Jobs, discrimination and the 'motherhood penalty': what can be done? Come tell MNHQ what you think

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

Lots of you will have seen the recent stories about the Equality and Human Rights Commission's report into maternity and pregnancy discrimination, which found that around 54,000 mothers each year are illegally discriminated against at work.

When we surveyed MNers recently about maternity and work, you told us that you overwhelmingly agree that the 'motherhood penalty' exists, and most of those surveyed (65%) believed having children had a negative effect on their career.

So we'd like to hear what you think about how both explicit discrimination, and wider difficulties faced by mothers going back into the workplace, can be tackled, over and above the enforcement of laws that are already in place.

Do you work for an employer (or are you one yourself) who is very successful at welcoming mothers back in to the workplace?

What practical steps can employers take? (These can be steps taken within organisations, between organisations, and between organisations and employees - just for starters...) Do you have any examples of strategies that have worked, either as an employer or employee?

Are there tweaks (or bigger changes) that could be brought in to start to tackle this problem in a more systematic way?

We'd really love to hear your experiences and ideas, whether experience-based or completely blue-sky.

For those of you who like reading government documents, there's also a current consultation into the gender pay gap, and we may use the responses from this thread to help to inform a response to that as well.

Thanks
MNHQ

Oh and my husband also has the same.

Large organisations should ask all their managers how many people work part-time or flexibly in their units, and investigate why some have way more than others. I returned from my first maternity leave with the expectation that I had to find myself a new project to work on and apply just like everyone else. 20 applications later, only two would consider someone doing part-time (and both interviewed me and offered a post). The team I ended up in was an unpopular subject area but this meant almost everyone worked part-time there, even if they worked full-time over all.It was great. Sadly that work ended and I was left to find a new role, even going up to 4 days to help, and just couldn't find anything in the organisation, purely because so many managers could only think of roles as packets of 5 days a week.

And this is a public sector organisation where all jobs have to be advertised as suitable for part-time unless they get permission not to - but in reality over half the managers can't be bothered to consider part-timers.

I'd like to see all public sector jobs advertised as for two to three days a week,and people could take on more than one. It's noticeable that when there's a need to recruit in a hurry, or there's a need for particular expertise, part-timers are suddenly fine - my area has just acquired a dozen staff working a day or two a week as they wind down their old jobs, and the entire Government Legal Service seems to be made up of mothers working 2-4 days who have given up on the legal profession outside.

Encouraging part-time work and treating part-timers as committed staff is essential if we want more men to do it, as many families want at least one parent to have a secure job with prospects of promotion. MrNC does work 4 days and often from home (and I would have had to quit work last year if he didn't, thanks to so many train delays), but we've had scary moments when it's been made clear he'd be first in line for redundancy because of that.

Women won't have it any better at work until men have it better too. For example:

My husband only gets basic paternity for 2 weeks while I'll get 90% for the first 6 weeks. This is negative for two reasons. Firstly, if paternity leave is so important that the government makes it compulsory to be offered, why isn't it valued the same as maternity leave in the first 6 weeks? Secondly, him being entitled to less means he's a better prospect for employers than I am, putting me further behind on the career track, and him further behind on the getting to know his baby front. Neither are desirable.

Most men don't take 6 months shared parental leave if the woman goes back to work. If it were more common, then maternity leave would be less of a career-killer. Fathers are also much less likely to request part-time work or flexible working hours once the child is here. I wonder why most men don't? It's often financial. It's often because it's not 'the done thing'. It's often because they know their careers will suffer. At the moment many women just have to accept and put up with this.

If all parents were equally treated, it wouldn't just be the mother's facing this problem, and hopefully employers would realise perhaps it's worth working with rather than against your workforce since having children is not something that is ever going to go away. I mean, employers could try to discriminate against ANYONE of child-bearing age, but they'd limit their recruitment pool so much it would hopefully backfire pretty quickly.

A side effect of lessening the 'mother penalty' on careers would be fathers actually getting a better work/life balance themselves. My husband would love that!

