Furlough Sexism

[LastLaughLane]

I work for a fairly large organisation, in customer services. There are around 30 of us who all do exactly the same job. Around 8 of the staff are men. 50% of the staff had to be furloughed, but not one male member of staff has been furloughed. This has been playing on my mind since it happened and I wondered what your opinions are- I think this is sexism. Should I complain when I return from furlough? I'm not sure if I have grounds to and wondered if any of you had any knowledge about this.

Thank you in advance!

Thanks for the reply.

I know from one of the men at work that he actually put himself forward to be furloughed, but they didn't furlough him. My understanding from another work friend (apologies if this is incorrect) was that you aren't able to put yourself forward to be furloughed, and they certainly didn't ask anyone's preferences. I can't imagine any of them would have been given the opportunity to state a preference as it was all done quite suddenly.

It genuinely is the case that everyone there does the same job so if they tried to argue it was for business reasons I honestly believe they would have a flimsy case. Myself and some of my female colleagues are discussing what we should do.

On the face of it that certainly looks like sex discrimination. If none of the men but more than 50 percent of the women were disadvantaged - and you were one of the disadvantaged ones - then you are certainly entitled to ask what the criteria were that they used to decide who should stay.

If they just decided to keep all the men because, men, than that's direct sex discrimination and unlawful.

If they used some other basis for the decision and it just happened that all the men and none of the women qualified, then it's indirect sex discrimination. It's still unlawful unless they can justify it for a reason not in any way related to sex. So if they just kept on the tallest 50% that would pretty certainly be unlawful discrimination. If they just drew lots, or went on performance ratings, or length of service, that might be ok, though I'd want to be sure that they have a properly fair appraisal system or that the drawing of lots was properly random, given the very unequal distribution. Hope that helps - good luck.

This is shocking OP but somehow expected, to me at least.

Can I ask, would there be a financial benefit to the company by furloughing the women, I ask as I imagine the men would be paid more and so it would actually be better for the company if they had furloughed the men as they have the higher salaries?

Of course it's possible all are paid the same, or roughly the same, if all do the same job.

Does your employer have form for sexism?

Thanks for your replies!

I don't know what their criteria was for deciding who to furlough- I think most people who are part time have been furloughed. There aren't many of us with young children- most of us who do have been furloughed. The men wouldn't be on a higher rate of pay- we all do the same job and are on the same pay grade so the only variances will be on length of service. They have furloughed some of the longer serving members of staff, but their rate of pay wouldn't be so vastly different. On performance- I can't see that this is a reason either- some of the people furloughed have the most knowledge, are the hardest working and have had the least time sick.

I can't think off the top of my head of other outright examples of sexism to be honest- we have more female managers there than men.

some people have asked to be furloughed, often due to childcare.

@ScrimpshawTheSecond that's what I thought too, I wasn't 100% sure on the rules. I can think of one female colleague still working who has young children. There aren't many of us who would have childcare issues as the majority of staff don't have young children.

I'd ask on what grounds the decision of who to furlough was made, rather than go straight in with an accusation of sexism.

@WhatWouldDominicDo I definitely want to tread carefully! And agree that asking that in the first instance would be the best thing.... Myself and my colleagues have been trying to consider the criteria they would have used. I definitely would have expected at least a couple of the men to be furloughed, thinking about length of service, knowledge, performance, sickness etc.

Last laugh.. dont be too sure you are on the same pay grade. My daughter in local council thought she was, turned out she and her female friend were not, she eventually got the back pay

So interesting, I've been trying to work out the stats for my team aswell.

Statistically you'd expect at least one of the guys in your organisation to have been furloughed (8 out of 30 people is 27%, half of them have been furloughed = just over 1 person).

Ours seems to have been very different in each department, some have said resolutely you're not being furloughed, others have opened it up and you have to put your name forward. Now we have to put a business case forward to get them back - I'm kind of glad I've not been furloughed as I can't help but feel these people will now be identified as surplus to requirement.

I think most people who are part time have been furloughed.

It's not uncommon for more women to work PT compared to men. If that's their main criteria it could account for the results, and it's an understandable criteria, I think.

That's what's I thought too- I think all part timers have been furloughed. But whether it's reasonable or not I'm not sure. Once again it's women suffering for working part time, usually because of childcare etc. I've seen many things about women being hardest hit by the economic effects of this virus.

@LastLaughLane out of interest why do you think the women are suffering if they're part time and have been furloughed?

Just curious.

In the beginning I thought my head was going to explode working and home schooling and would have welcomed furlough as a means of coping. Single parent and DD doesn't have any contact with her Dad so I was completely alone.

