feminist orthodoxy in the government

[brum]

The number of hours worked in a week is no indication of the experience or ability of an employee, hugenot. Commitment should not be measured by that either.

[Huguenot]

Absolutely brum, but I simply don't think you're being practical.

Employers don't know you personally, and can only guess at your commitment or ability based on a couple of interviews.

The practical elements in a CV thus have significant influence.

The hours put into anything have a direct influence on your capacity to do it well. Football, composing, business.

If all things are equal between two candidates you're going to go for the one with the hours under the belt.

[brum]

I don't think heft is talking about applying for jobs with other companies, but the problems she has encountered in her own company.

[Huguenot]

Okay, but I just can't equate this approach:

"Businesses weren't going to give men and women flexible working hours unless forced to."

...with some debate about equality. That's not to do with inequality (because it's both genders), it's self-indulgence.

I don't think you can start forcing companies to fit around the pecadillos of its employees. A business is an ecnomic entity that needs practicality and efficiency. In return for their commitment the employee is rewarded.

Once you start talking about 'forcing' people to fit around you, you're not very far off 'the world owes me a living'. I think that kind of attitude will do more damage to your career and reputation than working part time!

[SeanMacGabhann]

waaaay to harsh about people starting families Huguenot. It's not a pecadillo, and it's not something that's JUST about women. Biological interruptions aside, some countries manage to treat the whole thing as an accepted fact of life, a cost of doing business and not some externality that just gets in the way

[Huguenot]

I'm not trying to be harsh - but frankly having a family is a lifestyle choice that comes with certain benefits and costs.

It's completely illogical to legislate how a couple decides who's going to look after baby, and if you come out with cock-eyed legislation about flexible working then you're treating the symptom not the disease.

What family people want to do is have their cake and eat it.

I would be outraged if someone who indulged their desire to have a family and worked part time for several years was given professional equivalence with someone who'd worked 60 hours a week nose to the grindstone for the same period - and sacrificed the joys of a family.

Likewise, career person can't knock on your door and take your family away.

It's neither true nor fair.

[SeanMacGabhann]

yet you seem to be saying that people need to sprog in order to support growth and business - so you want SOME people (but not your employees) to produce the future workers

hmmmm

[Huguenot]

Lol!

I'm saying they'll have kids anyway, it's not some generous act of charity or nation building that they need a reward for.

If we have gender problems looking after baby that has nothing to do with creating legislation against businesses to 'force' them to employ uncommitted, inexperienced or underqualfied staff.

If you're good enough - committed, experienced and qualified, as Brum pointed out - you'll get employed anyway. Businesses aren't prejudiced: they will employ the best person for the job.

[Heft]

Quite right Brum, it is in my own company. I have the experience to move on to a job higher than the one I currently have but there are no part-time roles to apply for. As disappointing as it is I don't get my knickers in a twist about it any more because I know that this is also one of the things that is slowly changing. Unlike Huguenot I see absolutely no reason why businesses shouldn't be just as successful employing people who work all sorts of different hours and in different ways. It's entirely backward to think the standard working week is the only model.

Huguenot, would you prefer if the workplace was only for people who don't have children? Or who didn't have elderly, sick or disabled relatives to care for? Or didn't have any other area of their life that interfered with their ultimate commitment to the workplace? You seem think the rest of us are being unrealistic expecting the workplace to accommodate the fact that we aren't robots, whereas I think it's you who expects an unreasonably narrow view of an employee. Businesses are finding there are benefits to being to flexible these days - and I'm not being rose-tinted specs about this - simple things like letting someone work from home means a business saves money on a desk, lighting and heating. Businesses continue to be ruthless, that's why they make money, and that's why they don't like changes in legislation, it costs them money in the short-term. But it benefits society in the long-term and that is good for the economy.

Listen, if you love your job and think it is the most important thing in your life above all else then that's great and I'm happy for you. But some of the rest of the world has to go on producing human beings and having other interests in order to keep the world turning. Money does indeed make the world go around - that's why a lot of us go to work - but also reproducing keeps you in staff to nurse you when you're sick, to serve you food in a restaurant, and to clean the office that you spend so many hours in. We need people. We're an aging population. Same reason we need immigration. And Gordon Brown needs us parents to work as well to keep the economy moving.

