Here's a scene you might see in any office on any day in the UK. The pressure's on to finish the big project before the deadline at end of play that evening. Things have been difficult and the team's running late but, with effort, they might just make it. John, a rising star in the company, looks up from his 20-minute power nap on the desk. The boss smiles at him. He knows that sleep will make John a more effective performer for the rest of the day. The boss looks at his watch. Four hours before the crunch. “Right,” he says, “Wednesdays are my half day. I'm off to take the kids to the zoo. I'll look forward to seeing how it's gone when I come in tomorrow morning.”
The staff don't really need to be told that he won't want to know details of their progress until the next day. Work cannot be allowed to intrude on family time and none of them would dream of calling him, even if there's a disaster. Not very likely is it? And yet this seems to be the world in which the Government is living.
Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equalities, wants to see more men pushing for flexible work. Fathers, she says, have a full part to play in childcare and employers should understand if they want to arrange their working lives around their families.
This spring the government will decide how far the right to request flexible working should be extended. Presently, parents of children up to the age of 6 can ask for part-time or irregular hours, and the law says that employers should not unreasonably deny them the request. Now parents of kids up to 16 might get the same right.
All the parties have jumped on the flexible-working bandwagon in such a way that no one can remember who originally set it rolling. Flexible working generally means two things: the ability to go part-time, or to shape your hours to your convenience, so if you want to work ten hours for four days and have the Friday off, then you can.
The idea sounds great in theory but all the evidence suggests that it would be a disaster for men in most professional careers to take it up. The main reason for this is that, by and large, it has been a failure for women. Harman almost admits this herself. “Mothers often tear their hair out trying to balance earning a living with bringing up their children, and need more flexibility at work,” she says. Now, she'd like to see men tearing their hair out too. “Fathers want to be able to play a bigger part in bringing up their children. Families are the framework of our lives.”
Well, another framework of our lives is a solid economy. Mind you, economic growth has, for years, been supported by one sort of flexible working - the sort in which five million people in this country put in unpaid overtime last year at an average of 7 hrs 6 mins a week, according to a TUC survey. It points out that if you put in all this free work at the start of the year, then you wouldn't get paid until February 22. We work an average of an extra 50 days a year for nothing and no one thinks it unusual. That's just the climate in which British business is conducted.
No wonder that the Government's own attempts to introduce flexible working have been such a flop. Take the NHS. Only 8 per cent of doctors work part-time, despite a government commitment to flexible working in the health service. Other efforts to make the NHS more appealing to people with children have been an equal failure. In 2000 the Government committed to making things easier for healthworker parents. But still only one NHS nursery in 20 is open at the weekend - a time when patients have the inconvenient habit of being ill - and the waiting lists for them are enormous.
Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, said in his annual report last year that women doctors were losing out because the NHS commitment to flexible working had waned. If you want to get to the top as a doctor it's always been understood that you're not going to make it unless it's the consuming focus of your life.
The report also said that there is faint enthusiasm for helping flexible working and other child-friendly arrangements. Sir Liam said the problem is that managers siphon off the childcare budgets when they feel a financial squeeze. In other words, their commitment to changing working arrangements to help with childcare is slight. This is in the touchy-feely NHS. How much bigger a cultural shift would it require from a City law firm to allow people to knock off halfway through the day? Is anyone, male or female, going to part-time their way to partner, or say “I worked 40 hours Monday to Thursday, I'm afraid Friday is for me and the kids”?
If men choose flexitime then they will find what women have always had to contend with in the enforced break of pregnancy - that they're seen as less committed at a crucial time in their career. Late twenties and early thirties are when many people achieve their first big break. It's no time to go Awol if you're professionally ambitious. The truth might be uncomfortable, but it's a truth nevertheless.
