Is this sexist?

[Gandalf456]

A few parents at work were doing overtime between 10 and 2 at work and asked for the hours to be contracted so they could have a bit more security and holiday pay.

The response from the boss was that 'we'd all like to do those hours but the business needs longer shifts. '

The thing that grated was that it was said in such a patronising way - as if it were just a whim, not a necessity due to childcare.

In fact, most of them would prefer to be in the position to do more hours and have better pay and more respect

Opinions?

These are strange times with childcare being so patchy, but I do understand bosses not wanting to be boxed in with staff being contracted to daytime hours only. It can make it really difficult to recruit for the less desirable hours (evenings and weekends) or cover staff holidays if you have permanent staff contracted in to doing bits of daytime/school hours when other people are doing long days or a disproportionate number of late shifts. Presumably it depends on your industry though.

It doesn't sound patronising. I don't fully understand what they were asking for but I dislike the assumption that just because you are a parent you should get priority in setting hours/ shifts over everyone else.

And, sorry but employees do seem to forget flexibility has to work both ways- what they want has to fit in with what the business needs.

I’m not sure what you mean as you’re saying it’s overtime but then it sounds like they’re doing shorter shifts?

I'm not clear what's happening either. It's possible that if the way things are set up ends up with one sex being disadvantaged relative to the other, it could constitute indirect sex discrimination.

archive.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1814

To clarify:

It's a supermarket and I'm an elected spokesperson.

The majority of employees are part time and it's a mixture of students, parents, people with other jobs and people approaching retirement.

It's tricky to recruit full timers due to the pay and the hours. A lot of the above do work the evening shift, including most of the parents..The older people tend to do part time day shifts. Students do a combination of evenings and weekends.

I completely understand the notion of flexibility working both ways but, legally, they have to consider a request. The fact that they're happy to take overtime in the hours I mentioned in the op over a number of years, to me, shows it's a viable option and it fulfills a business need - ie the busy lunchtime rush.

Perhaps the managers hadn't broken any laws by what they said but it seemed a bit unnecessary, considering there are other groups who have a need to do evening hours (same length - 5-9) due to their personal circumstances and don't get the same negative comments

Negative comments? Did I miss something?

Perhsps, midgebabe. Have another read (and imagine it said in a somewhat sarcastic tone).

It should be in your contract/employee handbook how you would go about applying for change of hours/flexible working. If you go about it through official channels, presumably they do have to consider it impartially but are not required to agree if it doesn’t fit with the needs of the business? Maybe your boss was having a bad day, maybe they have a massive headache covering a rota and managing a staff budget? I don’t think you would get very far complaining that their tone was sarcastic if what they actually said was sensible.

I note you said "parents" and then asked if it was sexist

Are you saying that all the parent s involved were all of the same sex

I cant. In the car park

@midgebabe

I note you said "parents" and then asked if it was sexist

Are you saying that all the parent s involved were all of the same sex

Yes - I noticed that. The post itself is sexist.

The post itself is sexist.

Or just a reflection of what the OP observes IRL ?

You really need a lawyer with experience in discrimination cases.

I could see a case for this being sexist if the staff desire to work those hours was mainly from a protected group (women) and the hours were not being contracted while staff desire for another set of hours (the evening shift) was mainly from men and was being contracted.

The status of "parent" is not a protected class, so it would need to skew security against women (or some other protected class, but I assume women is the most appropriate). i.e. more men in the store get their regular hours contracted than women do because they desire the evening shifts.

10 - 2 and 5 - 9 shifts would probably also need the same certainty of staffing level requirement for this argument to hold up.

The 5-9 shift is mostly students (50/50 male and female) or mums with the odd older man thrown in (2nd jobbers, mainly).

The requests for 10-2 are coming from women (mums) in addition to the existing 5-9 shifts. Occasionally, it is instead of the 5-9. I used the word parents because, for some reason, I don't like the word, mums in this context.

Yes, the bosses do prefer longer shifts (ie full time) as it's cheaper to have less staff . The 5-9 is to stack shelves or cover for the full timers who only do max 2 lates each week. There are fewer day employees full stop so they do rely on regular overtime to the point of being disappointed or panicked if people won't do it.

The 10-2 could, and does, already make up the shortfall as overtime. There is a natural lull after 2 then it picks up early evening when the 5 o clockers come in.

While 9-5 or 1-9 would be ideal, they can't recruit many to do the 1-9, which is why they have the part timers. I guess the 9-5 is easier to fill, they seem to under recruit there, too, relying on overtime

I might add that there aren't any women of childbearing age working full time- they are either under 30s or over 50s or men. The women are unable to work those shifts duevto childcare commitments and the fact that, being on a low wage, it would not be financially viable to pay for childcare

I would get over your concern about the use of the word "mums" because sex is the protected characteristic you need to focus on and you can't do that if you aren't making it clear that the decision is sexist. If you want say "women" and explain that women want the shift because they have childcare responsibilities that men rarely take on, but don't use "parent" because that completely obliterates the sexism you are looking at resolving.

I think (and IANAL) that for a legal claim of sexist discrimination to hold up you would have to show that they are unreasonably refraining from contracting the 10 - 2 hours that pretty much only women want while being happy to contract in similar circumstances when men are in the running.

Your posts don't make clear whether lulls etc. are lulls in staffing demand (i.e. the store not wanting so many staff) or lulls in staffing provision (i.e. the store being unable to get the number staff it wants). I would think it would be important to show that the store has the same or more need for staff that isn't covered by full timers at the 10 - 2 shift as it does at the 5 - 9 shift. Or, at least, that the difference between staffing need and contracted provision is larger during the 10 - 2 shift.

Possibly they would have a defence if they are trying to hire full-time staff that would cover all the 10 - 2 overtime hours but aren't looking for full-time staff that would, if they could hire them, cover the overtime and at least some contracted 5 - 9 hours.

I might add that there aren't any women of childbearing age working full time- they are either under 30s or over 50s or men.

I think this is a tangent but women under 30 are of childbearing age.

No man has requested to do the 10-2 shift. It is only women because they are usually the main carers of children and would require these hours to fit in with school .

There is a mixture of male and female workers on 5-9 but more women in the 30-50 age bracket.

The need to work the 5-9 has never been questioned in the way the 10-2 has - because people are needing to fit in around in their primary job, college or school. Having to care for children doesn't seem to be a reasonable excuse not to be able to work.

The need to work the 5-9 has never been questioned in the way the 10-2 has - because people are needing to fit in around in their primary job, college or school. Having to care for children doesn't seem to be a reasonable excuse not to be able to work.

What do you mean by "The need to work the 5-9 has never been questioned in the way the 10-2 has"?

Comments that indicate management dismiss external obligations that are primarily female concerns but not similar obligations that are also shared by men are useful evidence that it is sexism, but I think you need to keep your primary focus on the measurable harm that women are suffering.

I thought your issue was that employees can't get these hours contracted but can get 5 - 9 contracted? If so, keep this as your primary point - Women can't get 10 - 2 hours contracted because the managers say a "valid" reason is needed to get part time hours contracted and won't accept working around school for childcare even though they will accept working around college attendance.

But you may have a hard time showing this is the actual reason women are refused (especially if they haven't been this direct) since the hours are different - if a woman (or man) had night school to attend and asked for 10 - 2, would they get the hours contracted then? Even though the historical reason for dismissing requests for that shift to be contracted may stem from a lack of respect for women's childcare responsibilities, I think it may be hard to show.

That's why I suggested looking at how they are trying to staff the two shifts and how much stability there is in demand for staffing on the two shifts.

Could be indirect indiscrimiation which women often are subject to but not an expert.

Shift work is tricky eg DH would love to go part time but can't due to shift allowance and etc.

@ErrolTheDragon

The post itself is sexist.

Or just a reflection of what the OP observes IRL ?

Irrelevant. If she is trying to say this disproportionately affects female parents then say so.

Thank you @BoomBoomsCousin..

I have heard managers say 'Oh, well, we would all like to work 10-2, wouldn't we but we can't' or, when people pop off home at 2, co workers have said 'Oh nice, alright for some' even though the last thing said person will be doing is sitting at home with their feet up. They will be just as busy as their co workers running around doing school runs , helping with homework, cooking and catching up with chores and home admin.

No one comments on how nice it is to come in at 5 and only work 4 hours

Once again, you're focusing on complaints about language rather than actual harm to the women. And until you draw a strong line between things like this and the harm you seek to redress, they remain somewhat irrelevant. (Though I really do get the annoyance).

The comments don't, by themselves, indicate a lack of respect for childcare commitments. The "all right for some" comments can often just be a casual way of saying bye while wishing you could go home too, rather than actually thinking that person has it better in some way, it's been common everywhere I've worked shifts when someone leaves and others are still working. Is there a reason why you think this is particularly about a lack of respect for women's commitments? And, since it's coming from peers rather than management, is it causing measurable harm to the 10 - 2 staff?

The "Wouldn't we all comment" could be as much a reference to part-time work as to those hours particularly. 10 - 2 is generally seen as prime working time whereas 5 - 9 is not. 5 - 9 is not as inhospitable as a night shift but more people want to work in the middle of the day than in the evenings. So there is an element of 10 - 2 being a more desirable shift than the others which makes the "wouldn't we all" comment a reflection of the reality of the labour market place rather than dismissal of the women's external commitments. (Though, even if not a reflection of sexism, it's not a great way to talk to people you manage).

So we're back to looking at what they are basing their contracting decision making on and whether it's defensible.

Well, I suppose the harm comes from the lack of security.

If it's only offered as overtime, it's not guaranteed and there's no holiday or sick pay. The effects are very tangible.

Most of the so-called flexibility in retail that comes also with zero hours contracts seems to me partly because of a lack of willingness to be organised, or so those who are somehow difficult to manage can have their hours reduced. It's not as if shop hours and demands in most areas of retailing are not predictable to a great extent.

Perfectly reasonable request to formalise the 10-2 arrangements. You can probably gather from my comments that I would like to see some additional laws on retail employment, though no chance of that with this government.