To want to go back to work when my wages don't cover childcare?

[rf241]

I love my job working for a small NGO. I earn 27k and going back part time would mean that I am paying more for the nanny than I earn after tax. My husband earns about 350k and despite always saying that he supported me going back to work now says that he doesn't see why I wouldn't rather be at home. I know that I'm very fortunate and that many would love to be a SAHM and can't, but I really can't face it. I love my boy but I want to go bdck three days a week and go back to a job I love. It doesn't help that my mother and MIL think that I am indulgent and should just stay home.

I am meant to go back in October and it's being ruined by the judgement of others.

Rf I have so many friends who stopped work after having their DCs because childcare was so expensive.

Now the DCs are all in school, they are wanting to get back to work in their former professions in some capacity.

And NONE of them have been able to find work because they have a big "gap" in their CV where they did not engage in any paid work. Rightly or wrongly, employers do see this as a "bad thing".

They are also looking for part time/ flexible jobs which are v v scarce. You are far more likely to get part time if you are already in a job and request part time than coming in as a candidate at recruitment stage.

So I agree that you should keep on working, you will have a lovely balance of work/home if you go back part time (I do!). And with your husband's salary you can afford to employ people to pick up as much of the "shitwork" as possible!

Wow, there are some unpleasant posts on this thread.

OP, you need to toughen up and tell everyone who criticises your decision to bugger off. That includes your mother and your MIL. Working three days a week is brilliant. I did it when my eldest was a toddler and really felt it was the best of both worlds. I think I was a better employee and a better Mum because of it.

Good luck.

So Quint I shouldn't have gone back to my job because DH can support our family?

Sod the Oxbridge degree, professional qualification and ten years experience. Ooh I'm

IsabellaRockerfeller / I think you are so right. One of my best Friebds married very young and didn't work for years. Now she's divorced and despite having a top degree from Cambridge is basically unemployable ....

Also I think getting the cleaner to do extra days might alleviate some of the household strain!!! Too true. Best to farm as much out as possible

OP, your DH earns enough to give himself, and your DS, the pleasure of working 4 days a week: he could do one if the days you work at home. DP and I each did a day a week at home with DS and both kept up our working lives. If you have the flexibility , it isn't all about money, not the cost benefit analysis on his job or yours!

Blu - I wish he could but the nature of his job means that he cannot do anything other thsn full time

Facing he'll Quint why don't we just go back to banning married women from working?

And it isn't bragging to lay out the situation you are asking advice on.

OP, I think I am a better mother when I am working out of the house. Because I ggenerally feel better about myself and therefore have more to give to the kids.

Yes sometimes it can be a juggle, but that is life.

Op, I wonder if there is an element of male pride overshadowing your DH's thinking? A bit of "but why would she WANT to go back to work, when I can buy our family everything we will need, I'm busting my arse every day in the City and that's NOT GOOD ENOUGH?" sort of thing? Along with him thinking you have an easy ride being at home full time...

If so, I think you're already on the right tack - make sure he knows just how much working outside the home means to you, and that being at home can actually be really damn difficult a lot of the time. You will be a better, more rounded* wife and mother for going out to work. He presumably finds fulfilment in his job - it's not wrong for you to want some of the same.

*er. Not in a cakey sort of a way, obv.

My phone is such a prude.

Obviously 'Facing he'll' should be Fucking Hell.

Just to be clear.

Interesting thread. As someone who works as a funder to the NGO sector (corporate grant maker), the discussion around "Should people who can afford to do so waive their salaries in the NGO sector?" is particularly thought provoking. My opinion, FWIW, is that they absolutely shouldn't for a number of reasons:

• Funders typically dont favour situations with unpaid employees in "mission critical" positions. Volunteer-based models can be effective in certain NGO's but reliance on them for "buck stops here" roles can result in massive inefficiency. I've lost track of the number of times I've asked for something like annual report or accounts (for the nth time) to be told "Oh, our volunteer IT manager/ finance manager will do it, only her kids are sick/ she's on holiday/ she's gone to Wimbledon." Volunteers do not typically attach the same priority to their work as paid employees when faced with a conflict, and charities cannot expect or demand that they do. Salaries keep everyone honest.

• Waived salaries create an unrealistic cost structure for the organisation that will be difficult to sustain in future. If for example, a charity is using volunteers to (e.g.) pack food parcels, deliver them, do a bit of admin (basically tasks most adults can do with a bit of basic instruction), then those people are relatively easy to replace/ substitute- I know charities that use 100 volunteers a week and most only volunteer one day/mth- the resource is valuable, but the individuals are largely substitutable. However, if your CFO/ IT manager/ Fundraising manager is unpaid, then when they leave, which they will, you've got a massive hole in your budget because your chances of finding another FT professional volunteer are close to zero. We have very serious discussions with potential grantees who are relying on a donor or volunteer for a major asset (such as free rent on a building) or a key role within management.

• Dont draw attention to the fact that you have key employees who "dont need the money". These people never ride out the rough times. Funders hate staff turnover because that's when projects typically go adrift.

• The charity doesn't necessarily benefit- if, say, the Op's role is funded by a restricted grant (i.e. say she's a program manager, and the charity has got a grant for the costs for that program from the Lottery fund), if she gives her salary back, then the charity would have to refund the grantmaker. They cant just keep it. The grantmaker doesnt really want the money back because its an administrative PITA and wrecks their funding targets. The charity doesn't benefit. The OP doesnt benefit.

I guess what I'm saying is that if someone wants to volunteer, then they should do that, but it's a different experience in every sense to taking a paid role with a charity, in terms of prioritisation, commitment and expectation on both sides. The MN assumption that volunteering should be viewed as equivalent to paid work is not borne out by my experience in this sector.