It's easy to see the effect childcare has had on women's careers. There are only three women at the top of UK advertising agencies. Two of them don't have kids and the other one sees hers only at the weekend. A report by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising found that only 9 per cent of senior management at ad firms are female and that women were “under-represented in the extreme” in creative departments. Only 17 per cent of copy writers and 14 per cent of art directors are women. It seems that the industry shares the opinion of Neil French, a top advertising executive, that women are apt to “wimp out and go and suckle something”. His view is repulsive but it seems deeply held. Would French and his like see the difference between a woman suckling something and a man going flexitime to help with the kids?
It's the same in many other professions too where a long-hours culture means part-timers and flexitimers will be seen as slackers. According to the Female FTSE report by the Cranfield School of Management, only 3.6 per cent of executive directors are female at FTSE 100 companies. Women are at a huge disadvantage if they choose to have children. In the current climate men who opt to share the burden of kids will be at a disadvantage too. A study by the BMA found that only one clinical professor in ten is female and only two heads of 33 medical schools are women.
Jonathan Fielden, chairman of the consultants' committee of the BMA, says that in the prevailing culture in many professions it is very difficult to reach the top working flexible hours. In medicine, flexible training places have had their budgets cut, despite a commitment to achieving a better work/life balance. Another problem is that the demands of the job just don't support flexible working.
“You can't knock off halfway through an operation or clinic. The hours are long and so potentially less attractive to those who want flexible working. It's not just the hours in the hospital or surgery. There's a huge amount of work in preparing for exams, keeping up to date and expanding your specialty. You don't just stop when you come home.”
A poll of 21,000 organisations by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions found that 20 per cent of UK personnel managers reported worse career prospects for part-timers. Are you sure your manager isn't in that 20 per cent? That might be a very conservative estimate, too. The pollsters were for part-time work and most personnel managers would want to portray themselves as progressive in a survey. There are other issues here. Even if you could stop flexible working harming career prospects, would it be right to bring it in only for parents?
I remember my resentment when, as a sub-editor on one newspaper, I was told that I was on a permanent late-shift five-nights a week because I was single and had no family life to disrupt. I did, however, have a cracking social life but I was forced to give it up so one of the other chaps could spend ten minutes kissing his kid goodnight before slumping unconscious in front of the TV.
Why should children be the sole reason for allowing flexitime? In the summer a single person might want some tanning time; across the party season at Christmas late starts might be welcome. Some might want to arrange their hours to spend as little time as possible under the eye of the boss. If you can pick up your kids from school, why can't I spend an afternoon in the pub? What makes a childless person's rights inferior to those with a family? Families are the framework of our society? Well underpaid, slaving single twentysomethings put in their shift, too.
Then there is the issue of whether men want this flexibility at all. I called a friend of mine last Boxing Day and was surprised to hear that he was in the office. I phoned there and asked if there had been an emergency. He said: “To tell the truth, it's nice to get away from the kids.”
Anyone who has kids will confirm that even the most stressful positions in industry don't compare with the demands of childcare.
Flexible working may be taken to mean allowing people to work from home. As anyone with children will avow, working from home while looking after children is the same as not working. It is impossible.
The final argument against flexible working is that it doesn't actually deliver what it sets out to. A survey of 1,400 workers for Orange Business Services found that 40 per cent of people working flexibly don't have any more time to themselves than they did working full-time. Also 45 per cent said that they ended up working more because the job started to intrude more on their leisure time. Flexible working meant people ended up working longer for less money. If someone doesn't know when you're working, they may assume you're working all the time. The world doesn't stop when you leave the office and urgent business can't wait until Pingu is over. If the office needs you, you can be sure youwill get a call.
Tellingly, survey respondents said that they feared being left “out of the loop” if they departed from conventional working practices. So you'll end up doing just as much but not getting the credit for it. It doesn't sound like much of a deal does it?
This government is on the way out anyway but can we please give both Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith their marching orders straight away? They seem to think that their harebrained ideas show them to be proactive and "doing a good job" whereas they show them both up to be completely out of touch with reality. Common sense please!
