Ship of Fools: Childcare and Working

Thread: Childcare and Working Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023309

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18826587#FBM108667

An article about childcare on the BBC News website today.

I have neither children, nor a job, but would very much like to have both, so am not in a position to really know what would be good. I am, however, interested in this issue, since the looking after of children is all of our issue, as members of society.

As a side issue, if I got my wishes to have a child/children and had a job at sea, which is the sort of job i'm looking for, would the two be mutually exclusive, and would that be different if I was a man going away to see rather than a woman? Children aren't on the cards at all at the moment, so it's a hypothetical situation.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

Mrs Tomsk gave up paid work to raise mini and micro-tomsk. We're fortunate to be able to do it, but we have had to cut our cloth.

In the 20th century, the expansion of the middle-classes and better conditions and pay for working-class people enabled many women to stay at home, whereas all hands would have been working previously.

Loss of well-paid industrial work and two-income families leading to inflation rising have reduced that.

People have to make choices and do what they think is right for them and their families. But I think people should think clearly about what they do and why. The emphasis in your article is about economics, not bringing up children.

I think the more time parents and particularly the mother (at risk of sounding unreconstructed) can put into early years the better.

One of the problems I think we have today is the emphasis on professionalising child-care, and consequent de-skilling of parents.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

I think both parents have to consider whether it's an option to work more flexibly. For a while my husband was working full time and I was working part time (18.5 hours spread across 3 days) so most of the childcare was my responsibility. Eventually we woke up to the fact that, as I was in a better paid job pro rata, it might make more sense for me to do a higher proportion of the wage-earning. We were incredibly lucky that this was possible for us at the time, and after various negotiations at work we ended up with me working 30 hours (3 long days and one short), doing more of the school run and all the extra bits of holiday, while my husband managed to get a term time contract (not possible in my job) for the next two years.
AT first I really resented not being the main one who covered school holidays, stressful though it was at times trying to book things in and negotiate with other families, but in the long term it's been good for us all; my husband and daughter have a much better and more positive relationship and I've learnt to back off a bit and not micro-manage.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:

Loss of well-paid industrial work and two-income families leading to inflation rising have reduced that.

Not sure that's the whole story. I'd say changing expectations, both of women's right to work and of standard of living (i.e. amount we want to consume) had a lot to do with this change.

My wife hates going to work, so she gave it all up to raise the children. I equally hate it, but we can't both exercise that option, and I do earn a lot more than she could.

One thing I hate is that I earn enough to pay higher rate tax (praise the Lord), but the fact that my wife also lives off my income gets no recongition in the tax system. If I earned half what I earn and my wife earned the other half then we would neither of us pay higher rate tax. And now they're going to take away the one rebate (the child benefit), so all 6 of us have to live off one income, which is taxed at the same rate as a single person on the same income.
But it's better than begging for living, so I pray for those who don't have to live with this unfairness.

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
As a side issue, if I got my wishes to have a child/children and had a job at sea, which is the sort of job i'm looking for, would the two be mutually exclusive, and would that be different if I was a man going away to see rather than a woman? Children aren't on the cards at all at the moment, so it's a hypothetical situation.

This reminded me of an interview I heard a while ago with a Faroese woman called Durita Holm, who sailed round the world, getting pregnant mid-way (so she stopped off in New Zealand to have the baby, then went on her way). I think that certainly for the first couple of years she was still regularly sailing while her child was with her, although I think she's more land-based now. But it's certainly possible, at least in the early years. Whether it's advisable is another question, but she didn't seem to think it did her or her child any harm - I bet she was judged plenty though, though it appears she has handled it well. Good for her. I should add though that she was her own captain, rather than being employed by someone else - that might have made a big difference.

The interview was episodes 80 and 82 of the Faroe Islands Podcast from January 2011 (thank you Google) - you can download them from iTunes and there is also a blog that accompanies the podcast.

[ 16. July 2012, 21:25: Message edited by: Jack the Lass ]

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

Of the options available in the article I would like to see free universal childcare.

I'm not an economist so I don't know whether it would work in terms of the taxes raised by enabling more parents to work, though I suspect it would.

The issue of whether or not you use childcare is emotionally very loaded. Both sides feel stigmatised (largely by the other side). Both sides have good arguments to make about doing the best for their children.

Whatever the rights, and wrongs, people will continue to use childcare, and the present system is a mess. It's expensive, much of it is very low quality, and there is little incentive for talented people to go into it as vocation.

