Flexible working after maternity

[EmmaCC]

A small point but please don't be put off getting legal advice or using the panel firm because of what you've read about associate solicitors- I'm a solicitor working in a completely different field but have just been made an associate 10 years post qualification- my job title previously was 'senior solicitor' - different firms use different terminology but usually the most junior solicitors are 'assistant solicitors'. If you can get sone advice free then you really should do this- even a chat over the phone with a solicitor should provide you with some ammunition to use with your employers...

I really don't understand anyone who posts on here defending the employer- what happened to solidarity?! It makes me so angry how difficult it is for 'middle income earners' to return to work cos of childcare costs- it seems that if you earn v little then you're encorouged with tax credits and if you earn loads then the childcare costs don't impact but for a lot of people in the middle there seems little incentive to go back. I know things have improved but they need to improve more so that women aren't faced with the dilemma of going back to work for no financial gain!

Anyway, rant over- I really, really hope you sort this out- good luck!x

[ClareC]

EmmaCC Wrote:

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

> A small point but please don't be put off getting

> legal advice or using the panel firm because of

> what you've read about associate solicitors- I'm a

> solicitor working in a completely different field

> but have just been made an associate 10 years post

> qualification- my job title previously was 'senior

> solicitor' - different firms use different

> terminology but usually the most junior solicitors

> are 'assistant solicitors'. If you can get sone

> advice free then you really should do this- even a

> chat over the phone with a solicitor should

> provide you with some ammunition to use with your

> employers...

>

> I really don't understand anyone who posts on here

> defending the employer- what happened to

> solidarity?! It makes me so angry how difficult it

> is for 'middle income earners' to return to work

> cos of childcare costs- it seems that if you earn

> v little then you're encorouged with tax credits

> and if you earn loads then the childcare costs

> don't impact but for a lot of people in the middle

> there seems little incentive to go back. I know

> things have improved but they need to improve more

> so that women aren't faced with the dilemma of

> going back to work for no financial gain!

>

> Anyway, rant over- I really, really hope you sort

> this out- good luck!x

Totally agree!

[Vick]

.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Firstly, I haven't defended anyone.?

I have pointed out that the law only requires employers to consider flexible working requests.?

You haven't actually said what you believe your employers motivation to be in refusing your request, but certainly haven't suggested that they've refused to consider any options.

From what you have said , the issue seems to be that you:

"...haven't been able to agree a flexible working solution that would satisfy you both".

It may be that such a solution doesn't exist. But it doesn't follow that if you are not satisfied, then the employer is invariably acting unreasonably.

I am all to aware of the issues surrounding childcare and the difficulty of making work pay when you're a mother on a middle income. I would strongly support the introduction of universal free childcare, which the institute for public policy research believes would actually bring money in to the exchequer. So there are economic as well as social and moral arguments for such a policy.?

Solidarity for working mothers doesn't mean providing unquestioning support to anyone who is dissatisfied and wishes to sue local taxpayers, regardless of circumstance. The public sector ethos is also about solidarity, and I believe in that also.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/11/free-childcare-millions-tax-mums

[awilliams123]

I have pointed out that the law only requires employers to consider flexible working requests.

This is exactly the problem.

During pregnancy, you're allowed plenty of time to attend to your antenatal needs, including classes that are good for both the body and soul. During maternity leave, the state and your employer support you by means of mat pay as well as the guarantee of having a job after a year. What is the point if it is actually (in some circumstances) impossible to go back to work? The hardest bit about the whole having kids things is not pregnacy, it's afterwards when all the really hard work begins. Having time to spend with and look after your child/children, and of course to look after your household is not a luxury that women want to make their employers 'pay' for. It's a necessity. And in an age where it's becoming more and more difficult to make do with one salary in a home, there needs to be stronger legislation to work with women coming off maternity leave.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I agree that in general employers need to be more flexible. It's unfortunate that so few employers see the mutual benefit in being so. I have to say however, that in my experience, most local authorities are pretty good when it comes to accomodating flexible working requests. Certainly relative to many private sector firms they could almost be considered exemplars of good practice.

I do not beleive that it is helpful to force businesses to accomodate any and all requests regardless of how it may impact on operations. This is unlikely to help anyone's cause in the long run. To ensure that businesses are genuinely considering requests and exploring options which can work with the needs of the business, seems reasonable.

The weakness in the current legal position of course, is that the actual decision itself isn't really examined, simply the process. But if tribunals were to second guess actual decisions, they would effectively be taking on the role of proxy manager. In such a senario, you could just as well cut out the middle man and have decisions go straight to a judge. I can see therefore, why the law only goes as far as it does.

My unease with the situaiton described above however, is that it isn't a case of someone going after a really bad employer who simply refuses to even contenance flexible working, but a local authority who has considered the case and tried to offer some options.

The real issue when it comes to getting back to work after having a child are the cost of living (in particular housing) and the expense of childcare. If you want to make a real difference then lobby your MP to change policy in these areas. Don't sue local tax payers.