In the UK we have the longest working week in Europe and I for one, even if I worked full time wouldn't work the 60 hour week you're on about. We work longer hours than our parents ever did and we're no happier for it. Is there really something wrong with people being able to both work AND expect to have a life? And as SeanMac says, some countries manage to accommodate the family in the workplace just fine. It's not an impossibility at all. You, sir, are just a bit of a dinosaur.

[Huguenot]

Agreed with you on most counts.

Earlier though, you were talking about forcing businesses to take on flexible hours and part time work.

If you're right that there's an untapped pool of brilliant talent that business is discovering then it doesn't need legislation - just a good sales pitch.

However, if you're seeking to take on a higher role and greater responsibility, I can't see how you can do this if you're not actually around.

[legalbeagle]

I ran a legal department for a well known asset management business in the city for several years. I looked after over 20 hedge and private equity funds, a team of lawyers, and relationships with several law firms. I worked 9-5, 4 days a week. I had a blackberry and a mobile for when I wasn't around and most of my clients didn't know when I wasn't there. Yes, it did take a good sales pitch from me to get the promotion, but it worked. "Being there" doesn't have to mean being physically present at all times. We've moved on, technology has moved on. Now all that's needed is a bit of trust and imagination. Give it a go Huguenot. You might surprise yourself.

[Heft]

I still mean that Huguenot. It does need legislation. Legalbeagle shows it can work and she did well to persaude her company to agree - and it worked for all of them.

Many companies wouldn't have accepted that without being forced into it, but thanks to legislation, flexible working hours are now your right to apply for if you are a parent of a child under 16. Hurray for legislation I say.

[brum]

I agree with Heft and LB. A modern, flexible work place can be no less efficient and successful as one with the old-fashioned work ethic that huguenot aspires to.

[Huguenot]

I don't have to surprise myself, I employ the best people for my business and we don't have an office, there are no 'hours', only business objectives. I don't offer attractive salaries, I offer revenue share and performance bonuses.

I'm also familiar enough with business to know that for every two committed individuals there's a timewasting clock watching idiot.

A good business will identify great contributors regardless of the legislation - but you write flexible working hours into law and it'll be a magnet for indolents.

Besides which, I don't think it's part of a feminist orthodoxy, I think it's gender-blind stupidity.

[legalbeagle]

Well then Huguenot, you and I will have to agree to disagree. No doubt your approach to employment will produce exactly the kind of employees you want, and I also have no doubt you're missing out on some great talent with that attitude. But it's your gaff so you can do what you like!

[Huguenot]

Hmmm maybe, it seems that we do exactly what you want - flexible hours etc.

The only area in which we differ is that I reckon we don't need legislation.

[legalbeagle]

Well it would be nice to think that's true but it's not what you've said. One minute a commentator can't and shouldn't get promoted because she "isn't there", next minute you're all about flexible working...... But it's Easter and I don't want a fight, so good luck with however you choose to run your business. One thing I do know is that's never an easy thing to do!

[Siduhe]

I'm also not convinced that legislation is the answer, but I agree that something more needs to be done to encourage the retention of talented and committed female employees who choose to balance a family and a career. Like legalbeagle, I work in a primarily male dominated sector for a well known and generally well thought of organisation. I hold a senior position, don't have a family and I don't think anyone could question my drive and commitment to my work. Yet, the fact I got married a year ago has been brought up on numerous occasions. On the one hand I understand that my department head doesn't want to promote me if I'm just going to disappear for nine months, but it's the underlying assumptions that are so hard to break.

Several years ago, in a different organisation, I sat through a senior management meeting where a mid-ranking mother who's just come back from her second maternity leave put in a reasoned and compelling case to go part time. Everyone agreed that she could probably handle it and she was plainly committed. And yet, her request was denied on the basis that "if we give it to her, everyone will want to do it". Those attitudes still exist and are entrenched in some sectors. I would love it if Huguenot's "market forces" theory worked in practice, i.e. if there's a business case for it people will give it a try, but my experience is that a lot won't even consider it.