Free universal childcare would remove the present situation where you choose child care for your child by its price point. It would not obviate a diversity of different settings, and it wouldn't prevent anyone paying for private child care if they so wished. It could, however, make childcare of a decent standard available to all, no matter what their income. It would enable some parents to work who, at the moment are better off on benefits. It would enable others to work part-time if they wish to do so. It could also raise expectations about how good childcare should be, and it could raise the expectations of, and rewards to, the people who work there.

It'll never happen [Frown]

. At a public level the debate is too hung up on whether mothers should be with their children during the early years. And it would be a massive extension of public service at a time when the the party in power, in the UK at least, is hell bent on making the state contract.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

There is this idea that it is supremely important that young (ie, pre-school age) children spend as much time as possible with their parents. Not only do I feel there is a subtext that "parents" means "mother" and not "father" but I also don't think it bears scrutiny. Of course it is important for children to bond with both parents. It is also important for children to socialise with other children, engage in a variety of pursuits, and do so in a well-monitored environment. That basically means a well-run kindergarten. Furthermore, a stay-at-home parent who is just about to go mad with the boredom of being stuck at home is not going to bond well with her offspring. Kindergarten is the answer. "Home" versus "kindergarten" is a false comparison. A good parent will be more beneficial to a child than a bad or struggling kindergarten, likewise a good kindergarten will be more beneficial to a child than a bad or struggling parent.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

I notice Elton John is going to give up work to look after his son; but not until he goes to school. He said he wants to be able to drop him off at school and pick him up again - doesn't want to miss that part of his growing up. Leaves me wondering if pre-school is too much work for him, or just not enough photo opportunities.

[edit because I din't preview]

[ 17. July 2012, 05:55: Message edited by: Hairy Biker ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I went back to full time work when my son was 6 months old, the same with my second. I had good childminders who were far better with babies than I ever will be.

Both sons have grown up happy, healthy and successful - and very loving towards their Mum.

I get fed up with threads like this which hint that I 'could have done better' as a parent.

I couldn't!

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :

The idea of community cooperatives and intergenerational centres sounds good to me. But that said, I'm living in an urban area with a very proactive and politically active community, and many excellent organised community groups. I'd be sceptical about how well it would work in areas that don't have that.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

luvanddaisies, from your original post it seems you are a woman, as in mentioning wanting to have children and go away to sea, you ask if it would be any different if you were a man going away to sea "rather than a woman."

Well, yes, it would be different if you hope to breast-feed your babies, for a start!

After that, however, yes, it's a dilemma. In the case of a parent who goes away to sea, the other parent has to be OK with being a single parent a lot of the time. Of course you can ask people in that situation what it is like, to get a sense of the difficulties. And you can ask the parent who's away whether they miss being apart from their children for those chunks of time.

The childcare problem is a huge one for almost all families. Universal free child-care is an ideal solution but probably too difficult and expensive to implement.

I think there should be a wider acceptance in the work-place of flexitime and part-time jobs for both parents, fathers as well as mothers. Whereas it's gone the other way, especially in the higher-level and management jobs. You're expected to work crazy hours and far more than 40 a week, and to be accessible via Blackberry or computer all the time. There should be no shame in considering parenthood, for both men and women, as at least as important as a job.

I also think there should be more societal support for the idea of staying at home with one's children, for men and women. From my own personal experience I think it's better for everyone if one parent can stay at home with the children in the early years. At the beginning, this is most likely to be the mother, so she can recover from the pregnancy and birth and so she can breast-feed. After that, it could be mother or father, whichever the family prefers. (As the article pointed out, in Nordic countries there are 12-15 months of parental leave after having a baby, which I think should be the norm.)

I had my three children in the 80s. We were lucky in that we could manage on my husband's salary--but of course we were happy to live very modestly. We only had one car, which he needed to go to work (I had shops and parks etc in walking distance); a tiny flat, furnished as economically as possible; only one TV ( I feel ridiculous saying this, as who needs more than one, but I know lots of people do have them, and I guess we had a couple when we had a houseful of teenagers later); rarely ate out; and so on and so forth. (Luckily we were younger than many new parents today, and hadn't had time to get used to years of freedom and life on two salaries!)

But of course we saved money because we didn't need to pay for child care, or for a work wardrobe or transport costs for me, and so on. An interesting link in the OP's BBC article leads to a piece showing how there is often a surprising amount of financial savings when one parent stays at home.

The question of self-fulfilment for the stay-at-home parent is another thing. Of course there are enormous rewards in being there for your children and in being the one to see the first steps, hear the first words, and all that. Those are days and months you never get back.

