Flexibility debate

Posted by Jenni Colwill on 23 October 2008 | 0 Comments

Tuesday night's panel (Michael Rose, Todd Sampson and Jane Caro) discussed the pros and cons of flexible work practices at an evening sponsored by ANZ for NFAW in Sydney.

The panel stimulated a very lively debate with the audience about the benefits for employers who provide flexibility for workers, and whether employers in Australia would be more interested in workplace flexibility if the issue was not seen as a women's issue, or even worse, as a 'feminist' issue.

While all three panel members, and most of the audience, thought that it would be some time before employers would understand the benefits they might gain by providing workplace flexibility, Todd Sampson and Jane Caro disagreed on the latter question - whether employers will only become interested when the issue is seen as important for men as well as for women.

The audience also appeared to be divided on this point, and the result was a noisy debate that was kept under control by the skillful moderation of Catherine Fox.

Jane Caro impressed with her quick wit (so sharp it was rapier-like) and her ability to sum up the feeling of many of those present in a few words. Todd Sampson, who is suffering from primary carer enlightenment pains (they often occur soon after the birth of your first child) was in strong agreement with Jane and Michael about the benefits employers can gain, and equally strongly disagreed about the merits of the issue being driven primarily by women.

He believes that until men think it is important, employers will remain disinterested.

Michael Rose is an employer, and he is interested. He is in a position to actually influence change in his own organisation - Allens Arthur Robinson - and he has. Many of those attending the evening from that legal firm are already working under flexible working arrangements.

All in all, it was a good night. The debate was honest, intelligent and got down to the real issues. Thanks ANZ.