Flexi-workers under fir in The Times

[LaDiDaDi]

I wondered what mumsnetters views are on this article.

I found it very one sided and very annoyed by Minnette Marvin who is lucky enough to be able to work freelance and therefore by her owqn admission flexibly. She makes no mention of the benefits of flexible working to employers, such as employee loyalty and increased staff retention, nor does she suggest any alternatives other than working full-time and becoming a man!

Bollocks!!!

Under fire not fir. No plans to bury flexi-workers under a mountain of Christmas trees were mentioned.

I agree it is must be a bugger if you a small employer, but there is maternity insurence etc. but I am going to be back to my job after my matnerity leave and I think I do a good job!

This is a really complex issue isn't it. Much as many parents ( and this is a parent, not mother issue)would like to work flexibly, I can see why it shouldnt be at the expense of the employer/clients/other workers. I've posted on other threads about this. I'm a teacher, and at times, my job has been directly affected in a negative way by colleagues who work flexibe hours. For instance, I've at times had to share split classes with colleagues, which disadvantages the pupils as there is less continuity, and makes my job less rewarding (eg teaching a greater number of pupils overall, so less time to get to know them. Greater number of parents evenings etc). My DD currently has an english teacher who works for 4 days a week, and as they have english every day, on the 5th day she's taught by a non-specialist. My DD has told me that this lesson is a waste of time. The teacher doesn't have the chance to get to know the class, and they end up doing fill-in work and effectively wasting a lesson a week. So in other words, the teacher gets what she wants, a 4 day week, but dozens of pupils get a less good deal. And I'd also agree with what the article says about trying to get hold of people who work P/T. I needed to speak to a social worker about a pupil last week, and was basically told, forget it, she won't be at work til next Monday!! Unbelievable!

I read that article, and found it a little harsh - but then I'm a part-time social worker! I spread my days Tues, Thurs, Fri; so I am available at both ends of the week.

People moan about not being able to get hold of someone at their convenience. But full-timers in my office take annual leave, training days, have days when they are entirely out of the office on work commitments (eg hospital ward rounds, complex mental health act assessments). The solution to get cover is not to reduce flexiworking, but improve teamworking, so that people have an idea of how pieces of work are managed.

imbarryscott - I agree that maybe more can be done to minimise the potential pitfalls of flexi working. But I think we need to be honest about where flexible working just ISN'T going to work. For instance, in teaching, I think it only works where the teacher works at the times needed to cover their classes. This may well mean working part days, rather than being able to dictate which days they want off, but IMO that's only reasonable. The flexible working needs to fit the job, not the job fitting around the exact requirements of each employee!! Also in teaching I think there are huge pitfalls in working P/T at middle and senior management level. School operates on a 5 day week, it goes at a fast pace and lots can happen in a day. At manangement level you need to be there.

I take your point about flexibility being a requirement on both sides, which sometimes employees can forget. That's why I have arranged my week as described, rather then having a block of days of, which would be better for me on a personal level; and I've made sure I'm around on the day when we're most often short-staffed.

days off, even

It's tedious when a freelancer writes this. Many jobs just can't be done from home.

I worked in an industry where there were lots of part time workers (mainly women) and sometimes it didn't work and sometimes it did. What was key in the cases that worked is that the employee had some realisation of how her flexi work impacted on others and behaved accordingly.

On the other hand, there were a lot of people who said things like: "I'll get so much more work done at home because there won't be the phones to answer." And you'd think: "Someone else will be answering them. Have you thought of that?"

I cannot stand it when women who were lucky enough to find a job that's easy to fit around kids bitch about those who can't.

I think if it became the norm and was carried out with minimum inconvenience flexi-work would become invaluable.

We can't as a society criticise (especially) single parents for not going out to work because of childcare problems, then tell people they can't work flexibly because it's bad for business and the economy.

Absolutely NFK. It's about recognising that your desire to work flexibly needs to be balanced with the desires of everyone else who will be affected. Dizietsma - I know some women can be like this, but tbh I think it's a myth that there is the 'perfect' job that fits around kids. Or if there is I've yet to find it! The writer of the article said she works at home, freelance - well, lovely to be at home in some ways, but being freelance is no picnic if the work dries up. I have a mate who works in a supermarket. they arrange her hours so she can take her kids to school and pick them up and work term time only - fab in some ways, but the pay isnt good and the work is tedious. I'm a teacher, which means I get most of the school holidays with my kids which is lovely. The downside is I've always I've never been able to drop off and pick up as my working day is 8 till 5 ish, and then I usually have to do a couple of hours work at home in the evening. It's swings and roundabouts isnt it?

Vile article. I didn't read the whole thing.

"You cannot imagine how much women like me hate women like you.?

And MM is impressed by her argument. Jeez.

I thought it was appalling.

It's an awful article. NOt exactly balanced

Where I work, in our dept, about 2/3 of the staff work p/t. Each 'shares' their job with another (all are working parents). Things like taking days off for school events etc are working by swopping days with your other half (or with someone else's other half) and so are covered without becoming short staffed. This system seems to work really well.

Not applicable in all situations, but shows that not all p/t is a pain for employers.

I thought this article was awful too and extremely misogynistic. It sickens me that people feel this way especially other women. Surely as a society we would prefer mothers to be able to spend time with their children and be able to use their skills? I agree that flexible working has to cut both ways but there are usually ways to compromise unless it is a very small company. I know so many talented women who either haven't been able to go back to work at all or are doing something far less than they are capable of because they have been unable work flexibly in their profession. You only have to look at some of the employment threads on here to see how hard it can be for people to negotiate flexible working.

I suppose the starting point for many companies is that they'd rather have full time staff. And although you might say there are good women lost to industry (I think there was a feature about this recently) there are plenty of people who are prepared to work full time. Women as well as women. So the companies don't feel the need to make an effort. It's being forced on them by legislation.

Forced on them....Maybe some...but I believe there is evidence that flexible working and working from home initiatives can increase staff satisfaction. Flexible working is not just part-time and running home for the nativity (why do people always mention nativity? It's like once a year and most parents I know use their annual leave). Both me and Dh work flexi.I often get up at 4 am to get to work. I do a full day, just start very early so I can leave early to spend time with my children in the mornings. DH has breakfast with the children, get in late to work and is home often very late. We hardly ever see eachother. I am not even sure the children are aware we know eachother, but everyone makes compromises. MM makes me laugh AND cry.

sorry, that should be spend time in the evenings with my children......

What I mean is if companies felt they couldn't recruit without offering flexi time, they'd be keener on it. They'd be pushing the initiatives themselves. I know some companies do, the large ones that have high numbers of female workers. But if you're a small company, I can see that two people job sharing might not be your first choice.

Another article about flexi-working, though I'm a bit confused as to her precise stance!

I think she's saying that flexi working makes women unpopular with their colleagues and bosses and Gordon Brown shouldn't give way to their demands.

I wonder why people always write about women "demanding" flexible hours and running home to coughing children as if they are somehow selfish and only thinking about themselves. Why can't they see that this is actually not about the grown-ups in our society, but about our children. Children have the right to see their parents and to be nursed by their parents when ill. Its hardly some genius idea women have to get some "time off".

Couldn't agree more Fairy Mum!

I think that bosses can appreciate that, they just don't want it done on their time.

If businesses suffer as a result of flexi-time then I don't see how employers can be expected to allow it. If the jobs of the majority are threatened by the wishes of a few, then it's not an option. I'm thinking partcularly of small businesses.

AFAIK employers can refuse as long as they are able to prove that it will have an adverse effect on the business.