Working mums get all the shit and end up with no career

[farewellfigure]

Hi. I really don't know if I've just a bee in my bonnet or whether workplaces in general really are unfair and women get such a raw deal. It's all very emotional at the moment as our department has just announced that 2 out of 10 of us will be made redundant in the next month. I'm applying for an admin/assistant role in my DS's school and I really hope I get it. I'm actually really excited but I can't help pondering over the fact I will become the cliché of a career woman who has to give it all up.

Anyway, at work, there are 3 designers who are part time, and 2 part time writers. We are all mums who had careers... we were managers, department heads etc. Then we had babies and came back part time and weren't allowed to be managers any more. And how about the men we used to manage whose wives had babies? They are now managers, department heads etc. It drives me NUTS. In DS's school, there are so many mums who had careers, and are now dinner ladies, TAs, admin assistants etc, it's just not funny. Not that there is anything wrong with any of those jobs whatsoever. But it just seems so unfair to me. I know having children is a choice, and I chose to do it. And I chose to go back part time. Yes... all my choices because I actually wanted to see my DS a bit every day and have a relationship with him. But basically I waved good bye to my career and now it looks like I'll have to wave good bye to the job as well.

There are 2 young women in the office who will probably get to keep their jobs when the redundancies come because they are young and full time and 'fresh'. WIBU to say to them, 'When your time comes, and you choose to have babies, come back full time. Put your DCs in nursery all day every day and keep your management roles. Otherwise you can kiss good bye to your high-flying careers and do what all the other overlooked mums end up doing'. Bitter? Me? Just a wee bit. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and maybe a bit of perspective! And I'm giving myself a . Is that allowed?

Haha laughing at being managed part time is as good as being managed full time.

I'm sure some people in some situations can do an effective jobs of managing staff part time but it would be better for them to be available all the time rather than half the time. That's simple maths.

Job shares again can work but in general why wouldn't a company go for 1 employee and have consistency if they can

With respect I disagree. I work a 75% schedule and manage a team on my own. I am active in my management and make sure everyone is set up to complete their work while I am not there.

Another thing is that even on my day off I am available if something comes up. It rarely does and I roll my hours so I don't overwork.

We have the technology today but dinosaurs think in terms of new communication as replacing face to face management. Quite frankly most of my teams would be fine with me only being there 2 days a week.

I agree but if someone at work is down, having a bad day and it's effecting their performance they are unlikely to ring you at home. Also if someone makes a mistake and doesn't think something is a priority that they should ring you about you might miss something important. You are then relying on other peoples judgements for things that a ft worker wouldn't have to. They will tell you when you are back in but then it has taken you longer to deal with it than if you were full time. I work in a department where the mood is very important to how people perform, in my experience people tend to be jealous/ bitter about other people being off work 'or getting the perk of shorter hours' - not saying this about my department but I know a mum who works 4 half days which really annoys the other mums who do a very slightly different job and we're turned down for pt hours.

I think managers are best when they are seen and whilst anyone might be a great manager, director, etc if you are only there half the time you are really limiting the time when you could be seen, deal with issues, improve moral, etc.

I'm not saying you don't do a good enough job and tech etc prob goes a long way to getting you back in a position to be as effective as if you were there full time but at the end of the day pt is less desirable than ft as a part time work is less effective than a ft worker (all other thins being equal of course)

Also why should employers go with what is fine and what teams could cope with rather than what is best for the business, (better than okay)

Obviously that's slightly different and a business should be more liniment for people already working there who are requesting to go part time but realistically most business setting up or creating a new managerial position aren't going to think pt is the best option compared to ft.

I'm pretty sure I won't regret on my deathbed that I had an interesting, fulfilling career and could also give DCs a comfortable lifestyle, either.

Completely agree - have always thought that deathbed thing was a load of rubbish.

Messy lives ????

I worked PT when DC little- it hasn't held me back, I planned my gradual increase in hours, kept up to date ( CPD) and am the same level as my peers without DC.
I do wonder a bit at those who give up work completely and then 15-20 years down the line are cross because they are doing NMW jobs ???

NoName, perhaps you haven't done much recruitment or been exceptionally lucky when you have? IME a great manager who you see face to face once a month is ten billion times better than an average manager who sits next to you all day every day. Offering flexibility allows you to tempt the great ones to work for you, even if you don't have the budget to throw money at them.

