The Monstrous Regiment of (Childbearing Age) Women

A few weeks ago, the NZLEAD Twitter chat was about the role and position of women in the workforce. Some of the debate I found quite odd, since it seemed to be focussing on issues that I personally thought were almost dead and buried in the UK – whether men had a problem with women in the workforce, or if women were “debarred” from working in certain occupations. Sadly, it seems I’ve been viewing the world of work through somewhat rose tinted glasses.

Earlier this week, a report was published which attracted a good deal of press attention, suggesting among other things that 40% of UK employers would have reservations about employing a woman of “childbearing age” and that a third of managers would hire a man in their 20s/30s rather than a woman of similar age, due to fears about maternity leave.

Originally, I was going to write a blog about the dubious use of statistics – the research was commissioned by a firm of lawyers who specialise in employment and discrimination claims and who are no doubt suffering a loss of business currently – and it’s interesting that the data itself is not easily available (the source of all the media stories seems to be this press release, which doesn’t provide any evidence to substantiate the claims). And even accepting the data at face value, it’s quite easy to turn the headline into “60% of employers always aim for the best talent, while an overwhelming majority operate non-discriminatory recruitment practices” should you wish to spin the story a different way.

However, it’s not the data but some of the reaction to the news stories that made me re-think my own views. Commenting on the story, Employment Minister Jo Swinson and TUC Leader Frances O’Grady both described businesses who have this attitude to younger women as “dinosaurs”. As a political soundbite that’s probably ok (if a rather lazy and clichéd image), though personally I’d sooner find out why such a high percentage apparently still hold these views rather than attack them for it (I suspect that much of it is based on a misunderstanding of  employment rules, something I blogged about here).

But the reaction to Swinson’s comments – most notably here – were of such a vile and personal nature that it made me realise that perhaps I have too positive a view. How very dare she express an opinion, especially as a young woman who (shock horror) had a baby and took maternity leave from her ministerial post. Doesn’t she know that British business is collapsing all around her because women are taking maternity time off?

Clearly the debate hasn’t progressed as much as I thought or hoped.

Flexible friends…?

Today (30 June) marks the extension of the right to request flexible working to all employees with more than 26 weeks service. It’s deemed significant enough to feature on the headlines of Radio 4’s flagship Today programme, and to have attracted this slightly hysterical article in the Daily Mail – so what does it mean in practice for small business?

Firstly, up to today, the right to request flexible working was restricted to those with young families or caring responsibilities (e.g. looking after an elderly relative). And to make this request there was a formal process with specified deadlines which both employer and employee to follow.

From today, anyone who’s worked for you for 26 weeks or more can make a request – without having to give you a reason why – and the cumbersome paperwork is no longer required (in reality, very few small employers bothered with the bureaucracy anyway).

The important thing is that it’s a right to ask. It’s not a right to demand. You can legitimately refuse a request if it would add to your business costs, provide a worse service to customers, affect quality or productivity, if you cannot reorganise workloads or recruit additional staff, or if there is not enough work at the time the individual wishes to work. In other words, the same common sense reasons why you wouldn’t make any other change to your business.

However, don’t make your default position “no”. Despite the tabloid nonsense, most people will make a request because they have something going on in their life outside work that is impacting on work. A small adjustment might be all that’s needed to retain and motivate a member of staff. And it’s not “take it or leave it” – you can discuss options with the employee concerned and often come to a solution that works for you and them. Again, in my experience smaller employers are not only willing to try to accommodate requests, but actually find that it can be an advantage in attracting staff from competitors. It’s the big bureaucracies with their fear of “setting a precedent” that are less willing to be flexible.

It’s ironic of course that for years business leaders and employers’ organisations have been calling for workers to be more “flexible and adaptable”. Since employment is a relationship, it’s not unreasonable that some employees might want their employer to be flexible too. But in practice, despite the scaremongers, I’m not expecting that my phone will be in meltdown today as hundreds of employees besiege my clients with flexible working requests!