Full time only...

[OverTheRainbow88]

I’m a long term lurker, the passed 2 months I’ve seen 3 roles I would love to apply for, have the qualifications, experience etc however, as a mum to a 2 and 4 year old I don’t want to work 5 days a week. 4 the most. However, when I’ve emailed to enquiry about the roles I’ve been told the post holder must be full time, and no job shares.
In my eyes these jobs can be done on a 4 day week or even by a job share. Surely; this is discriminating against working mums? Each time, I’ve felt deflated and moved on by yesterday’s job was the job I’ve been looking for for about 2 years. Yet the same response. What can be said/done? Or sadly nothing?

Thanks for any comments/suggestions

To not drip feed it’s working for the local council with vulnerable children.

Yes it is shit. Often you can get the job and later negotiate part time.

However, I've seen teachers being forced out of schools for asking for part time in a local school. They're offered mornings only for example which is very hard with a small child/ baby, especially child care wise and defeats the point.

Could you seek advice from pregnant the screwed?

I don’t think it’s discrimination against working mums per se. They want someone to do a job 5 days a week. You don’t want to work 5 days a week. Plenty of people do want to (including some mums). They are not obliged to change their business requirements to fit with what you want.

Yes you can certainly argue that they would get a better range of applicants etc if they made the job more attractive and flexible etc. But that doesn’t mean you’re being discriminated against. And if it discriminates against working mums then why not also working dads? My DH works a compressed week so he can spend 1 day with our daughter, he would also presumably not be able to do this role.

There’s lots of issues affecting part time workers (who are by far most commonly mothers with childcare responsibilities) in addition to what OP describes- especially when you get more senior so that limits career any progression for part timers, there is widespread lack of training and development fir part timers which contributes to lack of progression, and whole system problems like the fact that public transport reduced price ticket concessions are unavailable for part timers (think weekly/monthly train season tickets which are for full time workers)

Fine that the job requires someone in it 5 days a week, not always true this must be the same full time person doing the job. It could be a job share or one person doing compressed hours in 4 days or whatever- according to business needs. But way too often lazy sexist thinking shuts part time working women out under the guise of ‘business needs’.

Second baby, things count as discrimination if they affect women more even if the reason isn't innate but society And
Society dictates that women do far more caring for family and so are far more likely to need part time roles

The law only requires that they consider part time and job share options, it's up to them if they think they could work , and as an applicant you are not best placed to judge that

There's a good explanation of 'indirect discrimination' here:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/indirect-discrimination/

On the face of it, an absolute requirement for full time working might well result in direct discrimination but note:

Indirect discrimination can sometimes be lawful. The Equality Act says it’s not indirect discrimination if the person applying the practice, policy or rule, can show there’s a good enough reason for it. They would need to be able to prove this in court, if necessary. This is known in legal terms as objective justification.

There could be justification for full time hours in some roles.

Societal norms aren’t the same as societal dictation. The societal norm is for women to do more of the childcare but if you have yourself a partner who does an equal or even greater share then society does not dictate that women still have to be the main carer.

Me and my DH do exactly the same amount of childcare and we took SPL instead of me taking all maternity leave as I wanted to go back to work. Society allowed me to do this, I was not prevented from it. I’m aware that some employers DO discriminate against women but that is not the case here as they are just merely stating that they want someone to work 5 days a week.

If OP WANTS to do more of the childcare then that is not the same as society dictating it. But you can’t then claim it’s discrimination against women.

You clearly have no idea how social experience and expectations shapes behaviour of people and how that creates social norms

As a simple and timely starter, try reading about nudge theory , which is essentially about capitalising on those effects to shape society

I’ve applied for ft jobs and asked at the very outset if I could work the equivalent of 5 days over 5. I did get one like that.

Good advice already shared and all I can say is I've experienced similar in a different field (non-profit).

I'm about to go another round as my contract is up and part time roles are in short supply so I usually call before applying to see if part time isa possibility.

