Evan Harris MP is backing the bill to extend

[magic104]

the right to flexibility to parents with children up to the age of 18.
I am looking for a short telephone chat - or emailed quote if needs be - from a working parent from Oxfordshire, with a child over the age of 6, who would welcome this move.
Their quote needs to explain their current situation - although not details of their employer - and how flexibility would make their life more manageable and rewarding.
I can be contacted on this email for the rest of today and all of tomorrow.
But would prefer a call tomorrow on 07863 328300.
Thanks
Debbie Waite.
Oxford Mail

 

[airedale]

How about flexibility for ALL workers so that they are ALL treated equally - i.e. atm the non-rugrat-breeding employee is actively discriminated against by the current situation.

I'd like to have a job with flexibility to suit MY family needs - i.e. my family of horses !!! Job flexibility would definitely make my life more manageable and rewarding as I'd be able to enjoy my horses and still work.

I'm sure this applies to others on this forum.

This sort of 'pro-kiddie' legislation actively discriminates against the childless (and I spent 30 years as a carer for elderly parents - and didn't get any 'flexibility' from my employer for THAT) in a similar manner to active discrimination against Christians by the current 'fad' for ensuring there isn't any discrimination against non-Christians.

How about just having abill to allow ALL employees flexibilty - not just those that happen to breed rug-rats

 

[magic104]

Well pass on your views to Evan Harris then. But to add to the debate, children are the future work force. Our horses, dogs etc do not contribute to the econimics of any country, our children do, (in the main). When I first had my daughter there was no "flexibility" and no real help with child care, which made if impossible to work for the 1st 2yrs. If you want things changed then you need to lobby your MP. This was posted because & I repeat, there are a lot of people on here with strong views, this is their opportunity to get them viewed. I am not saying you are not intitled to your views, but if you feel that strongly perhaps as I said you should be speaking to your MP. For all the other childless people, I did not have my daughter until I was 30, not once in all my time did I ever begrudge parents their child benifit, any time they needed when their child was sick etc. For the sake repeating myself if you or anyone wants the government to take into account people who have to look after elderly relatives then do something about it. Though I do know that our YO & his sister had the same situation & somehow qualified for homehelp. There are many things in this country that do not make sense. My ex never got one penny from this country when he was diagnoised with a brain tumour & had to take time off work. He then could only go back PT, his co were less then supportive, that's life! Yet someone who is suppose to have a disabliity (which I might add has never stopped them riding & there are no outward signs of any disablility), earns money on the side as a cleaner, has disability allowance and has her car subsidised.

 

[airedale]

understand your views as well - but you are wrong in one thing. Our horses, dogs, cats, etc DO contribute significantly to the economics of this and other countries. The amount that people typically spend on their 'pets' is astronomical. (You just have to look at some of the posts on here about rugs, tack, trailers, saddles, etc, then there are farriers, vets, feed, and we even keep the local authority bridleways person partially in employment !!)

what you are saying in regard to your ex is exactly my point.

EVERYONE should be entitiled to flexibility in working - NOT just those with rug rats.

 

[magic104]

But someones "rug rat" shoes your horse, produces the feed, rugs, tack etc. Qualifies to become a vet to treat your horse/dog etc. And you were/are someones "rug rat" . What I meant by animals not contributing to the economy was exactly that, it is humans that contribute, just because you chose to spend your money on them, does not mean they are contributing, because they are not. If we never had another dog, cat or horse or even any animal our world would not grind to a halt, for the simple reason we do on rely on them. On the otherhand, without humans the world would end up going back to nature. Because no matter how intelligent, their is not one animal capable of producing anything on it's own except s~it. And that is what I meant by contributing, not indirectly but directly contributing.