Roger, Milan, Italy
Nix,
First of all I think you are thinking of Sweden with your sauna comment, and secondly there is a big demand for flexi hours. That is why more and more firms are offering it. It is also why huge amounts of young well qualified people are leaving Britain to move to countries that have a better standard of living. In fact I think in a recent survey British workers said flexi-hours were more attractive than an increase in pay.
Britain is not as big a player as other countries in Europe. In fact Britain has a lower GDP than all the European countries that have flexi-hours as the norm, including Denmark. And it is not about doing little work, as on average flexi-workers work longer hours than the sheep who do the nine to five. So it is not a case of sitting on birch branches (???) being smug about how little work we do. It is a question of being smug about how much money, how much more productive we are, how many more hours the employees work, and what a good balence we have.
British expat, Denmark,
As an employer in a small business we offer flexi working practices. All of the people who have taken it up are women. The men don't want it! Thats the only issue, who cares if it works in Denmark (where they seem by all acounts to manage their work/sauna life very well) there is no demand for it.
Suggesting that the UK is a misrable place to live as a result of a poor work/life balance is just daft. You may as well blame the weather! Also comparing any aspect of our society to mainland europe and god forbid Scandanavia doesn't work either. We are inherantly different to them. Always have been always will be. That's why we remain a political and financial player on the world stage rather than being content to sit on birch branches in hot/cold place smiling smugly about how little work we are doing.
nix, Wirral, UK
Barrowcliffe appears to to think that the culture of presenteeism is in some way productive. It isn't. Take a look at the most effective companies in Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia and you'll have plenty of proof that flexible working does work. The problem in the UK is a cultural one, and there's much about the working culture in the UK that needs to change to address the skills shortage, ageing population and decreasing public amenities for young people.
PB, London, UK
British management mjst be the worst in the world. They can't oragaise things effectively, so instead they pressure and judge their employees by equating long hours with committment. Most managers seem to think they work hard - but really they are just ineffective and incompetent. And the private sector is just as bad, if not much worse, than the public sector. The only organisations in the UK that work at all well are small businesses where the owner-manager-workers are the same people.
Anonymous, Manchester,
I have been working as an interim manager on the basis of occasionally-regularly doing my hours in a short timescale Monday-Thursday or doing a late start Monday & early finish Friday. It works fine and has done for a coulple of years. Neither, for that matter, do I have children. The trick is to get things organised, then it works fine.
Before anyone contests the issue, no, I do not do a 'part time job', I am a senior interim programme manager, managing multi-million pound programmes in the aerospace industry.
Get organised boys, do what needs to be done, forget the rest and go and do something else instead as the old childrens' programme motto used to read. Be focussed. Get a life & spend time with your wives. You will perform better as a result - no bleating about pressure & deadlines, if I can do it, so can anyone - get organised &use your time effectively. There's no need for the 48 hour week. We are becoming a nation tired, confused, innefective desk-hounds!
Ian, Lincoln, UK
Steve from London (and others), just remember that choosing NOT to have kids is also (for most) a lifestyle choice and you should perhaps be a little more grateful to those people who put up with not only the daily harrassment of a day at work but also put up with the harrassment of bringing up kids when they get home. After all, these people who are doing two jobs (one unpaid) are supplying the future workforce that will provide you with goods and services during your retirement and dotage. The whole pension system works on inter-generational transfers of resources (funded or pay as you go) but they can't work if there isn't a generation behind you! Or are you planning to store up 30 years of bread, fruit, fuel, repairs, medical services etc for your retirement? So when you speak of "special" rights for people with children you should realise that they are providing YOU with a subsidised service: contributing to raising the next generation by and large at their own expense!
S P, Swansea, UK
My husband works in mainland Europe for an international company. Everyone in the office can save up overtime and take a day off a month. This does not mean people are coming in at different hours every day, but simply that if someone urgently needs time off (whether for family, to stay in for a delivery or simply to have a rest) they can have it as long as they plan it and they have done the hours in advance. It works really well.
