Am I being unreasonable to think that the Government's policy to make mums go back to work is misguided?

[mountaingoat]

Just interested in what mumsnetters think about this one. I've been a working mum and a SAHM so I have no axe to grind either way. It just strikes me that:
if mums want/ need to go back to work then they should be given every opportunity to do so. But, why should it be a policy that mums must go back to work? Why is it better for mums to go back to work? Surely it is just a matter of choice?
I would guess that Messrs Cameron and Osborne have (a) rarely spent a day looking after babies and pre-school age children and certainly not for months or years on end 24/7 - and actually have no idea what is involved; and (b) their experience of childcare for their own children is probably highly paid and qualified nannies or very smart nurseries. My kids have all been through nursery and there are wonderful nurseries out there. but there are also nurseries which are mediocre, and if there is a quick, ill thought out expansion of childcare provision, there will be more mediocre nurseries out there for sure. Why is it better for a mum of pre-school age children to leave them in a nursery with a crowd of other toddlers being looked after by a teenager with an NVQ2 in childcare, than to stay at home and look after her own children until they do go to school?
I don't want this to turn into a wm v sahm thread (yawn)
also, I'm talking about situations where one parent is working to pay for the family and the other parent is staying at home to do the childcare. Not talking about families where no-one is working and they are expecting to stay at home with the kids and for the state to fund it (think these people mainly exist only in the minds of Daily MAil journalists anyway)

[32percentcharged]

School holiday care seems expensive if you didn't work when your children were pre school. For those used to paying pre school childcare it seems unbelievably cheap. After paying nursery fees x 2 for 51 weeks a year (no discount for when we were on leave- it was full price every day the nursery opened) believe me, the childcare bills once they start school seems a doddle in Comparison

[tobysmum77]

re 10k earner if it is going to make the family worse off to go to work then it is a massive barrier particularly if they can't afford to be worse off and there are also costs involved in working. All this split expense stuff is a mn phenomenon ime. A lot of people/ women are in reality kept out of the workplace by this.

That said I don't find holiday childcare as expensive as people on here, round here it starts at £65 for a whole week but obviously we are lucky there..... In comparison to 48 per day for nursery it seems quite reasonable.

[LotusLight]

It is certainly difficult when you both work full time. We had one daily nanny (I don;t think she really had any qualifications (may be one childcare GCSE or NVQ) and she was young but she was perfectly good (domestically very messy - we cleaned up after her every night) and she stayed 10 years. That is definitely cheaper than 3 nursery places (we had 3 under 4 and worked full time) and nicer for the child as they are in their own home.

When the oldest was nearly 3 she went to a morning nursery school - no subsidy for that in those days of any kind. When the youngest went to full time school our nanny went more part time hours in the week - she had 1 and then 2 babies of her own and brought them to work too (one reason she stayed 10 years) and obviously covered school holidays of the older children.

Then when she left and when all 3 were at full time school it gets harder as people have said. We paid school fees and the school coaches even for the 5 year old left at about 7.45am so I'd take that older one 2 stops on the tube to the school coach stop, get her on the school coach and then get back on the tube to London to work.

In our first year the cost of child care was 50% of each of our net salaries (we earned the same then)! But as we have both worked full time for the 30 years since without any breaks it was worth it - an investment in careers. No tax credits ever. no maternity pay rights actually either for me due to fairly bad luck although I suspect that's one reason I earn a lot now as the state was not incentivising me to go part time or take a year off when I had a baby.

Later we hired an Australian (she did not live in) who did cleaning in the morning and then school collection and also did 4 hours at weekends driving the children to various parties - they were at that phase under 10.

Another option we used was before and after school club at school with the later children. Another was using the older siblings to help as needed - one of the nice things about large families. Another was advertising in the local paper for someone to work 3 - 6pm each day ( we had huge numbers of replies) and if possible some extra hours in holidays.
At age 9 one took a train to Yorkshire on her own to stay with grandparents when she had an extra week half term no one else had.

It remains difficult and expensive for men and women to find childcare (this has always been a men's issue even 50 and 30 years ago in equal marriages - the only sort decent women should tolerate!).

[pollyisnotputtingthekettleon]

Logon - thats the point really. I suppose now they are capping benefits there isnt the option to keep having babies to stay off work. Im really annoyed at couples who dont live together and yet have baby after baby .. because they are better off if mom is seen to live alone. That I think is the difference between choosing to be a single mom and actually being one. Its the single moms who should be up in arms about those ...

