Inflexible and stressful work harming families, says Nick Clegg - do you agree and if so what should be done about it?

[KatieMumsnet]

The government says it wants to do more for hard-pressed working families, and is launching a report on maternity, paternity, employment and community involvement

Whaddya think?

The touchy feely claptrap is nonsense.

But I am all for a system which promotes greater choice. Some families would prefer to swap leave between parents. That's great for all concerned. Gives the child a chance to know first hand that their dad can do hands on parenting and that their mum can have a career. The only thing a dad can't do is bf, but it's perfectly possible for a mother to continue bf long after returning to work - many of us did.

I can't see why anyone would be against a flexible system - unless they can't cope with the idea of other people making different choices to theirs!

The baby stage is a relatively short one. Parents might need to take time off from time to time all the rest of their working lives - even when the kids are grown up! Our head of HR recently took a month off to look after her daughter who had just had a baby.

That's why it's wrong to think of this as just a parenting issue. Other people need flexible working hours too, for example if they have aged parents or neurotic pets to look after. And if we sort it for parents we sort it for them too.

Would it really be that difficult to say to employers (who often also have family responsibilities) that if someone makes a reasonable request for time off, to let them have it? A log could be kept, and if someone appeared to be taking more than, say, five days in a year, they could be asked to account for it.

As for the maternity/paternity thing, what would have made my life easier was to have been allowed to take a year off, instead of 6 months. However, everyone is different, and there really is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Couldn't some law be designed that reflects that fact?

Totally agree hammer.

It isn't just an issue about parents of young children. Parents of children any age, and people who aren't parents, also have perfectly legitimate reasons why they may want some time out.

I think one of the most significant ways in which society has progresed is that people just aren't prepared to be pigeonholed any more. Women don't want to be told that their career always plays second fiddle to their husband's. And men don't want to feel that their responsibility is to work non stop for 40 years while their wife takes care of all things domestic. And people who aren't parents don't want to feel that their wants and needs come second place to everyone else. Many of us, these days, choose as a partner someone with similar values and interests. It doesn't make sense to have polarised roles any more. I am just as capable of earning as my husband is, and he is just as capable of cooking the dinner, changing a nappy or dealing with a stroppy teenager.

"what the hell is a business with only 2 or 3 staff supposed to do - why don't they just shut us all down"

Interesting. So, should a small business with only 2 or 3 staff not hire women of potential child bearing age, just in case?

I think that if men and women can share the current leave in whatever way they want (not lots of little bits as that would be a pain in the arse for everyone) but in blocks, like 3 months for one partner and 6 months for the other, than that is a great idea.

If it became normal for men to take a decent percentage of leave it would stop employers discriminating against women on the principle that they might take maternity leave. Which is a fantastic step forward for equality. All the people who are critising this idea as being devastating for business because their employees might take time off are admitting that they would not hire women in case they went off to have children, otherwise they would already be dealing with this issue.

Likewise people who's DHs are far too busy and important to take paternity leave...does that mean that women's careers aren't as important as men's? No women is too busy and important to take parental leave so couldn't benefit from this proposal?

Sharing maternity leave seems a good idea, providing its correctly monitored and only one person receives the SMP. Couples can then choose who stays home with the baby and who supports the household.

Flexible working will never be made compulsory, businesses need staff and should not have to adjust their needs to meet their staffs personal choices. The right to request is fine but an automatic right to it would be very wrong. Small businesses already have enough to cope with and can get a raw deal from employees without extra rights.

The fact is people choose to have a child/children and they know the hours/jobs that they have to work to support them. Its a choice we make as parents.

make it easier for parents get P/T/flexible hours. The current legislation makes it too easy for employers to say no.

The other thing that would help a lot imo would be to lengthen the school day (at least for older kids). In Edinburgh children have Friday afternoon off too. The system is simply not designed with working parents in mind. I know people who put their children in private schools just for the wrap-around care.

Again, I know not everyone would agree with a longer school day, but I think if you imported a team of playworkers/uni students to supervise homework or clubs or other activities for the last hour of the day, it would help to reduce the stress of trying to race home. Then, homework done, time at home could be enjoyed.

Some schools have linked after school clubs that collect the children at 3.15 and look after them until 6. That works too, for younger ones. But when they get to high school, they wouldn't be seen dead at an after school club.

In all my 33 years(!) of continuous motherhood, the most difficult times for me to combine work and kids have been when the child is aged 3/4 and the school insists on the half day (ie 2 hours a day) for the first half term at least (even though the child has been full-time at nursery for two years). The next difficult period is when the child is aged 12 - 18, when they are allowed to come home alone, but often bring unruly friends and could get up to mischief, totally unsupervised for three hours.

