Kim Tasso, founder, Practical Marketing Consultancy
Opinion: Law firms’ flexible working policies – could do better
Surprisingly, as we push out our babies, we don’t also eject ambition, work ethic and the killer instinct. Changing nappies, applying teething gel and grappling with nanny PAYE doesn’t nullify our multi-degree education and decades of work experience.
Kim Tasso
Most working parents realise that a four-day week means pay is cut by 20 per cent to manage the same workload, as well as ’that little bit extra’ to make up for a perceived lack of commitment. Some parents return to find they have been generously allocated a new role, for example in professional support, to ’accommodate’ their flexible working. Some call this constructive dismissal.
The ’protect the billable hours’ practice of scheduling meetings either at dawn or dusk means lives are filled with unproductive negotiations with grumpy childcarers or indignant spouses. The European Working Time Directive made nannies who can start at 7am and work till 10pm extinct - but somehow working parents are expected to find loopholes.
Working with kids is no tea party. Every day is tense as you know what must be done before cut-off time, when you must leave to prevent your childcarer entering meltdown. You race from the office, grabbing files to read overnight and exchanging messages on the phone and Outlook.
The rail services maintain your high blood pressure as the inevitable delays mean you reach home within a gnat’s hair of nanny-leaving time. Then you slap on a smile as you read bedtime stories for the little darlings before you can prepare for tomorrow’s meeting. Just as their eyes finally shut, your colleague phones to discuss a key point and you start over. When you finally fall exhausted into bed at 3am you are awoken by bad dreams (the child’s, not yours). Morning starts with guilt generated by tearful faces as you abandon them to skip out of the house the moment nanny pulls onto the drive.
Sisterly solidarity? I don’t think so. Many senior women remember the tough time they had battling through the glass ceiling and see no reason to make it easier for today’s mums. It’s “character building”, they say. Even Generation X roll their eyes and moan about the “extra cover” they must do while the mums leave to collect their children. What about respect for life choices? Do mums begrudge the extra effort covering their child-free colleagues’ unproductive mornings nursing hangovers or afternoons commiserating about bad boyfriends over chocolate cake?
There’s gender bias too. When a female leaves the office to collect her child there are sideways glances - she puts her kids before her career and, more importantly, the firm. When a male does the same, people smile - how sweet. And how modern.
A female worker struggles through the commuter crush with child in tow because all the support systems have collapsed. Heads shake at her inability to be properly organised. A male worker does the same and everyone helps amuse the offspring for a fun day of distraction.
The women in the legal sector are intelligent. Perhaps the reason that so many leave is because they’re smart enough to know that the entrenched attitudes mean it’s easier to have a satisfying career and earn a decent living in a different sector, where they don’t have to hide the small people in their lives.
At a listed company a female board member never arrives before 10am and always leaves at 5.30pm - and she works four days a week. Her bonus is protected in view of the high cost of a full-time nanny. She has a dedicated PA (others share) to pick up the pieces of her time-constrained life. Board meetings during the school holidays are avoided. The view of the chairman is that this is acceptable if quality women directors are to be encouraged in the industry. Now that’s flexible working.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (24)
FB | 15-Feb-2010 1:43 pm
Interesting piece. The point about gender differences in attitudes to men and women taking time out for kids is well-taken, but I think the 'extra effort' coping with colleagues' hangovers and cake-related counselling, for instance, is overplayed.
Having worked in a group with several women all working part-time, there was never, ever any flexibility on their part about hours (understandably; as the author points out there is very little time to rush back before the nanny departs) and lots of instances of extra time having been taken during the day when kids were ill, sports days, nativity plays, parent-teacher stuff etc.
Add that to the part-time working and I'm afraid that childless people were always covering for the part-timers, both at either end of their fixed hour days and during their days off, something which I can't remember being reciprocated on a single occasion.
Interestingly, when my own (exploratory) request to go part-time was heard, it was deemed to not be in the interests of the business, because there were already too many part-timers...
'Respect for life choices' is one thing, but when there is no reciprocation, no respect for one's own life choices, it's quite a tough ask. Having kids is, after all, a choice, one which is accompanied not only by the manifold joys of having children, but also via the tax and benefits system.
You might say - not without some justification - that the 'system' is already stacked in favour of people without kids in terms of promotion, but surely creating a 'level' playing field removes the choice advantages of not having kids, and therefore amounts to positive discrimination.