[LogonMounstuart]

Lots of 2 person couples don't have a choice- they both need to work to afford to raise their family.

I can't see how a lone parent is being forced to work. If they can afford to raise their family without working then they don't have too. Surely they are only forced to work if they are claiming some form of state assistance?

[lem73]

So sorry to hear about your husband Ptolemy.

[Basketofchocolate]

There was talk of spreading the holidays around the year so the summer one wasn't so long but not seen anything about that lately. I do think that it is good for kids to be with family in the younger years (but appreciate not always possible) but for those people relying on nurseries, it's a different ball game once they are at school. Not all schools offer 'wrap around care' and there are a lot of random days off (and early finishes!). I had to take two days off in last job unpaid as the school kept being used as a polling station and was shut. We're not in the same voting area so wasn't prepared and although had carefully planned annual leave between us (including working evenings and weekends) to make up hours (thankfully two very understanding companies) we had scheduled ourselves up to the last day and were thrown by 'school closed for polling next week' letters'. Without understanding employers (and yes, I do appreciate how hard and expensive it can be to run a business that allows that kind of working) school is really hard to work around.

Ironically, the private school near us where the joint incomes must be fairly substantial do offer the wrap around care and have their school plays and sports days on Saturdays as is only way the parents could attend. Not saying I want that for DC's school, but interesting that school is helpful to families where (majority) both parents work, but lower down the scale, in the average primary, it's hard to fit work around school.

I still think that more public sector jobs should be made more family friendly. I know many are, but it would be a good way for the Govt to show a strong example.

I say we form a Mumsnet political party tomorrow :)

[ihategeorgeosborne]

I agree that childcare for school age children in the holidays is crippling. My youngest starts school in September and I am thinking that I'd like to go back to work and engage my brain again, but those costs scared me. Even if dh and I used all our annual leave separately, we would only cover half the holidays roughly. That doesn't include inset days and sickness. Plus I'll have one at senior school in September, with different inset days. It sounds stressful and expensive. Perhaps I'll stay a SAHM after all and just have hobbies!

[Basketofchocolate]

Actually, Ihategeorge that's a good point. We now have DC in school, and both of us working seems like a great idea, even if one choose part time to do school run but school hols are crippling. Can easily blow loads of salary or total annual leave for both just on summer hols. Now am thinking that sod the younger kids, I want my bloody career back - I want childcare help for school holidays!!

A very basic childcare set up here for summer hols is £35 a day (essentially a nursery, so just playing in a hall with a small, hard outside area - no garden or going on outings or anything - worse than school so not much of a holiday for a child!). A day!! We're lucky that we found a specialised place that does £20 a day but only for first two weeks of the hols and they can't go the full two weeks and places are really limited.

[duplodon]

I don't think nursery is good for kids. On the whole, it's probably fine - but good? Better than reasonably good (not abusive) maternal or paternal care?
Not really. I don't think evolution moves that quickly and I think as a species we were meant to have kinship/community care, not for kids to be cared for by strangers with high turnover of staff. When I was a kid if your mam worked you had a local childminder who was someone else's mam and you played out the back and came in for tea, you didn't spend your life free-flowing between sensory bins and alphabet trays or have a three page report on your learning at two and a half. Kids today certainly have a much better deal than chimney sweep Victorian kids or 18th century tots swaddled and hung on lines by a peg so believe me, I'm no pearl clutcher asking that we think of the CHILDREN but I think the benefits of group care are very often highly oversold.

[ghostspirit]

childcare here is about 7 pounds an hour

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Sorry, should read there not their!

[ihategeorgeosborne]

I was looking through my daughter's book bag tonight and their was a flyer from the holiday club. The costs were a basic of £28 per child per day. That is a lot of money to find especially with more than one child. I'm not sure the governments pledge to offer free child care to pre-schoolers for families earning up to 300k is the best use of state funds, when families earning significantly less don't get any help with school age children.

