With a great many of us continuing to work from home, is it levelling the playing field for working mothers who previously had to put their children before their careers? Journalist Katherine Latham, herself a mum of three young kids, takes a closer look. Something you don't learn at your antenatal classes is how hard it is to hold down a paid job and be a mum at the same time. You aren't told that you will have to make a choice: to continue on your career path, earn a good living, and realise your ambitions - or prioritise caring for your children. Studies show that it is a widespread issue. A government report last year found that almost a third of women in the UK with a child aged 14 or under had needed to cut their working hours because of childcare issues. For men it was just one in 10. Many mothers are simply unable to juggle the nursery or school runs with long commutes and stressful jobs. So they end up either reducing their hours, quitting altogether, or getting a lower paid but more local job. Previous career goals seem suddenly unachievable. But with the pandemic has come widespread home working. And it has become acceptable to do a video call with a toddler hanging around your neck or to adjust your hours to fit in with bath time. With many firms now realising their staff can successfully work remotely, and some even going as far as doing away with their offices altogether, could this be a chance for women to get back on the career ladder? When civil servant Rebecca Green, 29, found out she was pregnant two years ago she thought she'd have to reduce her hours - losing income and seriously affecting her career prospects. With her husband away in the Royal Navy for months at a time, it was going to be left to her to juggle childcare, commuting and working long hours. It promised to be stressful and tiring, and she would barely see her young daughter midweek. Then the lockdown arrived while Ms Green was on still on maternity leave. When she did return to work in the summer, it was from her home in Monmouthshire. Without a lengthy commute, she could enjoy breakfast with her daughter Bethan, and then finish work in time for tea. "It would have been difficult to fit getting Bethan to nursery and me to work, on time," says Ms Green. "Working from home has made it easier for sure. "It is much more manageable now. It wouldn't have been sustainable before." Janina Johanna Sibelius, a mother of two children, aged nine and 11 agrees that working from home has made her life easier. "My company is very understanding," says the 40-year-old, who lives in London, and works in publishing. "As long as I get the job done there is no pressure to waste hours in front of a screen just so that you can say…
Uncategorized
The boss of Ikea has told the BBC he fears that global trade tensions will lead to higher prices for customers. Jesper Brodin, chief executive of Ingka Group, which is the furniture giant's holding company, said imposing restrictions such as tariffs "normally doesn't benefit the ordinary people". Many countries have imposed new tariffs and other restrictions on imports in recent years. The trend was accentuated by the US under former President Donald Trump. And the World Trade Organization says even before the pandemic, trade restrictions were on the rise. "Normally it leads to cost increases on the product in the end of the day. And there are some concerns about that going on, not only in India but globally," Mr Brodin said in a BBC interview. Ikea has invested billions of dollars in India in ambitious expansion plans, but it imports the majority of the products it sells in the country, from furniture to kitchenware. That means it has fallen foul of higher import taxes imposed last year by Narendra Modi's government as part of his self-reliant India drive, putting it at a disadvantage when competing with domestic rivals. As in other countries, pricing is crucial and Mr Brodin suggests buying stock locally could help. "We are on the move to drive optimal sourcing and find ways with governments and within the company to try to mitigate that." Climate change responsibility Wherever those products come from, Mr Brodin is forthright about the need to make them in a way that addresses the challenges of climate change and sustainability. "I actually think Covid is teaching us to take the collective human challenges in a more serious way and a more responsible way," he says. He explains that recycling will become ever more important in minimising the impact consumption has on the planet. "Ikea's mattresses in the future cannot be based on virgin material. We need to find smarter ways. "We will be more people to share the resources on the planet. So it's both the right thing to do, morally, ethically, but also from a business perspective." Ikea will not be the only company adhering to these values, he predicts: "This is not charity, this is the new economy 2.0, the new business model of the world." Forced labour Another headache for many multinationals is how to ensure forced labour is kept out of their supply chains. A recent BBC investigation raised questions about cotton from China's Xinjiang region, although not that used by Ikea. China's government denies there is any forced labour. The US is among those governments trying to tackle the issue. This week, the Biden administration raised the prospect of new laws to "enhance corporate accountability". Mr Brodin agrees with the need for companies to take responsibility: "Here is an area where we need to work with common standards in the world." "There need to be verifiable methods" to check supply chains, he adds. Ikea works with external companies to review its own checks and Mr Brodin says…
About 29 million people in the UK may be entitled to compensation of up to £30 each if a legal claim from watchdog Which? is successful. It is suing chipmaker Qualcomm, claiming it breached UK competition law by taking advantage of its dominance in the patent licensing and chip markets. Which? alleges that it charged inflated fees to manufacturers, which were then passed on to consumers in the form of higher smartphone prices. Qualcomm said the case had "no basis". "As the plaintiffs are well aware, their claims were effectively put to rest last summer by a unanimous panel of judges at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States," a spokesman told the BBC. Which? is seeking damages for all affected Apple and Samsung smartphones purchased since 1 October 2015. It estimates individuals could be entitled to up to £30 compensation each, depending on the type of smartphone they bought. Anabel Hoult, chief executive of Which? said: "We believe Qualcomm's practices are anti-competitive and have so far taken around £480m from consumers' pockets - this needs to stop. "We are sending a clear warning that if companies like Qualcomm indulge in manipulative practices which harm consumers, Which? is prepared to take action." It has filed its legal claim with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which will decide if it can go ahead. Qualcomm, one of the world's biggest producers of mobile phone chips, has faced a series of allegations about anti-competitive behaviour. In 2018, the European Commission fined the firm €997m (£858m) for violating competition laws in a series of deals it made with Apple. And in 2019, it issued another €242m fine for abusing its dominant position in the 3G chipset market, following a four-year investigation. Qualcomm is appealing against both findings. The Federal Trade Commission in the United States also sued the firm for unfair practices in the way it licensed its technology back in 2017, but had its case dismissed last year.