mothers with young children are the most discriminated against at work

[paddingtonbear1]

I haven't actually found this in my company, and it's very small - only 18 employees. But I can imagine if I looked for another job, I might find it hard to get one, being a mother still under 40. I couldn't believe some of the comments in the 'have your say' on the bbc website though - most people seem to think that women who can't afford to stay at home shouldn't have kids at all! That would be me then! I don't think in this day and age, with mortgages and other rising costs, that's practical. I don't take advantage though, fortunately dd isn't sick very often, and dh does his share.
I think most of the people making the comments were men, or people with no kids...

Have you seen the Media Request from News 24 asking for those that feel they have been discriminated against

Xenni - I don't really understand what your solution is.

You (rightly) propose that mothers and fathers should be co-parenting. But you're strongly against mothers (and therefore I assume fathers) being given any 'special' flexibility in the workplace.

Are you actually saying that people should only become parents if they can afford a nanny or live next door to retired and able-bodied grandparents?

Xenia's solution seems a very Thatcherite one to me: strive for 'brilliance' and 'excellence' in the workplace and you will presumably be rewarded with enough money to afford a nanny (and backup childcare) before you decide to sprog at the appropriate, sensible time? Is that it??

Don't get me bl**dy well started! just don;t don;t don't!!! Grrrrrrr!

One of my friends at work has been refused the flexible working request she has just put in after the birth of her second child - having returned to work F/T after her first as the compaby refused then as well..

God I am flipping fuming about it.

her proposal was eminently sensible and in fact the company did agree to P/T hours but in a way such that they would have found it really hard to recruit a job share - making me think they didn;t really intend to - but were just going toexpect her to do most of her old job in a third of the hours.

It is complete bollocks.

This friend had worked for the company for 10 years, could do her job well, blindfold, backwards, 8 months pg and with a toddler who still got her up at night. Exemplary sickness record, never took time off for ehr child being ill becuase (luckily for her) she had a very good family support network.

I work P/T but my job was actually advertised as P/T (replacing someone who left) so I am one of the lucky ones, I think there is only one other P/T employee in the company, and a lot of my female colleagues have children, most work F/T.

However, I took a job for two thirds of my pre-child salary and on paper I am the most menial of penpushers..except of course I'm not, I've got a bl**dy degree and 15 years work experience so of course I don;t just push pens, I get stuff done while my manager does anything BUT manage.

Oh and when DS is ill, DH & I both take time off if possible..last time DH took a half day holiday so I could go into work later in the day to make up my hours. We make it work, we have no family support locally, nursery won;t take (and I wouldn;t want them to) a sick child, so hey.

In fact, my boss took more time off to "help sort out his wife & her car" after she had been involved in a minor car accident, than I did when DS was ill.

Because I've got way more to lose by taking time of to look afer DS - who gets made redundant first when they start looking for candidates? The part-timers, of course. Otehrwise known as the Mums with young kids.

And Xenia, I totally disagree with your post about having to fit in with the 9-5 or get out.

Sorry didn't have time to read the whole thread but had to make a couple of comments to Xenia:

1. It is not sexist if a woman feels more intense parental responsibility for her child than her partner and makes the choice that she wishes to primarily be there for him or her if they are sick etc. This is a natural consequence, for many (but not all) women, of the fact they gave birth to the child and were the natural primary nurturer for the first few months.

1. A truly intelligent employer would employ the person best suited to the job and accept that, if this is a woman with parental responsibilities, this may entail a few sacrifices, but they will benefit more in the long term.

1. What kind of a parent makes a sick child stay with a complete stranger?????? I was gobsmacked by that particular idea...

I can't see why any company should be forced to let employees work flexible hours. It's a huge interference in the free market. If of course there aren't enough people around who are prepared to work the 9 - 5 then of course the employer would offer all kinds of alternatives but they are never forced to. The law is correct. If some of you are unhappy with this then that's to be taken up by your MP and not my fault.

I wasn't giving solutions. I was saying better rights to mothers lead to sexism and them being treated worse than others. It's like saying if you're black you get into this university with BBB but if you're white you need AAA. I don't think it benefits women in the long term to make hiring them so disadvantageous.

Do I have a solution? To what problem? Those who think it is better if mothers are at home with children would say the fact it's harder for them at work is a jolly good thing because it gets them back as SAHMs which is their rightful place. Parents of small children find life is hard. It is how it is. It's hard at home and hard if you work. It's even harder if your husband does nought as far too many don't so firs tof all sort out your husbands to make sure everything is properly 50.50 including career priority. Then get him to ask for time off sick not you because he won't be dmaaging the cause of women by doing so and indeed will even things up better.

Most women manage well and aren't often off sick. Those who aren't really much committed to the job soon show their true colours, don't do very well and usually end up leaving. It's always clear who is marking time and who is very committed. You seem on here to think employers are some huge bank which has cash to give out. Most employers are small employers and making accommodations isn't always very easy.

I cant see why any company can reasonably say that it is not feasible to have people work flexible hours.

"Do I have a solution? To what problem?"

Assuming both parents work and share the child-care - the problem of children being ill and needing looking after.

If the parents don't use a nanny as their child-carer and don't have relatives available to help out, what are parents supposed to do?

