A feminism discussion thread - should all women's life choices be 'supported'?

One aspect of the high costs to a business of maternity leave is that employers may look towards appointing more mature candidates who have already have their children. Once Local Management of Schools came in, meaning Heads rather than the Local Authority appointed new staff. the Head of my school appointed only teachers straight from College, because 'I can mould them'and also because they were so much cheaper. Time and again superior candidates, in terms of qualifications and experience were discarded, not even making it to the short list.
When a new Head took over one of the key points he made in his interview was the demographic of all these young teachers requiring maternity leave(s) and part-time work, which was exactly what happened. He tried very hard to adjust the balance; at one time there were more part time teachers than full-time, and some of those women still, fifteen years later, refuse to work more than two days a week.
The upside is that more mature teachers, more career orientated, are being appointed, which to me is fairer and better for the school, educationally and financially.

That is obviously a better balance for the school, easzybee, but it still means that women are being discriminated against at both ends of the age range, when they should be employed because of their ability to do the job.

I appreciate that there is more to it than that, as young teachers are a lot cheaper than older ones, and a mix of ages will balance new ideas and energy with experience and the knowledge that comes with it, but this is not something that men have to deal with when young - maybe they are also discriminated against at the older end of the age spectrum when they are more expensive.

You mention people refusing to work full-time, and I wonder if it is right that people can do this. If a post is advertised as part-time, I think it's fair that it should remain so unless both the employer and staff member want it to become full-time, but I'm not sure that it's right that employees have an automatic right (unless the employer can prove that it would be detrimental to the business) to set their own hours. I would like to see more jobs offer flexible hours, and in some cases offering these will attract loyal and committed staff, but in the end it should be up to the employer to decide what they need (or would prefer) in order to make things work in their workplace.

In the end, if employers know that employees can insist on being considered for flexible working hours, and if women are more likely to request this than men, it is going to work against female employees rather than for them.

Thanks Trisher.
I had a small dental practice and having the right staff who not only knew & understood the patients but were able to work well together as a team as well as being technically competent, was vital.
Trainees have to follow an approved training course (NVQ usually) so that could be hard to fit in around maternity leave though not impossible.
We had 3 lots of maternity leave during my time there & each time we had several weeks’ induction & changeover and of course the cost of that had to be borne by the practice.
However two of the temporary staff did stay on as permanent employees and I heard recently that one of them who had left after a few years has just gone back to work there.

Doodledog It has always been the policy in teaching to offer the parents of young children theopportunity to do less hours. Sometimes this is as a job share. I've seen some excellent job shares work to everyone's advantage. In my experience most head teachers can't wait to get rid of older teachers, it's the only way they can balance their budget.

janeainsworth I do think if an employer is giving training to a maternity replacement they should be given some financial help. It would be a good way to raise acheivements and create a more qualified work force.

Trisher I think some funding is available for employers to train staff, particularly for modern apprenticeships, but it’s some time since I retired & I don’t have any up-to-date details.

The difficulty is if you have to find cover for a highly trained senior member of staff. You’re unlikely to find anyone equally qualified who can just step into that role, or who’s willing to do so on a temporary contract, so inevitably you’re looking at taking on a less well-qualified person and relying on other members of staff to step up & be flexible in their roles. There is usually a clause in the terms & conditions of employment to cover this but even so, it has to be carefully managed.

Doodledog I know several young couples, some with children and one without, who have both chosen to work part-time to have a better work-life balance and/or to share childcare.
I think it’s becoming increasingly accepted by employers, but obviously a lot of lower paid families can’t afford this and have no choice but for both parents to work full time.

trisher

Doodledog It has always been the policy in teaching to offer the parents of young children theopportunity to do less hours. Sometimes this is as a job share. I've seen some excellent job shares work to everyone's advantage. In my experience most head teachers can't wait to get rid of older teachers, it's the only way they can balance their budget.

Yes, and as I said, I would like to see more jobs with flexible hours. My point is that I don't think that when someone has taken a full-time role it is necessarily a good thing for people to be able to insist on having them cut if that is not what the employer wants. It is more expensive (with oncosts) to employ two people, for a start, and whereas there are advantages, it is not always the case. Clearly, if someone wants to change their hours after having a baby, and if this suits the employer it's a win-win situation, though.

eazybee said that a lot of people were refusing to work full-time, and that was what my post was about. She also said that because of this, HT's are opting to employ more older people, so in the end, it has worked against parents of young children in the case she describes.

janeainsworth

Doodledog I know several young couples, some with children and one without, who have both chosen to work part-time to have a better work-life balance and/or to share childcare.
I think it’s becoming increasingly accepted by employers, but obviously a lot of lower paid families can’t afford this and have no choice but for both parents to work full time.

I agree (and have done it myself).

My point wasn't that part-time work as a bad thing in itself, but that the right to ask for flexible working hours can work against women (assuming that they are the more likely to ask for them) in the same way as maternity leave.

Where it suits both parties it is a great option, though.

Doodledog men can face discrimination in the same way because being older with more experience makes them more expensive.

I remember my dad complaining about this is the 70's. The company he worked for were employing new staff for a team he was heading for a new project. Only one older man was taken on along with younger, well qualified young men but with no experience.

My dad was under increased pressure as he was having to train them on the job.

In an ideal world, there shouldn't be anything wrong in asking for flexible working hours providing of course that those making the request realise it may not be possible. Realistically if this request is predominantly made by women, as you say, this "can work against women (assuming that they are the more likely to ask for them) in the same way as maternity leave".