Flexible work request declined. Job share declined.

[Mumchatting]

Hi, I'm just looking for a bit of advise. My flexible work request has been declined. I work in an office for a retail company. I was full time prior to my maternity leave. Now I requested part time 2 or 3 days and proposed a job share of my role as I read that this works well in many offices.
I can't believe it was actually declined. And they want me to do 5 days a week without reducing hours.
They put few reasons - detrimental impact on the performance, on quality and burden of additional costs to recruit another part timer to job share with me.

I wasn't offered any reasonable alternative as they still expect me to do full time. I hoped for a compromise. At least if they offered 4 days a week! But I see they don't want to be flexible at all.

I see it as if the office jobs were only secured for full time people. And what about the work-family life balance philosophy? That is non existent if one works in an office?

I'm a bit upset. Should I appeal and is there any chance I could win my appeal?

Anyone in the same boat or with similar experience?

Has your partner asked their workplace about going part time instead?

Many employers will refuse initially but it's just the opening stages of the negotiation. Go through the reasons given. Are they actually valid from a business perspective, or just a knee jerk 'no'?

If you disagree with the reasons given, then you will have to raise it as a grievance against the person who refused your application - usually your line manager. Don't worry about this.

In writing, state each reason given for refusal, why you think it is spurious and why your request for flexibility would make sense from a business perspective.

Things that can help are:
Going through your job description and making sure they are not refusing your application based on duties that are not in your contract.

Finding examples of job sharing/working from home/changing your hours in your role and why it works. Maybe they could use someone with different but complementary skills? This is especially good if there are areas where you have requested training they have not got round to doing yet!
Maybe working different hours from home would allow the business to respond to out of hours queries and clients more efficiently?

It's crucial to make the business case for your application, not just the fact that you want to spend more time at home.
If you think your initial application didn't quite do this but that there is a case to be made (so if job sharing wouldn't really work but working from home 2 days a week would) then keep your powder dry and reapply in 6 months, making sure you can defend your application as beneficial to your employer.

Good luck,

You are better off working full time anyway.

Having dcs is more of a reason to be financially independent not less.

In order for a FWR to be successful, it needs to demonstrate how it is will be beneficial to the business and not just you, as frankly your childcare issues etc are just that, your issues

How did you "sell" your request to them?

Did you receive enhanced maternity pay? If you did be mindful that you will need to return for a period or face paying this back (with my employer this period is only 1 month but others eg the NHS it's 3 months).I just mention it in case you plan on resigning.

The cost excuse is ridiculous. If Op leaves then they will hsve to fork out to recruit.
Op
I was refused a job share and ending staying just 6 months after maternity and got a lovely p/t job who then let me work from home. There are a few agencies that specialise in p/t jobs so worth looking now.

In order for a FWR to be successful, it needs to demonstrate how it is will be beneficial to the business and not just you
What? Are you suggesting this is a legal requirement? Because it isn't. If the employer refuses it on the grounds it doesn't benefit them, they are breaking the law. It only has to not be to their detriment.
As others have said, they will have recruitment costs anyway if you leave. If you are a long standing employee they would probably save on your job share's wages.
I have a feeling you may have to wait a year before reapplying unfortunately so it may be worth appealing. And find a union for next time.

In my job, and under our employment laws here (not mainland uk) if I want flex working hours I have to give a business case as to why this benefits the company as well as me.

They can and have refused part time work before. --the person in question wanted every Monday and Friday off and to finish at 3 on tues weds and thurs. but retain her current salary. Unsurprisingly work said no. But renegotiated a pay scale. She said no so left. Then complained because she had to repay all her maternity pay

Of course it is all about the employer OP. They advertised a full time position. You agreed when you took the job. Why should they have to make changes thay don't benefit them when you are the one wanting to break the terms of your initial agreement?

I think it tends to be a reflection of how much you are valued vs how difficult you are to replace.

Go back full time and see how you get on. A lot of people find it easier and kids get into a routine quickly when it's 5 days a week.

They can and have refused part time work before. --the person in question wanted every Monday and Friday off and to finish at 3 on tues weds and thurs. but retain her current salary.

She wanted to work more than 2 days less every week and not drop pay?! How this she think anyone would agree to that?!

Would they consider a staggered return- 3 days and then 4 and then 5?

Sympathies. It must be really hard to be faced with no flexibity. Is what you do transferable to other places?

We have a very very flexible approach to working in my organisation and as a result attract a lot of v talented people. The compromise is a public sector salary but in my mind the trade off is worth it. I work school hours four days a week (half 9- half 2) then make up extra time when kids are in bed etc.

You need to get their response, with their business reason laid out, in order to plan an appeal.

At an appeal, it is up to you to show how the business needs of your role can be met with you working fewer hours. Requiring the additional costs and effort to administer a job share, plus the risk of not finding a suitable other half, is very likely to be rejected especially by a smaller business. And of course it puts you in quite a vulnerable position because if there was ever a time when an other half was impossible to find, your part time role can be validly made redundant.

