SWBG blog

Women’s Work: The Juggling Act of Multiple Jobs

Guest blog by Louise Lawson, Lecturer in Public Policy and Health Policy in the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow

The exhibition ‘Women’s Work: The Juggling Act of Multiple Jobs’ built on research based at the University of Glasgow exploring women’s low paid employment, highlighting issues around multiple paid and unpaid work, caring responsibilities and health and wellbeing. The project and exhibition provided unique and timely insights into the key features of the women’s work, caring and health, detailing the lived experience of multiple low-paid employment in the UK today.  The exhibition will be turned into an online resource and will be available for charities and third sector organisations. It showcases a selection of the research findings alongside artworks and filmed personal testimonies of women working multiple jobs.

Over 100 women were interviewed for the research project. The sheer hard work of many women working multiple jobs was striking: many working five, six or seven days a week, early starts, non-standard hours, stretched hours, but still “skint”, “working for nothing”, and “squeezing it all in”. Many felt their work lacked recognition and value: “we are just numbers”, “absolutely done in”, and “one day I will not have to suffer this”. Metaphors were used to describe the often relentless nature of multiple low-paid work: “juggling act”, feeling like a “hamster in a wheel”, “on a rollercoaster”, “forever on a loop”. Yet there were also stories of joy and determination with some women dedicated to and finding fulfilment from their work, seeing it as a route to something better and optimistic for the future”.

Have your Say

A key aim of the project was to give voice to women in multiple low-paid employment, and to provide opportunities to raise the profile of women’s work, paid and unpaid. We are taking our research findings to the Scottish Parliament at the end of May.

If you are working multiple jobs, or have experience of working multiple jobs, and would like further information or some involvement in our work then please contact Louise Lawson louise.lawson@glasgow.ac.uk

 

Recognising the needs of parents of multiples in the upcoming Programme for Government

Joint blog by Carmen Martinez, SWBG's Coordinator, and Carole Erskine, Head of Policy & Campaigns at Pregnant then Screwed Scotland.

The last couple of weeks have seen Scotland gripped by political turmoil, and for the second time in just over a year, the country has a new First Minister. The Scottish Women’s Budget Group and Pregnant then Screwed Scotland would like to congratulate Mr Swinney on his appointment and take this opportunity to highlight one of our shared asks for the upcoming Programme for Government: extending the funded Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) offer (1140 hours) to children of multiple births at the earlier age of 2, alongside children from the vulnerable category group.

Current context 

In August 2021, the Scottish Government introduced a new funded ELC offer, which provides all families with up to 1140 hours per year funded childcare for all three- and four-year-olds. Two-year-olds from households facing the most socio-economic disadvantage also qualify, with the Scottish Government using this investment to improve outcomes for children. 

While our organisations recognise that targeted support is needed for low-income families, the reality is that with the average cost of a full-time nursery place for an under three being £13,861.12¹ per year, more and faster action is required to improve affordability and accessibility of childcare in Scotland. We are campaigning for universal childcare offered to families from the end of maternity, though we recognise  this is something that might take a bit longer to achieve. In the meantime  it is crucial that the upcoming Programme for Government takes into account the particular circumstances that parents of multiples find themselves in.

A's story 

Perhaps no one can illustrate this issue better than ‘A’, a mother we have been in touch with for the last few months. Here is her story:

“I am a teacher, and my salary is £53,000 as I have a promoted post. My local nursery has put fees up from £56-£73 over the past year and a half, this will only continue to rise. I know that this increase has a huge impact on many families, but can you imagine having 2 or more children to pay childcare for when you have a multiple birth. As a family we have a mortgage which is cheaper than rent at £870, and we own one car, we have no credit cards or overdrafts and carefully planned our second pregnancy. My childcare costs per week will be £700, £600 for the twins’ nursery fees and £100 for my child’s morning and after school club. For a four-week month, this will equate to £2800 and for a five-week month this will be £3500. You get no discounts for twins attending nursery and I have had to take two years off work as the waiting list for twins has been longer and the earliest I could get a place was August 2025 (the nursery stated that as I have twins this adds to the pressures of them finding me a place earlier ). My take home salary after pension and student loan fees is roughly £2700 so ultimately, I cannot afford to go back to work. This will mean that when the mortgage renewal is up next year, we face the possibility of having to sell our home as both incomes are needed. It truly is working poverty. No matter how many times I think this can’t be, the truth is that this is now our reality.

In Scotland in 2022, there were 622 twin births and 9 triplet births. This was 1.36% of all maternities or 1 in 74. Currently unless you are on benefits there is no support for parents of multiples towards childcare costs or anything which you need times 2 or 3.

