To not take this job after a 7 year career break?

[princessnumber2]

Got offered a job today and need to make a decision by tomorrow. It's a job with good career prospects in an area I want to get into. Full time salary is £30k. I haven't had a job for the last 7 years (have been ill/had ill child/done some academic courses/bits of training and numerous voluntary roles). Role is full time. I asked if they would let me do it part time and they said no. I have a 6 year old and a one year old.

Because of commute and lack of nursery places, I think the only option would be a nanny which would wipe out most/all of my earnings.

I don't need to work for financial reasons (husband earns very good salary, works full time and travels a lot with work). All money is split equally and no question of any earnings being 'his' as we both believe we contribute equally to the partnership. His job requires very flexible childcare which we probably wouldn't have been able to buy had I not done it. However, I am definitely concerned about the loss of my career (I gave up work to care for my daughter when she was very ill).

Basically it's the old classic, part time would be great but they're not up for it. So, how hard is it working full time with a one year old and a six year old and AIBU to turn it down because it would put a pretty big strain on our family for almost no financial reward?

(And yes he is willing to go part time but as he loves his job and earns loads doing it, I do feel harsh making him reduce his hours for me to take a much lower paid job that, while it has potential, is certainly not my dream job.)

The alternative is that I continue to do voluntary work and maybe a bit of freelance and just continue to build up my CV till the kids are a bit older.

please be kind. have never done an AIBU before...

Yes that's right, it's really easy to step back into a job after a long career break .

Well it is for some peo

Try again.
It is for some people ceevee, depends what you do as a job.

Oh dear. It's all going a bit SAHM vs WOHM and that was never really my point. I'm certainly not a 'wee wifey'. That made me laugh. DH has no clue about any of our finances really. I brought the majority of capital into our marriage from taking a very early and big property risk in my 20s (without any backing from anyone, just from my own blood, sweat and tears before anyone thinks i have a trust fund) I have remortgaged our house 5 times and saved us about 100k in the process. His pension is also my pension. If anything happened to him I'd be a rich widow and 99% sure I'd get the house until last child turns 18 if he ever did a runner (and then get 50% when it was sold).

I turned the job down and as I said earlier, could probably have it if I wanted it in 6 months. I do think I have a good chance of finding something better and don't want to sell myself short.

This was supposed to be a thread asking about whether it's worth working for a substantial financial loss while putting the whole family under more pressure.

I understand people wanting to work full time. I probably will in a few years. I just don't want to yet for a number of reasons. I'm not baking any cakes tho

Anyway thank you for all the responses. It's a good range of views which is always nice.

I have to say I am baffled by the employer's logic. They really really want you, even though youve been out of the loop for 7 years (no offence!), they want you so much that even if you can't do it now they may well be able to offer you something in 6 months time... but they can't consider flexi-working of any type! Unless your job is something extraordinarily time and location dependent, they must be a bit stuck in their ways!

I too am a little now. An amazing job where
The employer wants the OP so much they will re-offer the job again in 6 months time but wont consider being flexible at all... And an OP who then turns round and says 'hey, my dh is loaded anyway, and his pension is mine '

I smell a rat here and I wonder whether the claim that she didn't want to start a bunfight is a little disingenuous...

If this is true, then I suspect the employer doesn't want the op as much as she's trying to make out , because an employer who genuinely wants a particular person with specialist skills is more
Likely to be a little bit flexible...

You'd be amazed Janey

I didn't say 'my dh is loaded anyway'. I said our finances are more equal than the 'wee wifey' commentators might think. I would never leave myself totally unprotected financially. I don't really need to be told about the benefits of working and increased independence. That's why I'm applying for jobs. There were good reasons to think they might offer it part time. People in my field have often applied for full time and then been given it as a part time role when they've been selected. It's just not possible with this one.

I also didn't say they couldn't be flexible at all. I said that with the commute and my dh being away for weeks at a time, it would only work with a nanny and the net effect of working would be a loss of several thousand a year. Many many posters understood the question which is would you really do this if it came to it? Full time plus commute plus DH away a lot plus young children - if you'd be making a loss?

IRL my closest friends work 3 or 4 days a week and the other partner works 5 or sometimes less (often the mother works more days than the father). I don't know many people where both parents work 5 days unless they need to for financial reasons. My friends IRL all said don't do it (all of them work except one who worked all the way through having 3 kids and then recently gave it up as she didn't want the stress, the reduced time with the children all for a net loss (tho hers was a smaller loss than mine). My most ardent feminist friend (who doesn't have kids or a partner) said don't do it. I was looking for a broader perspective on here and I got it so thanks everyone.

I'm ducking out of the debate now as i made my decision and don't think there's much point explaining loads of wider issues that aren't really relevant.

Good for you princessnumber2.

It beggars belief that people could be critical of you in this thread, you sound like you have you head screwed on right to me. You don't have to justify anything, there are equally valid arguments for taking or not taking the job.

Ah, now I was meaning to be sympathetic - I previously had a job which supposedly required around 1000 miles of driving a week in order to sit in an office half the time, I now do the same job from home MORE efficiently as I am closer to clients).
Am sure you made the right decision for your family, just a shame that they wouldn't consider P-T.

Would I work for initial financial loss?yes if it got me established and in career
in short term yes I'd take a loss to maintain long term career and enhance opportunity
I'd expect the h who benefitted from housewife to share any financial loss,as it would be fair to support career

Good on you princess. Hope you find your dream job soon and one that allows you a much better balance. Meanwhile enjoy the precious moments for a bit longer. (That was for you scottishmummy).

Sounds like you've done loads of stuff in your time off so clearly you aren't out of the loop.

And janey many many employers are totally inflexible for many reasons including the fear of setting a precendent and fear of change.

I think you're right to step away now OP. This is about to descend...

Good for you Princess! I think everything you've written on this thread makes perfect sense and your decision not to be away full time from your one year old (when you don't have to or want to) makes perfect sense too!

Sounds like you've got a great plan for getting back into paid work a bit further down the track. FWIW, I have either been at home ft or working pt with my small children and while it's meant career sacrifices, for our family it's totally been worth it.