Thanks for posting that Bunting, it was a very interesting read on a topic I know little about.

Quintessentially, excellent posts. I totally agree.

lol! Every sahm I know has returned to paid work when the kids are older. They were definitely not 'unemployable'
It's only on Mumsnet that sahms are doomed to a life of sad poverty for evermore.

Quint The op has a job which she loves and can work 3 days a week plus balance the needs of her family. By employing a nanny, she is providing a job for someone else so your point is somewhat moot.

More importantly, she is safeguarding her future pension and her ability to work should her and her husband split.

I do not need to work but have spent 10+ years training to do my job. I am good at it. Maybe you think I should quit so someone else can do my job or volunteer to do it for free? I could throw my pension plan away at the same time and rely on dh. We might split up (based on our jobs and my ds SEN, we are statistically highly likely to) but then I will have the glow of having given my job to someone who 'needs it more'. That will keep food on the table and a roof over our heads!

I may be being a bit dramatic here, but I feel really strongly about a woman's right to choose what she does. I don't think being guilted into charity work is the way forward.

Minipie - I know the DH isn't going to get flexible working (or even ask for it). However even thinking about it might give the DH a little idea of what he is asking his wife to give up and help him see it from her point of view.

Bunting - fascinating post. You see the same even at lower-level volunteer roles, the commitment isn't the same for many people as it would be in a paid role, and rightly so, but I had never thought about the implications of roles that are intended to be paid being treated as voluntary. You can see the problem as well that if someone very wealthy and high profile took a salary from a charity there would be an outcry about that too, very tricky.

Great post aggressive bunting and really interesting in terms of finding out how charities work. It's something I didn't know much about.

Sorry haven't read every post. I think you could actually make an argument that only 1/6 of the nanny costs should come from your wages. You are both parents of the baby. The assumption could be that you each have care of the baby for half the working week because it is your equal responsibility. You are accounting for most of your half (2 out of 2.5 days) by looking after your child yourself. Your H isn't proposing to do any of his 2.5 days himself. Therefore you should only think of your wage as having to cover the 0.5 day of your "half" when you'll be working. Your H's wage should cover the other 2.5 days because he's choosing to outsource his whole "half". See what I mean?

Apologies all, i have just reread the thread and realise my post makes no sense at all. When i said 'I have worked for quite a few charities and art galleries. A lot of the women i have worked with have very high earning salary. Many of them donated all or some of their wages back to the employer.'

What i meant was 'I have worked for quite a few charities and art galleries. A lot of the women i have worked with have Husbands on a very high earning salary . Many of them donated all or some of their wages back to the employer (usually £25-35k).

Sorry about that

whoknows - Yes, ok, see what you mean. That's similar to why I suggested he could take a month of additional paternity leave, or perhaps a couple of weeks of parental leave (both more realistic than part time) - so he can see first hand what full time SAHP is actually like - and also have to consider the possible impacts on a career from taking time off to look after DC.

This leapt out from your post above:
Husband great - does bulk of everything at weekends and always did expressed milk night feeds at weekends when baby was little. BUT he doesn't appreciate how it's fun for a couple of days but tough all week.

The first chance you get, have that week where you leave him to it. Preferably before you hire the nanny.

I did this to DH (buggered off for five-day holiday with friends). By day 3, he'd called the childminder pretty much begging her on bended knee to take over for an hour or two. She shopped him to me with a big grin when I got back; apparently he'd said 'Bloody hell, I don't know how Kitties does it all week'.

Happy mum= happy child!!! You do what you want to do and stuff everyone else!

If the family has more money than they need, let them donate money from the DH's salary to a charity! This whole attitude of 'the woman's economic input is unimportant, expendable and unnecessary' is patronising and sexist.

Its only 3 days a week,you will have 2 days a week with your baby and 2 days at the weekend with dh too(or maybe hes not around much at weekends if hes on that kind of money?) anyway i think it sounds great.I am sahm and have been for about 7 years now,no plans to return to work in the near future,maybe at some point but im not worried about it.I think you need to do what makes you and your family happy.

It is a moot point because the issue is not really whether the OP should work at all, but that her mum, mil and dh are telling her what to do and expect her to fall in with that.

In a perfect world, OP would have a husband that backed her up, whatever she wanted to do, recognized that he earned enough for her to do as she wanted (whether pursuing a career or do voluntary work) and pay for nanny and cleaner, housekeeper and cook, if this worked well for the family. She would have a husband who told his mum to back off, and give her wife the strength to tell her own mum to back off too.

The problem is that she doesnt. Not that she wants to work, or what shape or form that work takes.

The fact that she needs to keep her job, because her rich high earning husband sees his income as his to decide what to do with, and dont have her best interest at heart, is the real issue here.

Of course, a woman who is in a marriage where there is a concern that her husband will shaft her further down the line, MUST keep her independence and earning going.

Aggressive bunting- I myself have experience of other charities in the sector relying heavily on volunteers for key frontline/delivery roles. It's not a great model. Often these charities are chaotic and it's impossible to get a response in a timely fashion! Also, it's not sustainable and a charity shlukd Instead be focussing on fundraising for the key posts.

Also, it isn't fair to expect a volunteer to take on so much responsibility. we have a number of volunteers at my organisation and it's a balance between trying to utilise them whilst recognising the need to add value to them and provide useful experience. Of course the same is true of staff, but I firmly believe that duty towards volunteers is different.

On another note, we donate to charities and though I don't feel I have to justify myself on this count, we certainly support a number of charities close to our heart. Incidentally I have also donated to my own charity!