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...

Yes, my brother works for a great employer and he is always able to work from home at the drop of a hat using his laptop, meaning my SIL never has to take any unexpected days off work or use up her holiday. They are very lucky in that respect.

Some parents want to spend as much time with their children as possible while still working, some don't. That's fine, each to their own, we are all different. (Although IMO the children of the former parents will probably turn out to be better adjusted, more confident members of society and spend less taxpayer money slagging off their parents to therapists when grown up!!! (I suppose not an issue if they can afford a private therapist..))

The point is that an employment market which wants to get the overall best out of its human resources should enable flexibility to accomodate these differences.

Yes in the short term supply = demand and an employer need not be flexible if they have lots of employees to choose from. But supply and demand fluctuates and where will they be in 5 years if supply dips and they have wasted all the experience of mothers by not employing them 5 years previously. Employers need to take a long term view of the benefits of allowing short term flexibility to parents of small children.

My boss once told me that I had "chosen" to be a working mum and that I should be giving more to the company I work for.

This was because I work 20hours a week fitting around school times. During my interview I was told I would have to "occasionally" work out of hours. But we have 4 meetings a year in Sheffield - a 3 hour drive from here, one overnight stay in London each year and countless training courses and activities that go over my finishing time.

They do not pay for my childcare costs. So for example today I have to go to Keswick for a meeting, it doesn't finish until 3.30 so I have paid for extra hours in the nursery for ds and after school club for dd. More or less an afternoon's pay for me.

When I voice my concerns about not being able to make certain meetings because of the children I get a rant from my boss about working mothers.

When I was off looking after a very poorly ds I was asked if I could do a telephone conference.

So yes, in my experience they are discriminated against. Bosses should realise that we do try to be flexible and they should be flexible in return.

Good part time jobs are so hard to come across for working mums. I can see both sides.

I am very lucky, I have a fab boss who lets me work 4 days a week, 1 day 10am - 6pm and 3 days 9.10am - 3.00pm to do scool run. Before my ds was at full time school he allowed me to leave at 12.00 to collect him from school, take him to nursery still have a lunch break then come back to work. I have a colleage with 3 ds's and he allows her to work term time only. I am never made to feel bad if ds is ill and I need time off.

Oh and when he was at nursery my boss would pay fees if I had to do over time.

This is my point with HR. If I am required to work extra hours, surely I should get the additional childcare expenses paid for by the company? But they only provide a voucher scheme for full time members of staff. So I'm also discriminated against for being part time!

And my boss thinks I get it too easy! She says the company have been very obliging by my working hours to cover school runs! I have to remind her that actually most days I have a working lunch that I never claim flexi time for and I am often called to work out of those bloody hours!

I work at quite a large engineering firm, one of the women has a day off a week to be with her child. As I am expecting, they were quite concerned I wouldn't come back after 12mth mat leave and would offer part time as well. We will see when the time comes, anyway I might like not working

Xenia Ioften think you make valid points but you so lack empathy.

I have had to analyse sick absence where I work and part timers have far less time off than other groups. Generally it is felt here that PT staff are much more productive that FT equivalents.

Before I had kids I had far more time off work than I do now. I played a lot of sport and represented my employer in various events and this led to lots of time off. After having DS i quit sport and am far more reluctant to ask for time off now. Strange that!!!

I don't know any young parent that takes the piss.

when I worked after the birth of my first child I found it so difficult I had to leave and decided to SAHM for a while. The boss preferred dogs to kids - I was more likely to be allowed to come in an hour late if I said my dog needed to go to the vet, than my child need to go to the doctors. I am not joking...
A colleague was allowed 2 days off grieving for his dog (a lifelong companion) which is lovely, but a female employee was slagged off dreadfully in her absence as she took time off following a m/c

My department was full of unmarried men who would jeer and sneer about ''fookin part time workers''as i left the office at 5.45pm in order to pick my son up from nursery which closed at six. (I would have been at my desk by 8am to 'compensate')

the matriach of the newsdesk would seize time off during every school holiday - despite the fact her child was 16, making it impossible fpor anybody else to have any time off.

In addition, I was several times denied access to info about training opportunities as ''we figured there's no point you having more training as you'll probably get sprogged up again before you get a chance to use it'' etc etc.

