Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To ask why you go to work

481 replies

IamthepermedowlofVeronica · 10/04/2016 22:10

Try to be brief but thorough....
Due back from 1 years maternity at the beginning of June. Hate job, don't want to go back. Have had offer of temporary ad hoc work between June and start of summer hols.
Wondered how much job seekers is whilst I apply and interview over summer hols. Did the online calculator tangy: If I work current hours and pay childcare I would earn £6 less than if I signed on job seekers.
So why should I go to work (no career, just a money earning job) and how does signing on work? Has anyone found it detrimental to confidence etc?
Hopefully I'll get another cash earning job in September or,something when ds will be 15 months

OP posts:
wannabestressfree · 13/04/2016 19:25

Wink might give it a go.....if I can slot it in whilst my legs are akimbo during the day. And a job.... where does one find the time?

roundaboutthetown · 13/04/2016 20:03

Where indeed, especially when factoring in the risk of being discriminated against in the job market for being unable to speak clearly through your swollen tongue and unable to walk or sit in a chair with your hip disorder. Grin

wannabestressfree · 13/04/2016 20:21

It's a cross I will bare.... with my husband's support.

roundaboutthetown · 13/04/2016 20:24

Are your crosses usually dressed, then? Grin

1Potato2 · 13/04/2016 20:54

I am currently on maternity leave with dc2 (our last) and will return to full time work when he is 7 months as I did with his sister because:

  • I am playing the long game. Eventually childcare costs will not be £19,000 a year (private nursery)
  • I am paying into a pension and paying taxes which I care about
  • Work is sometimes interesting and there is potential for promotion.
  • There is no option to work part time - I asked
  • I 'only' work 8-4 and the commute is 15 mins so not excessive
  • No family help so I occasionally take a half day for dates with Dh (so sue us)
  • I build up flexi by doing half hour lunches so I can build up 12 extra days of annual leave to be with the dc

I have witnessed a lot of my dc's 'firsts' to date, but I am not immune to guilt. Ideally I'd work a 4 day week, but even if that was on offer, the nursery rates for 4 days are ridiculous. It would cost me money (only £100 saving a month on a (£1600 a month bill. I shit you not).

MiniMover · 13/04/2016 21:01

That's nothing, potato! I went from 4.5days nursery to 4days and it cost me an extra £11 a month! Grin apparently it's to do with how they worked out her early years funding! Hmm

1Potato2 · 13/04/2016 21:08

Oh that's interesting Mini. I wondered why

StillYummy · 13/04/2016 21:12

This!

To ask why you go to work
roundaboutthetown · 13/04/2016 21:20
Grin
Eustace2016 · 13/04/2016 21:52

There is the rub at the cartoon - because those of us who work full time currently support a system which enables others not to work from choice the cartoon just about never applies. She doesn't have towork and the system is so generous she is better off not working.

God knows how Labour or Tories will ever sort this out but those of us with chidlren who work full time need a lot more thanks from the state for getting our fingers out and keeping our nose to the grind stone whilst paying a heap of tax so support women exercising freedom of choice not to work. The system is massively buggered up.

roundaboutthetown · 13/04/2016 22:57

Well, if most people really did think they were better off not working, then why on earth are so many people working? I don't think the system is that generous!! Leaving aside the fact I wouldn't personally want to claim benefits unless I felt I had to, I also, like most people, want a better quality of life for myself and my children than that. Looking at countries with less generous welfare systems, what I see is more suffering, not more wealth creation.

goingmadinthecountry · 13/04/2016 23:27

I didn't return to work in any significant way until 4th dc was 5. I teach so did spend time doing various courses/voluntary things. That's when I changed from secondary to primary.

Apart from the money, I work now because I love it. I make a difference and I have a lot of say in how I do my job. I could do a job that earned me more money and was closer to home but it wouldn't be in the amazing school I work in now - I have freedom to do all sorts because we get results and we're trusted. Yes there are loads of horrid things the government sends our way but I think my school is about as good as it gets these days.

When I wasn't working I didn't feel like I had an identity.

Mistigri · 14/04/2016 06:32

The idea that mothers of small babies should need to work to avoid starvation (which by extension implies that their babies should starve too) is pretty repulsive.