[ghostspirit]

ihategeorge i 100% agree. i really do not get why its not for younger children as well. i think time i have paid child care im going to have about 20 pounds of my wage.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

I should add that I think if the government are hell bent on subsidising childcare for working families, then they should look at helping parents with children of all ages, not just 3 and 4 year olds and it should be given to help lower income families, not families on 50k.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Surely the child care money comes from both salaries and is not the sole responsibility of the 10k earner. The benefits for the 10k earner to work are that they keep their hands in and increase their experience and qualifications levels. Childcare is only temporary and the high costs are then outweighed by keeping up with skills, etc. I don't think that parents should be paid to stay at home, but the SAHP does sacrifice an income and keeping up with skills, etc that the working parent keeps. I'm not sure why the family on a joint income of 50k should be paid by the government to put their children into childcare.

[tobysmum77]

erm because the childcare may well be more than the 10k. So the lower earner basically can't afford to work.

[Basketofchocolate]

Also, £50k round here does not allow you to afford more than a small house in a 'just about ok' street in a town well know for its status in the Crap Towns of Britain. We are living here because we're close to family, although get no childcare from them. We are looking to move to another part of the country where it is easier to live on that kind of income more comfortably.

Back in my parents' day, that equivalent salary would have afforded a rather naice house in a naice area, with a huge garden, double drive, holidays abroad at least once a year. A friend of my Dad's was one level above me in the same level in an industry when he retired as I was before I had DC. I was struggling to even consider buying a 1 bed flat on my own whereas him and his wife (who'd never worked a day) lived in comparative luxury.

Cost of living has gone up out of proportion.

Polly is right, nothing has changed in working hours for parents in that time. Although, I think then jobs in schools, etc. were advertised more as 'jobs for mums' which is probably no longer allowable, which means you are advertising a post that doesn't mention term time, etc. as that would be discriminatory, so if you have a young graduate looking apply, why not have them instead?

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Why can't they afford childcare tobysmum? That's two incomes, with neither paying higher rate tax. In fact, the 10k earner isn't paying any income tax at all. They have a higher take home pay than the single income family on 60k.

[tobysmum77]

All this 50k stuff are we talking joint income? If one person is on 40k and the other 10k they cant afford childcare.

[PtolemysNeedle]

Maybe that's one of the situations that would be improved if both parents worked, and while I very much doubt it's been part of the governments motivation, it does show a good reason why it's better for financial stability to provide something for yourself.

My DH did die very suddenly last year, and I have increased my part time hours very slightly to help me pay for stuff. It is fortunate that I've been able to do that. I've also been given widowed parents allowance, which has apparently been calculated based on my DHs NI contributions. It's pretty generous, and while I could just about afford to live without it, our household income has obviously taken a huge battering since the main earner is no longer here. Maybe you'd get quite a lot of widowed parents allowance if your DH earned £60k, I don't know. But I agree that this is what insurance is for. We didn't have any, but if I didn't have a job and a means to support myself we might have done. I have a responsibility to provide for my children either way.

[Alfieisnoisy]

Personally speaking I would have loved 30 hrs of subsidised childcare when DS was small. We would have been much better off financially.

For women who have never worked I think this gives a good chance for them to get into the workplace. Quite honestly I couldn't care less about the welfare system and the cost. For me it's about helping women to feel independent .

Obviously if you can't work for health reasons that's different. But for normal healthy women I think work is fab....I loved my job and really had the best of both worlds.

I once worked with a young Mum. I saw her with her new baby on her 21st birthday.....it was her fourth child. I will never forget the desolation in her face as she said "I'm 21 and I've got four kids".

She wanted to he a hairdresser and subsidised childcare would have been a step in the right direction for her to get out and build a new life for herself.

[pollyisnotputtingthekettleon]

My mom was a single parent 30 odd years ago on benefits... there were no jobs that worked around the kids ... nothing has changed. Thats not good! Those were the days when 1 worker could afford housing. Now you need two to afford a home. Nothing has worked in the moms favour. Yes parents have a responsibility but the gov. does too ... when I had twins after DD i needed to earn £36k Just to pay childcare - without any extra. It is incredible hard and women should be campaigning to change the working hours rather than extend child care.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

"Fabby, there's a big difference between the government stepping in to support someone in tragic circumstances, and supporting someone who wants the right to make luxury choices they can't afford."

How would the government know the difference though? I have thought this before myself. We're in a similar situation to Fabby, one earner on 60k and a SAHP with 3 dc. If dh were to die, I would just be a single parent on benefits surely? They wouldn't think "oh george is more deserving because her dh was killed and he used to earn 60k a year".