[Closed] One for the employers, how much leeway...

Legal requirements aside, it depends how good they are.

Depends on the size of the business and the role in reality. Huge corporations can accomodate this where there are several people doing the same job, but for SMEs and smaller the reality is that it's difficult, so they would tend not to fish in the same recruitment pool in the first place. Again, legal issues asside employing men, rather than women of child baring age would be a much safer bet.

IMO its all about what is reasonable. You need to check the legal stuff as IIRC you have an obligation to consider part time working / hours alterations to help parents but you are not obliged to give them the hours they want.

If you value the employee and you can accommodate them - why not? If it causes your business difficulties then no.

What if the man became a single parent while working for you.?

I don't see any reason why a small business couldn't (and shouldn't) accommodate flexible working. Employee retention is more of an issue for SMEs, so offering good working conditions to your employees makes good business sense IMO.

woody2000 - SME employee, male and currently asking for (slightly) fewer hours at work!

What difference does being a single parent make BTW?

[i]What if the man became a single parent while working for you.? [/i]

May I refer my learned friend to my first response.

I have refused them in the past where I have one full time role reporting to me and that person wants to go part time, I found offered a part time role at the same level in the company and it was refused and the person resigned. So if you can't accommodate it, refuse it?

Perhaps you could try the radical business position of giving a sh1t about your employees welfare?

If they have just become a single parent think how hard they are struggling to balance work and additional demands [time and financial] at present.

@ junkyard - Do you think he doesn't?

I have no idea nor does anyone from what he posted. Nonetheless a fair point it does sound sh1ttier than I meant it to do.
Sorry OP

It depends in circumstances. One of my top earners lost her husband and has moved away from the area. She now works two days in the office and the rest at home. Not my ideal scenario but it works because she is reliable and trustworthy. And if I'm honest the money she makes us made the difference.

I start with I would like to see more, but most orgs are now pulling back from it. Seems from the orgs point of view part timers are more clock orientated.

From a people point of view Part time in the UK often ends up a way of working normal full time for half pay,

Consider how much they actually do now and what they, you think they will do. You could have a trial period.

You're legally bound to consider a request for part-time hours - no question about it.

I only employ freelances, but if anybody had their circumstances change then of course I'd let them work less hours. They're all good workers and that's why I use them, I'd be spiting myself if I cut them loose completely.

I reckon that most small service companies (and I include mine) are inefficient to the extent that most full-time employees could drop 20% (Ie, a day) of their office time if they actually worked all the time they were there.

EDIT: Yes I see the irony of this comment being posted on STW during work hours.

If I'm being honest as an employer it depends on how good an asset the individual is to the company and what role they are playing (admin, production etc etc).

I have employed single parents in the past but thats because the hours offered fitted around school hours. It was down to them to make arrangements during the school holidays for the little one to be looked after, unless they took their holiday entitlement during this time. If they couldn't arrange cover during this time or the kid was sick and they needed to look after them then i normally let them work from home as i trusted them to get the work done. Some single parents can be nightmares to employ (as can non single parents) but we find that this normally rears its head within the 6 month probation period so isn't a long term problem!

Agree with bigsi.

My staff half traditionally been women of "child bearing age" and, regardless of whether they are single or not, they can be a nightmare.

Sweeping generalisation i know but, with a man (or a single non-parent woman) the only person's health that is an issue for the employer is the employee. With a working mother, you need to factor in the kids' health, and the childminder/carer. It can be incredibly frustrating trying to remain responsive to your customers and at the same time appreciating the plight of the employee. I often find that the other staff get lumbered with extra work and that can cause resentment.

algarvebairn - perhaps while you are back there in the middle ages you could pick up a few chastity belts to fit your female staff with, then it won't be an issue...

Hels in femanist rant shocker!
😆

edit: actually that's unfair to femanists - your comment was just ignorant.

And flippant !

I don't have kids and think it's grossly unfair that it's the only serious consideration to apply work less hours. I could survive on less money and ride my bike more often but no...

And don't start me on the extreme unfairness of maternity leave for women who don't have children - can I have 6 months off on half pay please ?? I promise I will never ever have a baby and want more time.

Hels makes a good point. As part of their duty of care employers should provide suitable protective equipment 🙂

hels can I have your last post in English?
EDIT: Yeah Health and Safety gone mad when you cant provide your staf with a chastity belt I tell yer.

>Sweeping generalisation i know but, with a man

And I suspect the reason for that in many cases is that the bloke expects his missus to handle that end of things !

Sweeping generalisation i know but, with a man (or a single non-parent woman) the only person's health that is an issue for the employer is the employee.

Rubbish - if my wife is ill then i have to assume child care responsibilities. Fortunately my employer is considerate enough to accommodate this !

I did say that it was a sweeping generalisation and if you knew the other stuff I do for my staff you wouldn't suggest I was being medieval: I have picked up their kids from school because it was raining; I changed the annual staff night out to a day out with kids invited; When one of the kids was in hospital we organised fundraisers; my wife has childminded on occasion. I said it was frustrating not that I didn't undertsand.

Climbs down from his high horse.

All my staff bar one are women with children, one is a single mum who works part time, I employ mums because they are generally more reliable, and more organised, and I know when they're going to need/want time off, (school holidays)and luckily the business I'm in means I can offer them flexible working.

unless the workload absolutely dictated a full time post, then why not part time, or a job share?