Nelly G. , Germany,
Yep, I'm a Brit living and working in Denmark and it works here no problem. I had a meeting last Friday cancelled because the Director's son was off school sick so he had to work from home and look after him. No big deal. Flexi is treated the same, as mentioned already by other people it's all about trust and being trusted to manage your own time. We don't have a strict timetable where we have every Friday off work. When we're busy we work longer hours and when work is lighter we can leave earlier or come in later. It's all about attitude, trust and managing your time and workload.
Teri , Copenhagen, Denmark
Flexi time works for my family. I start at 7.00 and work till 12 whilst my husband gets the children ready and takes them to school and nursery. This gives my husband the extended opportunity to spend the time with them (especially when they wake up at 6!). I am always there to pick the children when they finish their activities and I am also able to accomodate their after school and social life. I would not chage it for the world! Both of us bring the salary, the children see both us each day and we do not need any childcare!
m, SOuth East,
Flexi-working needs to be equally available for both parents to work
1 parent breakfasts & takes kids to school and works 9.30-5.30.
1 parent works from 7.30-3.30 and picks the kids up from school
When its only available to the mother she has to do both child-rearing committments and can only work part-time for years rendering her chances for further career progression to zero.
JB, Glasgow,
I work for the Council and everyone has flexi time regardless of whether they have children or not. It is absolutely fantastic. We have no core hours and have to work 37 hours a week but can be in credit by 30 hours in a month or down up to 10 hours. We are trusted (key word here) as professional people to manage our own day and work load, and decide when would be the best time to fit in appointments etc. This country has a bizarre long hours culture which is reminiscent of the dinosaur era "greed is good" 1980's. The type of company that adheres to this mantra is often extrememely unproductive, and often has managers taking 3 hour lunches in the pub and then expecting staff to work until 8pm at night. Women are generally far more productive, organised and skilled at multi tasking. Men just make huge amounts of work for themselves which is why companies run by men often have to work such long hours. Until more women are in management we probably won't see much of a change.
Charlie, Newcastle,
Have any of the people who slag off flexi-hours actualy lived in a country where flexi-hours are the norm? I doubt it, but I have. I live in Denmark and everybody has flexi-hours. We must work 37.5 hours a week and must be there between 9-3, but after that we arrange our own hours. So I work 7-3 which works perfectly for my employers and me. This is the same treatment everyone has regardless of whether they have children or not ( am childless). The problem is tht in Britain it is only for mothers. I know I would be fuming if I was expected to work set hours and mothers wern't, and I would be really annoyed if I had children and I had to use flexi-hours , but the father was allowed to do his normal hours and slide out of his responsibilities. The UK need to learn a few lessons from Denmark, we are much richer as individuels, and have much less crime. Instead the UK has to use flexi-hours to encourage even more women hating than you already have. WHY??
Zara, Dk,
If it works in Sweden it should here too. It worked for me for 18 years in the public sector even if not perfectly; I had to negotiate a 5-day 'paternity' leave furnishing medical proof that my wife had high blood pressure during pregnancy! On the other hand my weekday study 'leave' was spend with my first born and I had to do my college studies in the evening. I spend 18 months abroad while my partner had to hold both a high level job and be responsible for our 3 daughters + two dogs; how did she manage - only women know - even though she nearly had a nervous breakdown - specially when the glass ceiling kicked in and she was advised to get legal representation to agree terms for terminating her contract. In short it should work for both sexes if employers want it to succeed and the partners are up to meaningful sharing. Women do this all the time, men should learn to while there is still time.
Nicholas Xenakis, Borough, Walworth, London, England
I see it as a hunter gatherer type of situation. You have your hunting teams, and your gathering teams. Hunters need to be devoted to hunting, or hunting profits in our world. Gatherers do what they can, fit in around their other responsibilities. If they dident have responsibilities they could become hunters. But unless they can drop whatever they are doing when the big game is spotted, they are no use to the hunting team.
You make your bed and lie in it. Who is your boss, the hunt or yourself and your life?
If youre a gatherer and you want to team with another gatherer, dont expect any meat (money). If you are a hunter and you want to team with another hunter, all you will have is meat.
