to think that many SAHMs/part-time workers would have chosen differently with the benefit of hindsight?

[working9while5]

Just a thought, have come across this on another forum and wondering how it applies to me.

I have just the one dc. Originally, I was desperate to be a SAHM but grudgingly decided to go back p/t but cut it back to the bare, bare minimum (2 days a week).

A few months down the line, if I am honest I am wondering how much my decision was framed by having a small, non-mobile baby and enjoying lunches with friends and Summer walks. As the hormones/baby shock wears off, I do wonder why I am not going back to work 3 or even 4 days.. and if my thinking was very short-term.

Unfortunately, I effectively "gave away" the bulk of my permanent, public sector job and there is a job freeze in my area. So, my (hormonally-driven? rose-tinted?) decision, while not final, is not so easy to go back on. I am studying for a postgrad too, so it's not the end of the world.. but it has made me think.

I wondered what mothers who are much further down the line think with the benefit of hindsight? Was that initial decision the right one for you, or was it influenced by newbabyitis?

'As far as I understand it, people know that someone is coming back and they have plenty of time to make arrangements,'

Er... nope, you need to look at maternity leave legislation which is weighted very much in the employees favour. The mother doesn't have to decide til fairly late in the day whether she is returning or not!

Anyway, your argument about people moving in and out of jobs flexibly, and not expecting to remain in the same job, using the same skills, seems to shoot the original argument in the foot! If this is the norm, then women can give up work if they want, and move into another job when they're fed up of being at home!

No VH that's the point, they can't can they, because employers won't let them back into the workplace.

The pension laws and the way the workplace is structured, normally militates against taking a few years out and then going back to continue on your career trajectory, which is what so many young women fondly imagine they can and will do. The point about my acquaintance, is that when she goes back, she will go back at the same level as she left - she will not have to take a job well below her skills level in order to get back on the ladder and she will not have to take a massive slash in her salary expectations. That is not the case for most women who take 5 years out and that is teh point I am making, whcih you seem determined to miss. Most returning SAHMs, return at a skill and income level disgracefully less than that at which they left. That is not because they are choosing to, it's because they don't have a choice.

And they've changed maternity legislation so that returning mothers have to give more notice now. From what I remember it used to be 3 weeks, it's now much more than that.

"If this is the norm, then women can give up work if they want, and move into another job when they're fed up of being at home!"

Honestly, do you think there would be any need for this thread if this were the case?

It should be the norm, why do you think it isn't?

I mean, jobs changing, developing etc., is the norm (at least I hope it is, otherwise there must be some very bored workers out there) - but women being allowed to take up where they left off, isn't. And it should be. Why do you think that is?

But if you are holding up the example of a woman taking 5 years out of a professional, well paid career, with the right to walk back in at the same level, then surely you need to explain how that works from the perspective of the employer, and the 'cover' employee?

Because while it's all very easy to say how wonderful it would be, and how it's only fair, because why should a skilled woman, who happens to have had 5 years out of the workplace be forced to go back in at a much lower level....what about the person who has been covering for 5 years? They may also very well be a skilled, committed mother of young children. Would you just put them out of a job? Or say, 'Oh well, she shouldn't have any problem just floating into another job somewhere else? Never mind the fact that she's probably got kids in a local nursery - she'll just have to go find some other job!"

You said that you're interested in creative, solution focused thinking. So, what's the solution to the above scenario?

It seems to me that in trying so passionately to defend one person's rights, you're in danger of walking all over someone elses rights.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you are so concerned about a mythical person who might have worked in this mythical job (whcih has changed anyway in 5 years) because she might be out of a job. His or her situation is no different to any other contract worker. We are talking about SAHMs and whether and why it might be a bad idea to be a SAHM and you are talking about contract workers and the difficulty they face when their contracts come to an end. How is their situation any different to current maternity cover contract? Do you want me to find a creative solution for all contract workers in the country? Is it somehow selfish of all mothers on maternity leave to return to work and displace their maternity cover?

The funding for my post runs out in April and I know that I have to find a new job or be unemployed. Isn't that quite normal?

... What you would end up with, would be a whole generation of people with pretty rubbish employment rights... They'd go into a job, get trained up, work for 5 years, and say, 3 months before their 5 year contract was up, they'd find out that "Maternity Mrs" is coming back, so they're out the door. Presumably with no rights, no redundancy (because the job isn't being made redundant - it was never really theirs in the first place!) So... wave goodbye to every getting a mortgage or private rental property, as you'll have no job security. Not sure how you keep people motivated and skilled up either, when they know they might be kicked out after 5 years. And what if Maternity Mrs then goes off to have another baby after 6 months back? Another 5 years off?

Sorry, I can't see how this is a creative solution myself.

