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

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".

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I’m certainly not going to “support” every woman as part of a sisterhood, we all make our own life decisions and have to live with them. I’ve seen women raised on benefits prosper and those who had the silver spoon fall into penury. Even sisters who had the same chances, opposite outcome, because they chose a different lifestyle.

I didn't just refer to maternity pay in previous posts Eloethan I also referred to the difficulty some small business' face in finding cover for a staff member on long term leave. This was also mentioned by janeainsworth

I am not, and have not disputed that paid maternity leave in the long term "reaps benefits for the individual, the company and society in general".

I agree trisher that "benefits can reward business and how a well run business appreciates its employees".

Our independent family business that started in 1890 and was continued by 4 generations, ended nearly 3 years ago with
Mr. S.'s retirement. Our business always appreciated those who worked for it which is why it was one of the oldest business' to remain solely in the hands of the family who started it, throughout its life time.

janeainsworth

As a (very) small employer, the problem about maternity leave wasn’t the pay, which I could claim back retrospectively, but finding a suitable person to cover, which was just about impossible and which did affect the business simply because things just didn’t run as smoothly.

However, I fully support maternity rights
because not only are they good for mothers and families, but in the long term, better employment terms and conditions are good for businesses too, because they engender employee loyalty and continuity for businesses.

What a great post showing how benefits can reward business and how a well run business appreciates its employees Thanks janeainsworth
I wonder if there could be some sort of maternity /training scheme where young people are offered short term placements, perhaps with a longer period of employment- maybe 1 year but commencing before the maternity leave started so they had some training before taking over. Maybe with government help for the cost. But perhaps the area you work in is too specialised for that to be of benefit

Smileless I said you seemed to be suggesting that perhaps there should not be maternity pay. You responded " what part of my post led you to that assumption?". It was this part:

"Maybe one answer would be for maternity leave to be unpaid".

No, I have not run a business but it seems not all businesses view paid maternity pay as such a burden. As janeainsworth says, it can create pressures in terms of finding someone to cover but in the long term it reaps benefits for the individual, the company and society in general.

As 92% is paid back, and the repayment is made monthly, I don't see why that should be a very significant issue for a reasonably functioning business.

As a (very) small employer, the problem about maternity leave wasn’t the pay, which I could claim back retrospectively, but finding a suitable person to cover, which was just about impossible and which did affect the business simply because things just didn’t run as smoothly.

However, I fully support maternity rights
because not only are they good for mothers and families, but in the long term, better employment terms and conditions are good for businesses too, because they engender employee loyalty and continuity for businesses.

So true.

Nothing is certain but death and taxes.

That doesn't mean they are guaranteed to have their request granted.

Any emloyee has the right to request flexble working hours after 26 weeks in employment.

I was just wondering if Boots still work so flexibly for parents, or if that idea has been eased out of being considered?

Sadly, I'm too lazy to google though.

I suppose it depends what is meant by 'actively encouraging'. So long as the jobs were also open to men (and they probably would have employed a father with childcare responsibilities), it wouldn't be sexist.

It's the fact that there are fewer fathers who take on childcare that is sexist, I think, not that Boots wants to employ people who do.

Well, I suppose it could be construed as sexist, but then the reality is that in a lot of homes, it is the women who are the organisers of children and their care.

I can believe that, MissAdventure. If someone has a job that fits around things like school runs, and they know that their employer is sympathetic to parents, they are going to want to keep it, which will make them committed.

It's a model that other business might benefit from following.

I try not to make assumptions trisher as they can make an ass of you and me.

Going off course a bit; I remember quite a few years ago that 'Boots' were actively trying to recruit mums to their workforce.
They offered very flexible arrangements, including a start time which factored in the school run, and the option of school holidays off.
Their said that their records showed that it was in their interests to do this, as mums made the most reliable, hardworking and committed employees.