Interesting - the author works freelance and part time from home precisely because of these reasons - yet criticises mothers with jobs that don't allow home-working, freelance or parttime for asking for flexible hours? The whole maternity leave debate is slightly different and I can see how it impacts small businesses but if you emply the best candidate for the job do you want to lose her permanently because she wants children or temporarily?
And yes it's funny how businesses always want flexibilty from their staff to extend their hours but not to shorten them!

James, Taunton, UK

My brother runs a small business. The profit margin thanks to Nu Labour endeavouring to tax small businesses out of existence, is wafer thin. Hence he will not employ a female under 40 in case she becomes pregnant, ditto an ethnic 'minority' for fear of being sued for some perceived transgression of political correctness. He just cannot afford to take the chance. He is dreading some government jobsworth challenging him over racial/gender inequality in his company. Such is life for the small businessman in Nu Labourland.

B. Carroll, Hong Kong, China

Actually, the author has at least one child since she discusses her pregnancy at the end of the first paragraph...

I do think that she raises a valid point regarding the costs (hidden or not) of flexitime and working parents, especially for small businesses.

However, she was clearly lucky enough to be in a career where she could work freelance and thus part-time as an author, thus allowing her to spend time with her children and to earn a living. For other parents out there who can't do that, she doesn't seem to suggest much of a solution!

Eve, London,

Mitch Knight needs to get his facts straight. 1) Women who take paid maternity leave from work and then decide not to return to work (for whatever reason) have to pay back some of the benefit they received. 2) You'll find that ALL companies regardless of size claim back money paid out in maternity leave from the governemtent, the money comes from the state not an individual organisation. 3) Whats the alternative, should all women who want to have children give up working completely thus depriving the state of valuable taxes? How will people pay their mortgage when in this day and age it takes 2 incomes to pay mortgages and rent, should women with children rather than trying to support their families live off benefits instead? Would you prefer this Mitch?

Victoria Mullan, Gravesend, kent,

I see a lot of people on here whining about how running their small business should be made easier for them by altering the nature of the British employee's contract conditions for the worse. Guys, it's not meant to be easy. Owning your own business is a privilege, you know the terms and conditions of employment, it's up to you to work around them. Get over it.

Blewyn, Muscat, Oman

"See that old lady in the bed there?"
"Yes - she was the one who lost my mother her job after she stayed at home to look after me when I was long term sick"
"oh, we'll leave her to last"

Steve F, London, UK

Well, it is very sad to find out that this article was written by a woman, but this can be explained if she is childless.

Being a working parent in this day and age is not easy.
I don't have children but I cannot understand how people can be so selfish and dare to criticise people who have to leave early / work flexitime etc becuase they need to look after their children.

It looks like today's society is full of selfish and miserable creatures, the family unit is the least important matter of all, but thank good for the employment laws that are trying to protect the rights of working parents.

Emma, London,

What a daft column. I didn't realise working flexibly to look after children made you an 'exploitative mother'. I find this debate bizarre to say the least....when will people get it? Looking after kids makes you different, with different needs. This may cause inconvenience to others on occasion, but if women didn't have babies none of us would be here - we would not exist. Babies need looking after. Get over it. Your resentment of this is unfathomable.

alex p, manchester, uk

I think its hilarious, people without kids commenting on things they would know nothing about. Not that it stops people having an opinion of course.

Comparing time off for parenting to walking a dog? yes why not, maybe you'll be the office pariah instead of the parent.

Men should have the same right to work flexible hours to allow the woman in the relationship not to. Maybe the spinsters would prefer that? Then maybe we could all start complaining about the men taking flexi time. After all, thats what matters of course. What other people think. I know its what i base all my decisions around. "you want me to take you to the hospital young billy?" "Sorry, no can do - because someone in accounts who knows nothing about me will complain about it"

Work to live, not live to work.

Richard, Bradford, UK

Minette,
I totally agree with you.

I am a woman. I have my own business, a pharmacy. I have had many problems. Most of the employes I find are women. They get pregnat and everything changes...

It is true that not only they work less but also I pay less... But still a problem... I don´t find people to work for such short of time easily and even if I do, it take me a big effort to teach them how to do the job... At the end I have to work double and the goverment doesn´t care...

Everybody believes that is MY problem beacuse I chose to have my Pharmacy... But I wonder didn´t they chose to have kids? so Why it becames MY problem instead of THEIR problem...

For last, I know the day I get pregnat I will not being protected by the state... I know I can not chose to work less because that will meant not only that I earn half salary but also my benefits will be on risk because my employers will not being working 100% they will be happy to have less control to not do their job..

Laura, Madrid, Spain

Please clarify your terms. You seem to be using "flexiwork" as a perjorative to cover irresponsible behaviour and the costs of maternity leave. You throw in things like flexible schedules and teleworking as if they are part of the problem. In fact, telework is a suitable option for many companies and workers. Teleworking programmes in companies as diverse as IBM and AT&T have shown increased productivity of 15 - 50% when the participants are properly selected and managed. Those on my staff who do not have client-facing responsibilities typically work from home 2 days per week, and this has allowed us to implement hoteling and delay build-out for more than 2 years to date. With a VPN and sophisticated phone system, the worker's location is transparent to customers and to most other staff. Meanwhile, I allow my team to save hours on the roadway; absenteeism has been reduced 12%; and I have a distinct recruiting advantage. Please think, and focus, before you rant!

Lily, Acworth, GA

To all those who are hostile to measures which make having children easier:

Wait till you are old and infirm. Wait till tax receipts have dropped because there are millions fewer workers and see how that affects your pension and the number of people in the "caring" services upon whom you depend. Wait till your eyesight has deteriorated and you've fallen and broken a hip and try to fill in the 30-page form (with supporting documentation) to qualify for scarce resources.

Today's kids are tomorrow's taxpayers and paramedics.

But, hey, all we need to do is increase immigration to deal with all that, don't we?

Suzie Joseph, Sevenoaks,

Ref. Michael Gove's piece on the enjoyability, or otherwise, of Poliakoff's work. I cannot disagree as far as his recent output is concerned, but would put forward 'The Lost Prince' as being one of the most outstanding productions ever shown on television. Maybe Michael Gove missed it........?

J.C.Norman, Hillington, Norfolk

David Madley,
As far as I am aware Denmark is the real world, and not only do we have flexi-time we are richer and happier than the UK and businesses are thriving!!!

And Ross,
I assume that those parents you want to tax will receive more care in their old age as they have produced several tax payers, where as a non-parent, you contribution is over once you retire!!!