Dare I say that the person covering a 'career break' type of vacancy has been able to take advantage of an opportunity that would not have arisen if the original jon holder had not taken a career break in the first place.

In the vast majority of cases, a person covering in that situation would be aware of the background and the relative advantages/disadvantages of being in that position.

People moving in and out of roles (for various reasons including maternity leave/career breaks) create opportunities in the workplace, that may otherwise not arise. Opportunities for change would be far more infrequent if there were not such fluidity in the workplace from people taking periods of leave, placements, maternity, changes in work patterns.

VH, why do you think that most SAHMs returning to the labour market, are forced to take jobs which are way below their skills level and have to take wages which are way below what they coudl have expected to earn before they had children?

sorry job holder

The situation is rather different to current Maternity cover, as you're talking about 5 x as long! If a typical career is, say, 40 years, then 5 years is one eighth of that. Take two lots of leave, and it's a quarter of your working life. Those are pretty big chunks of time to be covered by someone who has no rights, and may be kicked out after any 5 year slot.

I think any job over 2 years does have employemnt rights doesn't it?

And as to the whole generation of not v. good employment rights - isn't that what we've got already? In the last 8 years, I've always taken jobs with contracts, which have been extended into "real jobs" as it were.

And you're so concerned about the generation of bad employment rights - are you not bothered about the squandering of the talents and skills of nearly half of society? Every single mother I know outside of Mumsnet who works in teh cash economy, has a job way below her education and skills level. This is an appalling waste of talent, we simply can't afford it as a society. We educate and train women and then when they have babies, we tell them to piss off and stack shelves in Tescos if they want to look after their kids for a few years. It's absurd, we need to find a way for the market to use the talent of all the potential employees. And of course, this is where men come in - they need to be demanding paternity rights and flexibility themselves.

Violet why do you assume that the 5 years would be covered by just one person?

There might be 2 or 3 people covering that role in that time.

I think you're getting too hung up on it. It's just one example of creative thinking. Job shares, flexibility, career breaks etc. are others.

Disagree - don't think anyone tells women to 'piss off and stack shelves'.

Still don't understand how the 5 year thing would work. You would extend employment rights so that the employer would have to pay off every worker handsomely after 5 years?

Are you talking just about contractors? Because as you point out, it makes no difference to them anyway! They take a job for a year, two years, and then at the end it's up for grabs anyway. So - no difference. They have to fight for their job, along with anyone else who has the skills to do it, including women who have stayed at home for a few years.

If you're talking about making every area of work into contract work, then it would be interesting to hear how that would work.

Not hung up at all. Just wondered how it would work in reality.

The figures speak for themselves.

Poverty is a gendered issue, more women are poor than men. The reason is, we have children and that limits our ability to sell our labour in the market place.

There are only 3 solutions to this as far as I can see:

1. Stop having children.

1. Pay women to have children

1. Adapt the workplace so that women with children can function in it and function as mothers as well.

The other option, is to carry on as we are, with a system whcih doesn't deliver for women.

Am off to prepare dinner before Merlin now.

I think it depends on your career. Certainly in my field, I could never hope to return to even a junior position if I took time off. I think its fine to choose to be a SAHM, but I think too many women don't realise they are practically unemployable when they want to return. Childcare costs are still high with school aged children too so you do need a certain income to make it worthwhile.

Yes, I gathered that you favour number 3, which was why I kept asking how you would do that. But you didn't seem to want to elaborate!

Anyway, enjoy!

Tyhe answer is all thses women should stop being houseqwives. It's dull and no one appreciates you and doesn't really benefit children either,. Do as I did - 2 weeks holiday with each baby and it works fine. It's a great way to organise yourself. You don't suffer career detriment and can have lots of babies - I know some women in the City with 6 - 9 of them. You can also afford more too as you don't disrupt your career and children much prefer it as it makes for more interesting mothers and lives.

As for rights to return stuff it very much depends on your field. If you're a leading female surgeon you can't just stop for 5 years and go back as good. You'd have to continue to keep up to date.

If you run a business or have a client/business role if you go off on garden leave even you can lose all your clients. They aren't putting that man from Northern Rock on his garden leave because they like him and want him to have a rest between jobs. Leave damages you whatever the reason for it for many people in business. Of course for others it gives them a chance to cast off the shackles of low paid worth and found their own business and they do better for the break but not most. Mostly it just means womne as ever and rarely men, have the worst of all worlds whilst men have family life, full time work and some muggins at home ironing their shirts. Don't be that muggins.

LOL Xenia you are so reliable.

There are several problems with that vision. One is that it ignores the needs of children and the need of women to nurture their children. For women who want to return to work after 2 weeks it's fine, but the majority of women don't want to. If they did, they'd have done it by now - we've had 40 years of equal ops legislation, so the possibility has been there.