Now I work 3 days a week for a fraction of the amount i used to earn, purely because i am allowed to work from 8.30-2.45pm and can cover most school holidays from my holiday entitlement. I am given no grief about the (rare) ocassions I might have had to stay home with a sick child and all staff are entitled to x amount of hours per year to cover essential doctor/dentist appointments which so far, I have not come close exceeding, despite the fact I use this time for me and the kids to go...
It's charity sector so there's no spare cash for any extras but their attitude is fantastic and I am never made to feel less of an employee.

Kiwi, I too work for a large engineering company. When I was pregnant (working contract at the time so no mat pay on offer), I told them I would be back in 2 - 4 week. Then men used to nod their heads and tell me I didn't know what I was talking about.

I returned to work in the planned time frame and rubbed the words "I told you so" in their faces.

[shck] If someone said to me, "''we figured there's no point you having more training as you'll probably get sprogged up again before you get a chance to use it'' I'd ask them to put it in writing. And then, I'd have their job. And if HR didn't send them packing, I'd see the company in court.

(of course most people aren't dumb enough to put it in writing)

I used to work for a company that makes a big noise about how socially enlightened/progressive it is.

I was about 5 mths into my 2nd maternity leave when my head of my dep rang told that i was being made redundant. (There was one other redundancy being made incidentally an old bloke, approaching retirement so legally I had no ammo.)

I said to my boss, 'So what's changed since we last properly spoke about my career progression when you upped my salary to stop me accepting a rival firm's job offer apart from the fact that I've had two children in the interim?'

He could not answer that.

Makes you wonder what a sad world we live in.
We women are always going to be discrimated againts, because we do it to each other.
Xenia, great that you have a nanny, bet she is an immigrant, do you ever give her time off?
Do you younger children ever get to see you? or does this have to be put into your appointments calendar.
Actually, i'm beginning to believe that people on the dole are all laughing at us running around like headless chickens trying to keep our jobs when they don't need to do anything.
Mad, mad world for work.
AB

SHocking isnt it fmf.

Its all fun and jesting if its a day off for a hangover.

My ex-boss - although he always denied it - told a work colleague that she shouldnt have children yet because she was doing so well at work and it would spoil it for her.

The fact is, we dont have an inclusive culture in this country. You must conform "or else". It wouldnt be "incredibly difficult" or complicated for employers to work around requests to work flexibly if they already encouraged a flexible environment. If they are not used to working in such an environment, they are more likely to be closed-minded about any changes too.

The fact is, that workers who have a family make up a HUGE proportion of the workforce in this country - men and women. Recruitment wouldnt be so difficult, and staff turnover wouldnt be so high if employers changed their attitude towards working patterns. There are ALOT of people out there that would welcome working 30-40 hours a week, but just not in a 9-5 pattern. If employers also recognised (and I am fortunate at having had my skills and experience recognised of late, irrespective of my part time workign requirements) that part time workers are capable of doing jobs that require more than just basic skills they might find that they are opening their door to a much wider selection of skilled people who are excellent, dedicated workers, that simply dont want/cant work a 'normal' 9-5 shift.

There has been lots of talk about it being difficult for employers to accommodate all this, but, no actual specifics have been given - just hot air about committment, stamina, loyalty etc.

Eleusis - its not so simple to complain.

The bullying nature of some companies (huge, multinational corporations and small businesses alike) is horrendous. And even if you do complain, it wont necessarily be dealt with, because a great deal of this is down to a single manager's attitude, and it ends up being one person's word against anothers. Since its the manager who will can dictate whether a person progresses or not it can simply prove to make things worse, and, folk often have the mind set that the manager must be trustworthy and 'good' because they have achieved the position of manager in the first place.

Of course, the best way to quash that culture is for women to go to work as much as men and men to stay home as much as women. We will not achieve equality if we are not prepared to do the same jobs.

Very good article here...
www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,2023776,00.html

here

i can't believe this made the news!

Where have they been for the last 400 years?