[Huguenot]

All good points.

I may have this wrong, but I had the impression that in order to gain the maximum benefit of maternity payments from work there was an obligation to return to work afterwards.

There's more than a few ladies who have worked for me and others who confided they took the cynical position of claiming they would return to work in order to derive maximum financial benefit - when they had no intention to and didn't.

Legisltation can't cover this eventuality, and I'm not convinced that patriarchy is to blame.

Mind you Siduhe, the situation you describe is already in breach of the law isn't it? No new legislation would be needed?

[Siduhe]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All good points.

>

> I may have this wrong, but I had the impression

> that in order to gain the maximum benefit of

> maternity payments from work there was an

> obligation to return to work afterwards.

>

> There's more than a few ladies who have worked for

> me and others who confided they took the cynical

> position of claiming they would return to work in

> order to derive maximum financial benefit - when

> they had no intention to and didn't.

Me too - although I don't believe it was ever a plan from "day 1" in the cases I am aware of, but a decision they came to towards the end of their leave.

I also don't think more "prohibitive" type legislation is the answer, but would like to see some incentive or positive break for business owners to offer more flexible working conditions where appropriate.

For myself, I have always accepted the good and bad sides of the environment I work in. Right now, it's a bit frustrating but I understand the concerns that are driving it.

[brum]

Sorry, but what is happening to you siduhe is just not acceptable. It is clear discrimination. It's a fact of life that women have babies whether through 'life choice' or not. Employers can't have it both ways - if they want to employ the best people and they happen to be women, then they have to accept that there is a chance that the women may need to take time off to have babies. Managers have to manage the situation, which doesn't mean discriminating against the female employee.

[legalbeagle]

Whilst managing aforementioned legal department I hired a temp lawyer for six months. She was really really good. During her 6 month contract one of my permanent lawyers resigned. So at the end of her six months I offered her a permanent job, to replace my permanent lawyer which I was really pleased about because she was so good. She immediately told me that she was pregnant, even though she was only 2 months pregnant, because she felt that it would be misleading me to accept the job without me knowing she was going to go on maternity leave. I thanked her for telling me, and then pointed out that before I heard her news I thought she was the best person for the job, and I still thought that, the offer was still open and I hoped she accepted it. She did. She went to mat leave, I hired temp cover for her, she came back again, and she was and remained until I left, a very very talented lawyer. Yes it was a little disruptive to find temp cover. Yes I would have preferred not to take that cost on my cost centre. But she was the best person for the job and I'm glad I hired her.

It's time we realised that mat leave is actually a minor irritation in the scheme of things. A good employee could be with you for years and thank you with loyalty and always going the extra mile. All of the women I employed did that. All of them.

It's also time we realised that women don't have babies - society has babies. Every part of society benefits from a young population, and every part of society should play a role in making sure they are successfully raised. Because if we don't, every part of society suffers. It isn't a case of freebies for people who will breed anyway. It's a case of allowing our population to thrive in a healthy and balanced way. And if that puts pressure on employers now and again, well, that's life.

[legalbeagle]

ps Siduhe, you deserve better. Your employers are behaving outrageoulsy, in fact illegally. You are allowed a personal life without it being raised in public meetings. Did anyone ask any of the men in the room if they were currently trying to get their wives/girlfriends pregnant?

No?

Well there's a shock.

You deserve better.

[brum]

Well done LB for managing that situation you describe so well. That is exactly what I meant by managers managing the issue and not discriminating. It's also a good point you made that men are quick to see the disadvantages of employees becoming pregnant. If there are more women in managerial roles I'm sure we would see such discrimination is drastically reduced.

[womanofdulwich]

I am not so sure. I think some woman have had a tough time of being a working mother- or not a mother at all( career choice)I think quite often they have a less sympathetic ear than a man who is a father.