I realised I'd missed that option off - do like men do and get someone else to do most of your childcare so you can concentrate on work. Men of course, get someone else to do it for free, but most women don't have wives, so that's not an option, they'd have to pay someoen else. The problem is, they don't want to, they want to nurture their children themselves. And they should be able to, and still function as workers in the cash economy when they are ready to do so. It's not good enough to tell women that they have to fit into a workplace which was designed by men for men, in a nineteen fifities model where there were women at home to free the men up so that they could pursue their career without being impeded by domestic or caring responsibilities. We need the workplace to be designed for all adults, not just the ones who are more focussed on work than anything else.

Another problem with your vision, is that it is dependent on the existence of a servant class who will come in and do the shit work of the posh job class and to my mind, that's no more progressive than having women as the servant class. To say nothing of the quality of life for the servant class and their children...

That's a very sexist post. Most women in the UK with under 5s work. They don't want to be home with children.

Also saying working working hours is a male thing insults the many women who see it as a human thing - that many jobs need those hours and that being at work in those hours is much better for everyone than being home dusting and changing nappies. Who wants that? Certainly not most women. Plenty of men want to be home of course.

There is ntohing to stop women founding businesses where they allow other women workers to come and go at will etc and plenty do have those models. Just go and do it rather than as ever countless women whinging but changing nothing. There are large nmbers of women founded and run businesses and they can choose whatever model they wish for their workers.

There is always a servant class whether it be Roman times slaves or whatever. There are always some people women and men who can cut the mustrard to be surgeons and some who couldnt' in a month of Sundays as their IQ is 80 etc etc. There is nothign wrong with hierarchical societies. It's how we're made. It's survival of the fittest etc. Women always subcontract child care as do men as soon as they can afford it in all times and cultures. Even many housewives do. I know plenty with very rich husbands who don't work at all but still have a full time nanny and housekeepers etc. Yes, children for part of the day is fine and with a tiny baby breastfeeding on demand is wonderful but not horus a day of dull housework stuff.

HerB: "VH, why do you think that most SAHMs returning to the labour market, are forced to take jobs which are way below their skills level and have to take wages which are way below what they coudl have expected to earn before they had children?"

Could it be because these women are competing with people who have NOT taken time out or allowed their skills to deteriorate?

Of course I have sympathy for your viewpoint of making it easier for women to have on ramps (not just off ramps). I am a working parent myself who has had to make a few compromises along the way.

Then again, I also see it from the employer's point of view. Why would an employer choose a woman who took a career break over another potential employee who did not or who needed training (like the returning woman) but is prepared to accept a lower salary. Any legal coercion (beyond the 1 year maternity leave) would simply make women of childbearing age even less employable.

Exactly blueshoes.

To be honest, I think if a mother feels she wants to take longer off work than ML (which is very lengthy these days) then she is making a choice. How can she realistically expect to walk back in after 5 or 10 years and compete on exactly the same terms against other people who have remained in the workplace throughout? That doesn't mean that women are being told to piss off and stack shelves. It means women are exercising choice. As for the point about why aren't men campaigning for more flexible working etc- well, read the article in yesterdays guardian. The evidence is that many men would be more than happy to have a better work life balance. They feel happier with a wife who goes put to work and shares the pressures of earning and childcare on a more equal basis. It's very easy to harp on about men wanting to keep their wives at home chained to the kitchen sink and denied a real job, but the evidence suggests that they actually feel the opposite they want to see their wives in the workplace and feel it's better overall for the family

You get 6 weeks at 90% pay in the UK so anyone on any kind of decent wage doesn't get that long off.
And none of us would want a surgeon who hadn't practised for 8 years to be let loose on us and hired rather than the female surgeon who hadn't taken more than a few weeks maternity leave and wouldn't kill us if she was doing the surgery.

It is perfectly proper to discriminate against those who are no good or have old skills or aren't up to the job or don't have the qualifications or whatever it might be. Indeed it would be wrong not to do so. Now if all she does is stack shelves may be her skills won't be out of date so it does very much depend on the job.

When I am recruiting, I want the best person for the job. Why wouldn't I? Recruitment is hugely expensive and time consuming, and getting the wrong person in the job is even more expensive and time consuming.
I want the person with the best skill set, knowledge and other qualities, who performs well at interview and during the practical performance element of the recruitment process.

If that candidate happens to be a woman( or man- no discrimination here) who has been at home for 5 or 10 years, then yes, they'll get the job. But if they aren't the best candidate , they wont get it.

I cant see why anyone would have a problem with that. And I cant see why anyone assumes that employers and managers wouldn't want the best person in the job. It comes back to bite US if we don't!