Even if you only have ordinary normal managers instead of superhuman ones, I am actually coming around to the pov that having people in the office all the time allows them to cover over their own incompetence at getting work done on a timely basis, documenting stuff and ensuring other people know the critical stuff, developing their staff to take responsibility and make decisions - and so on. It really rings alarm bells when I find that someone has not actually taken a full week off in the last six months - each "annual leave" week they have arranged to spend some time working. This is not a good thing, it's a cover up for not being able to prioritise properly and means nobody can rely on them.

I know and in some industries it's better to have a great manager part time rather than good or average full time. But in recent years and up until very recently the job market has been flooded with great candidates, there's sometimes 100's of applicants for 1 job. So companies can have their pick of candidates and again if everything is even it is probably better to go with ft.

I know there is definitely cases of discrimination but legislation is in place I would suggest now there would be more change if parents worked together to ensure things change, e.g discussing it and hopefully getting men to do more caring/ take career breaks. Companies will always do what they do, e.g serve their own interests to just within the law.

I really think being bitter is not useful to anyone, women have more power than they think they have.

We're in different industries then NoName, in my industry getting senior mgt to allow pt/homeworking/flexibility is like a secret weapon to lure in good candidates.

Agree with you that the real solution is for more men to take career breaks/flexible options. All the while that they're seen as "women's options" then the mummy track will remain in place.

It's doable to have two FT parents if they both share sick leave/dropoffs/etc equally, but not if one partner has to do it all.

Having children and returning to work p/t has had no impact on my career. I'm in a more senior role now than I was when I returned to work 18 months ago despite being less ambitious and just caring less about my work than I did pre-children The 3 most senior people in the management team of my department are all women working pt.
I work in the public sector and suspect it is different in the private sector. I'm certain that having children is a disadvantage in terms of career for plenty of women, but it's not been my experience.

Rita, I tried going back PT but feeding at night and pregnant with second, no local family support, it was a non-starter, so took time off. Even if I could have afforded the childcare for 2, the lack of sleep prevented me working. There is no meaningful CPD where I work it's more who you know than what you know. Trying to fit in with the old-boys club at work and also juggle childcare was messy for me, and most women I know have the same experience. I guess it really depends on what your job is and whether it is set up to allow for women with children, and whether the workplace gives part-timers equal status.

I know lots of men who are part time. But they don't call it part time. They call it 'having several interests', or 'combining roles'.

Always seemed to me that it was way more acceptable to be senior and part time if the other part of your time was spent in a prestigious (different) job than if it was spent in home-based responsibilities.

No one goes telling the PT company directorship MPs that they are a bit crap cos they are only PT...

I don't know what the answer is but I do feel personally that when my husband left when my 2 were babies I had to give up my career as I needed to work nights and I could not do that on my own. I now work part time in a crappy job on very low pay but I get the school holidays off. I get fed up with the awful childcare there is. I now feel that I have lost so much because I have no career, no relationship and a very limited social life. Financially hit too! But, I just cannot stand/live with being away from my children. I already have to let them go off to spend time with their dad and so if I worked full time and got my career back I would hardly ever see them. Most men do not seem to be bothered about if the childcare is ok or even seeing their kids every day. Its hard to be a mum- Whatever your situation as a mum - part time work, full time you can guarantee you will be at a disadvantage or be told you are wrong somewhere along the line. I would like to see a Scandinavian idea brought in where you can leave your career until your kids are older then get your job back - that way, you can be a good mum but know that your career is still there for you. I worry about my future and I cannot afford to go back to uni so I think I will be poor for the rest of my life - I would choose this any day so I can be with my children but I cant even have that!

I spend a lot of my time developing those on my team and enabling them to be the best they can be. I've had very good upward feedback about my management style. Its called the momster style by a couple of partners I work for and I have a core of people who won't work for other managers in my department if they can avoid it. I've been asked to train up others who are FT. That always goes down well with a few having the attitude that you have to be there 150% of the time.

Its bull. You need to be available. I'm always checking in with my team. They know that my expectations of them are the exact same expectations that I have of me. I'm taking a sabbatical now and will return in August. I'm having lunch meetings to make sure that those on my team up for promotion are promoted.

Also going part time isn't a perk. I earn less and on a pro rata basis work more hours.

I know lots of men who are part time. But they don't call it part time. They call it 'having several interests', or 'combining roles'.

