Non-quiche for people working in HR, what do you all reckon?

[flowerybeanbag]

Anyone fancy bit of a whinge support group?

Just spoke to the person covering my mat leave and she doesn't want me to go back....

The person that covered my mat leave got my farking job and I was compromised out!

Ruth if the person there currently doesn't want you to go back what do you reckon that means for you? If they want to you do another role is there a place for both of you possibly? Might that actually help your request for less hours?

Hi PJ, how was the holiday?

Sexy fantastic news about the job! When do you start?

Hi flowery - I have missed you!

It was great ta, a little hectic!

Did ds have his mmr?

He did, and he was absolutely fine! Made no fuss whatsoever when he had it done, as usual I was worse than him , and had absolutely no side effects at all.

hectic holiday so home for a rest eh? It's always the way!!

I must admit, I was pretty relieved to get back!

God, I hate retirement almost as much as I hate pensions.

And maternity.

Sorry to harp back to an older subject. I'm abit behind with my Mumsnetting. .

Part time Working and HR is a real hot button to me.

There seem to be very few actual roles that are part time and advertised. Note to self - taking redundancy from a managerial position and thinking you could find a part time role at the same level after 9 months at home, was a naive decision (but not one that I regret as such. )

Or that are not full time roles shoe-horned into part time hours to some extent.

So here I am working in a junior position, on less than spectacular pay, biting my tongue when I don't agree with procedural or strategic decision making, but I'm able to be home in time to collect and drop of my DS at school when he starts in September.

Working and being a mother is all about compromise, and it's worth it for my DS's, but I can't help but keep flicking through the recruitment website still....

Flowery - the person covering doesn't want me to go back because she loves my job. It doesn't mean too much apart from the fact that if I move on then she will likely be made permanent, at the moment she is potentially redundant.

It won't unfortunately put me in any negotiation position because there is a tight reign on headcount at the moment and they are restructuring.

My boss is moving on so the new structure won't be decided for ages, although it is affecting some of my colleagues already.

Hi all

Flowery - I have 2 months notice so I can't start my new job until Oct, am so excigted wish it was sooner..

Reamhar - that must be soo annoying, but as u say at least you get to see more of your Ds's

Random question for everyone - please can I ask how you all keep up to date with case and Employement? In my new job I'll be working in a stand alone role, whereas at the moment I am spoilt with having an in-house legal team. I've a few ideas about what I can do to ensure I'm up to speed but would really love some advice about the best way to do this, thanks

I am spoilt too with in house lawyers and a policy guru but because I am so opinionated I tend to get consulted on their interpretation.

I do read the legal page in People Management and also look on the CIPD website when I want more info along with croner and the government websites if I want to go back to the fundamentals.

If you scroll back to the start of this thread, you'll see me whinging about lack of part time opportunities.

Good to see HR leading the way, eh?

lol PinkJ

That was exactly my point - HR as cobblers children.

We actually have condensed hours outlawed in our policy.

Just helped my dh write a proposal for 10 days condensed into 9 needless to say it created a hornets nest of fury at his office and the partner said 'I don't think you would make up the hours' 'we don't want to create a precedent' 'if you want to be an equity partner (self employed) then you can't work part time'. That was a good result then!

HR officionados can you caste your eye over this and tell me if I am talking sense?

As per usual when it is happening to you you can't separate being irate with facts:

You state that the company policy allows ?the reduction in total hours worked? and the new policy, not yet in force, stipulates a 5 day working week and therefore the company can automatically deny the request without further explanation. I think an industrial tribunal may find these to be an unreasonable practices. If you want to specify in your policy which forms of flexible working you will consider you can do this but will be open to challenge. On the second point you cannot stipulate a 5 day working week as you may find that you are employing a practice that is indirect discrimination.

Ruth I may be being a bit thick...

Is this something you are writing in response to the partner's reaction to your DH's proposal to condense his hours?

So his policy at the moment allows hours to be reduced yes?

New policy will stipulate a 5 day working week and therefore will not allow hours to be reduced, or in fact any flexible working at all in practice?

I think two issues. Firstly you should be appealing on the basis of the current policy that applies at the moment, and state that a policy coming in at whatever future date does not apply to this request and therefore should be disregarded. So if current policy allows hours to be reduced there is no reason (legal or not) that this proposal shouldn't be considered properly on it's individual merits.