But being a parent has stresses and demands of its own. It really is work (and the partner who goes out to work must recognise that the stay-at-home partner is working just as hard too, but in a different way).

However, although being with one's children is stimulating and rewarding, it sometimes just is not enough for mental satisfaction, for some people. I was lucky to find fulfilment in writing, something I could schedule around the children; it didn't exactly bring the dosh rolling into the family coffers, but that wasn't the point.

I think it is very hard for everyone when both parents work full-time--I admire those who can manage it, and do both job and parenting well. I certainly couldn't have. I think the stresses must be enormous. One of the most stressful things must be when a child is ill and someone needs to stay at home. Or when the children are just old enough for school but too young to be sent to childcare out of the home when school ends.

Well, these are things every family has to work out. When neither parent earns enough to support the family, even modestly, and there is no option but that both work whether they want to or not, I think it is a real shame.

One thing I know, it all sounds much easier in the abstract than when the children actually appear. And what you think you want can change radically, once they do. For luvanddaisies, the desire to go to sea might suddenly become less urgent once baby is on board at home!

Cara

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:

Well, these are things every family has to work out. When neither parent earns enough to support the family, even modestly, and there is no option but that both work whether they want to or not, I think it is a real shame.

Yes - if you want to stay home and have to work it's a real shame.

But don't assume that working mothers all work 'because they have no choice'.

I have worked since I was 21 - and wouldn't have chosen otherwise. When my children were young our income was large (£100,000+), but I still worked full time.

Now I'm semi - retired, and loving it! My son assumed I'll look after his kids (when he has them!) I said 'think again'!!

[ 17. July 2012, 09:45: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Beethoven (# 114) on :

It's a complicated issue, and as Cod has already said, there's no one-size-fits-all answer. In our case, Mr B was the full-time parent when Opus 1 was very small as I was the 'earner' in our household at the time. But by the time Opus 2 was on the way, he was working, so I stopped, and didn't return to work until both were in school. Even now, several years on, I'm still part-time as I don't want them to have to be in wraparound care five days a week. I'm lucky that my current and previous employers have been happy to agree hours that suit me and fit in with school, but I do realise that most people don't have that luxury.

I don't think I can see an 'ideal' solution - free childcare for all might have its attractions, but I can't see it ever happening. And given the variation of standard in the free schools and free healthcare, I don't see that a 'national childcare service' would be any more standardised. There'd be excellent ones which were completely oversubscribed, and terrible ones which most people were reluctant to use, just as there are schools, (and quite possibly GPs, hospitals etc.).

Employer-based childcare, as mentioned in the article? Well, if as it claims, a number of major employers who used to operate in-house creches no longer find it viable to do so, then what's going to change that? And what about all the medium and small businesses for whom such schemes simply wouldn't be realistic?

Bring your baby to work? One word: no! It's exhausting enough trying to keep control of an exploring toddler in the safe confines of the home. Trying to do so in an office, with lots of other people around all trying to concentrate on their business - while the toddler's trying to climb on desks, open & empty drawers and files, throwing a tantrum (because let's face it, even the best behaved toddler will have bad times)... Utter madness!

It's a difficult, complicated and expensive issue, whichever way you look at it. The current situation works reasonably well for middle and high earners, at least in the UK. No, it's not great, but there are at least options. I suspect that as is so often the case, it's the low-earners who struggle the most - childcare is expensive, and may well cost more than is earned in the time it's needed. But if work is more than just an economic thing, and has social and emotional benefits too, then it's not quite as simple as 'childcare costs too much, therefore stop working'. Supporting people in this situation is vital - if only we knew how to and cared enough as a society to do it properly.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I went back to full time work when my son was 6 months old, the same with my second. I had good childminders who were far better with babies than I ever will be.

Both sons have grown up happy, healthy and successful - and very loving towards their Mum.

I get fed up with threads like this which hint that I 'could have done better' as a parent.

I couldn't!

Boogie, I would never want to suggest that you fell short as a parent, and I hope I didn't. Everyone is different.

How lucky you were to find those wonderful childminders--I think that's the issue--can everyone who needs to go back to work find such a good solution?

And the "need" can be economic-- in which case, as we've agreed, it is really sad if the parent would rather stay at home--or it can be another sort of need, or drive, to go out to work, like yours, which I respect (while not fully understanding it).

I can't imagine being able to cope psychologically with the demands of parenthood--especially of an infant or young child--and of a full-time job, and I admit I sometimes forget not everyone else is the same!