I think there's only a motherhood penalty if you as the mother choose to return part time or to step out of your career entirely. Obviously you're going to lose out against people who haven't gone part time or taken years out of the industry you work in.
I honestly don't think though that shared parental leave is the answer. I used it with my dd. I went back to work full time when she was 6 months, and dh had the remaining 5.5 months off before she went to a cm full time at very nearly 1.
It is a societal change about the perceptions of parenting that is needed, not £135 a week for dad to stay at home rather than mom. All other moms who I know have taken the maternity leave on their own, as they wanted to spend time with their baby. I don't know anyone personally who has the mom working full time and dad working school hours, compressed days, or being a sahd. Until dads want to do that, and until moms want to let them, it will inevitably be sahms or moms who work part time that take a hit to their career.
Fwiw, I don't want my husband to work part time if I have to work full time, I'd resent him for it, same as he wouldn't want me to live off his efforts. We're a team, so we both contribute financially and in other ways.

Thanks very much for all your posts so far. Just wanted to let you know that we're going to let this run for a few days so we get as much input as possible, but we will read and digest it all.

While we're here ipsos you do know about the MN Jobs site?

Too much of the 'mums back to work' is focused on women who are pregnant or just had a baby I find. DS is now 6yrs. I am currently out of work and finding it impossible to find a job that fits in with school hours around here. Even full time ones wouldn't pay for childcare. DH's work is quite flexible so we managed with me working PT last year, but never saw each other as school holidays are a nightmare to cover on a PT salary as most childcare charges for whole days whether you need them or not.

There are jobs around here I can do standing on my head as much lower level than used to. Would be an asset to them and could do it in 5 hrs a day. Trouble is, they want a young person to come in and work full time and build their career with them (unlikely these days as younger ones more likely to toddle off up next career rung as soon as they can, and they should). Me? I'd be happy to plod a bit while DS still young and at school in exchange for flexibility. Instead, it looks like my only options may be places like a supermarket to work on a checkout, wasting my education and experience just to get some income coming in.

Nursery is one thing as they are open longer hours usually, etc. but unless the school you live near offers after school and morning options, that's it, someone has to be there to take/pick up and deal with the holidays.

Am currently kicking my heels until Sept to find something but a low level job more and more likely as no other jobs available on a flexible basis.

Here's another issue, which is staring me right in the face today.

DS (3.4) is in nursery and has been since he was 6 months old. I am expecting again. Nursery have told us they are no longer taking children under 18 months because there are not enough working parents in our area to pay for childcare so it's not financially viable.

So, have had to find a childminder which has taken forever and whether the baby likes her or not we are stuck with it because there is NO ALTERNATIVE.

On top of that, I was informed yesterday that the nursery will no longer operate outside of term time because only 11 children, out of over 150, go there outside of government funded sessions. In other words, none of the parents of the other children work, only 11 of them have working parents so, again, it's not financially viable for them to open during the holidays. Which means I now have 13 weeks of holiday to cover while I am working. They will also be closing their holiday club for primary school age children because not enough parents work so no one uses it. So we are also stuffed when DS goes to school for childcare in the holidays.

Oh and they've also said they're stopping hot meals and we now have to provide a packed lunch and there will be no reduction in fee to reflect this new cost to our household.

The nursery only opens 8.30am - 5.30pm so even if working parents wanted to use it, most wouldn't be able to do because they wouldn't then be able to get to work on time or get back in time to pick up their children. We can only do it because DH works from home.

The next nearest nursery to us is 30 minutes away by car and very difficult for us to get to.

So, basically, if you live where I do you are better off not working, claiming your 15 free hours of childcare and dossing about. Those of us who work have such limited childcare options we are forced to use childcare providers we might not otherwise choose, or not work at all.

I currently am self employed. I could earn a LOT more money if I were in a paid position as an employee somewhere but I have no choice but to stay self employed because of the lack of childcare options available to me.

In what world is it right that working parents are essentially penalised because too many other parents in the same area don't work?

Offer 15 hours free childcare ALL YEAR ROUND only to parents who work and problem solved.

I am a senior level manager in a professional sector and have worked for a multi-national my entire 20+ year career.
I worked PT (it varied between 0.5 to 0.8 FTE) for 6 years whilst my children were small. None of the various requests to vary my PT hours were ever refused during this period, presumably because I am a valued employee . My career progression undoubtedly slowed down during that period, but that did not matter at the time because being with my DCs was more important to me, and it soon ramped back up when I went back up to FT hours.