Kelly, Copenhagen,

I work in a major corporate and so did my wife. She took a year off to have a child and got many of the maternity benefits that come with working for a large company. At the end of the year she just could not leave our toddler at a nursery (I am not sure who cried more when she first dropped him off) so she quit. End result – our company had paid a lot of money for someone who never came back. Do we feel guilty? – actually no but only because we make about £10 Billion a year BUT there is no way a small firm could possibly cope with this behaviour. What if you owned a 3 person firm and you cleared £50k profit a year to go with the £50k wage and then one of your staff then went on maternity leave for a year. Lets estimate they had to subsidise her leave £15k and pay about £10k extra for a temp. There goes 25% of your yearly income because you had to subsidise somebody else’s desire to have a child. Is this fair? What if your wife was at home with a child NOT on any maternity pay?

Mitch Knight, London, UK

This issue of flexi-time is a construct of focusing on "inputs", i.e. hours worked, and linking that with pay & benefits.

This is inappropriate and leads to the resentement seen in many of the posts if people do a fixed amount of work and then don't achieve what the business or their colleagues think they need to do, but are perceived to receive too much compensation for this.

The more forward thinking businesses focus on "outputs", i.e. sales, customer satisfaction or other outcome performance metrics, and the business performance manages people (not women vs. men, not full time vs.part time) to acheive these outputs.

How you work, how often you work, etc.. is then a function of what you need to achieve (your objectives) as opposed to the other way round of "I need to work a fixed "x" amount of hours, and I might then achieve "y" outputs".

It just needs good managers and good HR functions to ensure that this happens !

Colin, Singapore,

malcolm mclean
Well it is the norm here in Denmark, and Denmark is one of the richest countries in the world. Most workers, male ,female, parents and the childless have flexi-hours and it works great, in fact companies tend to benefit from them. People have children, and unless you want everyone to stop having children, Britain will eventually have to have flexi-hours. The alternative is that either young intelligent people who want a family will leave (as I have done), or they will not have children, and then where will Britain be in sixty years? I am childless and I love my flexi hours: like karen would like I use them to study and go to the gym. I do however resent the fact that in the UK there is 1 rule for parents and another for other people.

Kelly, London, UK

Flexi-time is brilliant for the employee but an absolute disaster for the employer. I used to work in the civil service where flexi was available, it was great for me but as manager it was a nightmare. There was a core time where everyone must be in attendance; 10am to 12am then 2pm to 4pm, there was just not enough time to get the job done. Some people came in at 7.30 am when noone else was there giving them an hour and a half doze before the office started up for real. There were other fiddles which all lead to inefficiency.
This is the biggest backward step that a business can make and only people who have not lived in the real world could dream it up. There are some instances where people who work solo can use this without any loss.

Dave Madley, Poole, England

Unfortunately I couldn't afford to have someone in my employ waltz off on maternity/paternity leave, the business just can't afford that kind of subsidy. BBC Radio 2 had an excellent discussion on this topic, and one suggested solution was for the government to subsidise this sort of leave, and then tax more heavily the parents on their return to work, placing the financial burden entirely on the parents. I think this is entirely sensible and actually makes the decision to have children one to be taken seriously rather than some subsidised lifestyle choice.

It's this sort of wishy-washy liberalism that casues so many social problems - life is, sadly, hard work and serious consequences, and no one should walk through life expecting others to clear up after them.

Ross, Ripon, UK

Flexible working is not about pushing work onto your colleagues to cover your "time off".

You receive lower pay in return for working fewer hours. The company should then hire another part-time worker to cover the gaps in service paying the balance of your full-time salary.

For a lot of non-professional jobs, this shouldn't be a problem. Who really cares if the women who swiped your goods at ASDA on Monday is there again to swipe your goods on Tuesday? Has she got a particularly valuable swipe action?

The trouble arises in "service" or "management" roles where the company makes money by getting unpaid overtime from their staff. The company then feels put out because "flexible" working means workers who see the time = salary concept more clearly. No point staying for as long as your full-time colleague for half the pay.

One option for these firms might be to base pay on meeting objectives instead of based on time in the office.

Bob, Reading,

What do you suggest then? People should stop having babies, is that it? If these politics were implemented it is because there is a real need for them, i.e., babies must be born! And you know perfectly well that in Europe things are becoming rather complicated in what concerns births...
It is not a question of "women's rights", it is actually a question of people's rights, or even humanity's rights.
I'm also sad to note that "resentment" is more and more becoming a key word to understand people.

Raquel Seabra, Lisbon,

If you've got one or two women in a mainly male organisation then the men feel protective, and don't mind them taking off time to attend to babies. When you've got a lot, the costs become too great. Supermarkets, which employ mainly women, take a very harsh attitude to "sickies" for instance. Asda had a "green, amber, red" system that all cashiers were on. No sympathy stories allowed.

The problem is that all women think that the situation of the few can be the norm. It's just not realistic, unless we cut female wages back dramatically.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

As a single woman, no kids, a bit of me says; 'yes, why should I have to subsidise women (and men) who want flexible hours to enable them to see their child's play'. Surprsingly I agree that they should be able to do this. And so too should people with elderly parents be able to have the same flexible 'rights'. But where does that leave me with no dependents, young or old?
If flexibility is what the current economic climate requires then I too should be able to claim a need. I guess the need to go the the gym, have a driving lesson, perhaps attend a course (for self-development) or just to walk my dog... doesn't count. And there in lies the problem - there is no EQUALITY with this demand for flexibilty by some employees. It seems that having children puts you above others... when a mother (or father) works full hours to cover ME taking time out for what's precious to ME then we have true equality. (Careful, don't juge me - perhaps I want and can't have kids)

karen, oxford, uk

I am impressed at how many parents have children purely for the benefit of the human race, to make sure the rest of us have services in our old age. I always thought they had kids because they wanted them now I realize they are doing it for my benefit and I should be thankful for their sacrifice, nay, I should pay them more, for the burdens they take on.

Adrian Davies, Fremont, USA

Be careful what you say or else the clunking fist might propose a flexi-workers hate law.

Roger Sykes, Christchurch, Nea Zealand

There are all sorts of reasons why any one can find flexible working attractive. Family responsibilities do not start and end with children under six. It is not fashionabe to say so but should not a child under six have a full time home parent?

I am now retired, but looking back I can think of a couple of people who had adequate child care at home but had the facility been there then would have exploited the right to flexible working for the purpose more of playing golf at times that suited.

If another empoyee is assumed not to have any needs or wishes about working times and is approached by the boss , not the "flexi-seeker" and declines to accomodate, that person will be seen to be awkward and to have caused the boss to have to refuse the flexible working. Subjectively or directly the person who did not cause the problem in the first place will be labelled as unco-operative, simply for wanting am ordinary life. But then "you do not have children so you do not understand".

D.L. Stephens, York, England

Absolutely agree. In the current Australian election campaign, the contenders have promised to extend childbirth leave to grandparents! I hope that your article can be published here too.