Of course my husband was a parent who worked full-time--but he didn't have to worry about the children because he knew I was there. However, he couldn't be with them very much, and when he was at home he was often exhausted from a demanding job, which he now regrets, and which is why I wish employers and society would somehow all collude to support all parents in working a bit less! And in creating more opportunities for part-time or flexitime.

As for not wanting to be a childminder for your grandchildren--I second you on that one!!

Cara

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boogie:
[qb] I wish employers and society would somehow all collude to support all parents in working a bit less! And in creating more opportunities for part-time or flexitime.

Yup! Provided those parents who are working less get paid less, and the non-parents aren't being made to pick up their slack, then I'd be all for it too.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Spot on.

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boogie:
[qb] I wish employers and society would somehow all collude to support all parents in working a bit less! And in creating more opportunities for part-time or flexitime.
Yup! Provided those parents who are working less get paid less, and the non-parents aren't being made to pick up their slack, then I'd be all for it too.

I can see how non-parents feel like this. There is a however, however.

I work part-time, and yes, I get paid less. I lose 30% of my salary. I'm lucky enough to be in a job with a pension, but working part-time has reduced my eventual pension by far more than 30%. One of the things that I would like to see addressed, in an ideal world, is a way of calculating pensions that doesn't punish people who work part-time.

Secondly, I think it is inevitable that my full-time colleagues do pick up some slack. They certainly do far more of the extra-curricular stuff that I can't. On the other hand, they get far more in the way of promotions, trips abroad, pay rises and other rewards for their efforts. People appointed years after me have made it far higher up in status and money terms than I have -- because I am part time. It cuts both ways. They do the work, and they get the rewards.

From my perspective, as a parent, I am much, much poorer than I would be as a non-parent. I earn less, and I have much greater outgoings. It's my choice to plough that furrow. But I think non-parents need to admit that they do get some benefits from being non-parents in the workplace.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

Yes, that's fair enough - but you are working part time. And y'know, you get the benefit of spending time with your children, which I imagine is kinda the point of having them!

I'm thinking more of when people who are parents get time off for whatever child-related emergencies or attending school sports days etc. and everyone else has to cover. At my workplace there seems to be a systemic problem where women aren't promoted as much as the men. Look at the higher levels of management, and it's all men. I suspect that there is an attitude that women don't 'pull their weight' and unfortunately that also coincides with a few 'shirker mothers' that we have around. They leave early/skip out on meetings due to child care issues or whatnot. Notice that it's never the fathers who are expected to drop everything at work and attend to their children's emergencies. Argh. So. Much. Argh!

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:

I'm thinking more of when people who are parents get time off for whatever child-related emergencies or attending school sports days etc. and everyone else has to cover.

I get that sports days are optional for parents- at least a parent shouldn't have to go to every single one of them- but, serious question, what do you think should happen in a child-related emergency that wouldn't cause one parent to leave work?

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Yes, that's fair enough - but you are working part time. And y'know, you get the benefit of spending time with your children, which I imagine is kinda the point of having them!

I'm thinking more of when people who are parents get time off for whatever child-related emergencies or attending school sports days etc. and everyone else has to cover. At my workplace there seems to be a systemic problem where women aren't promoted as much as the men. Look at the higher levels of management, and it's all men. I suspect that there is an attitude that women don't 'pull their weight' and unfortunately that also coincides with a few 'shirker mothers' that we have around. They leave early/skip out on meetings due to child care issues or whatnot. Notice that it's never the fathers who are expected to drop everything at work and attend to their children's emergencies. Argh. So. Much. Argh!

I agree that I get to spend the time with my children -- I'm not complaining about being part time, or about the costs that come with that.

I can see that it's annoying for other people when the same few always seem to have to leave early/come in late and so on. One of the things that flexible working should mean is that you do the work, even if you do it in a different way. Most of the working parents I know work really hard to do all the things they need to do, but leaving early is so visible, isn't it? It's just so easy to spot, and doing it is like pinning a target for other people's dissatisfaction on your back.

My husband, for example, works flexibly so that he can leave early and pick the children up two days a week. He's always getting comments about being a slacker -- yet he works at home every single night, and is as productive as anyone else in his workplace.

And on the single occasion that I have ever had to cancel a class at short notice (because my 11 month old baby was taken to A&E) my students tried to make a formal complaint against me.