I think there should be a shorter school day.All this stuff is designed to keep children in childcare and parents chasing the money to pay disgusting high mortgage and childcare and to pay for one hol a year.It is no accident it is like this.It is what they want.It is mainly bollocks tbh.

Hammerlikedaisies - totally agree that the most difficult times vis a vis childcare are those transition points.

Everyone always focuses on nursery/ childminders etc, for young infants. But they're sorted, it's when thy get a bit older but still need looking after, that it's very tricky.

Cornsilk, the legislation is there for a reason. It protects employers - how would they run a business if everybody had the right to choose their hours?

Lots of employers are fair and do try and accomodate but some requests are simply unfeasable whilst others put work onto existing staff etc. If you are a good employee, have long service etc then a good employer will try and accomodate or reach a compromise. Some employees do expect it all though, work the bare min to qualify for paid ML then expect to change their hours to suit themselves with little regard for the employer

HappyMummy, agree that good working relations are key, and that employees can be just as guilty of playing the system. For every employer who doesn't employ a woman of childbearing age or who changes someone's job when she is away on maternity leave, there's an employee who is taking what she can and giving as little as she can get away with. Who's more to blame? That's why we need a fairer system, so that people don't have to bend the rules all the time.

Doobydoo - good point. Unfortunately, most people can't afford to opt out. But the year that I went part-time was the period in my life that I felt I was coping best, and I think that is a good solution for some people. Less money, but much much happier. We were on Working Families Tax Credit, which really saved our lives. We managed to pay the rent and we didn't starve. Bring it back, Cleggeron, and we won't say any more about those nasty benefit cuts.

I agree with Bonsoir, violethill and Hammer.

Who are all these people who can afford to take 10 months off with much of it on only SMP, anyhow?

I had to go back when DD1 was 8 weeks and with DD2 when she was 16 weeks (DH was SAHD) because that was how long I got full whack and I couldn't even afford a drop of 10% and still pay the rent and other essential bills.

"For every employer who doesn't employ a woman of childbearing age or who changes someone's job when she is away on maternity leave, there's an employee who is taking what she can and giving as little as she can get away with."

Do we know that? Are there any figures on this?

No idea. I was just trying to say that it works both ways. You need good will and fair play on both sides.

public sector employment is only going to get less family friendly following the con-dem's cuts.

i am on maternity leave currently from a hospital-based post. on my return, a quarter of the team will have left, and they are not being replaced. so the chances of me finishing work even by 6pm, never mind by the time I stop getting paid at 5pm, are growing ever slimmer, as caseloads increase.

and yes, this is stressful, and harmful to my family. thanks for noticing, nick.

Just wondering what this thread was set up for, KatieMumsnet. Could you say to what use the responses are being put? Many thanks.

Good question.

I just assumed that the Government are so out of touch, and lack any imagination or creativity it was simply a case of "I know, we'll ask Mumsnet".

Personally I think MN needs to back away from the political arena. It's turning into a sort of 'think-tank' with threads like these, and whereas on one hand it is good to be able to contribute, I can't help but think it just isn't right to use this forum in that way.

If this gets fed back here's an idea.

Locally you have to arrnage childcare 6 months in advance; on no pay or whatever you cannot afford reg or the risk of owing £££ in fees but you also cannot know 6 months in advance exactly what date you will find a job.

Allow the TC system to stretch to Au PAirs for older children when provided through a registered agency- support employment for Au Pairs, people needing childcare AND the agency business.

OOps and the last line

and provide incentives to do so, as so many agencies locally refuse to provide au pairs, esp. on temporary basis contracts, as their wage is relatively low as is the % the agenncy makes: yet it could mean work or not

OFFS, why is this the wrong way to use this forum? Cameregg and all their cronies have no idea how real people feel. Let them read this and find out!

Yoohoo, Katie Mumsnet! Are you there?

er should I point out that ahellva lot of stress at the moment is around public sector workers being made redundant, and who made that decision, oh yeah the condem government.

the sooner this lot of * is out the better, with any luck they won't last the 5 yrs.

EEk- to longer school day- from Sept ds faces a 7.30 am - 4.30 school day due to ridiculous distance the SN Base is from the house (he can;t go early from there, he has a high IQ just needs differentiated teaching- needs to access full curriculum).

DS2 atthe comp across road-- fine; but lots and lots of scenarios, my mate in the rurala rea where I grew up never got home on the country buses until 6 at the earliest.

And LO< at being told how to use a form

forum

Tinkgirl course they will, they apssed the legislation to make sure didn;t they?

Alarm bells, anyone?

Frigging mess of a country; and uyes we would consider emigrating if anywhere where ds3 spoke the language (and it's taken him long enough to learn this one tbh) would take kids with SN. They won't though.