To think flexible working is mostly a myth unless you’re already senior or child-free?

[MeasuredPearlHeron]

Every company brags about “hybrid culture” but if you’re not senior, you’re often expected to prove your productivity twice over.

AIBU to think flexibility only really exists for people who already have leverage?

I think it’s the opposite. Requests for part time working/flexible working are rarely approved unless you have school aged children. Or you are very senior and have a lot of clout.

Both my husband and I have flexible working. We are both fairly junior and have children.

It depends on the organisation. I made the most of flexible working in my youth and very junior, it was a godsend with a hangover! Or to head off early for a trip or night out.

Massively depends on the organisation. In mine, everyone gets very flexible working no matter what level they are. I’m sure in others that’s not the case.

I agree a bit.

I’m not “senior” as such in that I’m not at manager level but I am senior in my role. I’ve been there over 20 years.

They’ve never said no to me because I’m good at what I do. Not everyone is. I do have some sway because of my long term experience with the firm.

Massively organisation and sector specific I think.

My DH has flexible working - as long as he does his work and hours they don't care how or where particular. He's not particularly senior and we have children. It means he can do school runs some days and finish early to spend time with them if he has had a few later days of meeting earlier in the week.

I have a reduced hours contract now (30 hours a week). It wasn't hard to get approved - I am bottom of the ladder and have kids (hence the reason for reduced hours for school pick ups) BUT I have no flexibility within that - I have to work in the office and hardly any flexability in the hours I work on a day to day basis

Yes, real flexibility comes with seniority. I don’t see why that is surprising. Companies don’t want to lose certain assets and are willing to make compromises to keep them.

Depends on your sector. There’s loads in mine (HE).

Depends where you work, in my workplace (University) every other person has a flexible working request or at least picks their own start/end time, within reason.

depends where you work surely? I work for an LA and flexible working is pretty standard, much easier for junior staff if anything tbh

As @KimberleyClark said - it’s the opposite! Flexible working is seen as something for parents

In response to your OP, not in every organisation or industry, no.

In response to your thread title - why on earth would you think being child-free would mean it's more likely you get flexible working agreed? In my experience it's absolutely the opposite and being child-free means you're expected to be available if needed, unlike parents.

Maybe it really does depend on the sector. I’ve mostly worked in charities and smaller orgs where “flexible” really means “you can answer emails from home at 8pm instead of 5pm.” Do you find your LA actually sticks to the policy day to day?

I’ve seen it go both ways. What I meant was that flexibility often seems to depend on why you’re asking for it. Parents might get formal flexibility on paper, while people without kids often don’t get the same understanding if they just want balance for other reasons (health, focus, life outside work, etc). But you’re right - being child-free can also make you the default person expected to pick up the slack.

The majority of staff in my NHS department are on flexible working, I'm the only only full timer on normal hours and I'm 63. All the parents work flexible hours.

I don't know why you'd think it's easier to get flexible working if you're child-free. In my experience, it's the opposite, and child-free people are expected to pick up the slack for everyone else. It would be easier for me to get flexible working because I have kids, than it would be for the child-free in my office, anyway.

It depends on company's culture I think. In my previous company, it was pretty diabolical. One of the board directors always argued that women didn't need any flexibility at work because she herself returned to work 3 months after maternity leave and still managed to work full time and didn't see why it had to be different for other women. I once asked if I could come to work by 9:15 am instead of 9:00 am because my son's school never opened its doors until 8:50 am and I struggled to get in on time. "No" was the answer despite the fact that I said I'd be happy to either reduce my lunch break or leave later.

My current employer doesn't care when you turn up and when you leave as long as the work is done.

I think this is the point that OP is making

In my experience, flexible working for senior people tends to mean "you can occasionally nip out for your kid's school assembly without having to ask permission but you're expected to be available at all times, including when you're on holiday". Which is... not an ideal trade off, imo.

Agree it depends on the sector you work in, I've gone from retail where there was 0 flexibility to civil service, where I feel I hit the jackpot, WFH and can work flexibly between 6.30am - 7pm.

I do think being "senior" helps, but so does being really good at your job regardless of what "level" of the organisation you're at. You can have leverage at any level if you've made yourself an asset that the organisation wishes to hold onto - most organisations will bend over backwards to retain really good people, but they're much less likely to agree to flexibility for an average worker who would be easy to replace, unless there is genuinely no negative impact on operations.

Come on. My OP says this. Do you read to comprehend?

No it doesn't, it says child-free.

The most junior person in my team has the most flexible conditions to drop off and pick up her small kids at will. Because a. I'm not a dick and b. because she is flexible in return, good at her job and I don't want to lose her.

Not in my organisation. Loads of the younger working do flex hours.