Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1348350352353354

Posts

  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 665

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.
    Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.
    It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
    So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?
    This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.


    What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
    Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.
    I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.

    I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
    It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
    You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:

    1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
    2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
    Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.
    Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.
    Not wanting to get bogged down with specific cases, but if you look back at the example I gave earlier, my friend was a police officer. Temporary police officers are not an option.
    And obviously, the more specialised the role, the harder it is to cover.

    Not a new phenomenon, here is an article from 2008.
    I would also point out that my friends experience pre dates this article.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/43857/WPC-baby-boom-will-leave-police-in-crisis
    I understand that but organisations still need to plan for these things. It sounds like the police haven't done so in enough depth.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 44,443 Lives Here

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.
    Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.
    It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
    So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?
    This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.


    What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
    Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.
    I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.

    I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
    It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
    You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:

    1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
    2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
    Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.
    Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.
    That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.
    The gov't could help soften the blow...
  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 665

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.
    Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.
    It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
    So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?
    This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.


    What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
    Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.
    I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.

    I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
    It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
    You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:

    1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
    2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
    Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.
    Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.
    That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.
    The gov't could help soften the blow...
    Definitely. As TBB said, it's hard for small employers to deal with and they need some assistance to avoid any thoughts of illegally avoiding employing females of a certain age.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • ProssPross Posts: 21,180

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.
    Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.
    It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
    So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?
    This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.


    What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
    Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.
    I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.

    I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
    It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
    You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:

    1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
    2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
    Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.
    Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.
    That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.
    Exactly, and probably doesn't help encourage them to recruit women in their 20s or 30s thus continuing the gender bias that the policies are trying to prevent.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,459
    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.
    Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.
    It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
    So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?
    This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.


    What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
    Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.
    I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.

    I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
    It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
    You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:

    1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
    2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
    Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.
    Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.
    That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.
    The gov't could help soften the blow...
    Definitely. As TBB said, it's hard for small employers to deal with and they need some assistance to avoid any thoughts of illegally avoiding employing females of a certain age.
    Shared parental rights helps this a bit as it means men of pretty much any age could also be off for a while.
  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 665

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.
    Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.
    It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
    So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?
    This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.


    What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
    Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.
    I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.

    I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
    It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
    You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:

    1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
    2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
    Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.
    Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.
    That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.
    The gov't could help soften the blow...
    Definitely. As TBB said, it's hard for small employers to deal with and they need some assistance to avoid any thoughts of illegally avoiding employing females of a certain age.
    Shared parental rights helps this a bit as it means men of pretty much any age could also be off for a while.

    True but that just makes the original issue even worse!
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,459
    edited 22 January

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.
    Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.
    It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
    So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?
    This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.


    What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
    Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.
    I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.

    I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
    It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
    You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:

    1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
    2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
    Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.
    Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.
    That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.
    The gov't could help soften the blow...
    They could deal with the cost part, or they could remove the benefits from people on leave, but there is little appetite for either.

    Not sure how they could solve the problem of replacing a specialist with another specialist on the same salary without any recruitment fees and no premium for the short-term contract. Well, I suppose they could just pay more e.g. person on £100k goes on paternity/maternity leave, and the government chips in £30k for a recruitment consultant, £30k for contract premium, £15k for the holiday, £5k for the company car, and a bit more for statutory pay. Not sure it is one that would get a government elected!
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,750
    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.
    Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.
    It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
    So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?
    This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.


    What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
    Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.
    I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.

    I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
    It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
    You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:

    1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
    2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
    Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.
    Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.
    That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.
    I know. Been there, got the t-shirt. In a previous role I had to deal with 4 coincidental maternity leaves out of a total workforce of 22 people. It's difficult and expensive but not unforeseeable if you have a number of female employees of a certain age.
    Very similar experience here. And agree that this is mostly about good HR - talking to your staff and planning ahead. Having an ethos that this is something the business wants to offer as part of the deal helps, rather than just seeing it as a burden. This may be an over-generalisation, but I get the impression public sector employers interpret the requirement to offer flexible working significantly more generously than in the private sector.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,459
    rjsterry said:

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.
    Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.
    It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
    So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?
    This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.


    What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
    Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.
    I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.