Faustino, Brisbane, Australia

"yet another step along the road of economic decline"? I find it hard to follow this argument, leaving in an age of prosperity unbeknownst to generations before mine...

so what the author is calling for is "women back into the kitchen, where they belong"? What about doctors that are alcoholics? What about literary agents with a gambling problem? What about editors with bad health? What about plain lazy employees? I've come across my fair share of everyone of those, and to be honest: out of these, people working flexitime seemed to me to be the ones who were most aware of their work duties and their obligations towards their colleagues and their employers.

Sebastian, Perth,

comparative flexible can solve it, we should abandon extreme freedom on work. boss have right to raise a standard seemed proper.

zdr, fuzhou, china

I think this one needs a little more long term perspective - of course Ms Marrin's points are all true in the short term, but in the longer term, do we not all have a greater interest in the next generation being brought up properly? And it must be clearer day by day that this education system bestowed upon us needs all the best parental efforts it can get. I think we need to give parents all the help we can - if not, we can hardly complain when their feral offspring mug industrious workers on their way home.

JK, London, UK

It's not to discriminate against flexi-time, as it works for large companies who are operational 24/7, however a majority of companies are expecting working parents to work with-in office hours and that is, I believe, not to be considered a flaw. At the end of the day, any person applying for a job, if they do not meet the criteria, will not get the job. Male or Female you have to suffer the guilt, teach your children that Mummy or Daddy has to work and therefore they have to meet their responsibilities in the workplace as well as at home. Hard but true! What did our nations army of men & women do in the wars? It didn't do the children any harm. They learnt to grow up with respect, no excuses, because there were none. It wasn't even an issue. Has PC has become the new religion?

Jane, London, UK

Thanks you very much for this. In this subject so heavily loaded with political correctness it is very difficult indeed to hear any other view but the received wisdom.

But there are few subjects that cause so much workplace anger among full time employees, both male and female.

We are just dare not express our opinion.

B Grant , Surbiton,

At the beginning of the article I was nodding approvingly - as I have also been the one staying behind when parents have had to leave for (annoying) "family reasons". However, how can you claim that "(...) flexible working (...) is yet another step along the road of economic decline"...?
In Norway, the right to flexible working is established by law, and maternity leave is for a full year. Norway's economy has never been greater, there is virtually no unemployment (a mere 1,7% of the population). So please excuse me for saying this: if you're looking for reasons the UK economy might take " yet another step along the road of economic decline", I don't think women working "flexible hours" or part-time are the ones to blame. And if everyone put their careers first and gave up having children... who would then take the economy forward in the future?
What a rubbish, archaic and narrow-minded view of the world.

Camilla, Oslo, Norway

The reason for all of this is the continuing assumption that men do not make good primary caregivers for children. In the US, where there are few concessions for working mothers, couples are forced to choose who will care and who will earn, based purely on utility and economics. One consequence seems to be a much greater number of fathers taking on the primary childcare and homemaking role. Another seems to be far more mothers in highly-paid, decision-making positions. It's good for women, and for their families. The vogue for part-time working is neither; as it is based on the illusion that women can do everything. They can't. The realization that no responsible job - including parenting - can be done properly part-time - tends to come too late for a woman's career. By that stage, it's hard to change the status quo; the husband is earning full-time, and expects full support at home from his hobby-work wife. Or divorced; and the alimony reflects the wife's part-time salary.

Delilah, Maryland, USA

In my experience, the bulk of the accomodation in family-friendly workplaces is carried by single women. (In the US, such policies are less generous than in the UK, but they often extend to fathers as well as mothers.) I once worked in a place where six women went out on maternity leave at once. It was intolerable, and I found another job.

Now, this would be endurable if the women who did cover for all the mommies (and the occasional daddy) got higher pay and faster career advancement. That's the way to reward people who work more hours and cover the unpredictable situations while their colleagues are at home. But when it's other women making the accomodation, somehow it doesn't lead to advancement.

And then the mommies come back to work and carry on about how much more IMPORTANT their lives are, just because they had the incredible luck to land tolerable men so that they have the chance to have babies. It makes their less fortunate colleagues spit nails.

M.C., Washington DC, USA

OK, Tim Richards, Camberley, let us objectively test your assertion that "the responsibilty and reasoning gained from having children is invaluable to the workplace". Let's do away will ALL legislation on the issue and let the employers, whose job is to operate at a profit, decide. if they continue to choose to employ those who will not work to the company's required time schedule, then your point is valid. BUT I strongly suspect that, freed from the fear of prosecution under equal opportunities legislation, they will decide that the company's best interests are served by employing those who work the hours that best suit the company.
The same procedure, of course, can be use to test the frequenly made claim that "Women are as effective and valuable as men in any job"
Of course this will never happen - the whole presumption of "equality" is based, not on verifiable evidence, but in political dogma.

Bob Finbow, Haverhill, England

Not recognizing the value of children is unforgiveable. Those who don't have children are selfish twits who don't understand that all their needs in the future will be produced by the children raised by their peers. Late in life, the expensive cars and two week holidays will be inconsequential when one is infirm and can't find a nurse for help. Meanwhile my children will be contributing-one as an operating nurse and the other as a fisheries research scientist. Touche'

Lobsterman

Peter Mayo, Peaks Island, USA/Maine

When women entered the workforce and found out what men put up with they didn't like it so demanded changes..They got them and so men demanded equality. Your example of the GPs practice is a good illustration. My GP was all male and we had excellent night and weekend call-out cover from members of the practice. When women GPs in other practices demanded equal pay without having to cover nights and weekends the men asked why they had to do the unsocial hours for the same money. We now have a contactors bureau or NHS direct. The net result is that we get sent to A&E. And people wonder why A& E is crowded.

Bill, Belfast, N.I.

Perhaps everyone should work 16 hour days. Public holidays, weekends, paid leave should all be abolished. Sick leave, well...all employees who get sick should immediately face the sack. Wages should be halved. Pensions contributions are a massive drain on employers and should be scrapped. Perhaps employees should pay employers - after all they really should be thankful that the employers have given them jobs in the first place. Oh, and children should be down the mines at 14.

As a 'journalist and fiction writer' Minette Marrin is probably in the enviable position of being able to work from home a lot of the time, and heaven help the rest of us who may be on maternity leave or annual leave on the day she decides she needs our services. How about her weekend shopping trips where she is served by shop workers who probably don't work one day in the week because they work on a weekend. Is this not a form of flexitime - albeit in the interests of employer rather than employee?

steve, cape town,

As a client, I have become fed up with being told that the solicitor or accountant who is dealing with my affairs is on leave for a few months. This has resulted in things falling through the cracks and in my having to waste time in bringing someone else up to speed (and, I suspect, being billed for the time spent in doing so).

This happened one time too many at my solicitors and I asked to have my business transferred to a male member of this fairly large firm. I was told that it was against the firm's policy to accept such requests. This was entirely understandable, but it was against my own policy to accept the costs and risks involved. I now use a different firm.

Why should professionals' clients be expected to bear some of the costs of providing for maternity leave? Better to pay the women in these firms 20%, say, less than the men; bill their time out at 20% less, and leave clients to choose whether to go for the less risky or the less expensive option.