But I am totally, totally with you on the expectation that women will do it all, and the view that women are unreliable and not worth promoting because they either have, or might have children.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

I realise that in a great many ways I am blessed. when my first was born, it was a bit tougher, than with my secong (six year age difference), and now.. well, if I could have had my current work situation then, I'd have been extatic! why is it that when you are having children, you generally have more need of the face time at work to build a career? (rhetorical).

Anyhow, over all the years, I worked full time, while, most of the time, my husband stayed home and took care of the kids. there were some points when one or the other kid had to be in a daycare situation, but never for very long. I have a very flexible schedule (and other than during my DDs very early years) always had flexibility to leave when needed, management that understood that occasional need, and having a house-husband (Stay At Home Dad) decreased the need to take leave in the first place.

Although I rarely saw the kids in the am on work days (I leave for work very, very early), that same schedule allowed me to be home not long after the kids got home from school.

While this lifestyle certainly put some limitations on me (lack of dual income), it certainly was/is the best option available to us, all things considered.

When the kids were young and DH would take them to preeschool, there were several other dads who were in the same boat. They did get treated differently... at times there was an expectation that MOM would do things, and when they found out it would be dad, they would decide that perhaps it wasn't necessary after all (whatever "it" was.. baking cookies or chaperoning an outing or such)

the hardest thing for my husband was learning to braid my daughter's long hair when she was little, and he had to get her ready for school. other than that, and nursing, he could do anything I could do, and some things I couldn't! (well, OK, and math homework.. I had to be the go-to parent for that, too).

I don't know what we would have done, though, if we coudn't afford to live off of what I make alone.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
Most of the working parents I know work really hard to do all the things they need to do, but leaving early is so visible, isn't it? It's just so easy to spot, and doing it is like pinning a target for other people's dissatisfaction on your back.

Perhaps if those non-parents were allowed to leave early (and work at home) too, they might not be so grumpy when they see the parents doing it?

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Perhaps if those non-parents were allowed to leave early (and work at home) too, they might not be so grumpy when they see the parents doing it?

You have my permission to leave work and go mop up toddler vomit all night as often as you like.

You seem to think that parents are leaving work to do things that are optional and personally fulfilling. Becoming a parent is optional. Once you actually have a child, parenting is not optional. Although it can be fulfilling.

[ 17. July 2012, 20:50: Message edited by: Antisocial Alto ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Did they see him working at home, or did they just assume he was going home to play?

On the other hand, I would say that of course the non-parents should be allowed to work from home too. I'm really not sure why more employers don't allow it. Anyone who doesn't need constant supervision might logically qualify if their work could be done at home.

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Did they see him working at home, or did they just assume he was going home to play?

Did he get all his work done on time, or did he sit in the office fiddling about on the interweb?

Certainly, let's have lots more flexibility in working patterns. That would benefit everybody. But it would be only just to admit that leaving work early to go to the pub, or the gym, or for a walk in the park is not the same as leaving work early to go and look after your children for several hours. The one is leisure, the other is work. (Sometimes it is fantastically rewarding work; quite often it is slog.)

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Did they see him working at home, or did they just assume he was going home to play?

Did he get all his work done on time, or did he sit in the office fiddling about on the interweb?

I'm not sure I understand that as an answer. I was asking the question to imply that perhaps Mr. Niminypiminy's co-workers forgot that he was working at home instead of seeing him leave early and figuring he was taking off for the day.

quote:
. But it would be only just to admit that leaving work early to go to the pub, or the gym, or for a walk in the park is not the same as leaving work early to go and look after your children for several hours. The one is leisure, the other is work. (Sometimes it is fantastically rewarding work; quite often it is slog.)

Would you say that those who leave for a second job should similarly be given extra rights because they are working? I would say no, and similarly not give the parent extra rights. If I am choosing to do work elsewhere, I don't see why employer #1 should have to give credit for it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Apologies for not meaningfully contributing, but I can't be the only who adores the fact that Beethoven's children are Opus 1 and Opus 2. [Big Grin]

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

To me the hidden question is what we believe the role of work is in our families.

Work sustains us. Yes, for a few, work is something we don't have to do but choose to. For most of us, work is necessary to keep shelter and provide the assets we wish to share with each other, or give to God. And, for many of us, work is also a necessary social or creative time, where we get the chance to do something with others, to create, and to participate.

If you have children, then sustaining ourselves through work may require child care. People should have the opportunity to have that child care. I'd love if it was free, but most of our societies now prefer less taxes over sustaining people.

