Working mother wins human rights decision

In the 1970s feminists applied their intellectual acumen, emotional clout and political savvy to ensuring that women's work, in all its forms, was valued. The expression: 'Every mother is a working mother' became a rallying cry and women's right to work was supported. To a certain extent, this was also of benefit to men who became more engaged in childcare and educating their offspring.

In spite of the ditzy perorations of Sara "Choice for me, me, me" Landriault, there have been major advancements for working mothers - at home and in the labour force.

The sight of men pushing strollers in public places - on their own! - no longer shocks.

Yet there are still work environments who have resisted the needs of their employees' rights to fair accommodation, with regard to balancing their family responsibilities.

A Canada Border Services Agency officer who had to give up her full-time position after the birth of her first child has won a six-year battle with her employer over its failure to accommodate her. [...]

Johnstone had been working a variety of shifts as a full-time officer at Pearson Airport in Toronto and had a good record with her employers when she had her first child in 2003.

Both before going on maternity leave and before returning to work in 2004, Johnstone had asked her employer if she could come back on an altered schedule, one in which she worked three static 13-hour shifts a week, with no preferred start time. The unusual schedule was suggested so that she could care for her child on the four days she could not find available child care, while at the same time working the weekly hours needed to maintain her status as a full-time employee and retain her maximum pension.

Johnstone said because of the unpredictable shifts of the job, public or private child-care options were not available, but that she had found three days in which family members could care for her child. [...]

Her employer denied the requests, saying the Canadian Border Services Agency had an unwritten policy not to provide full-time hours to those requesting accommodation on the basis of child-rearing responsibilities. [...]

"When I asked for clarification on the policy and when I asked to come back full time they told me I couldn't and there was no reason given that was good enough," said Johnstone [...] The tribunal agreed, saying that the agency didn't establish a strong enough case that altering the schedule to accommodate Johnstone would have constituted an undue hardship for the employer and other workers.

This is a very important decision for working mothers and fathers, as well as other workers who may request an accommodation of their employer to handle family responsibilities, such as caring for a spouse ill with cancer or an elderly parent with Alzheimer's.

After all, mothers - and fathers - are working, productive members of our society.

Real choice for childcare

Every mother is a working mother. Remember that feminist affirmation from the 70s? In Québec, a popular play about stay-at-home mothers was entitled "Maman travaille pas; elle a trop d'ouvrage." - translation: Mom doesn't have a job; she's got too much work at home.

We had hoped that in spite of small gains, the world had moved beyond prejudices about working mothers, that things had evolved and some obstacles had been removed.

It would appear that Britain has taken a big step backwards. Two female detective constables were threatened with prosecution if they didn't drop the reciprocal child care support they've arranged with each other over 2 years.

The Children's Minister has ordered a review of the case of two police officers told they had broken the law by caring for each other's children.

Ofsted said the arrangement contravened the Childcare Act because it lasted for longer than two hours a day, and constituted receiving "a reward". It said the women would have to be registered as childminders.

Minister Vernon Coaker said his department was talking to Ofsted about this particular case. According to the Mail on Sunday, Ofsted told two detective constables, Leanne Shepherd, from Milton Keynes, and Lucy Jarrett, from Buckingham, to end their arrangement.

'Stunned' Ms Shepherd told the newspaper: "When the Ofsted inspector turned up, the first thing she said was: 'I have had a report that you're running an illegal childminding business'. "I straightaway thought she must be mistaken, so invited her into my home to explain we were police officers and best friends helping each other out. "But she told me I was breaking the law and must end the arrangement with Lucy immediately. "I was stunned, completely devastated... I couldn't see how I could continue working."

Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward Ofsted spokesman. ...

Thames Valley Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said the pair had its "full support". Secretary Andy Viney said: "Both of them are experienced professional officers. "They just want to return to work after having children and have found that the system is working totally against them.

Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills which inspects and regulates care for children and young people in Britain. Someone used the whistleblower's hotline to rat out Leanne and Lucy. Did this busy-body think their children were at risk, being cared for by their own mothers and a close family friend? Was it an envious neighbour or perhaps a sexist colleague?

The BBC News has an interview with officers Shepherd and Jarrett, here. And more at the Daily Mail and the Guardian.

As much as I hate to agree with Margaret Thatcher, this seems to me like the worst of a "nanny state" type of interference. Mind-boggling.