AIBU to think the £185k payout for the woman who had leave to pick up her kid from nursery is not positive for women?

[purpleneon]

Women of child bearing age already face so much discrimination in the job market because employers assume that you will be less committed due to children & will make your childcare arrangements/issues their problem.

This story seems to do just that, as it's unclear why she couldn't get a child minder or nanny for a few hours a week given she's on a big salary!

It is problematic from a business perspective for an estate agent to leave at 5pm every day because most people want late 5pm or 6pm viewings. It also wouldn't be called sex discrimination if a man's request was turned down, which adds to the idea that childcare is primarily a woman's issue.

Seems like a progressive step but I actually think it is not as positive as it seems for working women, or am I missing something? What do you think?

I think there's more to the story. Some details that probably weren't mentioned in the newspaper article.

I've just looked up the story and I think it's a really difficult one as surely an employer doesn't have any obligation to give you part-time hours if it doesn't work with your role?

But the article does state that her company mainly sells to overseas purchasers so I doubt out-of-hours viewings were genuinely an issue.

I do feel that women are massively disadvantaged in the workplace though, due to pregnancy especially. Like how you can't really move jobs if you're intending to have a baby over the next couple of years as you never know what the maternity pay will be and there is no way to find out prior to accepting a role because you can't ask. Most women give many years to their jobs and do not take a job just to go on maternity leave and take advantage. Far more dads do pick-ups and drop-offs and other childcare now, but still not enough to make the 'risk' to businesses equal when hiring.

But I don't see how things will change because even with legislation in place, people can still just choose not to hire women in their late 20s/30s.

I'm not sure that's why she got the compensation the more you read about it the more it seems there was considerable discrimination. The reporting makes the leaving early issue the main one and I doubt the veracity and the rationale for that reporting. Employers won't choose women if they HAVE to change working hours and days they will choose men rightly or wrongly. But I think this is poor reporting not a case of a highly paid professional wanting to leave an hour early and her employer being penalised for saying no, there's much more to it.

Your arts massively unreasonable as it appears you've read the headlines not the whole story.

The employer failed to actually consider her request - that's what has led to this.

Go read it again.

She did have childcare.
She wanted to finish in time to pick up her child from childcare (eg finishing at 5 instead of 6) and was willing to start earlier to enable this. She initially requested part time working, but when this was rejected wanted to discuss other alternatives and from the sound of it her employer shut down any discussion.

From my understanding, She didn't win the case just because her employer refused pt working, but because they refused to even consider any reasonable adjustments.
And also there is probably a lot more to the story than can be summarised in a short news article!

She was on Woman’s Hour this week and spoke very eloquently; this question was raised though and not quite answered.

In my experience as a manager, the fact that men can make similar requests, and the right to shared parental leave etc will hopefully put this one to bed in due course. There’s no point for discriminating employers to not employ women, if men then create the same issues for themselves!

@PlinkPlankPlunk

She was on Woman’s Hour this week and spoke very eloquently; this question was raised though and not quite answered.

In my experience as a manager, the fact that men can make similar requests, and the right to shared parental leave etc will hopefully put this one to bed in due course. There’s no point for discriminating employers to not employ women, if men then create the same issues for themselves!

I hope so but things are still so far from being 50/50 for men and women in this regard, especially when so many men are still the high earners in the household so it's sometimes not even a viable option for them to take the leave/change their hours.

I think it will take many, many years until men and women are regarded as equally 'high risk' when it comes to childcare, if it ever happens.

It hugely undermines the progress women have made in the workplace. But there is more to the story - she wasn't just awarded that amount for asking to finish at 4pm to do nursery pick up and bring refused I believe she experienced quite a few sexist comments relating to her pregnancy and being a mother so it was a culmination of things

As always the headline bears no relationship to the actual facts. She didn't (and wouldn't) win £185k for not being able to pick up children, there was far more to it than that.

Woman with children will always be at a disadvantage in the workplace. Sadly there is not much we can do about this.
(I just left a job where I had problems with my manager over leaving on time & not being at work 15-20 minutes before start time - it's an office job. Never talk about actually taking your lunch break. The other childless lady working in similar role, goes above and beyond for this company... and it feels like the management expects everyone to do the same if not, you get heavily bullied. I had to walk before I got pushed. Strangely, they have a very high staff turnover...)

I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that she wanted to leave at 5pm because of her commute to the nursery. I don't know anything about London but she was working in central London and I always read that people have long commutes depending on where they live. I thought she was just trying to get to the nursery before it closed.

The nursery I used a million years ago closed at 6.30pm. I chose it because it was close to home so my child wouldn't fall asleep on the way home from there.

@OnTheBenchOfDoom

I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that she wanted to leave at 5pm because of her commute to the nursery. I don't know anything about London but she was working in central London and I always read that people have long commutes depending on where they live. I thought she was just trying to get to the nursery before it closed.

The nursery I used a million years ago closed at 6.30pm. I chose it because it was close to home so my child wouldn't fall asleep on the way home from there.

Yes this is correct I think?

She wanted to adjust her hours to finish at 5 so she could get to nursery on time to pick up her child.

She also faced some discriminatory comments, and was denied commission she had earned if it came through on her maternity leave, amongst other things.

Until employers are more flexible to young parents or other caregivers, regardless of the sex of the parent or caregiver, things are never going to change.

Society needs to stop trying to shoe horn parents and caregivers (often women) in a setup that was made for single earners who had no family dependants or a wife to take care of things. Only then will women, as they are still the default parent and caregiver, have a chance at equality in the workforce.

It's wasn't because they didn't grant the flexible working request, it was because they refused to consider it. They could have saved a lot of money by following the process properly.

I think the shitty reporting of this case undermines women in the workplace.

You don't get awarded 185k for sex discrimination because you want to leave on time.

She was earning £120k a year so it’s towards loss of earnings and it’s not because he wouldn’t allow it, he didn’t follow process, and shut her down.

She offered 8 - 4 and offered to discuss ways which would also work for him. He wouldn’t even talk to her about it.

As said above the reporting is part of the problem. They pick out the juiciest bits and go with best headlines. I'm no expert but I'm sure I've seen in reports like this before how the award was broken down, i.e. x amount for lost wages, x amount for discrimination, x for compensation.

Also she was a high earner so all relative to that.

In one article i found the following;
"In October, Mrs Thompson confirmed the details of her maternity pay and attached an Excel sheet with 11 deals she expected commission on.

But Mr Sellar decided she would only receive commission on deals registered in the sales spreadsheet up to her last day and those completed after she returned to work."

So part of the payout could be to cover this. Just never clarified.

I think any legal action that upholds workers rights to fair process if they request flexible working is good news for women and men tbh.

Of course it's a positive.

There are laws to protect women in the workplace - businesses can't get away with ignoring those and treating women less favourably.

Your attitude seems to be that women should keep their heads down, not make a fuss about their rights and just be grateful they have a job? How is that positive

I think it depends what it was awarded for. If it's sex discrimination around not considering the request to leave at 5pm then I think that is very negative to women. I assume the same would have applied if a male employee had asked unless we are supposed to accept that collecting children is seen as something only a woman can do and therefore it's sex discrimination not to consider it!

If it's associated with remarks made about pregnancy/babies/being a mother and withholding bonus payments that came through during maternity leave then that is absolutely discrimination.

I had my bonus cut by one boss to 25% of previous payments the year I was on maternity leave for 8 months which I actually think is hugely discriminatory! The boss before that paid me a full bonus the year I was on maternity leave for 8 months, as he pointed out, it's not as if I chose to be the one who could give birth/breast feed and I'd worked 13 hour days for the company for 6 years before having babies (I was paid for 7 hour days!).

@crazyguineapiglady

Of course it's a positive.

There are laws to protect women in the workplace - businesses can't get away with ignoring those and treating women less favourably.

Your attitude seems to be that women should keep their heads down, not make a fuss about their rights and just be grateful they have a job? How is that positive

I don't think that women should keep their heads down and not complain at all - the question I'm asking here is: is it helpful for this specific issue to have been referenced by a judge as "indirect sex discrimination"?

I'm glad she won because there was clear sex discrimination in relation to her pregnancy and maternity leave (sex discrimination issues), but I would argue that this specific reference to flexible working in relation to SEX discrimination is not helpful because** it perpetuates the idea that childcare is a women's issue.

It isn't a women's issue - it is a parent's issue but if would never be referred to as sex discrimination by a man who was bringing a claim in relation to failure to consider a flexible working request.

I think flexibility should be offered to all employees, not just parents, as it is unfair - as we all have reasons for needing flexibility. I can't speak to this specific example but have seen equal numbers of people who have gone all out to maintain their work performance, despite flexibility and those who have phoned it in. So from a business POV, I guess they could be cautious, depending on their experience.

@purpleneon - childcare disproportionately affects women (whether you think it should or not is a different issue*) so refusing to consider flexible working requests disproportionately affects women.

Saying that issues that disproportionately affect women shouldn't be considered sex discrimination because it's unfair that these issues disproportionately affect women is a very weird way of looking at it.

@silentpool

I think flexibility should be offered to all employees, not just parents, as it is unfair - as we all have reasons for needing flexibility. I can't speak to this specific example but have seen equal numbers of people who have gone all out to maintain their work performance, despite flexibility and those who have phoned it in. So from a business POV, I guess they could be cautious, depending on their experience.

Everyone can request flexible working arrangements.

I honestly think until Men ask for more flexibility in the work place it always falls to the partner/female members of the family. Whether that be as a caring role for parents or children.
My husband works in a very much male oriented role and earns far more than I do BUT we both work. For us to do this fairly we share the responsibilities he has done at least 40% of the dropping/picking/dealing with a sick child. He has never missed a nativity/sports day etc
It’s sad as he is in the minority of the Dads - out of 60 school kids we only saw 4-5 of the dads actively doing the school runs.
I do feel it may have held him back in progressing his role I know he’s missed out on management opportunities (whether that’s due to his parenting role I don’t know) where as because my workplace know it’s shared I’ve never had an issue as it hasn’t always fallen to me - the dreaded nursery call for example we took turns!!
Once when he asked for a meeting to be moved, due to a call with America so out of working hours, he asked for it to be moved out from 6pm 6:30pm to allow him to do the nursery run the response was doesn’t your your wife do that…I was away on a course! It’s behaviours like that. He sees it as he is equally a parent and the responsibility that come with it.