My DH does his fair share of the parenting and that was always the case when I worked PT. He works in the public sector and was able to get approval for generally 'early' shifts that allows him to do school pick ups (I do drop offs). He also gets a fairly generous annual leave allowance compared to me which helps with managing the school holidays, although I 'buy' the max additional leave allowance under our company flexi system.
Apologies for the ramble but in summary I think whatever gives folks the most flexibility and choice is going to be the best solution, because everyone's situation is different, be they male or female. Had my DH's flex work request for early shifts not been sanctioned then I would have had to re-think my work pattern, for example. I work in the STEM sector where there are always vacancies. This means companies like mine always want to retain the best talent and will not actively oppose flexi or PT working requests unless they are going to present truly difficult operational issues. Having working mothers in senior management roles helps too, as, IME, they have 'been there and done that' and can influence policies and culture accordingly. I manage a team of 30 and around 20%, of both genders, work PT, for various reasons, not just because they have small children. This works well in terms of retaining the talent for the company and most folks working PT or occasionally from home do so conscientiously without taking the micky. We have policies that allow folks to take time out for sabbaticals and other types of career breaks; it is not just having children that means people have to or choose to take time out of their working life.

Unfortunately, IME, there is always going to be a very small percentage of folks who blatantly abuse this flexibility and for that reason companies will still need to have robust performance review and related HR policies in place. I would view such policies as simply necessary for the smooth functioning of the business rather than being 'discriminatory' as, IME, no one is put through a formal process unless they have seriously transgressed.

When I went back from maternity leave 3 years ago I wanted to work part time.

I requested a job share (with the lady who did my job before and with whom I had worked closely with before) and was turned down flat. I offered several other possibilities and in the end they went for a 4 day a week role, carved out of my old one.

I was told that as the new role had less responsibility than my previous role I would have to go back pro-rata on a paygrade lower.

Foolishly I accepted.

For the next three years I did five days work in four and had the same responsibility as before, indeed in the end a lot more as a few experienced team members had left.

I also opened up a new revenue stream for the business and project managed several big projects, none of which are actually part of my job description.

I lobbied for a pay rise in recognition of my actual role three times during this time, citing evidence and putting together several proposals to try and get paid what I was worth. At one point I just asked for my job title to be changed (with no pay rise) to recognise the additional responsibility. None of this was accepted, my publisher ignored emails and cancelled meetings.

So, for three years I worked for less money than I had been on previously with more responsibility and brought in more money for the company. During that time, of course, costs of living had risen considerably and after childcare and commuting costs we were struggling. I was working to be £5 better off a month just to keep my hand in my (very competitive) career.

When I handed my notice in, they were surprised.

It's noticeable that when there's a need to recruit in a hurry, or there's a need for particular expertise, part-timers are suddenly fine.

Very much so notcitrus. I'm in a very niche field, and have had no trouble finding part time, very flexible work at a suitably reduced rate of course. Basically I've been able to target potential employers who are recruiting, approach them when they've had no success (and I knew they hadn't because I know everyone) and basically say 3 days or nothing. They agree to 3. Even throw a bit of progression in there too. But a couple of times, I've interviewed for roles in similar but different, more mainstream sectors, and the part time thing suddenly puts them off me. I'd like to get into something less niche, but it seems that will be impossible while I still need part time, flexible work. And I am one of the lucky ones.

My employer (public sector research) is great; flexible and sympathetic, and as a result they do have a relatively large proportion of women at all levels (although perhaps because of childcare responsibilities, many of us may be lower in the structure than we would ideally hope).

The problems are more wider society. See thread above for examples, particularly people with obvious male usernames who clearly have no idea about real life and think women should just, I don't know, leave children alone in the house if their childcare falls through because not 'imposing' on the childless is more important than illegal neglect...

