Posted on 6-1-2003

Why Have Children When You Never See Them?
Bt Maureen Freely, The Independent, 3 Jan03

It's been an open secret for at least a quarter of a century, but now, at
last, it's official. According to a survey published yesterday by the
Department of Trade and Industry, British parents want flexible working
hours. They want them more than a company car or a modest salary hike; more
even than free access to a gym.

Of the 4,000 men and women interviewed, almost half said that flexible
working was the benefit they wanted most in their next job. Of those with
children under six, 80 per cent said that when they were deciding whether
to apply for a job, work/life balance was the single most important factor.

But the message just isn't getting through to employers; only 60 of the
10,000 posts advertised on the recruitment website used for the survey
listed flexible working as a possible benefit. According to James Reed,
whose website carried out the DTI-backed survey, this points to a serious
gap between what employees want and need and what employers are prepared to
offer them.

Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, went on to
point out, not for the first time, that we were not just talking female
talent. For her the poll was proof "that getting a better work/life balance
is becoming much more important for all employees; men as well as woman".

It was good for business, she went on to say. It was now "well-established"
that businesses offering flexible working had a competitive edge over those
that didn't bother. She's right; there is a huge and growing body of
evidence showing that employees with sane and balanced working schedules
are less stressed, more productive, and easier to retain. We'll be hearing
a lot about this research in months to come, as the Government sets out to
promote the new parental employment rights that will come into effect on 6
April.

Most of the new rights are not about flexitime. Rather, they're about
taking small, clearly delineated blocks of time off work: the focus is on
new parents and young children and the importance of giving them "the best
possible start". So paid maternity leave is set to increase from 18 to 26
weeks. For the first time ever, fathers will be able to take two weeks of
paid paternity leave within eight weeks of birth and adoption. Also for the
first time ever, adoptive parents will have the right to unpaid parental
leave.

This right has been in place for all other parents since December 1999, and
it allows them to take up to 13 unpaid weeks off work during the first five
years of a child's life. It's had very poor take-up, however. Apparently
the Government is blaming this on "lack of awareness". And this, it seems,
is why it has embarked on this new campaign to make sure that parents know
about the one new right that has to do with flexible working.

By European standards, it's awfully puny. But as its proponents are always
quick to point out, it's better than nothing at all. From 6 April, all
parents with children under six and all parents with disabled children
under 18 will have the right to ask for flexible working, and their
employers will have the "duty to consider their requests seriously". Or, to
put it differently, employers will be under pressure to change their ways.

But the onus will be on employees to do the pushing. If an employer, having
seriously considered a request, decides that there is a strong case against
it (because there's a war on, say, or because there's a global economic
downturn), there is little that the employee can do. In other words, the
new right is not really a right at all. It has no bite. The Government has
promised to consider something more coercive in future if this approach
fails. In the meantime, it's still hoping that lots of upbeat press
releases will do the trick.

But if the gap between employees and employers is as wide as their own
research suggests, it's going to take more than sweet persuasion to close
it. It's all very well to make "the business case"; and the business case
for work/life balance is very strong. But we're talking about working
practices here. We're asking employers to make fundamental changes in the
way they operate. And history shows us that employers tend not to make
fundamental changes unless they have to. If the trade union movement had
confined itself to the business case, we'd still have children working down
the mines.

In Sweden, where they've been thinking about these issues very seriously
for more than two decades, they dare to work on a broader canvas. They
spell out their principles. So when they discuss changes in employment law,
they don't lose themselves in the small print. They don't forget to ask
themselves what it's all for.

So the point of flexible working is not higher productivity or better staff
retention or even attracting the top talent. It's a better quality of life
for parents and their children. It's about making sure that parents who
want to be involved in the rearing of their children get a chance to do so
without having to become second-class citizens at work. To state a
principle is not the same as making it come true; even in Sweden, male
take-up of parental leave lags way behind female take-up. But there, at
least, they know where they're trying to go – and why.

This is not to say we never ask these questions here. There can't be a
parent in the country who does not ask them daily. It's not just new
parents who feel the crunch. The nine-to-five office job makes life hell
for anyone with a school-age child. The standard professional
nine-to-nine/10/11 job is, of course, even worse. Better, cheaper childcare
facilities can fill some gaps, some of the time. But what happens when a
child is ill, on holiday, disabled, distressed, in trouble at school? What
happens if there's only one parent? The standard solution – the solution
many schools and employers of my acquaintance promote – is for the "primary
caretaker" to step out of the full-time workforce. Which is fine, perhaps,
if you can afford it. But most families can't.

Sooner or later, most primary caretakers end up in the shadowy world of
part-time, casual, short-contract employment. More often than not, they are
women. The most recent figures from the Equal Opportunities Commission show
that the pay gap is almost twice as wide for women working part-time as it
is for women working full-time. Women in full employment earn 19 per cent
per hour less than men; women in part-time jobs earn 40 per cent less. This
doesn't just hurt them and their children, it also impacts on the parents,
most of them men, who stay in full-time work. They have to work longer
hours to make up the difference. And the more they work, they less time
they have with their families. Et ita ad infinitum.

But why have children if you never get a chance to see them? What's the
point of having a family if all it does is sink you into stress and debt?
And why is it always the parents who have to do the adjusting? There are so
many different forms of flexible working. Properly negotiated, and properly
supported by principled legislation, they benefit employers as much as they
do employees.

But the most important benefits are not in the profit margins. It's about
more time with our families, more time with our friends. Time to enjoy
life, time to remember what it's all for. Time for the Government to show
more leadership in this debate. Time, I think, to put the business case to
bed.