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?

@Gandalf456

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.

You haven't been explicit about the differences between the way part time shifts are handled. Are those on the 5 - 9 shift getting their hours contracted?

If so, would the store need people on the 10 - 2 shift all the time if all the full time positions that they have open were filled? Is that the case for the 5 - 9 shift? Because there is a clear defence against indirect discrimination if there is a good business need for whatever is causing the discrimination.

If the people on the 5 - 9 shift aren't getting their hours contracted I think you'll have a hard job proving discrimination against the 10 - 2ers. If 5 - 9ers are getting their hours contracted then the question of whether the overtime is covering for hours they need worked regardless or for full-time positions they are unable to fill becomes more relevant. Don't know if their consistent inability to fill all full-time roles would have an impact on how reasonable that is as a business need. And there may be a case for discrimination against part-timers in general if the sex distribution between full-time and part-time is significant. - Note, again, IANAL and you ought to be talking to one.

I agree with nosswith's comment about organizing for the most part. When I worked retail my union constantly sold out part-timers for the betterment of full-timers, however that was decades ago so things may be better, since part time work is more significant now.

What does that have to do with sexism?

They will be getting holiday pay as it should be based on average earnings, but they might not accrue holiday for those hours worked, but it will inflate the hourly rate of pay for holiday taken, so it evens out

5-9 has always been contracted and are advertised whenever someone leaves They never advertise for 10-2 shifts but they advertise for rotating full time shifts (ie a mixture of early shifts and late shifts). They get filled but turnover is high. 10-2 always seems to be available until they go over the overtime budget towards the end of the financial year

Sorry if this has already been said; but yes it could amount to indirect sex discrimination. It’s the principle that eg means if you require all staff to do night shift if that disproportionately impacts on women (as bear more responsibility for childcare) then if there’s not a reasonable justification to do it can amount to unlawful sex discrimination.

If this is casual overtime that parents like then I'm not sure what the issue is, but I may have misunderstood.

In general I try not to make my personal life choices the problem of my employers. It's a challenging employment environment and a useful thing you could do, rather than ask your employers to make changes which make no business sense, is to focus on opportunities to build communication and morale between the various teams and management. I certainly would not advise you to take on battles for others unless there is a clear injustice which you can articulate well.

@Gandalf456

5-9 has always been contracted and are advertised whenever someone leaves They never advertise for 10-2 shifts but they advertise for rotating full time shifts (ie a mixture of early shifts and late shifts). They get filled but turnover is high. 10-2 always seems to be available until they go over the overtime budget towards the end of the financial year

There are some questions if they don't always bring people in for the 10 - 2 shift but they do always bring people in for 5 - 9. That does make the 10 - 2 shift seem more casual and less pivotal to the business. Obviously, if sometimes don't have staff covering those hours because they don't want to pay someone to be there then they may have a reasonable business need not to contract those hours.

But It sounds like it might amount to indirect discrimination.

If you want to find out if you can pursue this you really need proper legal advice from a lawyer with experience in discrimination cases. Indirect discrimination is a tricky case to make but it's been really powerful in some circumstances.

Thank you. I'm considering more trying to appeal to the managers' consciences at this stage so it really helps with all your comments with regards to getting the argument clearer in my head.