Of course this whole discussion only occurs in nuclear and post-nuclear families.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

A quarter century or so ago when we had our children, the same issues loomed. The way I see it is that the unconscious (or deliberate) assumption is that children are not consumers themselves and only consume if their parents do it for them, so the consumer society wants parents to work so as to make money to spend money, thus child unfriendly policies and encouragement of parents to work. It also helps if parents are stressed because they then buy products and services to deal with their stress. It is good if they are fearful also, because this also promotes buying to alleviate that.

The benefits for parents post-birth are about twice as generous in Canada now than they were when we had babies in terms of time off with government support. The actual wage replacement continues to be very poor, and the tax policies discourage single parent working families. Thus the situation continues to very very poor in my opinion and clearly signifies that many countries actively dislike children.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

As a single mother I don't really have a choice...

But as my career is in the non-profit sector the money is poor but both organisations I've worked for since fostering my daughters have been incredibly supportive. Possibly more supportive than if I had given birth to them!

As the first included the children's home where I met them, the childcare staff were delighted to have them back (in the daytimes) in the holidays, and in fact they are still welcome to visit for a couple of days. Plus four of them with an extra-special relationship with the girls are also happy to look after them outside of work hours.

The current employers are happy for me to work from home or bring the girls in with me - it helps that they were 4 and 12 when I started working there, so past the toddler tantrums. In fact they get thoroughly spoilt by the staff and students (especially when the younger one told the students it was her birthday - it wasn't - and spent the day being given lots of biscuits and crisps and hugs and kisses...). Even so, it isn't appropriate to take them when I have formal meetings off-site, so I try to arrange them on the same day and then the girls visit their 'other mamas'.

There are very few employers this flexible, but for work permit reasons I am effectively limited to low paid jobs, so my employers are happy to get my skills for half the cost of someone eligible to accept any job they choose. So for them flexibility is cheaper than paying in cash...

And it is all to easy to shortchange both work and the girls by trying to do a bit of both in the holidays - I certainly don't feel I got the balance right in the holidays just finished. But that's just part of the juggling involved in being a parent. Overall I think it is good for the girls to be so familiar with my workplace, and it broadens their horizons. And I make sure I get my work done, even if that means some catching up now term has started.

[ 18. July 2012, 04:40: Message edited by: Haydee ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
I'm thinking more of when people who are parents get time off for whatever child-related emergencies or attending school sports days etc. and everyone else has to cover. At my workplace there seems to be a systemic problem where women aren't promoted as much as the men. Look at the higher levels of management, and it's all men. I suspect that there is an attitude that women don't 'pull their weight' and unfortunately that also coincides with a few 'shirker mothers' that we have around. They leave early/skip out on meetings due to child care issues or whatnot. Notice that it's never the fathers who are expected to drop everything at work and attend to their children's emergencies. Argh. So. Much. Argh!

It was noted recently by somebody in Australia that fathers were far less likely to have management grant them flexible arrangements for family reasons, even though it was determined by the Federal Government that gender equality should apply in this area.

So it goes both ways, men might get earlier access to promotion positions but they are forced to miss more time with their kids. They are two sides of the same coin.

Posted by Beethoven (# 114) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
I suspect that there is an attitude that women don't 'pull their weight' and unfortunately that also coincides with a few 'shirker mothers' that we have around. They leave early/skip out on meetings due to child care issues or whatnot. Notice that it's never the fathers who are expected to drop everything at work and attend to their children's emergencies. Argh. So. Much. Argh!

This bothers me. Most of the working mums I know would be VERY happy for the dads to take a 50% share in child-care cover for a sick child, sitting & shivering through sports day, gritting teeth through yet another class assembly - but the dads don't do it. I can't believe it's that only 5% of them are in employment situations where they can take any time off ever - I reckon that in many cases, the men realise how little fun these things actually are and claim they can't get there, leaving the woman to sort out time off so as not to upset the kids. I could be wrong, but that's what I see around here...

The idea that taking time off in lieu, or using annual leave for such things is 'shirking' and 'skipping out' is just so horribly wrong. Sure, if the employer is letting these mums go without making the time up or using their leave entitlement, then I can see the resentment. But what employer would do that? And if the fathers can't/won't (delete as applicable) help out in child-care 'emergencies' whether unforseen such as ill children, or predictable like school holidays - then who else but the mum is likely to be able to? Many people now don't live near family, so don't have handy grandparents on the spot (and many grandparents will still be working themselves, in any case), and it takes a pretty good friendship to volunteer to do childcare for one another to cover a six-week school holiday.

'Shirkers'. Bah!