One thing the government could do is mandate, and then provide if no private sector supplier comes forward, at least one 24h/shift friendly childcare provider within every 20 mile radius, for all of the UK. It's all very well that people in London or Birmingham can manage to find childminders who cover shifts, but in more rural areas, or smaller cities, I know I have struggled to find a childminder at all, let alone one who does unsocial hours. I now use before and after school clubs with my youngest, but as a result of the hours these are available, I can't ever attend meetings or training away from my normal work site. I'm a single parent without a supportive ex, so 'just have the father do it' is not an option, and I don't have any family living locally due to the Thatcherite dream of everyone getting on their bike to find work which means that my family are scattered to all corners of the UK. I'm definitely not the only person in this situation, and it's only going to become more usual as geographical mobility increases even more, so the government need to adapt to it by stepping in to provide the services that an extended family may have covered in the past. I definitely pay enough tax to deserve a say in having some services that would actually help me rather than just urban married parents, and make me more able to pay even more tax over the future.

Evidence of bias and discrimination, albeit in academia but I think a lot of what they write, is relevant to all. theconversation.com/lets-face-it-gender-bias-in-academia-is-for-real-44637

I've had 3 lots of maternity leave and my employers have been flexible and allowed me to change and cutback my hours.
So far, so good...
However, my issues are the cost and availability of childcare:

1. As someone else said, why it's not more subsidised for working parents?
2. When is there going to be better after school provision in rural areas? Parents work in the countryside as well but there's no after school clubs etc round here.
3. Is it time to rethink school summer holidays, given the meagre time off parents get, as well as spiralling holiday prices.....
4. More understanding from employers when my child is sick.

That all said, I understand that I, as an employee, have to do my bit and be as flexible as I can. I know I can't have my cake and eat it.

Sorry, GooRoo, but I really object to you writing that parents who look after their children at home are "dossing about" - there's this constant assumption amongst men and women that somehow staying home to look after children and home is lazy, that we're doing nothing. No, we are doing what you are paying others to do for you!

Floris is the children are in nursery in a funded place and the parents are not working then they are not staying at home to look after the children. The childcare provider is caring for them the same as they are for those of us who work. I have no problem with stay at home parents and think they do a great job but they shouldn't be receiving free childcare.

Goo, the 15 hours is early years' education, not childcare. And sadly if your nursery had enough local working parents wanting FT childcare it would be giving them the 15 hours and then making money on top and not taking on children just for the 15 hours.

I'm a WOHM who used nurseries, if that helps.

I went to nursery school when I was 3 or so - it was attached to the infant school I then went onto. There's long been some state pre school education provision

Probably slightly off the point but is related.

Where I work, a well-respected woman is about to return from maternity leave. While she was off another woman was acting up a grade to cover her role. The big boss has decided that the cover was doing a great job and should carry on, although actually, she wants to step back into her old role with less responsibility (and intends to do so). Nevertheless, the big boss has decided to create a new, higher graded role for the returner. We are public sector so it all has to be advertised of course, but the outcome is a foregone conclusion. She will be the most senior woman. I like and respect the returner and am pleased for her (I know she'll do the job well), and I will in all likelihood be reporting to her myself (which will benefit me). However what I really need right now is another more junior member of staff to do the actual day to day work, not another layer of management to crack the whip!

I know the big boss well enough to know that he is using this exercise as a cynical ploy to demonstrate to HR how "equal" women are in our male-dominated workplace, what "opportunities" are open to them etc. He's probably wishing she was black, disabled and lesbian as well, so that he can tick some more diversity boxes, and point at how fabulous he is to be so open minded. Meantime most other women in the office are on lower pay than most of the men.

Basically she is lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to benefit from the big boss's agenda. But she's very much the exception to the rule.

What I will say is that she showed her commitment by using her KIT days as (more than) full days in the office, and once she started using her KIT days she was also keeping up with her emails when she wasn't in the office. Not all women on maternity leave did the same. Some claimed a KIT day when they came into the office for a 1 hour meeting with their line manager, leaving colleagues to mind the baby. That gave quite a different impression, I can tell you.

I work for a large public sector organisation. The more senior women are able to work flexibly (condensed hours, from home, part time). My son starts school in September, so i discussed the possibility of flexible working with my manager, and all I have been met with is barriers and hostility. All i want to do, is collect my son from school one day per week.

I work as a researcher for a Russell Group university, and my experience is certainly one of gender bias. I have a very understanding male boss, and I have been allowed to return to work 3 days a week, working from home 1 day. Great, right?