The answer usually is apply anyway and if you're the right candidate they will discuss it. When that has happened to me I have been offered compressed hours (10 hour days x 4) which I can't do so the whole thing has been a waste of time and very frustrating as they are jobs I can do, they want me and I want to progress my career. I know 2 women who do that and they just about balanced it at home during the school closure, but they are exhausted and hanging by a thread. I think it's only possible with grandparent childcare and after school clubs.

Due to DH's work I can do 4 days a week max and there's no way I can do compressed hours, he travels sometimes so that also makes it harder at those times and it always changes.

The whole thing is a nightmare as I want to work but really around his work I can't, or at least not easily. I take annual leave for childcare and have at times not had enough left to join them for holidays.

I have approached senior leadership about job shares for some roles and that has also been rejected despite other employees being willing and available to make it work.

The job market is still very much skewed against mothers.

Can't the child's Dad negotiate part time to care for his children?
What about childminders/after school clubs they can help you out.

I work in the public sector and I think the most ridiculous thing is they advertise jobs as "potentially" enabling part time, job share, flexible etc, but if you enquire most times it'll be that it's full time only. In my experience the best way is to negotiate AFTER getting the job, or starting the job and then putting in a flexible working request after 6 months. A lot of up front work without guarantees though.

in my eyes these jobs can be done on a 4 day week or even by a job share.
but you're not the team manager or their h.r dept how do you know that there's not other factors going on?

I think that society discriminates against mums generally. The problem is that mums end up with the majority of childcare, so they can't all do full time employment.

But I also think from an employer POV that it is much more expensive and labour-intensive to hire, train, manage and pay 2 people to fill one role. I'm a manager and you wouldn't think one more person is that much more work but sometimes it really is.

Although I'm aware of the issues and possible indirect discrimination for the worker, is it possible that in some cases it is valid to have one person filling the role rather than 2 for stability and continuity?

I know when my kids had 2 teachers in a role it was always disruptive, even in secondary school. In primary school more so.
For some vulnarable children this could be important. It might have been decided for positive reasons.

Were reasons ever given?

I once spoke to HR about how to progress to the next level in my (allegedly family friendly organisation) as a part time worker- the person I spoke to laughed and said that wasn't possible. Then they remembered their HR training and said it was up to me.

I did eventually get promotion in my part time role but it took a lot longer than the full time useless men I worked with

I think companies getting their heads around meaningful part time work with career progression is really important for working parents, and society as a whole - there arent enough quality jobs so maybe sharing them out a bit more is better. My employer hated pt employees until this pandemic then found having two people knowing how to do things and able to cover each other useful.

.

Public sector roles are often more flexible, so the fact that these have not been suggest to me that either the set up of the job really doesn't suit a compressed week or part time or there is a culture in that department that doesn't warm to flexible working.
Women are indirectly disadvantaged when flexible working isn't allowed or when different rules are applied to full time workers. Because you could apply it to your personal situation and say, well my husband could/couldn't do that - is not the point. It's the bigger picture, more women work part time because of caring responsibilities, but that's not a transparent choice, there are many structural reasons why that happens, there is a pay gap between the sexes (again another reason why it's women who often drop hours to look after kids, etc) women experience more of a career drop or lag (because of having children) which again, men and women take very different amounts of maternity/paternity leave. Sometimes because they want to, but how many men in certain jobs would feel confident in taking weeks or months off?

@GNCQ

Can't the child's Dad negotiate part time to care for his children? What about childminders/after school clubs they can help you out.

But you're assuming that there's a father around or are supportive.

I truly despair that you think this is somehow a problem for employers to solve for you rather than for you to solve yourself. You can work full time but you have chosen to have 2 children who also need to be cared for, surely you thought about this before deciding to have 2 children. As a PP said if you want a role that is full time you either need to agree that your partner works part time or you arrange suitable child care.

That kind of attitude is what is stopping intelligent, capable women going back into the workplace after having children.
It sounds like the OP is perfectly aware of the limitations placed on her by her (and her partner, presumably) by having children, but is finding it hard to match her availability to the kind of job she's qualified for.

It’s probably because those vulnerable children consistency and the same person caring for them everyday
That’s more important than your need to have a job that fits in with your requirements

• need consistency

Op is child's father able to help so you can work FT ?
Some roles genuinely do need one consistent FT person.