So you'll need to make a case why you can do the job in 2/5 less time than the rest of the cohort. You cannot ask for a reduction in workload, unless you can demonstrate that the department is over staffed, nor can you expect colleagues to pick up work that would previously have fallen to you.

Do you have a colleague who might want to reduce their hours and be the other half of a job share with you?

IME people proposing a job share usually team up and suggest it together, means the employers don't have to try to recruit the jobshare partner.

Also they only have to consider what you request, they don't have to come up with alternatives. So if you want them to consider 4 days a week you will need to do another application

rollon yep she did. I wasn't suprised that they said no!

Unofficially I suppose I have a flex working arrangement as in I have the option to work from home when I need/want to. I do maybe two days a month from home if that. And usually just to catch up on emails/ paperwork stuff. i tend to give work a weeks notice if I'm planning on working from home, and can move it if it doesn't suit them (ie if needed to cover holidays, sickness etc).

Sympathy. I work for a well known light rail company in London (you know who) and work shifts. I asked for lates only but was refused for not meeting "business needs". This is a common excuse. I am a member of a well known rail union (you know who) and my rep decimated the decision on appeal. I can see their reasons though. If I am only doing late shifts then they had to find someone who liked doing earlies, constantly. It's a shame you are not in a union. If they are worried about performance and productivity can you convince them somehow that it won't be affected?

Why should they have to make changes thay don't benefit them

Because it's the law that they have to if it isn't to their detriment.

I phrased that badly drspouse. I meant that they will not go out of their way to accommodate the OP when it is of no benefit to them. She will have to come up with all the answers to their concerns and prove how the changes she wants will not be detrimental.

I don't think her employer should have to even consider this tbh. They wanted a full time worker and that is what they hired. If the OP doesn't want to do that anymore, she should leave. From the employers pov, they weren't involved in the choice to have a baby but are expected to change their preferred way of working in order to accommodate that choice.

I think that these issues hold women back in the workplace. It makes us look like an unsafe bet, compared to the man who is more likely to take his couple of weeks pat leave and then get on with the job he was hired to do.

The only other thing you might want to consider is offering to do, say, 5 days 8 - 1pm. You still get afternoons with your baby, but your employer gets coverage throughout the week.

"I don't think her employer should have to even consider this tbh."

Actually, I think it is really good that employers do have to consider this thoroughly from time to time. There are many possible triggers for business change, and this is just one of them. The 'but we've always done it this way' line of reasoning does need reconsidering periodically; sometimes it's always been done that way because it's by far the best way - or just the cheapest way - to get the task done. But sometimes it's not, and considering different (and to use the current buzzword, flexible) brings benefits.

What the OP here needs to do to have the decision altered is a) understand the business case that led to it being rejected and b) make a persuasive case for change that shows advantage to the business (or at least no detriment).

Sometimes the best ideas for improving a business come from those who are doing the particular task day to day.

I agree that the best ideas for change can come from those who are doing the job, butthat is different to wanting change in a business in order to suit one's own personal requirements. If I was a business owner, I might resent being told I had to seriously consider altering my business to suit the personal lives of other people. It might make me wary of hiring the kinds of people who might make those requests in future. Particularly if I was a small busoness owner, emoying expensive to train specialist staff. This is bad for women. Not such a problem in large organisations.

I think we need to accept that we are hired to do a job and we either do it or don't, unless a genuine case can be made for change being good for the company.

What I would like to see is proper state child care provision and real division of mat leave entitlement between mums and dads, so it isn't always women being seen as a potential weak link within a company.

I appreciate everyone's sympathetic comments and all practical advise given.
It's interesting to see different perspectives and points of view.

It is not even debatable to go back to work on their terms 5 days a week full time hours simply because the costs of full time childcare significantly exceed my salary!

Anyhow I still have a couple of days to think and I will make my decision soon.
I will look at all other alternatives and will be trying to renegotiate.

for what it's worth, in general I think employers are too inflexible

but - sorry to say this - in a case where they are effectively being asked to employ two people when one could do the job, I can see the issue. A new hire, new insurance, a new person for someone to manage etc, that is a pain.

Could you do your job in 4 longer days - i.e. full time but compressed? This is where I think a lot of employers fall down - that and general presenteeism. Is that something you'd consider?

I think that these issues hold women back in the workplace. It makes us look like an unsafe bet, compared to the man who is more likely to take his couple of weeks pat leave and then get on with the job he was hired to do.

Let me rephrase that for you.

"I think that these issues hold women back in the workplace. This is because employers have no clue about the real world but instead think in sexist cliches so they think women will be an unsafe bet, compared to the man who is more likely to take his couple of weeks pat leave and then get on with the job he was hired to do resign and move on to another job somewhere else rather than stay in the same job and same area because the conditions suit a working parent and she wants to carry on living in the same area."

In other words, employers don't know which side their bread is buttered on with vastly more loyal female employees and they are shooting themselves in the foot by refusing flexible working when they could have kept them on and they would have shown loyalty and stayed.