Join the Labour Party and save your country!

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Only because that’s how the bosses run it.

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

Offering reasonable paternity/maternity conditions is an issue for the government as it is a benefit for society; however, a lot of the cost can fall on the private sector. Of course, private firms can also benefit from loyal long term staff too, but it is often hard for the short-term cost to be justified leading to complaints.

For example, in a friend's law firm, there was a team of 12. Four of whom became pregnant at the same time. Nobody new was brought in to cover, so four of the remaining eight left as they didn't like the increased work load. The team was then unsustainable with the remaining four. So how should this team have been saved? A lot of people will blame the partners for not hiring more people, but the question is how much would that have cost in recruitment fees, short-term contract premiums, training costs and double benefits? And that assumes it is even possible.

I don't have the solution, but I can see why people and businesses complain at times.

shortfall said:

ballysmate said:

Just to set the scene. Rick arrives home where he is greeted by Mrs C in full Stepford Wife mode. Peck on the cheek, dinner on the table etc...

Mrs C. Good day at work, dear?
RC Funny you should mention that. I have a bit of news.For the foreseeable future I will be working permanent nights.
Mrs C. Not on Tuesday's though, bridge club night?
RC Sorry dear, we'll have to cancel.
Mrs C Our Thursday dinners with Tarquin and Jeremy?
RC Sorry dear. We have to cancel everything.
Mrs C But why, has something major happened?
RC No, nothing like that dear, it's just that the Ballys have had a baby and it's only right that we are the ones that have our lives disrupted. Bally will do all the day shifts.
Mrs C Never mind, the extra money will be nice. You could get those new sandals you always wanted and perhaps a hair shirt.
RC No extra money I'm afraid.
Mrs C But we don't much care for the Ballys, why should we be the ones to suffer?
RC It's work dear.
Mrs C We'll just suck it up then. More tofu dear?

P1ssed my pants laughing at that, you've missed your calling Bally.

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

ballysmate said:

Just to set the scene. Rick arrives home where he is greeted by Mrs C in full Stepford Wife mode. Peck on the cheek, dinner on the table etc...

Mrs C. Good day at work, dear?
RC Funny you should mention that. I have a bit of news.For the foreseeable future I will be working permanent nights.
Mrs C. Not on Tuesday's though, bridge club night?
RC Sorry dear, we'll have to cancel.
Mrs C Our Thursday dinners with Tarquin and Jeremy?
RC Sorry dear. We have to cancel everything.
Mrs C But why, has something major happened?
RC No, nothing like that dear, it's just that the Ballys have had a baby and it's only right that we are the ones that have our lives disrupted. Bally will do all the day shifts.
Mrs C Never mind, the extra money will be nice. You could get those new sandals you always wanted and perhaps a hair shirt.
RC No extra money I'm afraid.
Mrs C But we don't much care for the Ballys, why should we be the ones to suffer?
RC It's work dear.
Mrs C We'll just suck it up then. More tofu dear?

P1ssed my pants laughing at that, you've missed your calling Bally.

Assuming this is a reflection of your friend's situation (minus the bridge club - or maybe not), it sounds like the management have somewhat over-interpreted their obligations to offer flexible working. And maybe a reflection of an under-resourced police service.

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

bompington said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

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.

Most parents *have to work* - it’s not some right.

In my NCT of eight couples, we’re the only couple who can afford for the mother not to immediately go back to work.

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

bompington said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

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.

Most parents *have to work* - it’s not some right.

In my NCT of eight couples, we’re the only couple who can afford for the mother not to immediately go back to work.

I accept that nowadays both parents need to work and there is no way to go back to how it used to be.
Years ago there were stricter rules on how much a couple could borrow but with their relaxation, people have sought to borrow more and more with a consequence that it is necessary that they both continue to earn.

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

bompington said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

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.

Most parents *have to work* - it’s not some right.

In my NCT of eight couples, we’re the only couple who can afford for the mother not to immediately go back to work.

I accept that nowadays both parents need to work and there is no way to go back to how it used to be.
Years ago there were stricter rules on how much a couple could borrow but with their relaxation, people have sought to borrow more and more with a consequence that it is necessary that they both continue to earn.

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

bompington said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

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.

Most parents *have to work* - it’s not some right.

In my NCT of eight couples, we’re the only couple who can afford for the mother not to immediately go back to work.

I accept that nowadays both parents need to work and there is no way to go back to how it used to be.
Years ago there were stricter rules on how much a couple could borrow but with their relaxation, people have sought to borrow more and more with a consequence that it is necessary that they both continue to earn.

(not that many) Years ago the woman's income wasn't even considered by lenders.

ballysmate said:

Assumed no such thing.
Borrowing restrictions relaxed, people could borrow more, prices went up accordingly, landlords had to pay more for property, rents went up.

Plus, as mortgage repayments went up, landlords could increase their asking rents and still remain viable.

Longshot said:

ballysmate said:

Assumed no such thing.
Borrowing restrictions relaxed, people could borrow more, prices went up accordingly, landlords had to pay more for property, rents went up.

Plus, as mortgage repayments went up, landlords could increase their asking rents and still remain viable.

Chicken and egg.

Would be private landlords was one of the drivers for house price increases over the past 20 years.

ballysmate said:

Longshot said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

bompington said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

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.

Longshot said:

ballysmate said:

Longshot said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

bompington said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

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.

ballysmate said:

Longshot said:

ballysmate said:

Longshot said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

bompington said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey 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.

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