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?

YANBU op, I agree exactly with what you are saying, I'm one of those mums who gave up a job she liked and now I'm doing a shit job with less than half the money BUT its school hours

c'est la vie, I wanted to see my kids

Yep. I had a (female, childfree) boss who held team meetings at her remote datmhoise. Becuase her cat coildnt ve left. To manage the 7 hrs travel and 14 hour day to attend, i had to book tons of extra childcare for my 2 kids. Did she think? Did she think to check? Like hell she did .. my male colleagues had no problem - wives at home to
sort this. It's a fucking joke for most women! And yes, for v v highfliers it is possible- if you're so highly paid that you can afford to pay and house a nanny, then fine. But this is still relatively rare. Inevitably we cant all be at the top!

For those of you who work in family-friendly places, which companies are these and what do you do?

Do you really think they exist?? I think its more skillsbased- medical/legal/engineering/it specialist expertise is going to buy you flexibility. I have worked in 'family friendly' NHS/charities/education and ime they pay lip-service to this unless you luck in with a particulatly understanding manager- who probably only gets it as they're also juggling.

I am a single-parent who works full time. I made the decision to carry on full time with my career after having DS and although it wasn't easy, I have managed. I was lucky enough to have a fantastic Boss who also has children, so he understood the need for some flexibility.

In the role I had after that, I had a team of 40 all over the country and I did my very best to offer my staff flexible working. It was the kind of role where there was a fair bit of travel, but I worked with each team member to see if there was some flexibility that worked for all of us (regardless of whether they had children or were male or female). I would start meetings at a sensible time, so no one had to leave at 4/5am and moved them around the country, so it helped everyone. Conference calls and Skype are great too. Not one member of staff left in the 3 years they were working for me. More employers should be flexible, as it helps with staff retention, motivation etc.

I was offered a new role at a more senior level recently, but again it was a national role and originally they wanted me to be away from home 4 nights a week for the first 6 months. I said no, as my DS is only 9 and needs me around, so I turned the job down. I was lucky that I was the person they really wanted, so came back to negotiate. I know how lucky I am!

When I come to create my Department and build a team again (shortly), I will be doing my best to ensure that I can offer as much flexibility as possible, so I can attract and keep the best talent.

I agree with Movingonmymind. I think it is down to individual Managers in a lot of instances.

I work in Learning and Development and I do find that the more senior the role, the more flexibility I have.

I only know of one company personally where their family friendly policies run right through the company and is really embedded in the culture. I keep in touch with their HR Director, in the hope they will have a suitable vacancy in the future.

In my last work place it was the women who had a problem with me working p/t. I always got catty remarks about not working on Fridays, they ignored the fact that I was in the office the other four days of the week.

Their behaviour was crap so I got fed up and moved on from there. My male colleagues were very accepting of my circumstances so gave me work with plenty of notice but my female colleagues were awful. So much for female solidarity.

Yes there are family friendly employers! But possibly more public sector...?

We do a standard 35 hour week. You can work the hours you choose between 7am and 7:30pm, as long as you are around for 3.5 core hours between 10 and 3:30.
Compressing that into four days is a regular thing and a lot of people do it.
We can carry a fair amount of flexi time over between weeks without any special arrangements, so it is usually easy to fit in routine appointments, and means a kid off sick is not necessarily even something you need to mention.
Part time working is also normal: almost all of my team do it, and some of them also choose to have two different half time contracts.

And it also makes very little difference who your boss is: this is standard stuff. On the flip side, we are public sector so we get paid a bit less - but not that much for my line of work. The organisation is stuffed full of 30+ people who are hugely appreciative of the flexibility... and I am sometimes quite amazed at the levels of productivity - probably a lot to do with this.

I work part time because I want to be around more for the mundane stuff e.g. school pick ups as well as the key stuff. Working full time just doesn't enable it.

My career suffers as a result but I've decided I don't care anymore. I set a good example, I work hard etc etc. I don't need to kill myself.

I keep having conversations with my superiors who want me to go for promotion but I just can't face it. Long hours, more stress and more shit. And yes I might see the kids every day but not for long and it will always be frantic unless at the weekend.

The thing that gets me is the attitude of most men is that they can be guilt free because their partner picks up the slack. When I've had to work and DH is looking after the kids, I'm much more relaxed and happier than if I have to worry about childcare. I don't even feel guilty! So I bet most fathers are the same hence. And as we are set up this way with mums taking maternity leave then it is no wonder.

sorry to hear that MrsAsprey

sounds like they were kind of jealous.

sometimes i think people forget that part timers don't actually get paid for the days they are not working!

I have gone back 3 days a week after having my DTD's. It is abundantly clear from senior management that they have no respect for me, I am on the lowest rung of my department despite having vast amounts more relevant experience than lots of my colleagues and it's thoroughly depressing. However I am reasonably well paid and my immediate line manager is good so I grin and bear it. I do feel completely trapped though as I know I would not be able to get a part time role anywhere else as it is extremely rare within my industry.

