Childcare is bloody expensive!

Savvy_Sue

bugslet wrote: »

I employ red-squirrel ( I think you are female IIRC) as a long distrance truck driver. Next week you are going to go to Milan and back, then you tell me you have an antenatal appointment on Thursday morning. You will be around about Dijon at that point.

Do I pay you to stand all week. Shall I park the truck up all week?

Actually, your first step is a risk assessment. It may be deemed inadvisable for your driver to do long distances, because sitting in roughly the same position all day without being able to get up a stretch every half hour isn't ideal.

But you do know that dads now have the right to take time off to attend antenatal appointments? Unpaid, so I guess most of your drivers wouldn't do that, but it strengthens my 'it really doesn't matter if you employ men or women these days, it's not just women who want time off for having babies!' argument.

bugslet

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Actually, your first step is a risk assessment. It may be deemed inadvisable for your driver to do long distances, because sitting in roughly the same position all day without being able to get up a stretch every half hour isn't ideal.

But you do know that dads now have the right to take time off to attend antenatal appointments? Unpaid, so I guess most of your drivers wouldn't do that, but it strengthens my 'it really doesn't matter if you employ men or women these days, it's not just women who want time off for having babies!' argument.

I nearly mentioned the risk assessment. And if she couldn't ( along wiht hopping on and off the trailer), what do I do with her? There are no office jobs for her. We have some more local jobs, but that still means driving for long hours (local to us is 500 miles radius).

I did think last night after my comment about double manning in a cab, it would be something I wouldn't expect my male drivers to want to do, but even if they did, with all the stuff about harrassment, I think that would be a minefield. Sleeping in a 'compact' space with someone of the opposite sex. Yes, minefield!

I'm aware of the paternity legislation and it amounts to the same thing, what do you do when an appointment is mid week. In reality, we can and would shuffle work round (we do that, we are nice to work for and that's why people stay). And if people can schedule appointments for the start of the week or end, then maybe they can still go out.

But as you say, they'd probably not want to forgo the earning potential.;)

Tabbytabitha

Comms69 wrote: »

And I’m talking about early years parenthood.

But to spin this, so men are discriminated against in primary education? Or do they choose not to go into those careers?

Primary school education covers a completely different age group from early years parenting.

Far from being discriminated against primary education has long been predominantly a situation of female teachers with a male Head. Men often choose not to work with young children because they consider those who do to have unhealthy interests.

Comms69

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Primary school education covers a completely different age group from early years parenting.

Far from being discriminated against primary education has long been predominantly a situation of female teachers with a male Head. Men often choose not to work with young children because they consider those who do to have unhealthy interests.

I agree, but it's the next stage in a child's development.


Interesting you said that, 65% of head teachers at primary level are female. So where does your use of the word 'predominantly' come from?


As for your next point, what evidence do you have to back this up?


From a personal point of view, one nursery worker, who is male, looked after all my children - absolutely fantastic with them too.

tooldle

Comms69 wrote: »

I don’t think so, assuming you do work for a university?

Hypothetical question, you go on a training course, can you reclaim your tail fare?

Overnight conference, you get a hotel and food allowance?

Those are work events.

Going for a few drinks in the pub / student bar with colleagues. Not a work event.

A real life example for you. I’m invited to participate in an event as a role model. The event takes place in the working week and consist of five full day sessions spread over five months. I am not representing my employer but represent my status with my employer. The organisation hosting the event will not cover expenses. I cannot bill my expenses to my employer as there is no business need for me to be there. It is good for my career to do this and indirectly my employer benefits. This is not work, nor is it strictly social as i am there specifically wearing my professional hat.

Comms69

tooldle wrote: »

A real life example for you. I’m invited to participate in an event as a role model. The event takes place in the working week and consist of five full day sessions spread over five months. I am not representing my employer but represent my status with my employer. The organisation hosting the event will not cover expenses. I cannot bill my expenses to my employer as there is no business need for me to be there. It is good for my career to do this and indirectly my employer benefits. This is not work, nor is it strictly social as i am there specifically wearing my professional hat.

I would argue it's not at all work related. Your employer has no influence on the agenda or the expenses criteria.


I would expect an employer to require you to take either annual leave or unpaid leave to attend.

tooldle

Well, i am not required to take annual leave, or unpaid leave. I can undertake the activity in work time, and illustrating my point that lines are often blurred.

Comms69

tooldle wrote: »

Well, i am not required to take annual leave, or unpaid leave. I can undertake the activity in work time, and illustrating my point that lines are often blurred.

I'd suggest it's not work related. the fact work let you take it as paid time off is slightly worrying, given the environment you work in, but that's by the by.


What I don't understand is, presumably you voluntarily choose to go to these places, so what relevance is that to discrimination in a work environment?

Fitzmichael

I was born in 1941 and married in my 20s. It was still assumed that, generally, a husband's pay would cover the costs of a family, at however a meagre rate. That didn't mean a working wife was discouraged but it did mean that she could choose not to work, and usually did while the children were small (and I don't recall that grandparents were 'on-call' 5 days a week as substitutes).
My (teacher's) salary was always sufficient for our 'needs' and some savings but my teacher wife paid (from her own bank a/c, which her salary went into) for regular household purchases, inc her and children's clothes. I don't know when (how/why) a single salary became (was felt?) to be insufficient, but this was said, maybe 20 years ago in the Press, to have been due to 'govt policy' (in the Anglo world?). Nonetheless, I've been amazed at, eg, headteachers on £35-40,000 (not counting a teacher wife) who wrote that they were barely managing to survive.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but people don't have to actually have contact to see that, if they act in concert, they can take advantage of other people without their knowledge, and the huge gap in wealth that has occurred in recent years is now being said to have been allowed by similar govt shoulder-shrugging (excused by some commentators by politicians' stupid belief since M Thatcher that this wealth would 'trickle down' to the rest of us in large enough quantities for us not to rebel against it). Surely, 20 years after Mrs T - never mind now-, reality should have started to sink in.

Raven42

Easily one of the worse threads I've seen on here - including the spam ones.

Can all the judgemental folks who think their opinion is right please go back to mumsnet.

I just wish the original poster well and hope they find a way. Sorry there isn't an easy solution to your problem and you have had some of the responses you have.