all flexible working requests refused. its 7am til 6ishpm 5 days or nothing.....

[madeindevon2]

i dont feel i can handle this ....would need to leave baby with someone at 6am to commute into London. plus i have to work for as long as its busy so you never know....sometimes 5.30 sometimes 6.30...how does that fit with organising childcare?
Ive been in this role for 10 years. i thought they might have given a little ( i asked for 8 til 5 so wasnt ridiculous!)
I feel they are trying to push me out.
(there are no other woman working there...let alone mothers.)
psd off but also worried for the future.
can i ask them to make me redundant? then try get another job doing something different?

xenia, can I ask, how can the mum working those hours be good for the baby (unless the mum doesn't want to spend much time with the baby?)

why have a baby if you don't want to spend time with it? Sure, money would be nice but if you never see the child its a rather expensive well dressed doll.
I think babies need mums.

Depends on your views on how much time a father or a mother should spend with their child doesn't it? Many people think women shouldn't leave their babies even at night. Others think it's fine to work full time as I did. Others again are happy not to see their chidlren awake in the week unless they wake at night (particularly men!) But if you think children need someone who loves them consistently in their lives then I don't think you shoudl criticise a man for passing that task over to his wife or for th emother or father to pass it to a granny or a nanny. The child gets that emotional daily contact and love and even if they only see daddy on Saturdays and Sundays when they're babies they soon bond and have other loving adults in their lives. To suggest that there is some daily minimum number of hours a mother must spend a day with a child is just plain wrong and sexist and is used as a tool to keep women down.

ANyway people have different views on these issues. For us my ex husband or I always preferred if one of us were home by about 6 or 7pm. I'm in year 23 of mother hood with 5 children and very content with the time we spent with them even as babies.

People don't ask men why have a child if you only see it when it's asleep in the week do they? That's because people are very sexist and have a subplot of keeping women down and out of the work force. Plenty of women are happy with their work life balance. It's Saturday morning. I'm working. I'm quite happy with that and I'm at home and just got my sons' lunch too. Parents of both sexes make decisions best of them and their children. But I think it's wrong to say that because someone is the genetic mother of a child that only she can be there and it must be a minimum of X hours a day. If we found both of us were out until after bed time which was rare (and in most non sexist marriages fathers as much as mothers want to be there at bed time actually) then that was a shame for that day and when I was breastfeeding I needed physically to get in and feed anyway a lovely way to get home and relax so I didn't tend to stay very late when I had a small babies.

Chelsy, I don't think that's a very helpful comment. Xenia explained that there are certain careers where it is very difficult to do the job without working long hours. Often these are jobs where someone has had a long and costly training. Often the job will be extremely interesting and rewarding. It may provide an invaluable service to others. (eg I think surgeon was mentioned). I don't believe people who have chosen these careers should be made to feel that there's something wrong with wanting to have a family too. Men who have important careers and work long hours are not subjected to the kind of comment you made. Why is it any different for a woman? For many people who don't have interesting and rewarding careers, the decision to leave a job is often simple. I know many SAHMs who couldnt wait to stop work because their jobs were tedious and not very well paid. It's disengenuous to say they were giving it up for their baby, because very often they are giving it up because it's what they want. Please bear in mind that for many people, the choice is not that simple.

I would probably prefer to be home with children than work in Tesco (unless I were on the board mmm that would great, all non-executive post offers gratefully received; I'm good) but the issue here is really interesting. What is the minimum time a parent whether male or female needs to spend with a child or should spend with a child before the child's emotional health suffers. We know babies can be adopted successfully so there doesn't need to be a blood tie between the baby and its carers. I think we probably all agree that paying granny or a nanny who stays 10 years as ours did is not really going to ruin the child's psychology.

What I found going back to work quickly was that the baby had 3 important adults in its life - mummy who was breastfeeding it and around because my babies slept so very badly whenever they wanted me between about 7pm and 8am (I didn't start that early for work), daddy who tended to be the one home first at 6pm when the nanny left and C their nanny. What the babies got was comfort, routine, consistent loving adults in their lives and I genuinely think that's what they need. Of course some parents even fathers can't bear to be away from babies but that's parental need issue not a child issue. A good few men opt for flexible working these days when they have a baby because again they don't want to miss out but I do think if the childcare is good the child doesn't suffer. My older children are 23, 21 and 19 now and I cannot really see any difference in bonds and love between them and me as compared with friends whose mothers stayed home with them as babies.

I think you make a really excellent point there Xenia - that where a parent can't bear to be apart from their child, it's a parental need issue and not a child one. By all means stay at home if you prefer it to working and you can afford it, but let's be honest about the fact that it may suit the parent, and may be logistically easier for the family, but it isn't necessarily going to be any 'better' for the child.

Obviously I agree with that and some stay at home parents are not fit to be parents, nag and shout at or slap their children all day and some working parents are pretty hopeless as well. It's hard to generalise. I also don't think it helps for small babies to keep having changes of carers. I think I'm less bothered about that than I was 23 years ago when we bent over backwards to keep the first nanny in a way I don't now think was actually psychologically necessary for the children.