So the best solution, proven by a million years of evolution, is for a hunter to team up with (marry) a gatherer. Then you have the best of both worlds by sharing responsibility. Nature has even provided testosterone to shape this relationship. Ignore it at your peril.
Noel, London, UK
It seems odd that parenting, which is after all a lifestyle choice, should afford those who have chosen this lifestyle special rights over those of us without children (I am infertile). If individuals or couples choose to start a family they should be willing, like our grand-parents, to take the consequences, rather that demanding that their employers and colleagues bend over backwards to aid them. If you do not want the problems associated with looking after children the solution is simple. Remain celibate.
Steve, London, UK
Absolute rot of an article. My husband works flexi-time and is also permitted to work from home one day a week. This means his boss gets more out of him than less. It meant last tuesday he could take my daughter for her photograph to be taken at playgroup without me having to take the day off (and before you start I only work two days a week but the photos were unfortunately on one of my work days). He then made up the time lost taking and picking her up when she had gone to bed. Better than some people I know who have less flexible employers and therefore would have 'pulled a sickie', or some fathers who would have said 'sorry work comes first' and she would have missed out.
carol, Leicester, UK
Fine in theory but what about those parents who just take advantage? Having worked for a good number of years with "working mothers" it has become abundantly clear that the majority only care about leaving the office on time.
The working mum who is currently my superior (and who has a 4-day week contract (10 hours/day and 5 days pay) thinks nothing of getting into the office at 10.30 after the nursery drop, taking a full hour's lunch break to pop in and see the kids, and then leaving at 4.30 to make dinner and get the kids ready for bed in addition to taking her "kids day" on fridays. And all this despite the fact that her partner is a "stay-at-home dad" so he can take care of the children.
But what can you say - when i've raised the issue of needing more senior support i was reminded that being a mother is the most important job in the world and that i couldn't possibly understand. I suppose i'd mind less if i wasn't picking up all the work that she can't be bothered to do.
Jasmina, London, UK
I think that flexible working arrangements for fathers are a brilliant idea
I am a mother and will be going back to work soon for four days a week. I anticipate doing almost exactly the same amount or work as before.
My job involves a lot of thinking and problem solving as I am a software developer. After a certain number of hours the more work I do the less progess I make. In fact I often stay late stuck on a difficult problem and get nowhere. Then the following morning I come in and the solution looks blindingly obvious.
As quite rightly I am going to be paid 80%of my previous salary I think that my company is going to get a good deal. I am very happy as well as I will be spending an extra day with my daughter every week.
The statistics show that the British spend a long time at work but have very low productivity compared to other European workers. I suspect that if we work fewer hours it will have no negative impact on our economy and we will all be much happier.
Nicole, London,
It should be possible for a very large number of people of any gender to telework let alone flexi-work in the traditional manner. The technology exists; however, the attitude of many employers is closet Dickensian. No real progress will be made while the belief is maintained that no one is working unless you can see them sweating at the workplace. No real progress will be made in any effective ( and incidentally pollution-saving) working until legislation is given teeth to enforce it without the cumbersome & expensive need to invoke employment tribunals. As a employment specialist of over 40-years I believe I have reasonable empirical evidence of the failures of change without specific legislation with teeth.
F. Drake, Kamilari, Greece
I'm always offended when people stereotype workers without children as twenty-somethings with nothing better to do in the evenings but drink. What about people with other serious interests or obligations? People of all ages can have elderly and/or sick relatives to take care of. And lots of people have sustained commitments outside their jobs, whether to community organizations or to the bands they play in. People should be able to make commitments in these areas and keep them, bearing in mind that they should consider their employers' schedules before taking on specific activities.
That said, busy people have to manage their time. If something is due on Wednesday and you know you won't be in the office, FINISH IT ON TUESDAY. Stay late if you have to, or work the previous Sunday. The boss is in a better position to do this than anyone else, because he or she can schedule all the internal deadlines as well as his or her own work. But some people don't do this very well.