Michael, London,

Flexible working has a significant cost, compared with non-flexible. The size depends on the kind of work done. Where is the table of approximate costs per type of work that flexitime imposes? This is not to say that it is a bad idea (personally I think it's essential in the 21st C) but before any government department starts to sponsor a change of this kind it really ought to publicise the facts involved. Or are they so awful they have to be hidden away?

Failing the government I would have expected employers' organisations to have something to say on the quantifiable aspects of flexible work. At least we would then know how much of a disadvantage we have to accept or compensate for.

Colin , Shrewsbury,

Denmark is one of the rischest countries in the world, and the Danish are the happiest in Europe, yet they have flei-time and parental leave. The difference is that it is applied to everyone not just mothers. I am a childless woman, and yet I choose to work from 7 until 3 everyday, and I do not see how my company suffers. If anything they benefit, because I am much more likely to do overtime, than if I worked 9 until 5. Everyone has the same rights and everyone shares the same burdan, regardless of whether they have children or not. Before everyone harps on about economic decline, they need to look at countires that already have these rules in place and realize that these countires far outstrip Britain economically. And for those that blame women, what about men: who is it that has got mothers pregnant, why are they not sharing the responsibility? Why would anyone choose to employ a man who does not bother with his responsibilities?

Kelly, Copenhagen, Denmark

If I had two equally qualified people up for a job and one was a mother who required flei-time so she could be responsible both to her work and her childre, and the other was a father who did not need flexi-time because he did not see that his children were his responsibility, I would hire the Mother. Any person who has children, and yet does not expect to have to bear responsibility to them, other than handing over a cheque is not the sort of person I would choose to hire.
I find it odd that Geoff seems to think that people who can have careers, and no other aspect to their life are responsible. Presumably your father had a son Geoff, was he irresponsible or should he have just claimed benefit for his entire life, or been childless. Seems to me like you think only the unemployable should be having children: that does not bode well for the future!

David, London, UK

Many might find the things said in this article troubling; I find the ones not said, but assumed, scary. Of course there economic sense in the fact that private companies are avoiding to employ women, as reasoned by the author. As it would be not paying any health benefits, or making their employees work extra hours without pay, cutting down holidays etc. It is really blood-freezing to see how the economic logic supersedes the human factor, floating in an abstract hyperplane, ignoring other considerations but its own internal. We forget that we are first humans and afterwards employees. But we worry instead about how "healthy" our economy is, we are constantly monitoring its "growth", and we talk about what is good and what bad for it. Potential mothers, sorry for you, but you're just bad news for our economy.

Rick Trope, Berlin,

Trevor, actually it's not just capitalists who are hypocrites, who exploit, abuse and oppress. China's communist government, just like the former Soviet Union all other examples of Marxism in action have been shown to be parasitical states who fatten themselves on slave labor. The premise expressed in the article is based on an extremist mindset.. in favor of only their rights, it wants everything defined by what profits them.

If you want sane, sound government it can't be composed of extremists, neither of the far left or the far right. Marxism is a disease, it's parasitical and will never be a solution to anything other than the fantasies of those so warped that they shouldn't be allowed to govern anything.

Feminism has morphed into the negative stereotype so many women like myself defended it as not being guilty of. Self serving, elitist and honestly, worse than what it claimed the "patriarchy" was. There's nothing human or even slightly humane to it.

Jenny, Grand Rapids, MI, US

How tiired I am of thses smug parents who neee time off, tax breaks and endless praise for bringing up the next generation. They have children because they want them - so they can bask in the reflected praise of their little darlings. Many women seem to have no identity beyound their role as parent. We don't actually need your sacrifice - the world is grossly over populated. I'd hugely resent parents working flexitime - one group of employees should not to entitled to what amounts to a significant extra perk. Can I get time off to walk my dog in the middle of the day?

Sarah , London, UK

Well if people hate parents working so much, it is great news for women over fifty in the work place as the only way to ensure your employee can not have children is to hire older women since young women could become pregnant, and men of any age can become fathers. Of course men and women can be infertile, and older women can sometimes have children, but as a rule of thumb it works! Just because a young man says he does not believe in paternity leave does not mean he will not get a woman pregnant and suddenly have no choice but to become a parent and bear half the responsibility.

David, London, UK

almost centuries ago,or so it seems, but only in the early eighties,one of my secretaries got pregnant and on her return wished to work flexi time. much against my better judgement. agreed to try.
after six months of total confusion,wrong flights,mistimed meetings, and mis filing, order was restored and lost all faith in job sharing.
it is a wonder that minette has taken so long to bring it to others attention.

john haydon rowe, javea, spain

Rosemary, your comments ignore completely the whole thrust of Minette's argument. Just expanding the "right" - and thus the damaging consequences, does not make the problem "sorted"!

Your stance is a mixture of denial, sneering and contempt and demonstrates why Minette's comments are a rarerity. No doubt if she had been male she would have been labelled as mysongonistic, chauvanistic and ignorant!

James, London,

Someone has to have children, children need their parents and we do better as a society if our children get a good start in life. This is an investment, and one has to take a holistic view on this otherwise it won't make any sense. I don't have children but I do want to support those who do and see those kids get the best start in life that they can. Some things are for the greater good and this is one of them.

Roz, London, UK

This is really all a bit of a storm in a teacup. At the moment, parents of children under 6 have the right to REQUEST flexible working. Employers do not have to agree to this request and in many cases don't. Employers are expected to give a reason for any refusal e.g. it would not be possible to meet the needs of the business but that is all.

The length of maternity leave is more of an issue but that is not part of this proposal.

In any case, the easiest way to make this proposal fair is to make the ability to request flexible working available to everybody regardless of whether or not they have children/ caring responsibilties etc.

Finally, I am very impressed that Minette Marrin was able to choose her GP. I can't book appointments in advance, let alone with a particular GP so whether or not they take maternity leave / work part time doesn't really make a lot of difference!

Liz, London,

It is only a right to request flexible working - it does not mean that employers are obliged to meet that request and many do not. The only requirement is that a reason is given which identifies that flexible working is not appropriate because of the nature of the work or the needs of the business. If the employee is particularly upset about this I believe their only recourse is to an employment tribunal - rather too dramatic a step for most people unless the employer has been especially stupid. It therefore really isn't the problem MM is trying to claim that it is.

Liz, London,

Rosemary Righter, Germany

No, no, no! - Not "Sorted" at all.

You've proposed that we should develop and extend the rights to flexi-working and to do this irrespective of, and without any quantification of the inefficiencies and dislocations this will cause to socially productive activities other than child-rearing. What do you have to say to those people who contend that there are much better ways of dealing with the bringing up of the next generation than pretending that this can costlessly be intertwined with the requirements of normal bread-winning activity?