Portfolio career is another phrase for it

This has been a thoroughly engrossing thread. I had been feeling resentful about my lack of a career due to going p/t when my first dc was born. He's 11 now, and I have 3 other dc.
One thing that I don't think has been raised is what happens if one or more dc have additional needs. My 11yo has Aspergers and my 8yo is having panic attacks & other behavioural issues. I don't know how we would cope as a family if I worked f/t and got back at 6pm. I work about 24 hours now, DP runs his own businesses and is working about 70hours per week. I have 4 dc, I chose to have 2 & then got accidentally pregnant with twins. Yes, yes, should have been more careful. You make choices, I get that. But I didn't choose to have a child with ASD who needs me more than my 6yo twins do. I didn't choose to have PND twice. I didn't choose to have severe anxiety and panic attacks because of 4 dc under 5.

With the references to "leaning in" on this thread it's very poignant to hear the sad news about Sheryl Sandberg's husband's premature death.

I have read her book and found it motivating even if I haven't exactly followed all the advice!

Indeed, brandy

That's so sad Brandysnapper - I didn't know. How awful.

What I was about to say 2 pages ago before I pressed post too early was that I "leant in" for four years at my job - was senior, always had excellent performance reviewes, always worked flexibly, whether checking emails in the evening on my phone or logging in on overseas holidays blah blah blah, but it didn't help when I came to negotiate my return to work after mat leave - it was five days in the office full time office hours or nothing.

If companies want to retain women in senior roles they need to be a but more flexible - I'm not saying they should have offered me part time hours but a bit of flexibility to retain a high performing worker wouldn't have killed them! Ironically my husband's employer was prepared to offer much more flexibility than mine was - but his manager was a 40 year old woman with a small child of her own, and mine was a 60-something man who'd had a stay at home wife for his whole working life and had never done a jot of childcare, ever.

Why would I sacrifice time with my young child to work my arse off "lean in" to a career at a company that clearly didn't appreciate my contribution over the previous years, or the value I added? I have no false modesty - I know I was very good at my job and I know they're worse off now I've left - they know it too, belatedly.

It's obviously different for people who are self-employed and reap the benefits of the hours they put in and have the autonomy to manage those hours, but for those of us who are wage slaves (even where the wages are very good) the attitude of the company/manager will determine whether it's worth your effort to "lean in" or not.

It is very sad about Sheryl Sandbergs DH. The earlier reports didn't disclose the reason but I can't help but think it was something stress induced.

I'm quite ambivalent about the lean in aspect. It's not that she doesn't have a point but I think it's a more complex issue. I'm finding my way as I go and thinking ahead to my DC. My goal is that we won't be a burden on them and they won't be a burden on us. Their tuition needs to be covered and we will use our contacts to get them a plum job.

It's tough when your child has special needs. I'm really lucky that we have a head start program in our local town here in the us who work with the early intervention program. I could work FT if I wanted to but life is much better working PT. I also think I am a better employee being PT.

Just to say that it is very unfair that if you want to work P/T you nearly always have to say goodbye to any responsibility and seneority, a decent wage, and job security.
Why two experienced workers can't come back P/T and job share or similar I really don't understand.
Except that present system suits the patriarchy and employers who hold all the cards now that workers rights have been so badly eroded under the tories since Thatcher
Worse is that you often don't realise this is the situation until too late - there's lots of talk about family friendly, flexibility, investing in people - but it all comes to nothing when it really matters

I agree that the worst problem inherent in the current situation is that people believe it to be different from how it is. I know countless mothers who struggle to keep careers going for little financial benefit during the early years. They are also making huge compromises in terms of lifestyle. I also know several who made sacrifices to retrain only to find their chosen alternative was not actually that child friendly or there were no jobs.
I understand that women only progress when they participate and fight but I do not think expecting people to bend over backwards for the good of the "cause" is the only way to do it or fair.
I wonder if ALL the struggling jugglers and balancers downed tools for a while if employers would suddenly become more flexible?

Haven't RTFT but OP I feel your pain. I do believe that the biggest barrier to fair treatment atm is that the men rarely, if ever, make the choice to work pt when they become parents. If men took on more of the childcare role, pt working and parental responsibility would start to become "normal" in the workplace rather than a woman's problem.

FWIW, at the moment I believe that men who choose to work pt have an even worse time than women. Dh's experience (we both work pt) has really opened my eyes to the injustices. At least no-one has ever openly said to me "well you're working pt so can't be taking your career seriously" (even if that's what they're thinking). DH has to deal with that sort of thing regularly, from seniors as well as colleagues.

PT working is poorly viewed by most organisations, and the range of roles available for pt workers is abysmal, badly affecting promotion prospects. I like to imagine a time in the future when a large proportion of the workforce, male and female, choose to work pt and it is accepted as a normal, healthy practice that is good for employers and employees alike.

Even if you share the childcare burden, you are both usually "competing" with others who have SAHPs and so can work at shorter notice.