Most parents with small children want to spend time with them so I don't think there's a huge gulf between people whether male or female or working or not working actually. My brother who had two children almost within one year is an NHS consultant and he's going for good hours over high pay, leaves at 5 or 5.20 every night on principle whenever possible etc.

Flowerybeanbag is much better at this stuff than me. Maybe she'll be along at some point. For now, here's my perspective.

You say that your current hours are 7am until 6ish. You wanted to work 8-5. How did your flexible working request deal with the work outside those hours? What were your proposals?

The important thing to remember in terms of getting a request accepted (or, if it isn't, hopefully having a decent claim) is that you have to be able to explain how your job will get done during the hours you propose.

In some cases, this might be that a reduced client load = fewer hours. GPs or dentists are good examples of this. They have a set number of appointments per day so it is easy to reduce hours. You just book fewer appointments. It is also dead easy to job share, because chronic conditions which require consistency from one appointment to the next will schedule round your hours and urgent appointments won't expect to see the same person each time.

I don't get the impression that trading is like that. The friends I know in the area spend the time that the market is open trading and the early and late sections doing the admin. Is that you? If so, what happened to that under your proposal? An employer will not agree a request that relies on existing colleagues picking up your work when you go home (and, quite brutally, quite right too. They have lives too, even if they don't have young children). What was your plan for that work?

I apologise if you covered all of this in your request. I may be covering old ground. By IME, far too many flexible working requests rely on the requestee (is that a word? Probably not) getting the flexibility and no real proposals for what happens to other duties.

I also agree with what others have said. Don't focus on your length of service or your personal needs. These are not your employer's concern. Especially in the City, they would quite frankly prefer it if none of their employees had personal lives. Focus on how working part time will make you a better, more productive employee and how you will fit seemlessly into the team on your part time hours.

I also agree that it is good to be as flexible yourself as possible. Can you offer to check emails from home after your child is asleep (if this would help)? can you have a home office to do your hour 5-6 sometime later in the evening?

I am sorry if any of this sounds harsh. It really isn't meant to. I also apologise if you've thought about all this (I mention it because so many people I see haven't) But if you want to put in a decent appeal (which is the next step if you haven't been granted your request) you need to have answers to all of these issues.

Excellent post RibenaBerry. I think you outline the employer and employee perspectives very fairly and clearly. I've also seen flexible working requests agreed where the employee ends up with the reduced hours they want, but there is no clear solution as to how the missing hours are resolved. In my field, education, we have some people who work 4 days, and the missing day is dealt with by splitting classes between teachers, 'holding off' problems which may happen during the day until the tutor is back at school etc. These are not really solutions - they just ignore the issue and in fact put the workload back onto colleagues. I think there needs to be very honest and open dialogue about where and how felxible working is possible, and where it isnt.

Legally it's often possible to refuse requests and there's a myth amongst many mothers that there is a right to flexible working which is just plain wrong. I suspect in teaching there is more of an accommodating view point and even if technically it might be worth an employer refusing (I wouldn't want a flexibly working teacher my child's class teacher in prep school by the way) and legal to do so they don't. In other sectors they lawfully refuse. And of course sometimes they unlawfully refuse too.

so alfiesbabe, do you agree with needmorecoffee if you found my comment unhelpful?

agree with needmorecoffee about what? I'm not quite sure what your point is!

Being nosey here...What the heck is an energy broker anyway?

And why can energy broking/brokering only be done for 11 straight hours a day or not at all?

There are many jobs like that. Sometimes I'm dealing with the UK in the day and then if I've something involving Americans I'm dealing with that until fairly late because that's when they're awake. We all know what these jobs are like when we take them on, even my 3 children at univesrity stage and their friends know the deal - job X has XYZ hours, job y involves messing around for a few hours a day in an art gallery and the pay reflects it etc. jobs Z as a banker involves working 3 weekends a month if the big deal is going on and all night having worked all day too. You get the rewards in these jobs and not just money. They can be intellectually fascinating and the adrenalin can keep you going all night although I do rarely work all night.

Presumably an energy broker is selling energy and may be you need to be available when the relevant markets are open. Or that might not matter at all - I don't know on the basis of what is on the thread.

What we do need is a culture and upbringing for our daughters where they are not criticised for choosing to work 6am to 9pm in the week if they want to whilst they have a small baby. That's one the biggest hurdles I think girls face which boys don't. It should be a legitimate life choice and not something to be castigated for. These "extreme jobs" if I can call them that sometimes give you huge rewards which can be of benefit to your children too.

surely being with mum is more important than material awards?