Although a much better situation than others I have read, my career is really suffering. Having been away for just over a year, I was not involved in any live projects when I came back to work. Because I am only in the office 2 days a week, it is almost impossible to become part of most new projects - and it's not just the networking, but the expectation that I should be available 5days a week. The days I am not at work, are basically considered by my colleagues as 'dossing days', so I get teaching allocated on those days and then have to either pay for extra days of nursery, or plead with other colleagues to swap.

During my maternity leave I was made redundant, I appealed, and was kept on as new work was found - but I spent most of the first 5months of my baby's life worrying about being made redundant, and communicating with lawyers and an epically useless HR department.

Most depressingly, I feel like I am no longer a valued employee, and because it's so hard to do my job in 3 days I feel like I'm crap at it to boot. I WANT to work, but I don't want to work 5 days a week. I want to work hard, but I don't want to spend evenings and weekends working, which is what is required to become valued and to progress in one's academic career.

Now faced with redundancy again (welcome to the life of a university researcher) I desperately want to move out of academia, but my area of work does not take new employees on a part-time basis and I desperately want to spend part of my week with my toddler. My only option seems to be to stick it out for a few more years and sacrifice my career for a few more years.

Having been brought up believing I could be what I wanted to be if I worked hard enough, realising that gender inequality is a reality has hit me with a bang. I don't want my daughter to experience this, should she chose to have children.

I think another issue here is, if you are like me and totally fell off the career ladder when the DCs came along (the ladder was crumbling too, mind - cue wry ), you might want to retrain in something totally different. But what?

When you emerge from the really intense toddler and primary school years and get to a stage when you might consider rebuilding a career, your perspective is different, and your previous career no longer appeals, or is not possible. Then you need some proper advice to train you into a direction which will not lead you down a dead-end path. Too many part-time courses are in low-paid, low-prospects occupations (e.g. hair and beauty, where the pay is pitiful and progression is either salon management or teaching) or don't actually lead to employment (journalism, for example). It would be more sensible to plug the skills gap by offering more STEM taster courses aimed at those who think they're too 'thick' for science, and more conversion courses for those who were forced to opt out of STEM subjects too early at school. And we need specialist careers advice for women returners (though looking at the shocking quality of careers advice generally I'm not holding my breath on this one).

Hi peanut,
I sympathise, as an academic as well. It isn't worth it being part time I dont think. There are v few success stories, in my opinion. I might be wrong.

One woman I know, went into a faculty role and her head of school was v supportive. So she spread her days as 3 days in faculty, and 2 days as an academic belonging to the department. The 2 days of academic work she did was literally her research days and some thesis supervisions. So no teaching, marking - dream job really. Another woman I know, did the same thing. Spent 2-3 days at faculty. The rest of the time as an academic. Had to run modules, teach, and mark. Plus do research. It was impossible. Her career has suffered. The other one is now a professor, and has given up her faculty role.

I read that as basically them having good or crap bosses. Unfortunately the woman whose life has been screwed has the same boss as me.

So my experience has been mixed. I was laid off after returning to work after having Dd. Four months later I got another job and I was six months pregnant. I didn't say anything at interview but did tell them before accepting the job.

My new employer has been amazing. I've been there 3 years and I'm on sabbatical over the summer as my DS has a development delay. I'm getting paid 20% during this time.

I have worked FT and then reduced to 75% and I'm going back on an 80% schedule. They have allowed me to dictate my schedule. I've also been very proactive with making sure my career is still moving.

I'm with big 4 and they really do try to offer alternatives because the working environment is brutal for families.

To make life better for families I think childcare expenses should be 100% deductible and it should be taken into account when calculating benefits. Also, hiring a nanny is not some sort of luxury. It's a necessity for those with more than one DC and those working odd hours.

For those talking about shift work, ie nurses etc, I really like how the hospital where I work sorts it. Parents are able to request the schedule they want. Shifts are either 8 or 12 hours and you can pick one of 3 shifts if doing 8 hour shifts. FT is 36 hours a week. The hospital has a 24hr daycare for children of workers and patients. They had excellent nursing care and it was a direct result of their family friendly practices.