I read an article yesterday on the "citizen's income" - the idea that everyone should receive a basic income regardless of their means or circumstances, as currently being trialled in the Netherlands and Finland. It's an interesting idea that seems to have support from both left and right. It would solve the OP's dilemma and allow her to get a more suitable job.

There is a good argument that people doing jobs they hate (because the alternative is starvation) is not economically efficient. People who hate their jobs are generally not motivated or productive. This may help explain why the UK has such a terrible record on productivity (that, and the fact that having an army of low wage workers who have no choice but to work means that businesses have little incentive to invest in training or automation).

twelly · 14/04/2016 07:27

The welfare state is to support, funds are not limitless. Therefore not working and receiving benefits upto school age is not viable. The age at which the benefits should stop is difficult yo determine

Mistigri · 14/04/2016 07:39

No one is saying that mothers should not work (especially not me: I took a total of a couple of weeks maternity leave between two babies). But it makes no economic or practical sense for mothers of young children to do jobs they hate that barely cover their childcare costs.

bloodyteenagers · 14/04/2016 07:47

Why is it always the mums wages that are considered for childcare costs, when it should be the household costs? Obviously this applies to two parent households. But I see that mentioned time and time again. Oh my wage, childcare etc. It seems illogical to me.

Jemappelle · 14/04/2016 09:09

Because when absolutely tiny babies are born they are dependent on mum for milk and if not even the rest of it cuddles comfort etc. So after maternity leave is over usually babies are very close to these warm and milky people who've spent a lot of time with them and sometimes both mum and baby find it hard to leave. Then when the question of prohibitively costly childcare comes up it often turns out that the household income would actually reduce if another salary enters at a lower level than what childcare would take out of the household pot.

Original poster
IamthepermedowlofVeronica · 14/04/2016 09:18

In our household dp pays mortgage, all bills and one car cost. I cover all children related expenses, shopping and cash things like window cleaner plus my car costs. Its fair for us and works. We don't have a mutual bank account and don't want to.

OP posts:
Eustace2016 · 14/04/2016 09:37

Luckily we have a big change inthe last 12 months now that fathers can take paternity leave - loads are sharing the leave with their wife that I know of - usually wife first because of breastfeeding although the UK has really low breastfeeding rates so that's not material for lots of women at all as they bottle feed.

Jemappelle · 14/04/2016 09:40

Only 1% of dads took up the new shared parental leave. It would only work when the mum's maternity pay or pay in general is enough for the family as in usual cases shared parental pay is pittance

My DH took 3 months of shared parental leave and we could do it because my pay was enough to sustain that and we had to I pre three months of snide remarks made to DH by his family for "being a man and staying at home"

BoboChic · 14/04/2016 09:41

Take up of shared parental leave by father's is abysmal, Eustace.

Eustace2016 · 14/04/2016 09:47

The 1% os not true. Radio 4 had a programme debunking it. It seems to be propaganda by the stay at home brigade. It is 1% of fathers but that is not 1% of men whose wife has had a baby in the last 12 months. The % is much much higher if you take the right men - those eligible!

Eustace2016 · 14/04/2016 09:49

40% of men have opted out from it www.theguardian.com/careers/fathers-choose-not-to-take-paternity-leave. I agree it is a pity it is not more but as a mother who didn't take a lot of time off as that tends to damage your career I can understand. However it is a fairly high take up and yet people have latched on the wrong 1% statistic.

MrsBoDuke · 14/04/2016 10:56

I think the take up will go up as it becomes more 'normalised' for dads to share the maternity leave, at the moment it's still seen as a bit of a novelty idea.

1 year off work for mothers is a double edged sword imo.
When I had my children, it was 4 months for my eldest & 6 months for my youngest.
I worked right up to the week I gave birth with both of them.
4 months was too short, 6 months was about right; 12 months would have been too much skill fade for me and I would have been far less confident about going back.

MiniMover · 14/04/2016 11:30

DH would def have taken it had our salaries been more on an equal footing. One if dh's ex colleagues went back to work after 3mths and her DH stayed home for 3yrs. He was a physio therefore his dw earned far more so it made complete financial sense for him to be the one to sah. I think for most couples it come down to finances.

Swipe left for the next trending thread