At a recent conference which I attended based on childcare provisions in Scotland all the organisations present stated that little to no consideration had been given to the extra financial burden which parents of multiples face. I am worried that the voices of those with multiples are not being considered and it must be as we suffer more so than any other parents due to increasing childcare costs.

I think everyone in society would agree that those with multiples need extra support, everyone who I meet asks how will I be able to afford childcare as it’s bad enough paying for one , my answer is always ‘ I don’t know ‘ , for the first time in my life I do not know whether I can afford to go back to work to a job I love and that I have worked so hard to achieve and I face the prospect of losing our home.  We cannot be forgotten when making family and childhood policies, we deserve better, and we need support”.

What we are asking for

The lack of consideration of the unique position of parents of multiples in the ELC policy is likely to have been an oversight. 

That’s why we ask the First Minister to recognise the needs of parents of multiples, and to include them within the policy guidelines as part of any changes to the ELC offer in his upcoming Programme for Government 2024/2025.

 

Footnotes

1. Childcare costs: How much do you pay in Scotland?

Flexible childcare, an ideal or a necessity? A summary

The Scottish Women’s Budget Group (SWBG) is hosting a series of events focusing on the need to further invest in childcare in Scotland. To mark International Women’s Day, we delivered the second webinar of this series, Flexible childcare, an ideal or a necessity?

Our Childcare Survey 2023 found that women on low incomes, such as those working in the hospitality and retail sector, were less able to access the 30 hours funded Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) offer in Scotland, currently available to children aged 3 or 4, and some eligible 2-year-olds, due to a lack of flexibility in service provision.

This webinar sought to discuss this issue and explore alternative childcare models and other solutions, such as flexible working, so services can better respond to the needs of families in a modern Scotland. The webinar featured:

• Dr Aleksandra Webb’s research, supported by the UWS-Oxfam Partnership, on the childcare challenges faced by mothers in Scotland's performing arts sector.
• Perspectives from childcare providers offering flexible services via Flexible Childcare Services Scotland.
• Other solutions, such as the role that flexible working policies can play in supporting families, discussed by Lisa Gallagher, Co-Founder and Director at Flexibility Works.

 

Why do we need flexible childcare services?

Dr Aleksandra Webb’s research helps show us.

Focusing on mothers whose job (fully or partially) involves performing on stages, on radio or similar, it provides a glimpse into the difficulties experienced by women whose work does not adhere to the traditional 9-5 schedule.  

It’s clear that managing work and childcare is difficult for mother-performers. Their work conflicts with existing childcare provision, as nurseries tend to be inflexible and incompatible with work patterns in the performing arts and entertainment sector, which can mean mothers often lose out on the statutory state-funded ‘free’ hours.  This problem continues for school age children, with a lack of suitable ‘wrap-around’ childcare outside of normal school hours, such as breakfast or after-school clubs.

Mother-performers also struggle to find suitable childcare solutions particularly when they lack personal networks through which unpaid childcare can be provided. Finally, Aleksandra drew attention to what’s called the ‘double pay’ penalty, which happens when mother-performers pay for regular childcare fees as well as any childcare costs during periods when artists perform away from home.

Two key policy learnings emerge from these findings:  

• Firstly, greater recognition of the needs of parents working in non-standard forms of paid employment is crucial. This means increasing funding for and improving access to flexible childcare services, including wraparound childcare.
• Secondly, childcare solutions should be co-designed with parents, including those working out with standard forms of paid employment. 

Is it possible to deliver childcare flexibly?

In short, yes.

While Aleksandra’s presentation centered around the reasons why the availability of flexible childcare services is crucial for gender equality, Susan McGhee, CEO at Flexible Childcare Services Scotland  (FCSS), put the focus on ‘how’ to make this possible from a provider’s perspective, and the difference it makes for families.  

Flexible Childcare Services Scotland was created in response to parents being unable to take up employment or education offers due to lack of high quality, flexible, accessible and affordable childcare services. Starting as a pilot project in Dundee, it scaled up to its current form, with seven settings across Scotland.

Amongst its different features, this service offers the possibility of making bookings (and payments) by the hour, changing booking patterns week to week, requiring no deposits or holiday retainers, and can cater for children and young people, from birth to 16 years.

The results speak for themselves, boosting incomes and improving parents’ mental health:  

• 77% of parents using the service said that flexible childcare options helped them work more.
• 48% said that their household income had increased by 0-£2,000 per year.
• 12% it increased by £2,000 - £5,000 per year.
• 21% said their household income had increased by £5,000 + per year.

The survey also showed that more than half of the families using the service fall within the ‘priority groups’ identified by the Scottish Government as part of their efforts to deliver Scotland’s legal child poverty targets, including that fewer than 10% of children live in relative poverty by 2030.

Of course, there are difficulties running a service where there are no set bookings, but it’s still based on occupancy levels that guarantee business sustainability.