M.C., Washington DC, USA
Total nonsense of an article. The whole point of flexible working is just that and should be adapted to each situation. Unfortunately there are still a lot of employers who are not embracing flexible working. I also don't understand the article where it says that people are not working less hours. That's not the point of flexible working. Its too fit in with people taking children to or from school and dealing with the incidents that happen during a child's life. I think the best age to change flexible working to is 11 years old and not 16 however.
Mark Davies
Cardiff
Mark Davies, CARDIFF, UK
Thank-you marie,
i think Britain's attitude also shows how narrow their forethought is when it comes to the international environment. Most big companies have offices all around the world so flexi-hours makes little difference since people are working different hours anyway. In fact it is an advantage for the company since it means there is easier to deal with things quickly if people are working earlier or later hours. For instance this week someone sent me an important email at 9 am their time, but because I was working at 7 my time I was able to deal with it straight away instead of it being held up for two hours whils I got to work. people who seem to think flexi-hours hold up business need to live in the real world where most workers are dotted around various time zones, have commitments outside their work, and are grown-up enough to be able to deal with flexi-hours, working fro home etc and do not need a nanny firm.
Zara, Dk,
You said it yourself "Anyone who has kids will confirm that even the most stressful positions in industry don't compare with the demands of childcare" and "45 per cent said that they ended up working more because the job started to intrude more on their leisure time". So stop whining about working a few late nights because it cuts into your social life! Your boss would be better off getting rid of you and hiring someone who goes home on time, to bath the kids, then spends the rest of the evening working. Works fine for me.
Peter, London, England
I used to be an employer running a small firm which paid and treated its staff well. I now run a business without staff and have no plans ever to employ any. The employer, small, medium or national is loaded up by the Government with endless red tape while employment law is so heavily in the employees' favour that employers can (and do) find themselves retaining dishonest, idle or incompetent people just to avoid huge amounts of time and money fighting unfair dismissal. It's not just flexi-working or maternity/paternity leave (with which I agree in principle) but the whole caboodle of entitlements. In practice, it can grind a small firm into the ground and make the whole enterprise pointless. The upshot is fewer jobs and opportunities available. I don't have any clever answers but making employing people ever more burdensome for employers trying to keep afloat isn't very bright either.
anne, bournemouth,
Here here Zara. The UK is a miserable, mysogynist society Surely it can't be that hard to have core hours and EVERYONE get flexi time if they want it?
And on that point, why are employers forced to allow home working for those that can? Wouldn't it solve the traffic and environment problems in one go? The reason is that UK employers are too bloody paranoid to trust their staff.
Marie Borard, Hemel Hempstead, UK
"What makes a childless person's rights inferior to those with a family? Families are the framework of our society? Well underpaid, slaving single twentysomethings put in their shift, too."
Yes, but underpaid, slaving single twentysomethings do not (yet) have the responsibility of raising the next generation. I would prefer that those who do have this responsibility were given the time, skills and (sadly often necessary) incentives to do so properly, if only so the feral runts don't try to mug us worker bees. There is such a thing as society and we all have responsibilities as well as rights.
JK, London, UK
The example in the article is a silly one. If a project was that urgent the manager (male or female) would postpone his day off with possibly working from home so that childcare is covered.
I work from home and have informal flex-time which actually translates into me doing 60+hrs a week. I have always worked when it has been necessary. I have a Global remit so often find I need to do calls at odd hours, I'm happy to do this if I can then take a 1/2 break and meet my children from school.
My provisio on the example is some companies seem to run in a state of perpetual urgency with frequent deadlines which burn their people out. In those circumstances going ahead and taking the morning off might be a good idea !
Pat, Reading,
Dave from Slough:
"Harriet Harman, being female ... has absolutely NO IDEA of the realities of a man's career, and should keep her mouth firmly shut. "
So being female means you have absolutely no idea of the realities of a man's career?