Typical 21st Century mentality - This seems like a problem, let's convince ourselves that it doesn't exist - Sorted!

Pathetic.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

Once again a whole set of entirely predictable e-mails from the hard-done by business community. Isn't it a shame we never have the same focussed debate on the sleight of hand accountants show in paying the least tax possible to Governments on behalf of multinationals/small businesses etc. I wonder what the feeling is towards Lewis Hamilton going to live in Switzerland for example.....sorry I forgot again is a matter of personal 'choice'. Yes let's pick on the defenceless much more simple....mothers and fathers who want to bring up their children correctly so they don't end up dying on the streets of the UK stabbed or with a bullet in them as teenagers before they have even entered the labour market and paid their taxes for the health service and the care Carol in Derby will so obviously need as she enters her older years. So depressing to see the narrow-minded bitterness within this debate from what I can see are persons with enough income who really should know better.

Paco Saez, London,

All right. You have had your little gripping. Now give it up! The problem exists. It is not going away. Disparaging child rearing doesn't work for the children. We need to be creative. Perhaps if men and women were eqally free to to be involved with children, maybe not even their own, we would all be more understanding.

Wilma Ralls, Sebatopol, CA, US

This article explains well why women
on average earn less than men, and always will.

Men are prepared to sacrifice more for their
careers and employers reward them for it.

Scott Murray, Dunstable, UK

In the NHS, mothers with over 12 month's service get a pay increment (as well as the cost-of-living increase), and accrue annual leave whilst on Maternity leave

I fully support the right of mothers to have a decent length time to look after a baby, but this seems unfair to those workers who have gained an extra year's experience to justify their pay increment.

In effect, a mother who had say 3 babies in 4 years could return to work on the same salary as someone with 5 years experience, but have worked for less than 2 years.

Sam, N Wales,

Actually, I can just about cope with flexible working - our business can accommodate that, what still bugs me is that I can lose a member of my team for up to year, struggle to find suitably qualified temp cover, spend 2 months training only to find that, when the time comes, they are not coming back to work. What a way to run a business!

louiza, London,

What Minette Marrin and various of her 'feminist' acquaintances fail to realise is that workers of the future will not be paying towards their pensions, hospital costs, and other public services like roads and the police force if they are not born. By this calculation women should be penalised for having children and perpetuating the society in which we all live.

This is not a question of selfishness on the part of mothers, who give their time in terms of both paid and unpaid employment. Most people do the have the option to give up work entirely due to the cost of living and most women are not in a position to freelance to save everyone convenience as Minette is able to do.

Madeline Barnett, Essex,

Wolfgang has explained to you-all Brits why we don't do this kind of thing here. Which policy gives the better results? That's just about impossible to say. I was a working mom of 4 kids, both my husband and I had long stretches of working part-time so the children could have more parental attention...luckily we're both attorneys, self-employed, and could arrange that.

But I have real sympathy for both employers and clients in this situation. No one wants to hire a professional who isn't available when you need them, and few small businesses can afford British flextime policies. I'd agree with Wolfgang that loading the cost of all this on employers is unfair, and results in exactly the kind of employment discrimination described here.

Susan, San Francisco, USA

What an incredible lack of vision is shown on this page. Everyone accepts the parameters of modern working practice. Corporations/families externalize one another's costs like they are unconnected - it is insane. Work and life are not separate entities!

Fold schools/kids into businesses (smaller ones can make local networks). Everyone does some childcare/teaching; everyone works. Familes take breaks or work together, or parents teach some classes. Small kids have creches/cots after school to hang out if parents are busy. Older (8+) have training as part of their schoolday, intern-type stuff (paid). Even CEO's kids start in the mailroom. Teens specialise toward a job, academia, or try other companies. Result is male/female equality, tribal levels of support for parents/singles, more mobility.

People will say it's never been done. Yet this is closer to a lifestyle that worked for a million years of evolution, til the Industrial Revolution. It can't be worse than what we've got now.

Z S, New York/London, US/UK

It only works if its freely negotiated. End laws mandating it. But then to give workers negotiation power back, end all immigration. Then it will be done where it works for both sides. Immigration lies at the root of employer employee negotiation.

Old Atlantic, Atlantic City, NJ

Employer versus employee is the theme of the responses. Having experienced both I must point out that as an employee I never gave a thought to the huge costs governments impose on business and just how hard small business has to work to pay the costs both of taxes and of administration. Parental part time flexi hours works for some business but not for others but the bottom line is that small business is already hugely burdened by government demands which have to be met and employees, by and large, are ignorant of these. Business cannot weather the ups and downs of the economy without a profit and if flexi time works then there is no reason not to offer the opportunity but if not then the business should be free to select employees without encumberances for don't forget the greying generation will need their children's help also and this too might create flexi demands.

hana, kuala Lumpur, malaysia

Both my wife and I work for FTSE100 companies where people get fired for not performing not the cosy world of universities or the public sector - and yet business takes a more enlightened view. I consider myself on call more or less permanently but in return I have the flexibility to structure my day sensibly. What kind of country do we live in that would deny the sheer joy in a young child when their mum or dad takes them to school a day or two a week rather than their nanny/childminder/granny? Equally, although my wife has taken time off to have children she has given nearly 25 years service to the same company, often working until midnight once the kids are in bed and I am on business somewhere. Her company live and let live where the kids are concerned. It's performance that matters and I agree with the comment about modern IT. Fixed office hours are irrelevant, the 21st century economy needs a flexible workforce who work hard but who also can fit their families into the equation.

Andy, Suffolk,

We no longer hire women for this very reason. What is the point? They are just as good at the work in our office but take more time off. This costs us more than a man would.

The pay gap will persist as long as these protectionist laws do. The median salary that we pay is approx 65% over the average London salary but is only available to men. Sorry ladies... thank Labour.

Stuart Crispin, London, UK

I have to disagree with Minette. My employer offers flexible working to almost all its employees and it is remarkably effective. The problem I believe is that employers are faced with a law that they do not know, or want, to handle effectively. Studies over the last couple of years have proven that whe properly organised flexible working can result in greater productivity and efficiency. The company has an extraordinarily low rate of absense due to stress-related illness, is extremely 'family friendly' and has low staff turnover. It's in the Times Top 100 and I've been there nearly 14 years.
Perhaps Minette needs to get a new job. But with her attitude towards flexible working, our company wouldn't give her the time of day!

M, Reading, Berkshire, UK

While I was still working, one of the employees had six children in eight years. For the first few children (cannot remember how many) she had 9 months' maternity leave, for the rest the leave was 12 months.

Her seniority was not affected by the frequent maternity leaves.
In addition, she had four weeks of annual leave, 15 days of sick leave without a doctor’s certificate and up to three months off with a certificate after which she would be put on long term disability, and three days of “family leave”.