Oh absolutely needmorecoffee. And being a dad. Our 3 children are the most precious things in the world to me and DH.
But life isn't that simple! It's not work or family. Different people make different choices depending on their circumstances. (Although of course for most of us, the choice is restricted by various factors - DH and I have certainly both had to work all the way along. Having one parent at home was a luxury we couldnt afford).
Personally I wouldnt have wanted DH and I to both be in very time consuming careers when our children were very small, and I was fortunate to work P/T for a while, and then taught F/T. But I wouldnt criticise those who make different choices. I don't believe they are putting money ahead of their children. I think they are making a choice that is valid for them.

I don't agree being with mum rather than daddy or even daddy is best and taht granny won't do and a nanny is beyond the pale. I think all those people or a combination of them provide good care for parents. if a father works rather than goes on the dole which means the 3 under 5s get less attention as they just share a mother at home is he wrong - he's putting money above his children so on your analysis he's in the wrong or is he okay because he is male and therefore allowed to work?

madeindevon there have been some really good points and suggestions on this thread.

Try and think as creatively as possible about how the gaps will be filled. Apologies if you've already been thinking along these lines but so many people just decide what hours they want to work, and request it without addressing how their normally full time job will actually be done if they are reducing their hours. Others do address the reduction in hours by saying 'Joan can do x, Dave can do y, Betty's not too busy, she can do z'.

Can anything you do be done differently, does everything you do need to be done, does it all need to be done in the office, or at those fixed times, think as creatively as possible to get all the solutions you need.

You need to work out what all the possible objections your employer will make are, then put forward a positive solution to them. You need to put forward a proposal on the basis of how it will benefit the business, not you. Lots of people write these requests by saying 'working less hours will be good because I will be able to pick up my son' or something. Focus on what your proposal will achieve for the company.

Your childcare arrangements and commute are not their concern at all, again something people often get wrong.

Have a look at workingfamilies website if you haven't already, they have some helpful factsheets and also an interactive guide to flexible working which helps build a case.

Just to add, don't know if you have been given specifics of the business reasons yet but at least one of the following must be given as a reason why your request can't be met -

Burden of additional costs.
Detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand.
Inability to reorganise work among existing staff.
Inability to recruit additional staff.
Detrimental impact on quality.
Detrimental impact on performance.
Insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work.
Planned structural changes

There must also be a specific explanation as to why and how that business reason applies in your circumstance. Make sure you get that, makes it easier to construct your appeal apart from anything else.

many many interesting comments raised here.
I have been doing a lot of thinking and i know its possible for me to get a live in nanny (although we only have a 3 bed house) and leave for work at 6am and return at 7pm therefore often not seeing my son at all during the week but i just don't want to do that. For many reasons i wont go into here my husband and i werent sure if we would be able to have a child but we are blessed with a gorgeous son. I know leaving him for such a long time would make me utterly miserable.

The nature of the job is that you can only work when the market is open and trading. While i was on maternity leave my clients were shared amongst my colleagues. Having 9 clients rather than 8 to speak to isnt much more work and in fact most brokers WANT more clients as more clients equals more revenue opportunity which equals bigger bonus.
On reflection i think my employer wants me to resign. My colleagues can cover my bigger accounts and they can hire a hot keen young grad to take on some of our smaller accounts.

I have basically decided that i cant go back working the hours they want. Things said in the meeting (such as my role being incompatible with motherhood) should not have been said.
I intend to write a grievance letter. My ultimate goal is that that they offer me an exit deal....after 10 years i really dont want to be forced into resigning for nothing....
flowerybeanbag you seem to know the score. any comments greatfully received!

madeindevon you may well be right about everything you say in your last post, you may need to raise a grievance and they may end up offering you something to leave.

But you will need to go through the process of appealing the decision first, there is a formal appeals process to go through, it doesn't take long, but you can't really raise a grievance about flexible working being refused without appealing it and essentially giving your employer every opportunity to put things right.

I understand there may be other aspects to your grievance as well, but I would still go through the appeal for your flex working first.

If you want a compromise agreement it's all about a game really, to get anything decent they must initiate it, so you have to proceed along all the avenues you would as if you had every intention of staying there, so don't try to cut any corners with procedures you must go through.

understood.
re the appeal, is there a timeframe for me to submit this?
how long do they have to respond to it?
thanks for your help.....can i put in a grievance alongside the appeal? or is it best just to wait until after the appeal....

yes i appreciate it's a game and i dont want to jeopadise my chances of getting a compromise agreement by not following the correct procedure.

thanks again

You've got 14 days to appeal after the decision, a meeting must then take place within 14 days after that, then you must be informed of the outcome within 14 days of the meeting.

Your employer should have notified you about how to appeal in the letter refusing your request.

I'd wait until after the appeal to put in the grievance, you can then include anything about the appeal as well.

ok. well i havent had anything in writing at all. The meeting was Friday and verbally my proposals were refused.
I will call HR and ask them. Thanks again.

As an aside, there is an MNer who is in the same line as work as you, madeindevon2, and she returned to work quite recently (doing the live-in nanny route). If you change your mind and start wondering about going back to work and doing the long broker hours feel free to cat me and I will put you in touch with her.