I'm a 23-year-old female Cambridge graduate earning £60k plus bonus as a management consultant in a top-tier strategy consulting firm. That real enough for you?
x, London, UK
Well it works in every other country where it has been implemented properly. Perhaps f Britain did not work it as a way to create resentment of paents then it would be ok. Why is Britain so different from other countries? These other countries are more sucessful than Britain so why cn Britain not follow suit and adopt flexi-hours for everyone
Zara, Dk,
Typical Britain, get a great idea and mess it up? In Scandanavia we have flexi hours but it is not seen as an excuse to hate women and sy they should not be able to work. Instead every person, male, female, parent, childless has flexi-hours automatically. Everyone must be there for the core hours (9-3) but the other hours are optional. We can work up to thirty extra hours, in order to get free time, but it can only be taken with permission as with other holidays. Parental leave is shared between mother and father (nine months in total, they decide who takes what time), and mothers and fathers have equal rights and responsibilities over their children whether they are married or divorced. In Britain flexi hours are given to mothers, there re no core hours so it gets silly, women must take all the parental leave, and mothers get all the responsibility over children when they re married nd all the rights over them when they are divorced. No wonder you are the most miserable in Europe.
Zara, Dk,
Surely the idea here is to give couples with children greater freedom. As an ambitious women senior manager with two young children I have for years been fighting against the 'its always the woman who has to compromise' argument, as my lower earning, no further ambition husband hides behind the 'my boss wouldn't like it' 'its not done in my line of work' excuse not to request time off or ask for a shorter working week. Giving more acceptance to the idea that couples share responsibility for their children and allowing them (not society) to sort out between themselves who should take a backseat on the ladder career if necessary, would be a huge step forward. Women may want it all but does that have to mean that they have to do it all.
Louise, Newbury, Berks
There is a second factor at work here. The City, law, advertising and the like are where younger men are making their mark, and a climate of fear, competition, long hours and big financial rewards is fostered. Consequently, they can be exploited. Older men, who have experienced how take-overs, mergers and acquisitions, redundancy, coming second and not catching the boss's eye - or catching his eye just as he gets promoted or replaced - affect their careers, are less easy to push around. They don't buy the hype any more. It's also why you find so many older men with extremely successful work-life balances while the younger ones struggle.
Harriet Harman, being female, an aristocrat's niece, and married to a Trade Union leader, has absolutely NO IDEA of the realities of a man's career, and should keep her mouth firmly shut.
Dave, Slough,
having children is achoice not a right even though it does benefit the greater good of society, population replenishing, future pension payments by the young. But whata bout those who chose not to have kids, why should they cover for thsoe who made their choices. The government is pushing single moms to go back tow ork so this contradicts with flexible working to the age of 16 unless our taxes will be sued to subsidise these people.
miguel vargas, LONDON, uk
Now that the roundheads have women completely conned into working 24/7, it's time for them to do the same for men. And if your job isn't stressful enough, you can now have the added burden of 'flexible' working. And if you don't have children yourself, you will have lots of opportunities to "support" your colleagues' flexible working arrangements.
Sounds like a sure-fire recipe for workplace resentment to me.
Sarah N., London, UK
MPs must be so bleary eyed and exhausted by the time 10 PM division calls occurs they'll vote on anything without thinking just to get home.
MARK KLEIN, M.D., OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
What can we expect when the government limits the House sittings to be more 'family orientated', after-all they are only discussing the running of our country, nothing important, well not as important as reading Johnny his bedtime story!
The nationalisation of Northern rock was a prime example, MPs had to prioritise what they felt were the more important issues in order to discuss them during the alloted time, even then some topics had to be curtailed, as MPs their loyalty must be to the country first and family second, as with most employee's they know what the position entails, and the commitment expected when they apply for the job, but once in power the government changed the rules to suit.
Unfortunately we are not in the position of a private sector employer, who will either over-look you for promotion or not employ you in the firts place if he thinks you are not going to give the firm your full commitment, children are for the weekend, that is unless your working!
Leslie Corrin, Southport, England