As we worked at a university, the Christmas leave varied between seven and ten days, depending on which weekday Christmas and New Year fell on. Then there were all the statutory holidays, including Easter. That did not leave many days in any given year for her to work. While she happened to be in the office she was always “too tired” to do anything.

Enough of this “work-life balance”. I stayed at home until my children reached their teens though there was no extra money.

Eva Sairan, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

not all women work in offices=my friend had a shop he hired a woman as his only employee = she became pregnant- sick time follwed- then maternity leave he had to sell up as his outgoings became untenable due to paying this woman all her rights.he now refuses to hire any one in his new shop-his wife helps out , and his son on saturday- he will never hire a woman of child bearing age again he says.

max bernstein, london, u.k

You think having children is difficult! You wait until you have an elderly relative to deal with, who requires constant care or is suddenly incapacitated. NO maternity leave for that. NO time off unless you have a sympathetic employer. NO financial support of any kind from Government or the employer. NO tax relief. Any help you need has to be paid for out of taxed income. Social service support for the elderly is means-tested and involves filling in forms more complex than a tax return. Social welfare is heavily weighted against the elderly in UK.

Douglas Pointing, London, UK

Reading the comments, it seems like almost everyone wants to be able to force the "other guy" to be flexible. Businesses want to force their employees to flexibly order their lives around work, and people want to be able to force employers to let them come and go as they please.

Could we have a little less force and compulsion here please? It's so New Labour, darling.

And could we have a little more goodwill and give-and-take--on both sides?

Christopher Chantrill, Seattle, USA

This is exactly why all families should have a stay at home parent.

Kate, Epping Forest, Maryland, USA

Many business in Canada employ fewer fulltime workers than part time workers deliberately as part timers cost the business less to employ including training in the long run. So many workers work two or more jobs with fewer benifits. The gain is to the employer not in the long run to the employee(s).

VM, Toronto, Canada

Minette Marin's article lacks logic: specifically regarding the social worker - if available only Thursday and Friday, what happens if a problem arises Monday thru Wednesday? Well, what happens if a problem occurs on a weekend without either the social worker or doctor available? Gee, I guess we will all just have to work 24/7! Sound management can assure that alternative resources are available or indeed the original worker could be reached in emergencies. Thanks, Marin, for supporting the traditional male establishment. Oh, by the way, perhaps a Dad or two might need that flex time!

Tanya, Manhattan Beach, USA

There are some jobs that offer more flexibility than others. Those who wish to have children and would like to spend time with their children should choose their jobs accordingly. Trying to make partner in a big law firm may not be the best choice, but there are plenty of 9-5 jobs for lawyers (i.e., government positions, contract attorneys, etc.).

The doctor who delivered my baby gave birth six weeks before I did. She had her own practice. After she had her child, she brought in other women doctors. My doctor was able to balance her career and her home life. She was so successful, she opened a second office.

It cuts both ways. How is it fair for an employer to demand that employees be available on their days off? Employers definitely encroach on the private time of employees.

Also, simply assuming that someone who has a child will be the office slacker is unfair. I had a single coworker who came in hungover at least once a week. She was less productive than the parents.

Mary, Phoenix, Arizona

Don't tar all women with the same brush. Some of us work very hard.We appreciate that we have a job - we often do the same work in just a few days that a full-timer does in a week. We don't all swan off to the pub at lunchtimes and we wish we could 'have it all' but instead we sacrifice good pay for a job that fits in with our kids.Consequently, when they are ill, the mother has the time off because the father's job is considered 'too important' and it pays better. Don't think we don't feel guilty about it or feel we are a burden on our colleagues but what do we do? We also have to have our holidays during the school holidays - have you ever booked and paid over the top for this privelege?Some of us have no choice - we work to put a roof over the heads of our children with no other support.Childminding fees are high and school holiday clubs astronomical.We go home to our full time job of carer on top of our working day with little or no reprieve.Walk a mile in our shoes first!

Kathie, Northampton,

The world has changed immensely since two decades ago. With mobile telephones, home internet and Blackberries, people can be highly productive anywhere; indeed, perhaps females are more productive without the possibility of spending working time on office tittle-tattle!

Richard, Bromley.

Richard Timberlake, Bromley, Kent

Perhaps unknown to some (Wolfgang for example) the costs are all borne by me. Since returning to work after the birth of my daughter, I now work 4 days a week. Subsequently, my salary has been cut by 20%. I am also expected to be on call and answer emails via mobile and blackberry during my day off. I am also expected to be flexible if an important meeting is scheduled for my day off, for which my childcare is not refunded back. I think my company gets a pretty good deal...a full time staff member (just about) for the cost of a part-time. This is a very common scenario in my place of business.

Em, UK,

Flexi time and maternity leave rules are smashing especially as my wife is still receiving maternity pay from her old job, despite the fact we have not lived in the UK since i was posted overseas, over 6 months ago. The down side of all these 'rights' for ladies is that you do see a lot of 'close but out performed by another candidate on the day...' letters going out to talented ladies younger than 45. Bless the Labour government and Europe for the cash bung but it is not fair on SMEs.

Fred, UK Expat, HR Manager,

The key is how you view flexible working. It's not a really aright at all, it's actually an obligation – you work when there's work to be done. When one of my US customers reported a software bug at 8 pm, I sat down and fixed it. When the hayrick catches fire in Far From The Madding Crowd, Gabriel Oak gets out of bed to tackle it.

The reality for most people (lets call them semi-skilled) is that work only exists to be done during office hours, so talking about "flexible time"" for such people is a pointless and expensive folly.

This is intimately tied up with whether you think that work is something you do for the benefit of the customer, or merely a tiresome imposition that gets in the way of your universal human right of a pay packet and bottomless credit card. That gulf between the two halves of humanity, I suspect, will never be bridged.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

I work in a call centre dealing with transport breakdowns. We have 24/7 cover 365 days of theyear (yes even Xmas) on a shift pattern.

Currently we have two young mothers who are seeking flexibilty (aka I don't want to work evenings or weekends) - we could , with the currrent make up of staff with 8 young women and 5 young men who could conceivable become parents in, say, the next 5 years and may request the same treatment.

This out of a staff of 25. Now if these 13 people don't want to work very early (0530 onwards) or evenings or weekends to meet their expectations the other 11 of us will be expected to cover.

This grandad has no intention of working just evenings and weekends until he retires. I have things I want to do and grandchildren I want to see.

I had my family, well actually two families with my two marriages, and I never expected to coverfor me so I could just work when and how I wanted.

Brian, Warwickshire, U.K.

Perhaps we should pay more attention to building a decent society so that children can be nurtured by parents who have some time. The relentless pursuit of efficiency benefits only the business owner and denigrates the structure of society.

Bob Taylor, Castelnau, France

Hmmm - I always supported the theory of flexitime, particularly for mothers, but in practice it can be highly dysfunctional, particularly in a team environment where you need to be able to rely on each other.

