Indirect sexism at HS2 recruitment. No part time jobs on offer / alternative working patterns for skilled roles.

[whohasusedmystapler]

I have emailed the Minister for Transport asking why there are no professional roles at HS2 jobs open for part time or flexible working -
pretty much because there are jobs that I and other highly qualified women would love to have a crack at if the hours would allow.
I did ask HS2 Recruitment but they say the line manager recruiting gets to pick whether the vacancy they want to fill is suitable for part time or flexible working hours.
So much for the ethos of unconscious bias. So we have a Government led mass engineering project led by professional men who seemingly want to recruit only more professional men.
Dont bother studying for a career in Engineering or Surveying girls. Its a mans world and once you have kids to project manage you might as well have done medicine or accountancy. ps Yes I am frustrated.

I don't see it as sexist. I think your view that only women with children would want part time/flexible work is sexist tbh. There are many reasons apart from having children that one would require flexible hours plus these days men even look after thier own children occasionally!

It's undeniable surely that women do still do the majority of childcare and are over represented in part time work? To recognise that and to accommodate part time/flexible work would increase the number of women who could take those jobs. Not because only women want part time/flexible work, but because currently more women actually do need part time/flexible work.

Its not sexist at all. Childcare is a parents issue, it used to be accepted the mother was the primary carer. What about fathers, women without children, etc. More likely unconscious sexism would come from male banter on the job.

We've now got a policy in my work place that job adverts (internal and external) must specifically say that they welcome applications from part time and flexible workers unless a specific business case can be made as to why that particular role can only be done by someone who's full time. It's made a huge difference - for the better. I totally agree OP.

And we all know that statistically the bulk of childcare and the parent who's "on call" to pick sick kids up from school is the mother - so let's not pretend this isn't sexism for once. If you don't believe me, look up the definition of "indirect sex discrimination" - it's a legally recognised thing.

Its not sexist at all. Childcare is a parents issue,

You would think. Yet vast amounts of threads on mumsnet alone indicate that is still primarily women who take on the lions share of the actual childcare and the organisation of external childcare.

Encouraging people who may wish to work part time or flexibly can surely only be a good thing, so why not? All these men who apparently want to work part time would be as equally eligible to apply under those terms too.

I think a huge part of th gender pay gap can be addressed by offering more flexible and part time roles, where possible

I agree OP. Even for anyone who argues it's not a case of sexism, It's a huge problem for parents if there are no flexible 'family friendly' jobs. Projects funded by the government should be paving the way for more flexibility, not less.

In a very similar position to you OP. Have you had any response from the Minister for Transport?

We have a skills gap in engineering/ skilled technical roles. And yet, many people who need flexibility would love jobs like these and excel in them.

It isn't only engineering and it isn't only HS2.

Many employers go out of their way to discourage applicants with pesky caring responsibilities. Far better to recruit (usually more junior and cheaper) resource who can devote their entire lives to meeting their employer's demands with no annoying requests for flexible working or working from home or emergency leave to look after sick dependants.

Most employers have no interest in any kind of equality of opportunity (pay gap anyone?). What little they do is only where properly enforced legislation demands it.

Obviously the chickens come home to roost in a booming job market - those who are most flexible are also often the most likely to move elsewhere. That's another few thousand to the recruitment agency then.