Then address any actual work-related concerns there are.

If you want to address the new policy, which I think is a good idea if they are trying to use it here, then do so as an entirely separate point.

Law say any request for flexible working must be considered and a good business reason given for it to be refused. Stating in the policy that effectively no request will even be considered is an attempt to deny employees one of their statutory rights and would be viewed as unreasonable and illegal by an employment (not industrial) tribunal.

If you'd find it helpful to have another person cast an eye over the whole thing I'm happy to do so, email me flowery dot beanbag at ntlworld dot com.

Hope that helps a bit!

Welcome potpourri by the way!

SexyMilf to address your question about keeping up to date legally, I find the best way of doing this is by not having easy access to legal advice. I've spent all my career working for and with companies with no budget for legal advice except in dire need! Really focuses the mind if you know you must get it right! Giving advice in this atmosphere and having to look things up is the best way of getting excellent employment law knowledge (which I think I do) and getting a 'feel' for the law so that you know without looking what the law probably says about something. Just for a while keep checking BERR for everything and it will start to come. Plus read your People Management rather than glancing through it briefly and then flicking to the jobs page and get whoever your solicitors are to put you on their mailing list for legal updates, and read them.

Hi,

I've just read the post and would like to join up. I'm an HR Manager specialising in policies and processes. I have 10 years experience. Started as an HR generalist and have specialised for the past 6 years in policy development and HR projects. I spent the last 3 years working on outsourcing (payroll and admin) before going on mat leave when the company outsourced my job! When I went back I did a 6 month part time project role before leaving through redundancy. The good news is that the HR job market is buoyant - but sadly only on the full time side. I have a great new job in a new industry (pharmaceuticals) but unfortunately full time. I am just getting used to juggling everything and DS going to nursery 5 days per week.

Yes flowery - it is an excerpt from a 1.5 page letter. I was writing it late - again can't sleep.

I have appealed (or rather partner is) on the basis that they are using incorrect data to support the request being turned down. But while I was at it I drafted responses to all thier letter - which was 1.5 pages.

The key reasons they are turning it down is that they think he will not be able to effectively bill the clients (absolute tosh!) and secondly everyone in the workplace will want it (clearly they have the age old issue of not being able to say yes to one person and no to another).

Talked to dh today and he clarified that the letter from er is badly worded. In reality they say they can support requests for a reduction in hours (e.g. part time). They don't mention compressed hours.

In the new policy if you are full time you have to work 5 days but you can apply for part time with a reduction in pay. I think the problem is that they have a couple of people who do 4 days paid, but work 5 days and may even bill for 5 days IYSWIM.

Chants meditation tape to oneself and Chomps at bit as so cross with their letter.

Ruth So new policy is effectively outlawing compressed hours only, but will consider other part time requests? That's not as bad, although still ill-advised on their part. Regardless of what their decisions will be on any individual request, stating up front that a particular type of request will result in a blanket refusal is daft and leaves them vulnerable legally imo.

Compressed hours are tricky, lots of issues depending on the job and the organisation. Is your DH a lawyer? It sounds as though he might be. My DH is as well. His contract says 9-5, but days where he does 9-5 are so rare I could probably count them on the fingers of one hand and he's been at his employer for 10 years. Same with lots of jobs. In places I've been employed, working full time has rarely meant 9-5, and for senior posts especially has more often meant 8.30-6ish or similar, later when busy.

Agreeing compressed hours for someone has to take into account the reality of what happens on the ground in a normal working week, not just what it says in the contract about hours. So someone who wants compressed hours and wants those defined as (say) 8.30-6.30 with Friday off is likely to p* off colleagues who work those hours every single day, although their contract says 9-5. I'm not saying that's what your DH is suggesting at all, just highlighting the issue really as a more general point. I have made myself unpopular on several occasions by refusing to consider people who suggest working through half their lunch to leave early, on the basis that no one else takes a whole lunch hour anyway so it wouldn't be fair. In an environment where everyone takes an hour, obviously that's different but if no one in reality takes longer than half an hour anyway, one person wanting to be paid for the other half and leave early is a problem.

