AIBU to ask for more flexibility before accepting this job offer?

[Aabbaas]

Have an offer from a company. Been in my role for years and I have lots of flexibility with my working hours which is key as I have a 5 year old DD and do school runs etc.

Role is hybrid: 2 days at home, 3 days in the office. Office is in a part of London which isn’t convenient for me and would mean commuting for 1 hr 45 min door to door.
Day starts at 8:30 to 5:30 but they have made it clear it’s busy so I think extra hours are expected.

I can only consider this role if they allowed me to work from home 3 days a week and start at 9am most days and theb leave at 4pm when in the office and do the pick up. Then I’d reconnect in the evening to finish work.
Is this an unreasonable request? It is what ai do with my employer but have earnt this flexibility over a long tenure and I appreciate a new company might think IABU.

Keen to hear thoughts

Give her a break.
Being a working mum is hard enough without other people, shockingly, other WOMEN attacking her.

I've never had any problem with more flexibility being given to people at work who had children. Our manager does not allow much flexibility though and I could never understand why as it would've made working parents happy and the rest of staff would've been reasonable to get on with it, I certainly would've had no issues with it.
Society isn't built around having children, COL is insane and all I'm seeing is women attacking other mums which is exactly what the billionaires controlling us would want so well done for being a part of this broken system.

Totally agree. Either employees can fulfil the hours or they can’t.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you knew the location was difficult to get to and you’re childcare provision or lack of, is not the employer’s concern. There’s nothing more that gets the backs up of colleagues who don’t have children or need childcare than a parent who expects preferential treatment and leaves on the dot and they have to pick up the slack. You can’t have your cake and eat it. Either the hours work or they don’t. Having said that, there’s nothing stopping you asking the question as part of the negotiations but be prepared for them to say no. Personally I’d stay put and look for something that’s definitely more flexible.

Why should other staff be just get on with it. They may come across as being reasonable about it, but I doubt that’s really the case.

I’m not attacking anyone.

Employers often want staff who prioritise the job over everything else. Of course that’s not fair but it’s life. For a working mother that’s impossible.

It is naive to think that when a company allows flexibility to working parents, the other staff don’t resent it, especially if it adds to their workload. Especially if that person is new.

It’s not the fault of the employee of course. But I have seen it happen time and again.

And ironically all the rights that women have fought for (mat leave (and unlimited time off for appointments and sick leave), menstrual leave, menopause leave etc have illustrated to some employers that women are less reliable.

That is unfair of course.

Once they stopped being allowed to ask about family situations, I have always had to state clearly that I won’t be having kids etc. Of course now I’m past child bearing age, I have to convince them somehow that I’m not going to need the concessions for menopause etc.

And that’s why we have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously as the men. It’s shit, it’s unfair but it’s how society is.

I’m not a parent but I demand flexibility from my job. I don’t worry about whether my colleagues think it’s unfair that I get more flexibility than them. If they want it, they need to demand it. I would absolutely never prioritise my job over my personal life and I would encourage others to do the same, regardless of whether your personal life involves caring for children or not.

And @Anarchy99, equality for women doesn’t mean we should act the same as men or that we should be treated the same as men. It means the opposite. It means our differences should be recognised and accommodated for, so businesses need to respect that women tend to do the majority of childcare and make allowances for that. Any business that is treating a woman as “unreliable” due to her childcare commitments or hormonal challenges during menopause is guilty of discrimination.

Her management needs to sort this!

I see where some posters are coming from re your husbands job as it is a recurring theme that the women is expected to be flexible however in your situation I am guessing your husband does something along the lines of a manufacturing role where he is part of a full shift so you either work that shift pattern with the whole plant or you don't work at all. That is very different from an office job that can offer flexibility so totally with you in this situation.

In terms of your question, your company may be very accommodating, there are multiple companies out there who are, if you like the role then ask the question, what do you have to lose, worst case is they say no and you are still in the same position you were before.

The reason so many people are being negative is if you look at it from the employers perspective its like a dam, a brand new employee joins and gets to work an extra day from home compared to the existing staff.. all of a sudden they are all pissed off and either leave, moan non stop or just decide they can do an extra day from home.

Its one thing for an existing member of staff who has a child to be given some flex but a brand new one coming in leaves a very bad taste for existing staff.

No harm asking. Incidentally I do very similar and was granted it from day 1. Weirdly negative responses here. If you're good at your job and have a level of seniority, I see no problem with your plan (but then I wouldn't, because I do it too 😁).

I agree that the more things that get “legally allowed” time off the more employers will start discriminating. And whether it’s right or wrong it WILL affect women more.

For the general population people WANT paid time off for sick leave, medical appointments, funerals plus weeks after for grieving no matter how close the relative, to look after sick pets and also time off again if they die, looking after elderly relatives.

Then on top of that women want fully paid time off for maternity leave (which a lot of women think should be fully paid for at least 2 years), fertility treatment, miscarriages (even if only 4-5 weeks pregnant), menstrual issues, menopause, looking after children when sick, daily school runs, medical appointments for children.

