses is that they are flexible in terms of hours.

We still have parents who need to work 40 hours a week on top of childcare commitments.

And while businesses wave employment contracts at their staff, where does this end? Where is parents‘ comeback for the contracts they signed with childcare providers? That they were entitled to?

If people cling rigidly to their ‘rights’ here, we have one ugly mess unfolding. And one that ends very badly for women in particular.

Then your opinion is irrelevant @Oblada. If they intend to reduce pay because financially they cannot continue then the advice they're paying you for is simply whether it's legal to do so or not. Whether they will or won't is a matter for each employer and something you have no sway over.

Oh of course, when I didn't get an interview for a new role because I had no childcare start date I should have phoned one of the fleet of unemployed nannies in my rural Wiltshire market town. Silly me!

I should have phoned one of the fleet of unemployed nannies in my rural Wiltshire market town. Silly me!

Quite

@oblada but they can't force people to reduce contractual hours and deduct pay (this is an unprecendented situation and temporary) - they would need consent to do this otherwise they are unlawfully deducting wages. I absolutely agree people need to be flexible in their approach to work but it is generally the consensus that to get the most out of employees that this is the case anyway.

Off topic, but probably a great time to be a nanny.

They’re in such short supply they can name their price. Though that doesn’t help the non millionaires among us.

Based on what @HeyDuggeesCakeBadge has said, I hope oblada's company has PII

"Being a parent doesn't give special rights."
Thats absolutely correct I don't think anyone is asking for that though. I agree with OP saying having children is a choice it absolutely is. When I decided have a child i considered many things what I did not consider is what I would do if a global pandemic meant that all childcare shut, I wasnt able to access my support network and had to continue to do my job while looking after my child. May be a massive oversight on my part but, well its never happened before so I just didnt think about it. Its a really awful situation for everyone and allowances need to be made for that. Not just for parents but allowances are made for people with caring responsibilities those shielding etc. To suggest that parents should be paid less because, through no fault of their own, they cannot do theyre normal hours is completely unfair and would definately be a case for discrimination. If I am paid less then I would quickly begin to struggle to afford basics. How is that fair that through no fault of my own I have to put my family home at risk? Furlough isnt an option for me but luckily I have supportive managers and colleagus who are not looking to oush me under a bus as OP clearly wants to do to her colleagues. Its hard but to suggest that parents should be made redundant and denied promotion for something they have no control over is awful. OP legally you are not required to work over your contractual hours, that is a choice you are making, that is down to your decisions not the actions of any of your colleagues, be they parents or not.

It’s so bloody depressing how many people on here are accepting of the fact that women will be hit by this, referring to sex discrimination etc. If the assumption in your household is that you take the hit, because your male partner isn’t meeting you halfway, THAT is the cause of inequality in the workplace not the pandemic. It’s a lot easier to blame the system than consider that you might be shacked up with a lazy or sexist man. The pandemic is shining a light on prejudices that people have walked themselves into. It makes me so mad how many women complain about being stuck with childcare, mental burdens etc but don’t set up their own lives any differently or demand more of their partners. There is zero reason why this should result in women being knocked back years in the workplace, yet I agree that’s what will happen because so many women will continue to accept less than half input from their partners and then expect allowances to be made for that.

Joan - of course and my advice is that it's legal. Which is what is being challenged here.
Some employers will do it to survive and some will do it because it is sensible in the circumstances. Some can afford to be more generous and that's fine, but not required.

Laurie - and you want businesses to absorb it all.
Re contracts with childcare - the contract would have been frustrated by the current pandemic.

I can already see the parents returning to FT screaming about how they haven't had a holiday and childcare is still work

If the 100s of 1000s who've signed the petition for a minimum three months extension of paid maternity leave is anything to go by, you're probably right
The government's response on 14 May suggests this won't happen, but it's the entitlement at such a time which is enlightening - and it's that entitlement being demonstrated in the workplace which may well bring about greater job losses among this sector

To be clear I'm absolutely not suggesting this is right, only that it's the cold hard reality. As ever, it can sometimes be wise to be careful what you wish for ...

Rainycloudyday I'm assuming it will hit women hardest because we generally earn less and will potentially earn less due to future maternity leaves, so if a household has to decide which parent takes the hit, they sacrifice the lower salary. Nothing to do with my DP not pulling his weight around the house or prioritising his job.

There is zero reason why this should result in women being knocked back years in the workplace, yet I agree that’s what will happen because so many women will continue to accept less than half input from their partners and then expect allowances to be made for that.

I don’t think that’s true of my set up at all actually.

We have a pretty equal set up and have been juggling well together since this started.

It just so happens that my industry is hit harder than his. I’ve taken a pay cut, he hasn’t. I may well get made redundant. That’s just happenstance.

What’s more interesting is how on earth will I ever get back to work without childcare being available (you know, apart from the nanny fleet )?

I presume that will be top of mind for employers at the minute, when looking at female hires with children. Societally we know that it may not be so top of mind when they’re looking at males. I wouldn’t be surprised to find a lot of barriers to women that have nothing to do with marrying sexist men.

and you want businesses to absorb it all

Businesses have had a LOT of support from the government through this. I think they could find a way to take a little pressure off parents expected to field two full time jobs right now.

Re contracts with childcare - the contract would have been frustrated by the current pandemic.

But my contract with work cannot take into consideration that I now have full time childcare to cover?

I find it very interesting as my contract with my employer has also basically gone to pot. My pay has been reduced. The requirement to be present in the office has gone. The rules around working with our suppliers all binned. Yet hours need to stay the same, with everything else shifting sands around that?

@burritofan sorry but I don’t agree that taking maternity leave is what causes a lot of women to earn less. A year or two off over the course of a career makes no tangible difference to earning and progression. Going very part time, always being the one to leave for ill children, doing all nursery runs so unable to work certain hours...those are the factors. And those are determined by the arrangements set by women and their partners.

Yes rainy, its all womens fault. Its our fault we accept shouldering all of the childcare and all of our men are feckless. There is absolutely no nuance or other reasons why this would be the case, much less systematic sexism in society - its our own fault.