I think things are changing slowly - more men are now working compressed hours or parttime hours.
When you have DC, I think many people don't like the thought of them going to childcare full time - so one parent decides to go part-time and it is usually the one who earns the least - and that has often been the woman. But now women are/can be earning more than the men so some time in the future more men will opt to be the part-timer. It's a slow process though.

The redundancy situation says it all.. they are making two people redundant rather than discussing reducing hours or asking who would like to go part time???

I think this is being approach from the wrong angle. Those men can have the high flying jobs because they have wives who are prepared to stay at home and do the childcare. They might want to do this. It's all a matter of options. Some firms do have managers on job share or part-time hours but a lot of places don't. I think if a workplace is too over family friendly it can cause resentment amongst other staff. People never having to do late shifts because they have children. And usually only applies to women.

You seem a bit conflicted about what you want OP. You seem to be complaining about the kind of lower paid part time school dinner supervisor/ class room assistant jobs which you say you want.

Personally I chose to work 3 days a week when my children were very tiny. But I went back full time the moment my youngest started reception class. Many other mums I know continued part time for well beyond this, or even stopped working completely for a some time. Nothing wrong with that, but you have to accept that every choice has an impact. If you choose to work part time, presumably you do it for what you perceive is a benefit to yourself and your family.

My children are now all adults, and I sometimes have people saying to me that I am lucky to have a well paid managerial role, good pension etc ... No, it's not luck, I made the decision to have no time (other than very short maternity leaves) completely out of the workplace, and then to return to full time work as soon as I could. It came at a short term massive financial cost (2 x nursery fees plus wraparound school care for eldest) followed by years of the wraparound care for all 3 because DH and I always started work well before school hours and finished work later. Not everyone is prepared to make that choice.

There has never been a better time in history for women and men to put things on an equal footing, because parental leave is now transferable between mum and dad, and anyone can request flexible working. But its down to couples to make the decisions which suit them as a family. If the woman doesn't want to be the one to let her career take a back seat, then she doesn't need to

I've gone back. I work full time and have 3 children. I earn about £8,000 less than I did pre kids.

But I did take a five year break while at home with little ones. And I have colleagues who went back full time when their children were babies and are now several levels above me.

As far as I'm concerned they've bloody earned it.

As for the men - they don't tend to take career breaks so can move up during their thirties.

A normally sympathetic colleague once commented that she 'wished she could leave at 2pm every day' like I did. I pointed out (forcefully) that I only get paid until 2pm.

That's exactly why I refused to go part time despite my ex's wishes. No way was I giving up my career, my pension and my financial independence.

I'm a career woman with 2 kids under 5. my husband is a SAHD. No sexism in our house. We chose who would be the SAHP, it suits him better than me. So it doesn't always HAVE to be the woman.

You need to get yourself an enlightened partner OP. Why didn't he go back part time instead of you?

Indeed - as maggie implies - it is often just due to sexism within a couple. If men and women are fair and equal then there is no reason women have to get stuck with long leaves or short hours. They can work full time and preserve careers - it works for very many of us. I can tell you when they are in trheir 20sl ike my oldest they don't talk to you about the fact you changed 20 nappies a day rather than 5 and kiss your feet because you chose to earn very little; instead if you have always worked they have work in common with you as well as other things and are pretty glad you can fund their university costs, help them with first properties and the like. Never forget how much financial security means and how it can be the best thing you give your children when deciding whether to have a sexist unequal marriage with muggins mother stuck at home earning virtually nothing.

Some jobs just can't be properly done on a PT basis.

We have a lady in our office who has just returned from maternity leave. She is very senior and prior to having her baby had lots of clients. They have decided that as she is part time she can't have her own clients any more, as she isn't here enough.

Instead, she is helping us out with our clients, doing basic admin work, filing etc. BUT, she is still on the wage of a very senior person despite doing none of that work (not to mention the fact she is shit at admin and making things worse).

I find this really unfair. Why should she get paid three times as much as everyone else when she doesn't do the work commensurate with that salary?

Why didn't he go back part time instead of you?

Absolutely this!

We don't have the monopoly on being able to look after children during work hours. Men can do it too.

You seem to want yo have your cake and eat it.

Lotus I am a bit offended by your assumption that I as a six figure earner needed to go back to work to give my children financial security. I worked and saved very hard for a long time to have choices later on. My children know and understand this and I reject your assumption that it is not possible to have it all successively rather than concurrently.

In retrospect though it might have been nice to employ someone else to do the nappy changes though ;)

I don't agree with a lot of the recent posts.

Why should a woman choose between a full time position or staying at home? And why, if she chooses to work part time, should be penalised by being relegated to a junior role?

As I have said above, there are very, very few jobs that can't be done on a part time basis. Even where client facing this can be managed on a job share basis. It is simply a lack of commitment on the part of management to make it work.

And I would apply these comments as well to any men who wanted to work part time