(Oh, and Orfeo - glad you like it. We don't half get some funny looks when I call them in the playground [Biased]

)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Mrs Tor is in an occupation which is (was) both reasonably well-paid and has (had) a decent pension. I was an office drone. Simple economics dictated that I stay at home and do the childcare, and Mrs Tor went back to work. That I'm also more temperamentally suited to wiping up baby vomit/doing tricky maths problems is a bonus.

There are problems with this, though, and it's right not to downplay them. Firstly, househusbandry is still very much a minority sport, and was even more so 10 years ago when I was in the full throes of pre-schoolness. No coffee mornings/playdates for me and the kids. The one mum I was friendly with (ie would actually talk to me) was assumed by some to be having an affair with me. Very socially isolating, and it was a good job that I was already a misanthrope.

Secondly, while lots of blokes would be envious (as in "I'd give up work in a heartbeat to spend more time with the kids if I could") there'd always be a few who'd get all Driscoll on my arse and tell me I wasn't providing for my family like a Proper Christian Man™. Unfortunately, they were in my church.

Now I have a part-time job at the Torlets' old school, and a career ( [Killing me]

) as a famous author ( [Killing me]

) I have an excuse for both my misanthropy and my stay-at-homeness.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Yes, that's fair enough - but you are working part time. And y'know, you get the benefit of spending time with your children, which I imagine is kinda the point of having them!

I'm thinking more of when people who are parents get time off for whatever child-related emergencies or attending school sports days etc. and everyone else has to cover. At my workplace there seems to be a systemic problem where women aren't promoted as much as the men. Look at the higher levels of management, and it's all men. I suspect that there is an attitude that women don't 'pull their weight' and unfortunately that also coincides with a few 'shirker mothers' that we have around. They leave early/skip out on meetings due to child care issues or whatnot. Notice that it's never the fathers who are expected to drop everything at work and attend to their children's emergencies. Argh. So. Much. Argh!

That’s down to how that particular family has choose to handle childcare though … In some cases that’s because it’s only them and in others it may be because they’re the one who can get there quickest in an emergency. That’s no different to someone who doesn’t have children having to leave unexpectedly because something has come up. Rev T works locally so is the parent on call if there’s an emergency. Anything longer term we juggle between ourselves and take it in turns so both employers get to share. [Most of our friends do the same. The few that don’t either have one half working in the kind of job where that isn’t possible or are in need of a clue].

Each workplace works it out differently, but at mine school sports days, shows etc are taken as leave in the same way as someone without kids would take leave to go to something. If there’s sufficient cover, then you get the time off and if there isn’t, then tough luck. The expectation is that everyone takes their turn working during holidays, Christmas etc. Having kids doesn’t automatically entitle you to first dibs. [About the only exception is the single parent – the rota is fiddled so they always get the days the nursery is closed off as they doesn’t have anyone else who can step in. But the rest of us agreed to that].

It’s worth bearing in mind that no one likes “shirker” parents – who play the child care card at the drop of a hat to get out of stuff. Everyone ends up picking up their slack and having to cover. And, if you’re a parent yourself, you resent being tarred with the same brush.

[ETA: Just to clarify … The true “shirker parent” – who is using child care as a get out of jail free card – is rare. (I can think of two in more years of working than I care to think about. And people were far harder on them than others I’ve seen doing the same thing who didn’t have children). Sometimes, someone is dealing with a genuine emergency or ongoing issues due to their situation - no partner or a child with special needs or an ongoing illness creating more emergencies or appointments.

I used to come in later and leave early two days a week – and make up the time on other days by working late / through lunch – to do child pick ups. All discussed and agreed with my employer and my colleagues. I lost count of the number of meetings I had to reschedule or cut because they were organised outside my agreed hours … By the people who had agreed the adjusted hours in the first place and when the time was blocked out on the calendar!]

If your place works like our place, a mother rushing off due to an emergency or leaving early as agreed with the employer is “shirking” whilst a dad doing that is treated as some kind of hero.

Tubbs

[Duplicate post deleted - T]

[ 18. July 2012, 14:01: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Our Son #2 has been "Mr. Mom" to our granddaughter for most of her two-and-a-half years. It began as a necessity -- when he and DiL moved cross-country to be closer to her brother and family, he couldn't find a job; unlike DiL, who's a psychologist and can hang up her professional shingle anywhere, and who, once established, has a higher income potential than he does. In the interim he's gotten a job as a freelance researcher that he can do from home, but that's just a part-time thing.