Well, it's a indirect effect, and not necessarily one that is caused by the employer, if a lot of women are part time. From their perspective people who are full time are likely fully dependent on that salary and maybe also benefits, and it is probably administratively easier to keep them on. And they may also be longer term employees.

As for why many women work part time, yes, there are all kinds of reasons. I do myself, because I also take care of a lot of the stuff to do with kids and certain home administration things. It makes a better life for our household to have one person working only part time. Does that disadvantage me as a woman? Maybe, but I'm not convinced there is a real solution - as a person in a family we operate as a family, not a bunch of independent people who happen to live together. I wouldn't want to need to work full time nor would I want to trade roles with my spouse.

@HollyBollyBooBoo I'm in the same position as you- single parent, part time and furloughed. And I agree- for me it has made life much easier (for now) being able to home school my 2 DC.

It was my preference to be furloughed- I'm just concerned at what their criteria was and why it was only women.

I think we're disadvantaged being furloughed as if redundancies are made, it doesn't put us in the best position. I can see opportunities being less for us in the future as whilst we are still getting to grips with our jobs again, others are in a better position to improve knowledge and skills etc. Also for some financially- some people are obviously not in the position where they can manage losing 20% pay.

@Goosefoot I do agree it's very difficult and not necessarily an easy solution. Just with regards to furlough- I think it would have been better for our employers to actually ask people's preferences and try to accommodate as much as possible. I know for business reasons they wouldn't necessarily be able to keep everyone happy.

I also appreciate it that it depends on your personal circumstances as to how you feel about it- my income is our only income as I'm a single parent- so I do worry about the future impact of being furloughed as well.

Employees can ask to be considered for voluntary furlough and if it suits the business, then so be it. If it doesn't, then they won't be. The only furloughed employees I have in my departmentare are both women and both voluntary.

Depending on your relationship with your furloughed colleagues, it might be worth asking them, as neutrally as possible, whether they took issue with being furlogued as they may not have minded. In terms of not directly checking preferences, that does seem like (indirect) sexism because women are much less likely to make demands of their employer (certainly, with regards to pay rises and working hours).

@Gronky I know some colleagues were happy to be furloughed but others less so. It's left some of them feeling quite undervalued I think.

In that case, I would recommend putting together an action plan to avoid this and similar issues in future. For example, a common surveying framework for employment decisions so people feel that they're being given options, rather than putting their head above the wall. It might also help to focus on finding common grievances, even among those who were happy to be furloughed, they may have appreciated being asked.

We had a similar situation with holidays, where the bolder individuals (mostly men) were snaffling up prime holiday periods and it was replaced with a mandatory quarterly return for holiday preferences. To further help people feel confident making requests, the justifications weren't disclosed unless deconflicting became necessary. The most brilliant aspect, in my opinion, was the addition of a system where individuals could choose between mediation or consideration if deconflicting is required (i.e. those that were happy to sit down and decide on priority could do so, if either party didn't want this to happen, a manager could weigh up the requirements in confidence).

It's a sometimes grating saying but I do find offering solutions, rather than complaints (not that I'm accusing you of being a complainer) tends to be better received. It might also help with your concerns about perceived values if the spectre of redundancies rears its head, since you'll be demonstrating leadership qualities.

@Goosefoot

I think most people who are part time have been furloughed.

It's not uncommon for more women to work PT compared to men. If that's their main criteria it could account for the results, and it's an understandable criteria, I think.

More than that I think. If you furlough part timers against their wishes in the knowledge that part timers are more likely to be women than men (which is born out by the statistics) then you are engaging in indirect sex discrimination.

@Gronky thankyou- I agree it's good to put forward a solution where possible rather than just making a complaint. I'll definitely speak to my colleagues; there are four women who I'm close to who I know are of the same opinion, that in the very least the question needs to be asked what the criteria was, given that no male staff member was furloughed.

More than that I think. If you furlough part timers against their wishes in the knowledge that part timers are more likely to be women than men (which is born out by the statistics) then you are engaging in indirect sex discrimination.

Something being different for men and women isn't necessarily sex discrimination. A business is not able to somehow change the way men and women behave in regards to employment more generally, that is largely outside their control. Making decisions about furlough or anything like that needs to be done on the basis of what is necessary for the business to run and fair to each employee as a person, not on the basis of their sex.

You might say that the fact that more women are in part time positions is a result of sexism in society overall (though it could be the result of other things, too), but that is not this business "engaging" in sexism, direct or indirect.

Absolutely fuloughing the part time people in indirect discrimination. This is the kind of thing that indirect discrimination is all about.

I've seen loads of threads on MN about this sort of thing.

Whenever there's a large upheaval it impacts women more. I read a thing about how women are seen as back up workforce when needed then expected to step back when things change. I'll see if I can find it.

I would ask how they decided rather than accusing them of anything.