The author's example of the female board member is interesting. Fixed hours, part-time, no meetings during school hols: sounds more like Inflexible working...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2010 7:06 pm
KIm- your insight and description is spot on with my experience when I was a non mum lawyer watching the way mums at work were treated. In my experience- it was always ok for Generation X to have rolled in at midday after the night before frolicking with Partners and clients (a frolick not always to celebrate a deal).....but come in late because your child was unwell....tut tut tut. You should write more on the topic as the law needs frank women like you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Feb-2010 10:51 am
My partner's law firm agreed to flexible working when she returned to work, but refused to enshrine in her amended contract of employment any entitlement to payment or time off in lieu for those occasions on which she will be asked to work on her day "off". Naturally, they were not so shy about ensuring that the 20% pay reduction was reflected in the revised contract. So, the deal is, you can have flexible working, but just don't expect to be paid on those occasions when you are asked to work on your day 'off' even with all the added expense and hassle involved in rearranging childcare for that day. It is a Tribunal case waiting to happen.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Helen | 16-Feb-2010 11:08 am
I agree with a lot of this article - particularly the differences in attitude towards men and women with children. And when I wasn't a mum, I never felt bitter about "having to cover" for those going home to nativity plays etc - I felt sorry for them having to endure such rubbish (this was before I realised that if your own child is in it, it's brilliant!).
However, at the risk of being one of those bitchy women who won't help their own, I think a lot of working mums take the mickey. For example, if you are asked to come in on your day off. Nobody is asking you to do it for nothing, you'll get paid or a day off in lieu. But if you are needed for training, then you should be able to arrange childcare with enough notice. I very much doubt that there are many cases where people genuinely couldn't arrange extra childcare with say a month's notice of a training day or the Christmas dinner.
I also think that maternity benefits should only be paid for up to two babies. How can employers function when their employees go off for a year at a time several times every 18 months or so? I do believe that dads should be able to share maternity leave, but I don't see why employers and taxpayers should bear the burden of peoples' desire to have so many kids - surely two are enough, and if not, pay for them yourself.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Feb-2010 1:20 pm
Helen, on your comment,
"For example, if you are asked to come in on your day off. Nobody is asking you to do it for nothing, you'll get paid or a day off in lieu"...
That is precisely my point - at least one law firm I know of will not give a contractual right to payment or time off if you are asked to come in on your day off. That is the employer taking the proverbial, not the employee.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Feb-2010 2:11 pm
Why do these kinds of pieces always focus only on the role of women in bringing up children? There are many other difficult life situations where law firms could be more flexible, and these situations affect men as well as women. I am a male partner in a large law firm who is trying to take care of my aged mother who has Parkinson's Disease, which creates significant stress. I find that the women at work generate a considerable amount of sympathy when they speak of situations where they have to take time off to be with their children, but people become very uncomfortable if I tell them that I need to take time off to care for my mother. I end up having to cope with this situation by myself with little support from others. We all have to cope with difficult situations in life in which flexibility from our employers is warranted, and this goes far beyond women taking care of their children.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Big Dave | 16-Feb-2010 3:09 pm
One can only conclude that law firms don't see a compelling business case for accommodating working mothers, otherwise they would do so.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Helen | 16-Feb-2010 3:18 pm
To Anon at 1.20 16 Feb - ok I stand corrected. Although I am not sure it has to be contractual - I spent over two years working 8.30-5 for a firm that said in my contract that I had to work 9-5.30. I left at 5 so that I could do the nursery pick-up. They wouldn't put the revised hours in my contract. It was never a problem though, but I realise it will depend on the firm.
To Anon at 2.11 I totally agree that the debate always comes back to women with children. Dads and men with caring responsibilities should also be considered.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Feb-2010 3:37 pm
Its the presence of commenters like Helen and the chap who has caring responsibilities that this issue is watered down and will never be solved. Having a baby and looking after one is not the same as being a carer to an old woman. Your aged mother can get a a carer and has a whole sense of vulnerabilities that a child does not. Your old mother does not need you- but a child needs its mother. The latter is a little thing that needs its parents for development at every stage. Having a child is a responsibility. You do not just have a child and the choose who can look after it according to its needs. They are not clauses in a contract that can be looked at by different departments- children need continuity of care. Its a totally different situation to an aging mother. Please give me break on these parallels. Helen- the whole point is that most employers do not give money to make up for working days that are supposed to be off. Further as a woman its very sad that you think a dad with a caring responsibilty to an aging mother (the latter who has lived a huge part of her life and certainly should not be needing her son on a daily basis as much as an infant needs a parent) is the same as a woman who has a career and a baby- very very sad.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Helen | 17-Feb-2010 11:29 am
Actually I was going to post that I thought that as a partner, he could afford to pay for proper care for his mother and didn't need to do it himself. However, I thought that was a bit harsh, in the same way that it would be harsh to say to a woman in the City that they can afford to pay for a nanny. And actually, a baby/young child is probably very happy with their carer, because that's what they know. It's different for a lonely old lady who probably does want her son. I think carers of adult relatives should have the same or similar rights to carers of children.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment