To see part time hours as a necessity not a luxury

[Mollymoo78]

I work at a nursery three days a week on minimum wage. It's very much a job of convenience and I've recently been offered full time hours. Despite needing the money I've turned it down. I just can't face doing it full time, the thought fills me with dread and I know I'll be miserable. I need two days a week to catch up on jobs and just have breathing space and stay sane. Trouble is certain full time colleagues feel that I should have taken full time hours and I'm letting them down and being lazy (that's what they imply in their comments). I always worked full time prior to having children (doing office work) but since having children and being a sahm for quite a while I seem to have more to do and more of a need to finally have time of my own. Is it lazy and selfish and ultimately unreasonable to feel this way?

username- my whole family benefits by me working part time. The home is organised and peaceful, good healthy food cooked from scratch. I have the time and energy to support other family members and my children. My happiness and welfare is important to a happy family life.

And yes I would earn less if I worked full time. I have tried it and my earnings drop.

user I also think you are confusing me with the OP.

The NHS benefits when people take care of their mental and physical health. I'm using PT work to keep me well until the kids leave home. Then, God willing, I'll be able to work full time and until 70. I already cost the NHS enough, FT work would increase my health problems that I can only just about keep in check at the moment.

If you are working pt then the whole family benefits, not just the person working.
We aren't put on this earth to work ft and have no pleasure in life.
Of course if needs must then you work ft, but you aren't lazy for not working or working pt.
It will always be an ongoing debate though as some people live to work, whilst others work to live. It depends which type you are.

This thread is an eye opener. A number of posters say they're lucky enough to have the choice to stay at home but then say they don't earn enough to pay for childcare or get tax credits. I sort of take those as signs of a low income family and don't really associate that with being able to afford staying at home. My DH & I earn many times the nursery fees for twins yet I don't feel we would have a decent life on one wage. I wonder if this is truly what people mean by the squeezed middle?

gillybeanz- well said.

Gillybeanz, I'd disagree. Unless large savings then the person doing part time hours isn't pulling their full weight. Either another adult or the state is picking up the financial slack. I'd imagine there are very few households that can live on PT hours alone with no other salary or benefits.

Some may pick up more housework but many don't as MN is full of posts stating that the WOHP should still do 50/50 of the housework anyway.

Even if they do cover all the housework, the other person is still working and shouldering the financial responsibility. Not really a fair trade off for a few jobs round the house.

sheldon I totally disagree.

My OH earns a good salary, but works very long hours. I work 15- 20 hours a week. A "few chores" around the house is totally denigrating the very real and supportive role that many women do.
It is shallow to measure effort and success in financial terms.
I have a very happy family. My OH does domestic tasks when he is here, but simply does not have the time. I cook delicious and nutritious meals, I do the 30+ lifts in the car a week, I manage all our finances.
I make the home fun, I put the cherries on top of our life. My kids love having me around, I am able to have fun with them during school holidays.

Sounds like sour grapes from some posters.

I am a single parent and work PT (skilled admin). I don't rely on savings and am not on benefits. Our lifestyle is very simple, but not dreary (been away camping for the weekend and had a lovely time). We live in a cheap area, mainly vegetarian food, public transport.

A lot comes down to the choices you make about what's really important.

Well obviously you can only speak for your own situation, others will feel differently but you do not have to explain yourself to your work colleagues. You were employed part time and that's what suits you, it's got bugger all to do with anyone else.

I work term time very close to home so I get home around quarter to 4 and get lots of holidays so it suits me and our family situation. Do what suits you and yours.

Sheldon

Can you not see that everyone is different though.
What's wrong with being on a low income? It isn't how much you earn but how much you spend.
My family loved me being at home, I made 25 years as a sahm.
I am starting work now as only receive tc for one dependant child, so pt hours will make this up.
I could have worked ft, had no money left after childcare and not seen my dc grow up.
That wasn't something I was prepared to sacrifice.
As for not pulling my weight my dh would disagree with you whole heartedly. He loves it when I'm at home, and it's allowed him to do as he pleases with his career with no guilt.
We love our way of life, as I'm sure you love yours.
I can't believe people think you have to pull your weight by having a ft job, what total utter bollocks.

Even though I only work PT, I certainly pull my weight (we only get CB, no other credits and that's fine as we're not entitled as such). DP certainly works very, very hard (currently half way through an all day today, overnight and all day tomorrow shift). I do probably 85% of the household stuff, all cooking, shopping etc because I like to and it makes up for "only" working PT. My PT hours are Mon-Thu 10-4 but to be fair I often do extra unpaid at home. DP can often work 55 hours a week and no way are they coming home to housework, cooking, shopping (hates it) or washing. It works for us, we manage (very little savings) but are comfortable (as in also very little debt, mortgage aside). I could go FT (I manage travel litigation claims) but I'd hate it, as would DP and DD.

Yes of course it's up to each family to operate the way that works for them, provided they can fund it.
But it does make me shudder when I see comments like 'I could have worked full time and not seen my children grow up' ... hmm perhaps they don't mind having a husband who works all hours and is missing out on seeing his kids grow up?

Personally I much prefer a model of both parents having more balance of working/caring. Just seems a bit sad for when the price of one parent being at home or working very few hours is the other parent having to work ridiculous hours (as quoted by many posters on here)

munster you make some very valid points. Ideally two parents working part time would be great. Unfortunately higher earning is usually associated with full time hours. Part time jobs do tend to earn less pro rata. Such is the nature of things.

matching I'm actually on a good 'professional' salary. However, when I work out school holiday childcare costs and the fact I now have to pay extra for additional childcare costs (as work changed my hours since I wasn't pulling my weight apparently with the flexible hours I did have that I had been doing for nearly 2 years) then the financial benefits of doing that extra day are much, much less. As I say, that's on a 'good' salary.

Munster

My dh has only worked pt too, sort of.
We aren't all the same you know.
My dh is married to his work, I knew this when I met him, he works in his sleep. He's always arranging or composing something.
He likes me being at home, we have shared the raising of our dc, and domestic chores, it's a great balance.
If it's not working we change it for a situation that does, or as the dc grew up we changed again.
Now dd boards we have changed again. Life changes over time, we have been together nearly 30 years, married for 24.
We do what works for us, the same as i hope you do.
I probably couldn't cope with being you, the same as you couldn't being me.
We are all different.

Again gilly, excellent explanation.

What works does well.

Part time maintains my sanity ... just...

A word of warning though . THe long term damage to your pension pot is really painful when you think about planning..

Unless you are like me and have been paying a private pension.
I haven't worked full time for the past 19 years.

Works for me.

I would imagine that's somewhat rare- my FT private pension costs me £400 a month and my employer contributes £550. That's an enourmous amount of money to make up (from where? Either private funds or your partner)

I had a fairly large pension pot when I stopped work.

Life is more than simply building up large pension funds. Many people are self employed anyway- what about them? They have no employer to contribute.

If a smaller pension is a trade off for decades of easy carefree family life then it's a price I am willing to pay.

Username, yes, it was a serious question and your answer, as you know, is facetious.

I can read pretty well and I did read your posts, thanks. I know you said '
I'm not suggesting that everyone who works part time is lazy'. But you also said 'Well, you are being lazy' (and yes, I know you added 'that's fine' at the end but that doesn't change the substance of what you said.

As for 'Just to reiterate though, who benefits?' (and you are confusing the OP for another poster), again, you're being offensive. Plus not thinking progressively. As this poster explains, part-time work can and does benefit all those involved, not just the worker.

I'm not saying a large pension pot should be everyone's aim, simply that it's unlikely most people are as fortunate as you and how you will fund your old age is something people need to consider before going part time. That's all.

I think there is a fair bit of jealousy here- trying to make other women feel bad simply because they choose to focus their time on other activities. My whole family are happier because I work part time.

Jealousy where? The only posts today are about pensions. Blimey I'm not jealous.