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!

I think that's a fair point skidoodle. I've known a few people apply for flexible working, when there is nothing remotely flexible about their approach. They want exactly what suits them at that particular moment in their life, and everyone else can go hang!

inthegutter,

What can I say. The school I work in has several part time teachers. It does take planning but its not impossible. The particular school had an extremely good OFSTED report so I don't think they are short changing their pupils at all.

What happens about NQTs who work a lighter time table? Would you advocate schools not employing ANY NQTs who do 80% timetable. Part timers can fill in gaps.

Of course NQTs should be employed - they are fulfilling their contractual duties. 80% timetable is designed so that they can take on the pressure of entering the teaching profession. I'm sure there ARE situations where a P/T role can work. I haven't said their arent. Equally, there are situations where it doesn;t work - and I think we need to be honest about what these situations are. It's a sad fact that there ARE some people out there who expect everyone else to be flexible around them, while expecting to get exactly what they want on their terms. Eg I've known people say they only want to work particular days - they won't do part days. One woman I knew who was reducing to 4 days insisted that she had to have a friday off because she wanted a long weekend!! I'm sorry but that's not considering your employer or colleagues - it's just trying to get your own way!

whoops meant there not their of course!

I think flexi time is unfair. Its mostly taken by mothers who then burden their co-workers(mostly their male co-workers) with their extra work. I have news, my husband has a family to. He is doing the same job for the same pay why should he get less time with his family because he isn't a woman. Its unfair. Until everyone can get flexi time whether they have a family or not it shouldn't be allowed

I think it comes down to people accepting their responsiblity and not taking the P£ss! My husband has flexi time as does his collegues. Some jobs like computer programming lend themselves to flexi time better than others.

inthegutter, I agree with you that women who choose to go part time after maternity leave should not 100% dicate their hours. It needs to be a partnership. This is true of any job, not just schools.

I'm lucky enough to be a civil servant and to work three / four days a week.

In a sense, the government has to let people work flexibly within government, and so it has. But there have been interesting issues.

When I first came back, it was assumed that I could deliver to the same client list three days a week as I could five (and they only pay me for three!). And then my colleagues had to pick up the pieces.

Now two other people have gone part-time, all our jobs have been redesigned, and we have taken on an extra person to absorb the slack.

Even client-facing jobs can work flexitime or part time provided the workload is resdesigned.

We have responsibilities to colleagues, clients and our families. What we put above what varies from person to person but it's no means as simple as these are the hours I am taking and that's that. In a lot of jobs part time working doesn't work and can be legally rejected if the proper processes are gone through.

paulaplumpbottom - agree that it shouldn't be one rule for parents and carers and one rule for others. Many people might have reasons for wanting to request flexible working - they may want to have more time in their life to devote to a particular skill or interest. Everyone should be treated equally as entitled to make a case for lfexi working - and likewise, the employer is entitled to refuse if flexi working would impact negatively on the business, clients or other employees.

I agree. Some people are single and want to do work for their church and that might involve caring for old people. That should be no different from if they have their own baby at home.

No different? Really? But surely there is a big difference in real life: if you have a baby, you have to look after it, whereas if you are a single person doing voluntary work for your church that is something you can choose to drop out of at any time. I don't think you can equate looking after your own baby to taking part in a hobby.

But TuttiFrutti, why should people drop out of doing something they value at any time?

Tutti having a baby is a choice you make

And it is by no means morally less worthwhile to take on the care needs of 5 neighbours with dementia than care for your own baby. A baby needs to be cared for but by either the mother, granny, father or whoever you hire to care for it but does not "have" to be looked after by a mother who has to leave at 5. She leaves at 5 because she's married a sexist man who thinks women should be responsible for children or because she had such a poorly paid job her husband earns more so hers comes second or because she can't afford to pay anyone else to look after it until 6.30 or 7.

TuttiFrutti - I wouldn't put it in quite such an extreme way as Xenia (!) but I agree with her point. Having children is a choice that some women and men take. Other people may not be able to have them/choose not to. But that doesn't make their lives any less valuable. They may have things in their life they wish to devote time and energy to, and may have just as valid a reason for wanting to request flexi working. My brother for instance is single and has no children as yet but is thinking about further study, which would involve cutting back on his work hours for a couple of years. He should have as much right to make a request for that as anyone else.

I'm not saying single people's lives are less worthwhile, just that I don't think a hobby like, for example, windsurfing is the moral equivalent of looking after a tiny baby. In the latter case I believe it's right that employers should make some sacrifices, like offering flexi-working, to make it easier for parents to achieve it because ultimately it benefits all of us if babies in our society are well looked after. But I don't think employers should have to give single people the same (expensive, to the employer) benefits just so that they can spend more time on their hobbies.

Obviously some hobbies are more worthwhile than others, and doing charity work is extremely valuable and society couldn't function without it. But should employers have an obligation to give flexitime to any employee who chooses to do it?

And yes, I know having a baby is a choice (well, if you ignore the fact that a huge proportion are conceived by accident), but once the baby is born, looking after it is not a choice any more, it is an absolute obligation. So I think that makes it a bit different from a hobby or part-time voluntary work where you have some control over whether you do it or not.

So what you are saying is that Single people (or people who have a partner at home) or( people who choose not to have children) should not have the same right to flexible working hours? Thats absurd.

You could argue that charity work benefits more people than babies do. And besides you can delegate looking after a baby. The moral superiority of motherhood is very hard to assert. It's important to us. That doesn't make it of importance to our employers or our colleagues. And people who argue that their flexi time is no buisiness of their colleagues may have legal entitlement on their side but they are completely misunderstanding the give and take attitude that makes working with people bearable.

Minnette Marvin can stick this article right in her self-righteous a**e

I am in the middle. It's not really like windsurfing and I think the Government is considering giving rights to request flexible working for carers too. My father has dementia and for a lot of people the longest hardest caring years are not with the cute under 5s but the 20 years someone needs their nappies changed between ages 80 and 100 etc. but the extent to which we want the state to help people with their personal responsibilities depends how right or left wing you are.

If it gets too hard to employ staff employers particularly small ones will just contract everything out. I have taken a deliberate decision not to employ anyone and I'm very glad of that.

If you look at the look term, our babies will turn into good tax-paying citizens who will support the older years of our colleagues who haven't had babies.

re leaving at 5, I leave at 5 because I want to spend time with my baby, not because my husband is sexist or I cannot afford someone else to look after him until 6.30.

Well, they might. They might turn into lazy workshy criminals. Arguing that responsible and successful child raising is the reason for flexi time could lead into all sorts of difficulties.

To be clear, I'm not anti flexi time. I just think it's unrealistic to expect all colleagues and employers to be enthusiastic.

what annoys me most about this whole "debate" is grown adults who consider their own needs (and indeed whinge about how inconvenienced they are) without giving a thought to the needs of the children
to characterise a women as selfish because she is looking after a baby seems a very juvenile response, oh poor mememememememememe,
shouldn't an actual adult be able to take the needs of children into consideration without sulking?

Why would arguing that responsible and successful childraising is the reason for flexiworking lead to difficulties?

What other reason could there possibly be?

But it is odd how it's only children who are perceived to have this intense need of a particular adult's care. Arranging care for an elderly relative is much harder than finding childcare. I know. I've done both. And if a colleague is inconsiderate about other people's lives and interests, then nobody is going to care about hers even if they do involve looking afer children. And it can be an enormous pain. In my pre-baby time, I've covered off about three or four jobs at any one time because of school holidays. Did anyone notice? No.