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!

FairyMum, you make a valid point that we need to think about the children too, but it still provides no easy answer.If other employees jobs are affected by flexi working, then that has a knock-on for their kids too. The year that I had a crap timetable, and loads of additional stress due to accommodating flexi-workers demands, I came home most nights feeling pretty down and I'm damn sure wasnt great company for my kids. That's what I mean about keeping a balance. One person's desire to work flexibly should not be to the detriment of another persons work life.

But surely inthegutter that is the fault of the employer (ie: the school) rather than the staff requesting to work flexibly. It is their responsibility to make sure it works (and it can work) so it isn't to the detriment of anyone else.

"Achievement in medicine ? as in anything else ? involves weighting the work-life balance heavily in favour of work. Flexitime is at odds with great achievement."

What point is that trying to make, exactly? Yes, it's true ... so? I mean 'so' in the context of this article - presumably she wants mothers to be forced to work fulltime, for their own good, so they don't compromise their professional success.

It sounds like it belongs in a completely different article.

Employers can't always 'make it work' though.

We run a small business (daycare nursery.) Our staff work from either 8am-4pm or 10-6pm to cover our opening hours. If an employee asked to work from 9-5pm on a regular basis we would have to refuse as we need staff to be able to cover either the opening or closing of the nursery, as this is when parents need/want to discuss their child's care. In addition, it would mean other staff having more earier starts or later finishes which would then affect their work life balance.

Yes absolutely. The governers at the school should never have agreed to part timers who want to dictate which days they work. The only way it works in teaching, tbh, is for the part timer to agree to work the hours that fit with the timetable. For example, take an English teacher. Each class will have English maybe 4 times a week. If a P/T teacher works on only 3 days, every class they teach will end up being given to another teacher for the odd lesson here and there. There is no continuity, liaison can be a nightmare, marking load increases etc etc. Our governors should have offered a package which wouldnt disadvantage the kids or other staff. I and many other staff feel they messed up badly - and unfortunately have now set a precedent which make it more likely for this scenario to happen again.

Some jobs are more suited to flexible working than others.

I had flexi time when I was childless and single. I worked as a scientist and there were times that my job required me to work long hours and times when work was fairly slack.

Flexible working for good for my company and good for me. It meant that they could get the long hours when they needed it without paying any overtime.

I had certain core hours when I had to be in. Other than that I could choose how I worked to meet the demands of the project. For example one day I worked 12 hours because we needed some very important results.

In return my employer allowed me time off in lieu provided I was reasonable and gave sensible notice.

I imagine flexi-time works well when a job does not need to be done within set hours.

I think it tends to work best when the work is discrete and requires little in terms of handover or liaison.

Agree NKF - which is why it's hard to make it work in teaching, where everything os about communication and liaison, and where things happen at a fast pace during a school day.

I've seen it work well in primary school though. But they worked a day in common. So I suppose the school had six days out of two people.

And some people don't think about the effect their work has on colleagues. They see their work/life balance and that's all. It's understandable - we're all capable of tunnel vision - but I think it's worth considering colleagues.

You mean the school paid two people to work for one of the days rather than one? Where is this school!! No way would most schools, which struggle to stay within budget, be able to afford this. And tbh, as a parent I would wonder whether the school was suffering elsewhere (eg less books) to be able to afford this arrangement. I thought any flexi time arrangements came with the proviso that it shouldnt be at the expense of the employer anyway?

Maybe they agreed to work those days but weren't paid. Or they split the day's rate between them. I don't know the pay deal but I know there is one day a week when they are both there.

Its not the flexi-workers responsibility to consider their colleages. I am a manager where I work. Its my responsibility to provide for all my staff. Thats what I am being paid for.

I am a manager too FairyMum. Middle management, so I have responsibility for others but am managed myself by senior managament. Yes, it IS the responsibility of those at the top to only agree to workable systems, and to ensure that ALL workers are treated reasonably. However, I have to add that in our particular school, some female staff have been quite difficult in ther 'request' for flexi working, to the extent that the request becomes more of a demand. Eg I've heard 'Well I don't want to work on Wednesdays', 'I won't work half days', 'I'm not going to be able to attned that after school meeting cos I need to pick up the baby'. And I'm afraid it IS the females who do this, not the male staff. It's a shame because it gives those who mights want to make quite resaonable flexi requests a bad name, and leads to the kind of scenario described in the Times article

What annoyed me about that article is that often people are well aware of the impact of their own flexible working and will work out ways to mitigate the impact.

For example I HAVE to leave the office at my finish time or be late to collect the children (and pay the fine). But I can and have done logged in from home and finished off that outstanding work. Sometimes this works very well as the work is best done out of business hour especially if I am reconfiguring the servers.

agree with others here - some jobs work far better flexibly than others. And journalists and writers, even misogynist stirrers like Minette Marrin, have it easier than almost any profession. Minette can produce divisive garbage anywhere, after all.
I've carved out 2.5 hours per week of flexible working from my job, which I am pathetically grateful for.
Library work, like teaching and many other public sector careers, is a job which requires you to be physically present for much of the working week.
I've said it before - I really wouldn't bother with The Times. It is right up there with the Mail in its entrenched loathing of mothers who WOTH.

"To impose flexible working on employers as a woman?s right and increasingly as a man?s right, too, is yet another step along the road of economic decline." - what a load of absolute rubbish. People said that about the minimum wage and there has been no economic collapse on the back of it. I would employ a flexible working parent anyday. Those inflexible bosses who have heard of the Protestant work ethic should tap into the parental work ethic - parents work harder than any people I know so they can pay the bills and meet all their financial obligations.
Employers simply have to think 'outside the box' to accommodate flexible working. What about all the useless 'presenteeism' of men who work full time but leave their jackets on the back of the chair while they 1. get pissed in the local wine bar 2. harrass the secretary 3. watch sport or get on Facebook?

wheelsonthebus - I can see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with your last paragraph. Stereotyping male workers in this way is as bad as slagging off females as skivers who turn up late and bunk off early to deal with their children.

"bunking off work to deal with their children" is more admirable than any of the following 1. get pissed in the local wine bar 2. harrass the secretary 3. watch sport or get on Facebook? surely?

I read this and felt mildly irritated (try not to get full blown irritated by MM)
I work part -time in General Practice, and find that it is a job which lends itself admirably to part -time working.
I earn tax adn contribute to my pension.
I also work in the evenings out of hours and do a few extra night on-calls to take my salary up, but which doesn't involve getting extra child care.
When my children are all at school I shall again increase my hours.
Surveys have shown that if women medics can work part-time or flexibly during times when their children are younger, most of them return to full time work after this period in their life.
GGGGRGGGHHHH minettemirren

Loving the under fir as well

Loving the under fir as well

A lot of people are jealous of women who manage to juggle work and children successfully. It's a very capable thing to do.

very good thinking fairymum