To help achieve this, Susan explained that FCSS uses Caerus, a ground-breaking childcare management software designed to help providers advertise and manage their services to offer a flexible model. She believes this software will allow FCSS to increase the scale of flexible childcare in Scotland.

While achieving maximum occupancy is harder using this type of model, delivering childcare flexibly is also more expensive due to higher labour hourly rates and other additional costs linked to providing wraparound care. However, Susan highlighted that this investment also puts money directly back into families’ pockets, further reducing poverty and boosting the local economy.

What other solutions exist?

Our final speaker, Lisa Gallagher, from Co-Founder and Director at Flexibility Works, got us thinking about how childcare and flexible working complement each other when it comes to helping parents (particularly mothers) balance their life and work commitments. Additionally, flexible working can also help businesses, the wider society and the economy by making it easier for employees to stay in work.

Flexible working can be about where someone works, when someone works and how much someone works. In other words, flexible working ensures workers have more autonomy over working patterns, which in turn can help with saving on costs, including childcare (i.e. breakfast clubs). Unsurprisingly, at 25%, the top reason why people work or want to work flexibly is due to childcare needs, according to Flexibility Works’ own research, followed by wellbeing (17%) and mental health (10%).

Flexible working is not just for office workers. While it might be difficult for those in frontline services to fully work flexibly, Lisa says there is still a degree of flexibility that can be applied to all professions. In relation to this point, she shared 10 practical actions which frontline workers say make a difference to their work/life balance, such as working compressed hours or being given time to pop out for small amounts of time during working time.

The benefits of flexible working:

• 66% of women looking to get back into work say being able to work flexibly was ‘essential’ for them to take up employment.
• 76% of unemployed adults looking for work have turned down a job because it wasn’t flexible.
• 35% of working women said that flexible working supports them to stay employed and support themselves and their families.
• 71% of employers said flexible working has been good for them; reducing sickness or increase the quantity and quality of candidates during recruitment while maintaining productivity.

While the focus of the webinar was about the role of ‘flex’ in supporting families to balance work and caring commitments, the benefits of flexible working go beyond this, and as such, Lisa called for all public bodies to lead by example with good working practices. In relation to its links with childcare, Lisa recommended that flexible working and flexible childcare is championed as part of the economic argument within the Scottish Government’s “New Deal for Business Group” and advocated for continued support for programmes that support women to return to work, should they choose to do so.

Increasing flexible childcare offer in Scotland

The availability of a wide range of childcare services is an important part of the puzzle to support families enter, stay or improve their employment prospects. Equally, ensuring flexible working is available to parents is another crucial solution to help families balance work and life commitments, including childcare. And for women, such measures can help to close the gender gap in the labour market, improving their economic prospects.

Making care visible and recognising the economic contributions that investing in childcare, and flexible childcare, has on the wider economy will be two of the key themes that we will discuss in the third webinar of this series. Keep an eye on our socials LinkedIn, X (Twitter), Facebook and Instagram 

 

 

This webinar series is supported by Oxfam Scotland

 

Equalities, women and cuts to public services

Our Coordinator, Carmen Martinez, reflects on the way in which Aberdeenshire Council justified its decision to close their out-of-school-hours care service and the language used by the Glasgow HSCP in their EQIA Budget Report, and questions whether these are examples of a broader trend.  

A few weeks ago, Angela O’Hagan published her latest article ‘Gender Budgeting in Scotland since Devolution’ (O'Hagan, 2024), which reflects on how gender budgeting was introduced in Scotland, and its progress ever since. One of Angela’s points was about the “evaporation of gender in the framing of equalities" (O'Hagan, 2024), and the challenges that this has posed for advancing gender equality. She explains that this lack of focus has meant that the systemic issues that rely on women providing care, including unpaid care, are still to be tackled by the very economic strategies designed to transform or develop the economy (the Scottish Government’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation being a clear example of this) (O'Hagan, 2024). As a result, so much needed (and promised) change is still to materialize, at least to the extent of making a difference to women’s lives.  

The arguments and overall challenge described in the article certainly felt familiar. There is a lack of consistency in the way gender analysis is used in policymaking in Scotland, an issue that we (and other organisations across the women’s sector) often highlight through our work. Over the last few months, however, we have noticed what seems to be the beginning of a new trend which poses a further barrier to achieving the change that we want to see. I am referring to the way in which cuts to public services and/or policy programmes have been explained as a means to drive ‘equalities’ or how the co-option of language can hide the lack of public investment in services.    