I am currently sharing a project with a mother who works a few days a week & it has been a complete nightmare for the rest of us. All extra effort has to be carried out by others. She works much shorter days than everyone else & also constantly lets us down by becoming unavailable at short notice - particularly by taking large amounts of sick leave for either her, her kids or her nanny - or simply for a variety of other, more nebulous reasons. The work has suffered & it has generated a large amount of extra hours for the rest of us. It's easy to say the workplace culture should just change then we should all be working flexitime & these things wouldn't happen...but I can certainly see why employers might be wary of taking on mothers.

Karl, Auckland, New Zealand

It is a god given right to have a child, and to state the obvious, completely natural. Children are our future and that should be recognised and supported in some way. This debate is important and solutions and comprimises should be found.

Laura Duguid, London, England

I imagine that it would be far more costly to businesses to lose their female employees permanently, than it is to lose their expertise temporarily over a period of maternity leave during an otherwise long career. Businesses have a vested interest in hanging on to their talented employees which makes allowing women to take time off to have children by far the lesser evil in terms of impact on the business and on society as a whole.

Why women should shoulder the worries of their employers and the family burden alone is beyond me. Men have EXACTLY THE SAME children so why don't they have EXACTLY THE SAME rights of parental leave? Giving men the same rights as women in these circumstances would blow the glass ceiling to smithereens, narrow the pay gap and never again will employers even consider hiring a less qualified man instead of a woman, simply because she is of childbearing age.

Anna, Southampton, UK

It is in fact society as a whole that benefits. What would all of the factories, shops and offices do for the next generation of workers to exploit if everyone suddenly decided not to have children? The state and employers benefit from having the next generation of workers raised on the cheap by families who are also trying to make ends meet by working at the same time. Why else do our leaders constantly harp on about the wonders of the "family" as an institution. They know damn well that without it the state and the employers would have to pay to ensure that there was a fresh supply of suitably trained labour.

Tony, Liverpool, UK

I think a lot of you are missing the point. This is not just flexi time for women but for men too.
If people (note people) wish to work flexi time they should be able to, though they should expect encounter a proportionate negative effect on their salaries and long term career prospects.

However, businesses should not carry the burden of flexi time legislation which commits them to cover a majority of the costs, as the minimum benefits to a business (happier workers) does not offset the obvious costs.

Thus if the government wants to champion flexi time, then this should be paid for by the state so that the true cost is visible. That in turn will mean that politicians are less likely to over do it because suddenly the 'true' cost/benefit relationship (high taxes for more votes) becomes more equal and hence encourage them to behave more rationally.

Robin, Oslo/London,

Flexible working may be ready for more universal application if, as seems possible, there is more stability of economic growth in the future.

It might however be necessary to correct any asymmetry of flexibility vis a vis employee, employer.and regulator.

drf venables preller, Warrminster, UK

This article only covers flexible working from the well-off & permanent female employment angle.

More important to economic productivity is helping re-employment and second careers. For Men over 45 who lose their jobs through redundancy or market forces, this is not just a female issue.

Big business do like temping, because it is flexible, and overheads and responsibility for resource management are outsourced to temp agencies. And it is very slowly getting better at realising the benefits from connecting with one-person niche businesses, because business networks now deliver real connectivity amongst smaller businesses.

Employment legislation should force both workers and employers to adjust their sights and look at all role options available, and their attitudes to job security.

Only someone with ultimate job security cannot imagine that there are alternatives. This measure should not just be aimed at helping the already well-off, but those who genuinely need help.

Peter Jones, Harrow,

To those who think having children is selfish and people should fund it all personally, just remember, it is other people's kids who will support you in your retirement. It IS in society's interest that employers shoulder some of this responsibility, lest we all want to be supported in our old age by the kids of people who never bother to try to hold down a job.

The feminist struggle still goes on because women are now divided into 2 camps - those who 'have it all' (job and family) and those who favoured their career until it was too late and are now bitter. These groups now have very different ideas of what it means to be an empowered woman.

Society NEEDS a next generation, and the reality is that this child bearing generation - (I am 25) - is unlikely to even be able to buy a house, let alone have kids, without adequate state and employer support. If you really want a scare story about how the UK is becoming more uncompetitive, try 'we are all ageing and dying of obesity'.

Anna, Southampton, UK

It is true that not all careers are suitable for flexi-time, and that a woman must ensure that she pulls her weight in the workplace after having children. However, the articles and comments seem to me to overlook an important factor.

The benefits of flexi-time are seen by looking at the issue more widely, for while the employer and customer may occasionally be inconvenienced, we all benefit by having well brought up children who will go on to contribute to society.

After all, would anyone contest that children are likely to do better academically and socially if their parents are able to be around regularly, particularly for important events in their young lives which may crop up during working hours? With all the complaints about youth behaviour that seem to be around nowadays, the challenge for us is surely to find a way to help parents fulfil their obligations both at work and at home.

Jennifer, Swindon,

There is a solution for those seeking flexible working patterns: work for yourself. Then I wonder how flexible these same people will be when employing staff who claim the same rights.

Virginia Clarke, Bovey Tracey, Devon

We have had the problem with a small business adviser at a bank, a male one. If he wasn't off because one of his children was sick it was half term or the nativity play. We solved the problem by changing banks.

Peggy Webb, Blyth, England

You forgot to add that when the mother creature is at work ,she spends her time telling people what she does with her off time,plans what she is going to do with her off time,and schemes to get more.I worked with one,I hope no one else ever has to.

ron, toronto,

Flexible working for parents is not the only type of employee right that creates inefficiency in organisations. Rights to paid leave, weekends, breaks in the working day, limits to the working day or working week all restrict the flexibility of the employer. Some commentators are admirably consistent in decyring all these employee rights, but why is that parental rights arouse so much wider opposition? Maybe it's because many people don't see how parental rights benefit them? Most of us will be or have been parents, but we only focus on this for a couple of decades out of our lives. Or is it because parental rights mainly accrue to women?

Jason, Reading, UK

Woman have undermined all the hard fought rights of workers over the last twenty five years.woman Today woman do the same job as men for 20% less wages. any male who ask for emotional leave for six months with pay would get the sack.

michael joseph heavey, cahersiveen>adams towns, madness

Flexible working schemes I've encountered mean you have a certain number of hours to be done a week, but there is flexibility on when you start and finish, and you must be available within certain business hours.

Anyone reasonably intelligent and organised is able to do their job perfectly well within this. The people complaining are probably not amongst this group. Why bitch about your colleagues instead of figuring out your own priorities for that week? If you are finding you are doing somebody else's work, why not have a conversation with them and / or your line manager and sort it out? Have you any wit or gumption?

I agree flexible working should be available to all employees, not just parents. Likewise there are shift based jobs which depend on availability within particular hours who should receive paid overtime instead. In many cases though, flexible working is about treating people like adults able to make sensible decisions about organising their working day.