Employers should be made to offer flexible working and if they do not have the funds for this, the government should step in. If they've got money for loony middle eastern wars, they've got money for that. The long term benefits to the economy would also be considerable.
The market isn't free anyway: it's distorted by centuries of prejudice and stupid assumptions such as twentysomething alcoholics and druggies being more reliable employees than people who might want to go home a wee bit earlier to pick up their kids.

Xenia,
There are loads of interferences with the free market. We don't really have a free market - that's a red herring. Why is a free market better than a regulated market anyway?

Do you not accept the possibility that employers (and society in general, but I doubt you believe in society) may actually benefit from making it possible for mothers to combine work with their families?

The reason for anti-discrimination legislation is not primarily to make life better for the discriminated, but because it is actually generally beneficial to enable all people to achieve what they are capable of.

exactly Scooby: 'free market' arguments always ignore social goods. But then Thatcher did say there was no such thing as society, only hardworking families (all of whom should clearly be able to afford a nanny...)

If anyone heard the 5 Live discussion this morning (with Justine from MNHQ as a guest), there was a woman who was an HR manager just about to end her maternity leave who could see everything from all angles, as a mother, as an HR person / employer. She really didn't know which way to argue as she could see the pov from all sides. Her boss had offered her part-time working (5 half days!!) She's still in negotiation...

I am in favour of anti discrimination legislation. I am against positive discrimination. Some parents seem to think employers owe them some massive debt and they can pick the hours they want. Well look - here's the real world. It doesn't work like that. You may not like it but that is how it is.

Where an employer wants to keep someone they bend of backwards to accommodate his need to deal with his mother with dementia, ill horse, child or Olympic Team obligations. Where the employees are two a penny their flexible working requests may well not be able to be met. Are we short of workers? Are we wanting more parents back at work? Is that good for the country and children? Employment is not a social service.

I can think of absolutely masses of jobs that can not be done on flexible hours and where flexible working requests are turned down.

Such as?

Employers are doing themselves out of perfectly qualified employees by being inflexible - its not about employees thinking they are owed anything. Why do we need to restrict ourselves to a strict working pattern?

NOt to mention the environmental benefits of flexible working, staggering work times and working from home.

I've yet to hear ANYONE bringing this up.

'Face time' benefits no one, least of all the environment and family life.

Yep, transport/rush hours etc.

yes definitely, I work 1 day a week from home and do early shift 3 days. Much better.
Despite being in the IT industry, where you'd think it was more common, only my current boss has ever let me do this!

When employers feel a need then they hire flexibly. When they can outsource to India they do. When they find people over 65 give better advice in B&Q than 19 year old boys they do. Many employers do indeed feel they get more out of stable married employees with children and it is very very expensive to hire people, find them, pay recruiters fees so there's quite often a huge effort to accommodate someone's changing hours request but other times that person was always not very serious about work, not too good at it, become much less committed since they had children and no one is going to bend over backwards for someone like that.

Why parents want to spend lots of time with their children is another question and some of us, male and female, are happy to work full time and pay others to clean up for us and do most of the fairly mindless hours of childminding.

Most of us who work full time cannot afford to pay someone to clean for us.

Xenia is spot on about gender neutrality in parental leave rights. Maternity and Paternity rights and benefits should be identical. (except maybe if you are a single mum whose partner has done a runner in which case you should probably get your benefits and his -- and his employer should be paying his)

Women should be treated equally in the work place, and women should also be prepared to put firth the same dedication as their colleagues -- whether they be male, female, parents, or martians. You are there to do a job. That's why they pay you. HAving young children does not make you unable to work.

Obviously I agree with El. The fact is you can not be very dedicated but don't expect employers to want to promote you. It's not even about hours. It's about excellence. If you bring in the best customers they won't mind how or when you work. If you are so valuable to the organisation they're damaged if you leave they will work around your family needs or your desire for time off to enter the Olympics or whatever it is.

Obviously women get pregnant and some are more ill in pregnancy than others. I was lucky in that I could work through to 40 weeks and didn't need time off sick. Many women return to work after 3 months and some earlier like me. In the US it's often quite early too and those women don't damage their health or babies. My views don't matter. But women and our children need to know they are not entitled to a living from any employer or the state and if you're always away however good the excuse you're not likely to be very highly regarded.

Yes I accetp many parents can't afford even an hour or two of cleaning a week particularly if they're on the minimum wage and perhaps particularly if they choose to live in Scotland than say London but then you manage the cleaning between you. I used to hoover 22 years ago with my first daughter in the sling at weekends and their father did as much cleaning as I did.

This reminds me. I stayed home yesterday because DS had a fever in the morning following a measels jab the evening before, so I was a bit worried that he might be having a reaction to the jab rather than just the common cold or chicken pox (which his sister had last week). So I took a half day holiday and 1/2 day of working from home.

And what this reminds me of is that this means I'm in credit one day and DH will have to take the next one.

And speaking of my productivity, I really ought to get off of mumsnet... so ta ta for now.

Well you obviously have some flexibility in your job Eleusis if you are allowed to work from home for a half day. What's wrong with other parents (and other employees) wanting the same?

Yes, that's true. I have a laptop which enables me to work from home. I suspect if I abused the priviledge I'd be told to return my laptop.

I never do understand why they want to reduce the number of laptops. I think all proven productive workers should get a laptop because it enables them to do more work for the company and more than makes up for the difference in cost between a desktop and a laptop. But, it seems IT can't see the big picture. They can only see their actual hardware costs analysis.