WWYD childcare Vs reducing hours

[Fressia123]

I'm working FT and have a nanny that helps me with the baby while I work compressed hours. I also work OT over the weekends to help with the costs. However, I've done the maths and it looks like of I reduce my hours to the equivalent of 30 if bring in exactly the same net income.

I originally agreed to going back FT as I was promised a new/different role and it's clear that it's not their priority to move me to said role. I'm coming to the conclusion that this job isn't worth the "sacrifice". (I'm looking for a new one anyways). I love working but I don't think spending less time with my little boy is worth the price. I'm torn though as I've always thought a woman has the right to a decent career and be a mum too.

You absolutely have the right to both, but for a majority, it's not worth the lack of time that you get with baby.

I don't know how old yours is, but they really are only little once so if possible I would spend every minute with them possible whilst bringing in enough money to keep going.

I've no doubt some more business/money minded woman will come along and say the opposite, but I really would sacrifice a few careers years for time with my child

He turns 1 in a few weeks. I don't have what it takes to be a FT SAHM but the stress of working FT with a toddler seems like too much.

In all honestly I don't know anyone who is a full time worker whilst also being a SAHM

Unless you work from home, you aren't a SAHM.

You either work full time away from home but see your child less, or you work less but see your child more

Sorry, I got confused!

Just work less hours if you can?

It's almost out of principle @ScarMatty which sounds stupid, but it's the truth.

If you have the option to reduce your hours and can afford it then I would. I went back part time after having DD and IMO have the best of both worlds. I get lots of quality time with DD but also 3 days to go out to work and for her to go to nursery which is also valuable to us both.

I can't remember the maths, but I think the difference between PT and FT is £200 a month. However I don't know if work will be ok with me going PT, I'm sure I've read they don't have to approve flexible working.

If you have a good employer pension don't forget to include that in your calculations, what looks like the same net income may mean a significantly reduced pension pot for you if you do reduce your hours.

ATM I think £80 are being paid towards my pension £50 by me and £30 by them. So not a massive loss.

Working and trying to also still parent with a nanny around to help sounds like absolute hell. You can’t do both at the same time and it’s not to your dc’s benefit.

I would carry on working however you like ft or pt but switch to a nursery or childminder. The savings will make working more beneficial and your time with your dc will be proper quality time. Your soon to be toddler will also get the benefit of learning social skills and eventually making friends. And you’ll hopefully not have so much pressure on you.

I'm in this position. I'm taking less hours, less pay and more time at home with my baby. He is only a baby once. I can earn more when he is older. But then I don't want to progress my career. I'm quite happy the grade I am currently.

You have to weigh it all up. I changed from full-time to 32 hours a week recently and it's lovely, I'm so glad I did it. I think if you are thinking of going down to 30 hours then that's still enough to be around and taken seriously - I think it's when people cut their hours down to three days a week or less or more that people seem (sadly, unfairly, but quite predictably) to stop thinking of them for new projects, as someone who could want promotion, etc. So for me four days a week is a great compromise - massively helped by the fact that DH also works four days a week so we only need childcare for three days. There are costs either way - yes, you will never get the time with your baby back ( at that cliché trotted out on every thread about working mothers ever) but nor, unless you're extraordinarily lucky, will you just be able to pick up your career where you left it if you take a big step back. For me and it sounds like for you somewhere in the middle is better.

You are right, though, that your employer doesn't have to agree and may not - I originally asked to work four days when I started my current position (a year ago) and was turned down, but got the request approved a few months ago. People often talk on MN like anyone can work part-time if they want to but, especially if you move jobs or if you just work in an industry or for an employer where part-time isn't normal and accepted, it isn't something that just automatically happens; what might be on the table is full-time or nothing.

@mindutopia the nanny arrangement isn't bad at all. She's fairly independent and helps with the house when the baby naps.

I believe some companies/jobs are worth the sacrifice but I'm sure the one I'm at isn't one of them.

I worked 4 days a week when my baby was small and went back to full time when they started school. Nursery 3 days and grandparents one day. Felt like the best of all worlds at the time. My career was important to me to maintain, and when I found myself a single mum with my ex not paying any maintenance I was very grateful for my decision not to become a SAHM.

To be honest I didn’t ever do that sum of “what am I bringing home minus childcare costs” as I think that over simplifies things. As PP said, pension and NI, and then childcare costs are temporary and I had 25 years of my working life ahead of me when I had my children. Where I live nursery subsidies kick in when children are 3 which reduces the bill somewhat.

Reduce if you can and want to, but you need to create very clear boundaries. A lot of people who go part time tend to find that they still have a full time workload, and the employer needs to evidence how the reduction in hours will be followed by a proportionate reduction in work. 30 hours is still a decent amount, I found below 4 days was hard to get fully involved and progress.

I understand that doing those maths it's oversimplifying but I also think sometimes it's needed. It would be different of my current role had a real obvious progression (my company hasn't shown that so far and that's partly what got me this) or of the transferable skills are there. The truth is that my core transferable skills come from my previous role and my current company hasn't shown any interest in using them .

I think that's very true @Pillowwillo, and the big advantage of going down to very part-time rather than just dropping a few hours, they're much more likely to redistribute your work if you're only in a couple of days a week. I've had no reduction in my workload so I essentially just pay 13% of my salary for the flexibility of not working one day a week but still deliver the same - but I knew it would be like that and it was still worth it to me. Going down to four days and getting cover for the other day wasn't on the table - work very much wanted me to stay full-time and essentially agreed to this as a favour in their eyes - so my options were stay full-time, find a new job or, maybe, reduce hours massively so it could be a job share (though I think my odds of getting my boss to agree to that would have been roughly similar to getting her to agree to fly around the room), so the current option feels like the best one to me and I just try not to think about how unfair it is!

My job is based on expected and fully trackable productivity. So reducing hours would also involve reduced productivity. It would be very easy in that way.

I'm torn though as I've always thought a woman has the right to a decent career and be a mum too.

I’m not sure it’s helpful to think about this in terms of rights, honestly. You can work and you can be a mother, of course. What you can’t do is work and, at the same time, look after your child. So - as for everyone, men included, to be fair - it’s a trade off with your time. The more you work, the more money you earn (and probably, the more potential to earn in the future). But you spend less time with your child (and probably pay for someone else to do that). Or vice versa. You need to find the balance that works best for you - and there’s no right answer to that. It depends on many things: how financially secure you are, how much you enjoy your job, how much you actually enjoy being at home etc etc. And everyone’s circumstances are different.

I'm not enjoying my job ATM and with some empty/broken promises it has made me rethink my priorities. This job is certainly not worth it. We do need my income and that's why I'm looking at reducing my hours until I find a better job.