    I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
    It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
    You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:

    1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
    2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
    Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.
    Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.
    That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.
    I know. Been there, got the t-shirt. In a previous role I had to deal with 4 coincidental maternity leaves out of a total workforce of 22 people. It's difficult and expensive but not unforeseeable if you have a number of female employees of a certain age.
    Very similar experience here. And agree that this is mostly about good HR - talking to your staff and planning ahead. Having an ethos that this is something the business wants to offer as part of the deal helps, rather than just seeing it as a burden. This may be an over-generalisation, but I get the impression public sector employers interpret the requirement to offer flexible working significantly more generously than in the private sector.
    I'll probably get shot for saying this, but my feeling is that there is less requirement to be at work on any given day in the public sector. There aren't as many demanding clients, so the work can be scheduled for another time.



  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,626

    rjsterry said:

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.
    Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.
    It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
    So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?
    This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.


    What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
    Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.
    I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.

    I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
    It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
    You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:

    1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
    2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
    Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.
    Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.
    That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.
    I know. Been there, got the t-shirt. In a previous role I had to deal with 4 coincidental maternity leaves out of a total workforce of 22 people. It's difficult and expensive but not unforeseeable if you have a number of female employees of a certain age.
    Very similar experience here. And agree that this is mostly about good HR - talking to your staff and planning ahead. Having an ethos that this is something the business wants to offer as part of the deal helps, rather than just seeing it as a burden. This may be an over-generalisation, but I get the impression public sector employers interpret the requirement to offer flexible working significantly more generously than in the private sector.
    I'll probably get shot for saying this, but my feeling is that there is less requirement to be at work on any given day in the public sector. There aren't as many demanding clients, so the work can be scheduled for another time.



    You might want to restrict that to certain parts of the public sector.
    and then the next thing you know
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,459

    rjsterry said:

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Longshot said:

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.

    Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

    You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?

    Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.
    Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.
    It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
    So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?
    This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.


    What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
    Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.
    I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.

    I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
    It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
    You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:

    1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
    2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
    Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.
    Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.
    That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.
    I know. Been there, got the t-shirt. In a previous role I had to deal with 4 coincidental maternity leaves out of a total workforce of 22 people. It's difficult and expensive but not unforeseeable if you have a number of female employees of a certain age.
    Very similar experience here. And agree that this is mostly about good HR - talking to your staff and planning ahead. Having an ethos that this is something the business wants to offer as part of the deal helps, rather than just seeing it as a burden. This may be an over-generalisation, but I get the impression public sector employers interpret the requirement to offer flexible working significantly more generously than in the private sector.
    I'll probably get shot for saying this, but my feeling is that there is less requirement to be at work on any given day in the public sector. There aren't as many demanding clients, so the work can be scheduled for another time.



    You might want to restrict that to certain parts of the public sector.
    I imagine the cabinet office has some annoying clients.
  • shortfallshortfall Posts: 1,840
    If Jess Phillips quits the leadership race and nobody cares, does it still make a noise?
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,552
    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leadership-election-ian-lavery-keir-starmer-female-leader-1371977

    Imagine being leader and everyone knowing you only got the job because you are a woman.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,554

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leadership-election-ian-lavery-keir-starmer-female-leader-1371977

    Imagine being leader and everyone knowing you only got the job because you are a woman.

    Keir might need to change his image slightly.


    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • john80john80 Posts: 694
    Cant imagine there woud be any issue asking all the women to stand aside and let the male win. Poor man is outnumbered currently.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 44,443 Lives Here

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leadership-election-ian-lavery-keir-starmer-female-leader-1371977

    Imagine being leader and everyone knowing you only got the job because you are a woman.

    Yeah it’s never happened the other way around 🙄
  • shortfallshortfall Posts: 1,840
    How about if Keir Starmer just identifies as a woman then everyone's happy?
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,552
    shortfall said:

    How about if Keir Starmer just identifies as a woman then everyone's happy?

    Well not Mrs Starmer obviously, not if Kier keeps borrowing her best frock.

  • tangled_metaltangled_metal Posts: 3,975

    shortfall said:

    How about if Keir Starmer just identifies as a woman then everyone's happy?

    Well not Mrs Starmer obviously, not if Kier keeps borrowing her best frock.

    Only a problem if the same dress size. Starmer is a big fella I think so possibly not an issue. Just being practical here.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,554
    Not nobody, but I think there are good counter arguments.