I think a lot of people who think all these should be available have never worked in a small business. I worked somewhere once with only 5 people. Everyone had a different role. So if someone was off either the job didn’t get done that day or someone else had to do it. And 4/5 of us were women. Imagine if a few of us had 2 days off a month for a period or menopause issues. Then one had repeated miscarriages so was off for a week or two every other month. Then another one had 3 children who caught every illness going so she was off for 6 weeks in a row with illness. Someone’s great aunt died so they were off for 3 weeks. Then someone’s dog died and they were off for a month. The business would have gone under. The fact is no matter how “friendly” a business wants to be, they are in fact a business and they need people to actually work. And they need to be at work more than they are not at work.

You can ask - nothing ventured nothing gained.

However if the place has a three day policy and you want two days with both of those leaving early I’d be surprised if they agreed for a new employee. First of all you have no track record with them and secondly it can annoy longstanding employees who don’t have the same privilege whilst also juggling families.

Are they a multinational dealing with offshore teams? I would at the least then offer to be the person fielding more of the out of hours meetings on the WFH days so that you are offering something in return. I would also look for longer wrap around care on the two days.

Why should women get preferential treatment? Like men you are getting paid to do a job and therefore should be treated the same and work the same. Women wanted equality and rightly so, but you can’t pick and choose the bits you like and disregard the bits you don’t.

And part and parcel of that is fathers doing their shift on the home front/pick up front.

Bear in mind the “standard” working model for business was designed by and for men. There is no reason why that model cannot be changed so long as it works for all sides.

Yes of course they are guilty of discrimination but if you think that the fact they have to accommodate us just for being women is never an issue, then you are a little naive.

Of course it shouldn’t happen. But unless a company is fairly forward thinking, they may be unwilling to make adjustments before the employee has even started.

I am AUDHD. If I admitted it at interview then I didn’t get through but if i kept quiet, i got offered the job. Every time.

I don’t want to be seen as some kind of liability because I’m a woman as well.

A lot of employers (certainly not all) don’t care about the personal lives of the staff, they just want the job done.

Hopefully this is changing but it won’t happen overnight. I’m fortunate enough to work in an environment where they recognise the worth of their staff but it hasn’t always been the case.

If those men are parents, then the reason they’re probably not asking for flexible working is because another employer somewhere else has given their wife a flexible working arrangement. So they’re still benefiting from workplace flexibility, they’re just not being judged or discriminated against because it’s their wife that is asking for it.

Until it does, the PP has a point.

If you had two candidates for a role, equally qualified etc, and you weren’t a particularly forward thinking employer, who are you going to give the job to?

The man who might be useless but won’t need to be accommodated for, or the women who will have rights and access to accommodations from day 1 and may be objectively less ‘reliable’?

It may not be fair but it’s life.

I agree. Any change has got to be workable for all including employers. If women are picking up the bulk of childcare etc, that’s a discussion they need to have with their husband or partner.

It still doesn’t take away the burden on women who actually have to bear the children though.

Short of doing what they do in the US re mat leave, I can’t see how that would stop working against us

Because as I said, equality does not mean treating people exactly the same.

As an example, treating women and men the same would result in equal floor space for toilet facilities. Whereas treating them as equals would mean recognising their differences and treating them differently. Women take longer in the bathroom because they need to remove more clothing, they might be wearing awkward clothing like tights or jumpsuits, they might be on their period, they might be with children, they might be doing their makeup or calling a friend to let them know they’re safe, which men are less likely to do. For these reasons women should have a greater proportion of the available space dedicated to their facilities.

For similar reasons, women should be treated differently at work. We ARE different to men, and pretending we aren’t is not feminism. I recognise that not all companies do give women concessions, but accepting this as “the way things are” and altering our behaviour so that we act like men is not the way. We need to keep fighting for equality, and keep supporting each other.

Our ‘differences’ make it harder to be taken seriously, whether we like it or not. If you want to be treated as seriously as a male employee, you have to give as much to the role as a man would.

At least it only used to be childbearing age when it was an issue. Now it’s extended into menopause then I think we allow ourselves to be presented as weak and incapable of doing the same job as a man.

And women with childcare responsibilities will never be the same as women who choose not to have a family so they can dedicate their lives to their careers.

Those are both valid choices but making the second choice means fighting twice as hard to convince people that you are 100% committed

There’s no harm in asking. They may well say no as they may struggle to justify offering a newbie a working pattern that they don’t give their existing staff, but you’re no worse off for simply checking if it’s a possibility.

Whether it works depends on the company, but can we please dispel the myth that leaving the office early or WFH = shorter days. Without the commute (in my case 1 hour 30 each way) my WFH days tend to be longer than office days, and leaving the office at 4 should also be ok if logging back on later. As PPs have said, there is potentially an issue with meeting times, but if many people have different work patterns, meetings will tend to be within core hours anyway, so she won’t miss (m)any calls by heading at 4. Good luck OP!

You’re fighting the wrong fight though. You shouldn’t be fighting to show you’re 100% committed to work, you should be fighting to show your employer that they need to treat you and your colleagues as humans, with lives outside work.

I’m also childfree but I would never “dedicate my life to my career”. Children or not, don’t waste your life on a job.

We should all demand flexibility, refuse to comply with silly policies, and fight against being treated as a robot who is 100% committed to work.