A case on point is how Aberdeenshire Council has justified its decision to close their out of school care (OOSC) provision. A report written for the Council’s Education and Children’s Services Committee (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024) provides background information in relation to this service, which includes eight settings serving 15 of the 146 primary schools in Aberdeenshire and is used by 349 children (2% of primary school pupils). Current provision is down from the original 15 Council-run OOSC services set up in 2019. This is due to challenges with recruitment and retention of staff and to changing demand from parents/carers, partly explained by the impact of the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. The report also highlights that while the service was originally set up to recoup costs, this never happened, and with increasing budget pressures, it recommends that the remaining open settings close from July 2024, solving an expected overspend of £700,000 (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). From this perspective, the closure of this service is explained as a cost-management exercise. However, the report goes beyond this, citing inequities in service provision (both in terms of location of settings and the children the service is provided to), as another reason for stopping the council’s OOSC service:

“82% of children accessing local authority provision coming from Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) Deciles 8, 9 and 10 (least deprived) and no children from Deciles 1, 2 and 3 (most deprived)” (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). 

Additionally, the report refers to other issues with the current model, particularly how it "is limiting the scope of opportunity for developing the wider childcare sector", which involves private, voluntary, and independent (PVI) settings (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). The key message is as follows. The Council are subsidising a small number of children in the least deprived areas, which isn't fair or equitable, while delivery is limiting the development of the wider sector. Thus, provision of such a costly service must come to an end, particularly at a time of tight budgets.  

There are several issues in relation to how the Committee’s report presents the information leading to the recommendation on the closure of the Council’s service. For example, the use of the SIMD, while helpful, does not tell us anything about ‘who’ will be directly affected and in what ways. The report’s impact assessment shows that some consideration has been given to the impact on women and low-income groups. While this is slightly at odds with the argument about ‘inequities in service provision’, the main issue here is the use of ‘equalities’ as a reason to close the service. Why? Because it detracts attention from the consequences that the lack of wraparound care will have on women, their ability to seek or retain paid work, and the repercussions of this for gender equality. In other words, the Council’s decision seems to miss sight of the systemic barriers that ultimately create the conditions for women’s inequality and poverty.  

The danger is that, with increasingly challenging budgets, this type of reasoning becomes the norm, resulting in more gender-blind approaches to policymaking and budget setting processes.  

Another case is the language used by the Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership in their Strategic Plan for 2023-26 (Glasgow IJB, 2023) and EQIA Budget Report 2024-2025 (Glasgow HSCP, 2024). "Maximising people’s independence" is the foundation of this HSCP’s Strategic Plan, which also acknowledges that "this doesn’t mean asking people to live without any support at all" (Glasgow IJB, 2023). However, the EQIA Budget Report concedes that 

“efficiencies have been identified through the implementation of the Maximising Independence Programme (…) This option includes a reduction of 20 FTE. As a result of work to minimise the need for escalation to higher levels of formal care, there is scope for a reduction in staff in line with demand” (Glasgow HSCP, 2024). 

This puts into question whether behind the Glasgow City HSCP’s objective of "maximising people’s independence" there was an intention to provide support only when strictly necessary, contravening one of the aims of the strategic plan to "deliver services within a human-rights based approach" (Glasgow IJB, 2023).. It also lends weight to our theory about this being a case where the co-option of language hides decreases in public service provision. As a result, the ‘status quo’ prevails, and with it, the challenges faced by disabled women as highlighted in our recent work with the Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA, SWBG, 2023).

What now? 

The Scottish Women’s Budget Group will continue questioning how public bodies make budget decisions and the impact of these. At a time when women are disproportionally being affected by the cost-of-living crisis, using gender budgeting tools to scrutinise policy interventions and budget decisions is as important as ever.  

 

References

1. O'Hagan, A. (2024) 'Gender Budgeting in Scotland since Devolution', in Scottish Affairs 33.1: 72–84 . Link: Scottish-Affairs-Gender-Budgeting-2024-AOH-aeab676f04b2b794.pdf (bpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com)
2. Aberdeenshire Council, (2024) 'Report to Education and Children's Services Committee. Aberdeenshire Out-of-School Care (OOSC) Provision'. Link: 07 Aberdeenshire Out of School Care OOSC Provision.pdf (moderngov.co.uk)
   FEBRUARY 2024 07 Aberdeenshire Out of School Care OOSC Provision.pdf (moderngov.co.uk)
3. Glasgow City Integration  Joint Board (2023), "Strategic Plan for Health and Social Care 2023-2026". Link: https://glasgowcity.hscp.scot/sites/default/files/publications/IJB%20Financial%20Allocations%20and%20Budgets%202024-2025.pdf 
4. Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership (2024), "Outcome of Preliminary Equality Impact Assessments", Budget Financial Allocations. Link: IJB Financial Allocations and Budgets 2024-2025.pdf (hscp.scot) 
5. Glasgow Disability Alliance and Scottish Women's Budget Group (2023) Policy Briefing. Link: SWBG-GDA-BriefingPaper.pdf