He had been feeling really depressed and disempowered about his un(der)employment...but when he and his wife crunched the numbers and compared five days of paid childcare to their expenses now, at this point in their lives it's really more financially advantageous for him to stay at home. And since they're talking about the possibility of Baby #2, he'd continue to be the primary childcare parent for that child as well.

Meanwhile our granddaughter has been going to daycare one day a week just to give him a break; she also participates in a variety of toddler activities with other kids, from swim class to dance to hanging out with her cousins; so socialization is not an issue for her. And this fall she'll be headed for half-days of nursery school.

I honestly think it all comes down to cases. In the case of our kids, they both had working moms and absentee dads and spent much of their younger years in childcare, and they turned out fine. Their own situation is a bit different, but they're taking advantage of the fact that one parent can be home with their daughter, and presumably with a future baby.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

First of all, apologies - I've just not got around to posting on this thread until now, now that I'm ashore again, although I've been reading it.

I've also just watched the Babies at Work programme on iPlayer.
Although this may be a spoiler for the conclusion of episode 2, the company trying it, Addison Lee (a taxi company, who I've never actually managed to get in a cab from in the three separate times I've been with someone who's called them) decided to allow babies at people's desks with them until they reached a year old and became mobile, at which time the company was opening a nursery for their employees.

This seemed like a good solution for everyone, and it seemed that they took it really seriously as a decision, understanding that people would be basing their own decisions about when and whether to have children on it, so they couldn't just come up with a scheme then give up on it. They also seemed to accept that most people's productivity slowed while they had their children with them (except for one woman, whose productivity figures remained utterly unchanged . I think she may be an exception though, she comes across as a very focused and driven lady, and she also has five older boys, so must be used to quite a measure of multi-tasking!). The management people seemed willing to accept this, because it cost them less in recruitment and they kept employees, and those people seemed to be very positive towards the company because of how they had been treated.

It's interesting

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
luvanddaisies, from your original post it seems you are a woman, as in mentioning wanting to have children and go away to sea, you ask if it would be any different if you were a man going away to sea "rather than a woman."

Well, yes, it would be different if you hope to breast-feed your babies, for a start!

After that, however, yes, it's a dilemma. In the case of a parent who goes away to sea, the other parent has to be OK with being a single parent a lot of the time. Of course you can ask people in that situation what it is like, to get a sense of the difficulties. And you can ask the parent who's away whether they miss being apart from their children for those chunks of time.

One thing I know, it all sounds much easier in the abstract than when the children actually appear. And what you think you want can change radically, once they do. For luvanddaisies, the desire to go to sea might suddenly become less urgent once baby is on board at home!

Cara

Well, as I don't even have a partner at the moment, the children thing is unlikely to happen soon (and it looks like the job thing isn't happening very swiftly either [Frown]

). I don't know whether I'd still want to work away when I had kids or not - but it is an interesting thing to have thought about. Some people say to me that if I do want kis, I shouldn't be thinking about the whole working at sea thing, because if you're female those are not compatible things. I think the people who have said that to me have mostly been female and seafarers themselves.

It is interesting though, because I grew up with a dad who worked away on the oil-rigs (fortnight on, fortnight off, usually), so that seemed normal to me, and I seemed to see him more than many of my schoolmates whose fathers were in high-powered executive jobs saw theirs. I now know a few fathers who work at sea.

They say it's great - they get to spend all their time with the pre-school ones when they're home, without distractions or anything, and with the older ones they get to do all the school-run stuff and all the out-of-school or weekend or holiday stuff when they're home too. Some work 1-for-1 contracts, some 2-for-1 (the first being equal slots at work and at home, the latter being two [months] work to one [month] home).

It does mean that if they're working there's no chance of running out early to see the kids' school play and them popping back to the office to make up hours, or if their rota puts them away over Christmas then that's that, but a lot of big ships do have decent internet connection, so it's not like years ago when they would have been quite out of touch for chunks of time.

I wonder though if a woman worked at sea, maybe if she was the parent with more earning potential, whether it would be viewed very differently from a if a man did it if they went away for a couple of months at a time, leaving their other half as the carer then. I imagine teachers at school or other kids' parents might find it a bit odd, then the child has to explain that mummy has this weird job, and is away for half the year, but is home and around and free the other half.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

What I think is that whatever you do, somebody will judge you for it and even if they don't, you will judge yourself. Go to work fulltime? - selfish parent. Work part time? - slacker in the workplace, selfish parent. Stay at home? - boring for you, not enough stimulation for baby.

The world is never going to provide a tailor made solution for any of us, so we have to make the best of it that we can and try to support others in their similar endeavours.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0