Sally, London, Uk

i know, -lets all stop having children then there would be no burden on services,on standards, on businesses,on clients or on the economy- in fact there would be none of the above .In 50 yrs time we could all live in retirement homes looking after each other- except there would be no-one to produce food orelectricity, administer to the sick, run the trains and planes, manage the infrastructure---

Alec, Northampton, UK

Think again before you knock flexible hours for parents, but hey, men are parents too.

Flexible hours are a great help to parents, children and society. As a young mother in a "former life", but now a pensioner, I wish I would have had the opportunity to be able to have the benefits of flexible working hours. I feel flexible hours would have made a big difference to us, including the rest of society.

How I would have loved to have been there at the those magical moments, school plays, sports days, or just being there sometimes when one's child is poorly or needs you.

Maybe businesses could do without this flexible stuff, but children can't. People, men and women, need to work.

Myra Dee, Leeds, England

Flexi working in London may be the only way to fit people in the tube/buses in the morning and evening rush hours in the coming years. The PPP is running 3 years late which means the upgrades won't be done until 2016-18. By then London's population is projected to be over 8 million people. This population increase will mean 4 million passengers a day on the tube instead of the 3 now. The Tube is running fast to stay still as congestion will be the same with the 25% increase in capacity and 10-20% speed increase.

If possible firms should try and implement flexible working to spread more widely the impact of rush hour pedestrian traffic, which is only going to get worse in the coming decade.

Dom, Chesham, Bucks

I have two children, aged 1 and 4, due to ludicrous house prices, I have to live over an hour and a half away from work.. Thanks to my employers understanding I am allowed to work from home when needed which means I actually get to see my children during the week. I, in return have rewarded them with an increase way beyond any they have previously experienced in terms of revenue generation. I have my mobile and laptop all paid for by the company regardless of where I operate from., I have wireless internet at home So I have flexible working, which in turn makes me feel loyalty to my current employers. I have recently turned down over 20 approaches from rival companies, that potentially were more lucrative. It's a two way street, if you want to employ the best people, companies must realise that there are personal commitments that these people have. Children do not affect personal productivity, the responsibilty and reasoning gained from having children is invaluable to the workplace.

Tim Richards, Camberley,

In my organisation, which is small with only 25 employees, a third of staff are mothers who work part time. They are hard working and efficient. They know they can't work late because of their kids, so they ensure their work is finished on time. Yes, maternity leave is a nightmare, but I simply cannot comprehend how our organisation would run without these ladies and their practical, hands on approach to getting things done on time.

AJ, Oxford, Oxon

I am incensed by cold cruel views such as those from Geoff of Pontefract. "Indulging baby fantasies". Fantasies?? Having children's is any normal person's number one priority in life, it is essential for the survival of the human race (I hardly believe I have to point this out). The harm caused by bad or absentee parenting is all around us, and if we have to have economic growth a bit lower by having a society which values parenting, then so be it. Geoff's vision, where we all work all hours, chidless, and wonder when we're 50 or 60 why there are no consumers to buy the products we are selling, no-one to look after us, or even to feed the economic growth he is so obsessed by, is too awful to contemplate.

Actually, I am glad people like this don't have children, I would pity their poor unloved children. Whoever thought on their death bed "i wish I had worked more hours"? Get some perspective people.

Jon Cooper, Herts, UK

I think that there are several different points that are being conflated here. Granted that in jobs where people have to be in a certain place at a certain time, flexible working poses a great deal of problems. I am self-employed, and can choose my own hours - so I avoid travelling at rush hour. On the rare occasion when I have to, I am amazed at the vast number of people, all of whom have to be in the same place at the same time. We are told of the inefficiencies of flexible working: what about the inefficiencies to the whole economy of such a model: trains running at 150% capacity at certain times, and barely 10% at others. The number of employees who need to be together all at the same time in an organization is surely quite low, and in an age when the ability to communicate by phone. email and the web is unprecedented, no-one need be disadvantaged - provided, that is, that flexibility works BOTH ways: employees need to be as flexible as their employers.

Dave, Guildord, UK

First time I've seen this common-sense view published, which is what everybody (who isn't on maternity leave or working flexibly) thinks but daren't say.

Sadly, in out nanny, PC, all rights and no-responsibilities state, it will only get worse.

Nobody thinks about all the staff who have to cover for these idlers, indulging their baby-fantasies, or about all the customers who suffer through lack of continuity.
Well said, but I'm afraid we're voices in the wilderness

Geoff, Pontefract,

You have given up on your doctor and lawyer because they are disadvantaged by being women, having children and working flexibly. Your new male doctor and new male lawyer undoubtedly also have children, but they choose to be inflexible and so their careers are unaffected. This is where the inequality and injustice lie: all workers, not only women, should have certain rights in their relations with their employer. All workers, not only men, should have the right to organise their time to suit whatever aspect of their life is important to them. Men should also take time out for nativity plays and mumps. Men should also get to work from home in the 70% of careers where this is possible. Give both sexes equal rights and duties and lean on the men just a little to play their part. Sorted.

Rosemary Roberts, Germany,

This, surely, is common sense. I once had an excellent female doctor who was only available two days a week and then not in the year when she had six months maternity leave. Then her maternity leave replacement went on maternity leave. I now have a male doctor who is a grandfather. It was a deliberate choice.

John, Birmingham, UK

Why do all these workplaces discussions about 'flexibility' revolve around finding ways that women dodn't have to go to work?

Stuart, Edinburgh,

Absolutely right - mothers are a terrible liability to a business and an unfair burden on their childless colleagues.

The cost of raising children should like exclusively with their parents. The decision to have children is, after all, entirely personal; something that people do for themselves and not for the good of society. Therefore, they should not look to society to support them, either financially or in other ways.

Carol, Derby,

This is one factor that those who deplore the discrimination of women like to overlook: The value of work in responsible positions is not just the result of the hours worked, but also of constancy, availability, continuity, reliability, willingness to do unexpected overtime, and other soft factors. I have read about studies that claim that the gender gap in remuneration disappears when these "invisibles" are factored in. At least, it seems, the gap would narrow. Similar reasoning applies to the "glass ceiling", the supposed barrier that women face when trying to advance beyond a certain organizational level.

And no, I do not think it is the employers' duty to subsidize children and parenthood. If it needs to be subsidized (it probably should), this burden should be carried by society as a whole, not by individual employers.

Yes, flexible work is a nice thing, but the costs of it should be borne by those who enjoy its privileges, not by the public, employers, customers, or coworkers.

Wolfgang, Boulder, Colorado, USA

It is a mantra of the business world, that is rammed down our throats ad nauseum, that we all need to be more "flexible" to survive in this new globalised business world.

So why is business now, moaning, griping, whinging and complaining about the need for this 'new' kind of flexibility.

Is it because flexibility is only acceptable to the capitalists if it is to their benefit in the endless pursuit of more profit.

Trevor, Nanchang, China