Do people think having children is a luxury or something? How are they so thick that they don't see that today's child is tomorrow's taxpayer? I would love to be a SAHM, it's not like I don't have a million things to do at home, but financial necessity means that ain't never gonna happen. I have enjoyed working, and have been lucky in that I have had some excellent jobs (my current one, as DH's secretary leaves alot to be desired) but the top and bottom of it is that I need to work to be able to afford to live in this country - Dh's wages only cover the majority of the bills, certainly not all of them. Besides, I am fairly well educated and good at what I do, so any employer who passed me over in favour of some 23 year old single lad just on the basis that he didn't have children would be missing out on a very good employee.

Xenia Wed 28-Feb-07 20:24:54: 'being at home for many women leads them to depression and drink'

Can that be quote of the week please?

Surely you can give your daughters slightly more balanced advice than that?

legacy - your post of 14:41:42 really hit home. I am lucky in a sense that I've been able to make my job part-time (and sooo luck to take the pay cut that went with it ...not)and I can work at home 2 days a week and at other times in emergencies. But I agree that the discrimination comes from 1. other workers attitudes - many of them fathers whose partners don't work and resent the fact that some of us do and still manage to raise a family, 2. meetings being arranged late in the afternoon or very early so parents may struggle to attend or have to leave early (leading to tuts and filthy looks), not being included on distribution lists because you aren't considered committed enough, being slowly shuffled off projects because other people want to be able to get hold of you in person 9-10 hours a day 5 days a week and if they can't they beleive that makes you unreliable/uncommitted. Which is all a heap of bolleaux - I'm available many more hours than most workers as I often work long hours at home - long after the others have buggered off to the pub or the golf course

Sorry to rant. Things are getting nasty here atm - job reviews, consultant in 'looking into work allocation', 300 jobs gone already...and I'm feeling very vulnerable.

R, I have a nanny but only part time now because the youngest are at school. When we had 3 under 4 and I worked in the City we had a nanny who came when I left for work which was about 8 ish and then she left when my husband got back from work about 6 ish. I was quite happy with that. Small children are hard work. The office is a rest. 2 hours a day with children is enough for me but I'm glad I had 5 of them. They're great. I was certainly keen to be home by 6.30 because for a start my breasts were leaking milk by then! There's a physical and emotional need to let the milk down etc and nothing nicer than getting in to breastfeed a sweet little baby.

We lived near where my husband worked so that if we had a nanny problem he could deal with it as I earned more which made more sense but she was very reliable.

I have worked with working parents for over 22 years and I haven't seen huge problems in the areas I work in. Parents work hard. If they're good they get promoted. Someone I was with last week his wife had cancer so the firm let him become a consultant based at home and work 2 or 3 days a week. He's taking his wife all over the world for holidays in case she doesn't have much time left. He's good at his job. So they didn't want to lose him. That happens all the time with working parents who want to work part time too. But if workers are ten a penny and you have some people who turn up and are reliable you're bound to prefer them over those that don't.

Xenia, Thank you for answering my questions.
I don't mean to come accross as having a go at you but with two young children of my own under 5yrs old, i'm amazed at what you do with 5 children!
As you say, luck has been on your side and you have managed to bring up a lovely familly and be top in your profession.
Good on you. But it still amazes me.
AB

Some of us are not fortunate enough to be able to 'have our lives in order' and have to do the best we can. I worked almost straight from leaving university, rose from dogsbody to manager and then decided to have children after discussion with my managing director. It was all fine for me to take maternity leave and then work part time because I had the support of my husband. Unfortunately our marriage split up when dh decided too late that he didn't want the responsibility of being a husband and father. My employer actually asked me to come back to my old job, agreed to have me fitting my hours around school and have my son in the office for an hour each morning and paid for playcare during the holidays because I was the most efficient and suitable manager he could have. He had employed someone to cover my job during my maternity leave but they were useless and he ended up with about 3 people doing my one job. Sometimes mothers can make very useful contributions to the workforce. It is down to the ability of the worker rather than their child rearing desires. I moved jobs to get away from soon to be dh and I am in a job with a lot of responsibility because I was the best candidate. My ds goes to playcare which I have to pay for, I pay my taxes and I don't qualify for working tax credit. I struggle financially every month because my dh does not help at all and in fact tries desperately to make life difficult but I am still a damn good worker and hopefully a good mother too. My son is happy, I am happy, my colleagues and staff are happy and my boss is happy. Can't ask for more than that!

I haven't read the whole thread, but when I hear Mumsist comments at work I usually point out to childless colleagues that my children will be paying their pensions.