If it's normal to work more than 40 hours (or whatever contract technically says) as full time and that is even taken into account by the person requesting compressed hours, there may be the issue of irregular hours.

DH technically works 9-5 as I've said. In a non-busy week he might get away with 9.30 - 6ish for at least part of it. In an 'average' week, he'd probably do 8.30 - 6.30 often with a bit from home in the evening. In a really busy week he might be at the office really late most days and also be working over the weekend from home.

In that environment, how does one agree compressed hours? How would that actually work when hours are so changeable? I'm not saying it couldn't necessarily, but it would be very difficult to do so and be fair to others working full time who are in the office 5 days rather than 4 (or 10 days rather than 9).

I do think a company should not specify within it's flexible working policy which types of requests it will consider. Having said that, depending on the working environment and realities of the job, I have lots of sympathy with companies reluctant to consider compressed hours. Fine where hours are actually 9-5, or where they are at least regular. But agreeing it in environments I've mentioned and monitoring it and managing it effectively is a different ball game and very difficult.

I have to say I also think the argument about 'everyone else wanting it' is a valid one. Saying yes to a particular type of request will have an impact on future requests, and make it much harder to justify a refusal. So it's not that 'everyone will want it', more that a precedent has been set. Not that it would be impossible to refuse, for example if everyone wanted the same day off, but it would be harder. I wouldn't put that argument in the letter refusing a request tbh, but again I have sympathy with that point of view.

Has your DH considered putting forward any compromises? A half-day reduction in pay over the fortnight and working from home the other half of the day in question? Or going for the reduction in pay for the whole day and being able to take it off completely? The difficulty then is of course managing to actually reduce the amount of work commensurate with the new reduced hours. Again difficult in certain jobs!

Hi MinW, welcome!

Interesting to hear you say HR market is buoyant. I've not explored it for a while but I am hearing anecdotally an awful lot of companies reducing HR and other business services in the current climate, redundancies and so forth. Maybe it depends on the industry!

Yes flowery - you've covered all the aspects that I'd discussed with dh and I am not annoyed about their refusal more the way they are handling it and their dreadful letter. Think one of the partners has got v annoyed about it and not thought. They have suggested a reduction in pay for a 9 day fortnight but of course it is unlikely that there will be a reduction in work (hence my comment about someone else in the practice already doing this).

I think being concerned about setting a prescedent is a ligitimate concern but not a reason to say no. It also just smacks of lack of leadership when I think there are ways of saying no. I have previously talked people out of compressed hours because of the impact on them personally.

They have also said he can't do p/t if he gets equity partnership - which is self employed.

Trouble is the whole request is finely balanced because of my situation. So if he reduces pay we need an equal reduction in outgoings which means reducing childcare costs - so my new proposal is that he works a 4 day week. However, I can see that he will just end up working full time in 4 days - this is what gets my goat (she says tugging at her chin). I don't agree any co taking the proverbial with p/t, (that includes at my existing employer).

Oh and because Friday is a 6.5 hour day the request was to spread this over 9 days. They previously reduced working hours on Fridays instead of giving a pay rise.

Now I know that he works longer days but he could cover one day over nine without shortening his lunch hour. The burden would be on him because he would need to extend his hours earlier and later in the evenings.

Bad handling inexcusable and unnecessary. However if it gives your DH reasonable grounds to appeal and keep the discussion going, that's a positive.

Interesting they've said he can't be a p/t equity partner when it comes to that. Do they have any? DH's department are dead keen to get a (female) part time partner (all equity where he is) to up their female ratio and show how marvellously family friendly they are really.

The issue about realistically reducing workload to reflect fewer hours is a horrendous one particularly in that environment and obviously why compressed hours is attractive - it's acknowledging that workload won't decrease. It's a bit of a conundrum really [unhelpful]. The issues about compressed hours are as discussed, although some of them are surmountable, but the issues about reducing hours are equally problematic, in some roles/organisations at least.

Um. I'm out of helpful comments. I guess all you can do is strongly address all their concerns as I am sure you are doing, consider compromises where possible, including reducing outgoings elsewhere if you can, and take it from there. How valuable is DH to his employer? Is it a dealbreaker for him and if they knew that might it help or hinder?