That's what many of us want to do when we feel our employer is being unfair but few of us, especially with two young children, have the courage to go through with it. But that's exactly what Kellie Simmons from Manchester did when the company she worked for refused to give her flexible working. Kellie's experience is common for those earning less than 40,000, new research suggests. High earning parents who make more than 70,000 a year are much more likely (47%) to work flexibly than those earning between 10,000 and 40,000, according to a poll of 1,000 working parents carried out by the charity Working Families. The research also showed the majority of working parents regularly put in extra hours at work, with a quarter saying they worked at least five extra unpaid hours a week.
To the editor: George Skelton makes some good points on why President Trump won. However, he ignores one major reason: Trump pitted white working-class voters against minority working-class voters. It's an old story in California, to which anyone who has lived through the last couple of decades can attest. Our state's history is rife with examples of politicians who have benefited from setting the poor of many races against one another. The difference, of course, is that this time, the story went national.
Traditional workplace hours of 9am to 5pm are now only the norm for a minority of workers, research suggests. Just 6% of people in the UK now work such hours, a YouGov survey found. Almost half of people worked flexibly with arrangements such as job sharing or compressed hours, allowing them to juggle other commitments, it found. Anna Whitehouse, a campaigner whose own flexible working request was refused by her employer, said there were still misconceptions about such arrangements. In her case, her employer refused her request for 15 minutes flexibility at the start and end of each day to enable her to drop off and pick up her children from nursery.