    For starters the hard left has such a grip on the lever of power and the party machinery (backed up by the membership) that just electing someone a bit more palatable like Starmer or Nandy will not solve the issue of Labour being a hard left protest party.

    Second, a continuity Corbyn candidate and the prospect of many more years in opposition could trigger a bigger break away by more moderate Labour MP's than Chukka and his chums did not so long ago.

    Thirdly, it'll be more fun seeing a bunch of hopeless Trots make idiots of themselves again.

    That's all I can think of for now.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 44,443 Lives Here
    Still not coming round to the 'pro-competition' thinking, Stevo?
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,750
    Stevo_666 said:

    Not nobody, but I think there are good counter arguments.

    For starters the hard left has such a grip on the lever of power and the party machinery (backed up by the membership) that just electing someone a bit more palatable like Starmer or Nandy will not solve the issue of Labour being a hard left protest party.

    Second, a continuity Corbyn candidate and the prospect of many more years in opposition could trigger a bigger break away by more moderate Labour MP's than Chukka and his chums did not so long ago.

    Thirdly, it'll be more fun seeing a bunch of hopeless Trots make idiots of themselves again.

    That's all I can think of for now.
    You've missed the polling that shows that Momentum isn't quite the monolith people think it is there is significant support for Starmer within the movement. As of today, Starmer and Nandy are the only two to have met the threshold for nominations.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,554

    Still not coming round to the 'pro-competition' thinking, Stevo?

    A few situations justify monopolies - as the recently broken political impasse over Brexit demonstrates.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,554
    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Not nobody, but I think there are good counter arguments.

    For starters the hard left has such a grip on the lever of power and the party machinery (backed up by the membership) that just electing someone a bit more palatable like Starmer or Nandy will not solve the issue of Labour being a hard left protest party.

    Second, a continuity Corbyn candidate and the prospect of many more years in opposition could trigger a bigger break away by more moderate Labour MP's than Chukka and his chums did not so long ago.

    Thirdly, it'll be more fun seeing a bunch of hopeless Trots make idiots of themselves again.

    That's all I can think of for now.
    You've missed the polling that shows that Momentum isn't quite the monolith people think it is there is significant support for Starmer within the movement. As of today, Starmer and Nandy are the only two to have met the threshold for nominations.
    I take your point that Rebecca Long ('in opposition') Bailey has not yet got the required nominations but it's likely she will. My gut feel is that once it is a down to a vote of the membership, if RLB is in the running then the membership will back her.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,750
    I'm intrigued you think you know the minds of half a million people better than the polling companies. The only one RLB came top of was a poll of Labourlist readers. Given the editor slagged off Starmer as "calculated" (OMG he's actually trying to win!) and "not left wing" I think that's a bit like polling the ERG about their thoughts on Dominic Grieve.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,554
    rjsterry said:

    I'm intrigued you think you know the minds of half a million people better than the polling companies. The only one RLB came top of was a poll of Labourlist readers. Given the editor slagged off Starmer as "calculated" (OMG he's actually trying to win!) and "not left wing" I think that's a bit like polling the ERG about their thoughts on Dominic Grieve.

    I don't - as I said clearly above, it's only gut feel.

    Do you know any better?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,750
    Stevo_666 said:

    rjsterry said:

    I'm intrigued you think you know the minds of half a million people better than the polling companies. The only one RLB came top of was a poll of Labourlist readers. Given the editor slagged off Starmer as "calculated" (OMG he's actually trying to win!) and "not left wing" I think that's a bit like polling the ERG about their thoughts on Dominic Grieve.

    I don't - as I said clearly above, it's only gut feel.

    Do you know any better?
    Just what I've seen and heard. The YouGov poll of members put Starmer comfortably ahead. One of Andrew Neil's guests today (at home after root canal) was talking about how Momentum is not wholly behind RLB. Jess Phillips's supporters are unlikely to go to RLB either.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 44,443 Lives Here
    Curious how the Tories insist privatised railways are the way forward, yet they have already renationalised one franchise and they're looking into renationalising another two franchises
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,459

    Curious how the Tories insist privatised railways are the way forward, yet they have already renationalised one franchise and they're looking into renationalising another two franchises


Sign In or Register to comment.