Courting the Tory vote
According to the news, the Conservative party is worried about losing the female vote. The Times reported on Monday what it said was internal research showing a big drop-off of female support for the party. Questions are being asked about whether the Party is perceived as having disproportionately targeted women for cuts, given that they make up the majority of both public sector workers and users of public services. Last week's unemployment figures, for instance, showed that the young and "part-timers" were the biggest losers in the latest round of job cuts. Ironically, the same day there were reports that Conservative Party advisers are suggesting that shared parental leave, the right to request flexible working and maternity leave be cut, if only for the smaller employers. It is hard to see that this will bring all those women scurrying back to the Tory Party.
The argument is that this legislation creates too much bureaucracy for businesses and makes it difficult for them to plan ahead. The idea behind sharing parental leave in the first year, though, is that businesses lose women for less time than in the past as men get more involved in the childcare. This will also make it harder for employers to discriminate against women since all parents will be having time off, but shorter chunks of it. This may indeed be what part of the objection is about.
There is a serious issue here, though, which is that small companies living on a tight budget do struggle with maternity cover and it may be easier for larger companies to cover smaller chunks of time off than smaller ones. However, many of the same small organisations complained about extending maternity leave to one year. One wonders what then would be their preferred length of maternity leave, given that women are not going to stop having babies, or are we saying that women [or if shared parenting takes off, parents] are just too expensive and difficult to employ? What then will we do in a few years' time when shifting demographics tell us that the workforce will be crying out for those very women?
And would not the same argument also extend to people who might suffer serious illnesses or accidents or those with other caring responsibilities, in fact to the majority of the population? It seems a bit ill-thought out to base your business model on having a full complement of staff in perpetuity. Most women only have two periods of maternity leave in their lifetime and, according to Workingmums' annual survey, a third take less than six months out even with the current guarantee of up to a year off.
Cutting flexible working legislation when many of the most progressive companies have brought it in for all employees on the basis that it makes good business sense also seems unlikely to win female votes. The process gives employees some sort of protection and makes it into a negotiation process rather than giving all the power to the employer. Surely in these days of employee engagement, where maintaining a motivated staff and boosting productivity are key, that makes sense for both employers and employees?
It would be good to see a more reasonable discussion of the issues around employment rights. Too many of the reported proposals on changes to employment rights seem focused only on a short term knee-jerk reaction and could risk longer term economic disaster.
View Mum on the Run's other Blog Entries
Post this entry to:
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Newsvine
|
Reddit
There are currently no comments on this post.