To feel that if you don’t work 9-5 and have no family to help you’re screwed for childcare once your DC start school.

[legoonthetable]

Most people accept that they take a huge financial hit in terms of childcare costs in the pre school years, but do so knowing that they keep their place in the career ladder and once DC are at school the child care would go down. I naively never considered that this wouldn’t be the case for us and am just feeling totally screwed by my lack of choices, despite a good well paid job. And I know I’m far from alone. I work shifts which include 8am starts, midnight finishes and nights. There is no flexibility with start times and I rarely leave on time. DH works 14 + hr days leaving at 7 and rarely home before 7 + logging on again form home. His company is not family friendly and atm moving jobs isn't an option. He has to be at his desk by 8am. School wrap around care is from 7.30am-6pm. Its simply not possible to drop DC at breakfast club and be at work by 8 and we often have an hour at the other end that we also often can’t cover. We had the same nanny for 6 years and agreed to keep her on once youngest DC started school mostly for continuity. She agreed to do a tiny amount of general housekeeping in the 6 hours a day she was child free. She refused to clean, which I didn’t think was unreasonable; she’s a nanny, not a cleaner. Without going into details it pretty quickly became clear that whilst she was absolutely brilliant for our pre school DC doing the school run and holiday childcare for older children wasn’t her thing. We made her redundant and we’ve been struggling along abusing using friends, neighbours, and random paid help(no family close enough to help regularly)since. I have a friend in a similar position (totally different field of work). She employs a nanny-housekeeper. And whilst she loves coming home to a tidy house and a cooked meal, she doesn’t think her employee is that great with her DC. And I’ve heard many others say you either have someone who keeps the house going or someone who is brilliant with DC but its rare to get one person who is brilliant at both. My choices now are either to employ a nanny- housekeeper and accept that most of my salary will essentially go towards paying someone to do very little for 6 hours a day while I work my bollocks off for the next 13 years or give up work…….because if the financial gain is minimal (despite doing a fulfilling job that I mostly enjoy)there really seems no point. I’m not expecting anyone to come up with some magical solution…..I think we’ve been through every possible option, I’d just like some solidarity with people in the same position.Tonight I'm really angry about it.

Split 🤔

It seems crazy to me that two people, working long/unsocial hours in jobs that are inflexible, can't afford a p/t nanny or a house with a spare room.

Me too, but it depends where you live, I guess.

London/South East prices are pretty ridiculous - I know people paying over £1000/pm on rent or mortgage for a two bed house. Add on childcare costs for more than one child, bills, commuting costs etc. and it's easy to see how two decent salaries don't actually stretch all that far.

But my point is that we clearly have a very highly trained individual here whose skills are a benefit to society . She has said she is prepared to pay , but I found that being prepared to pay wasn’t enough , because it still proved pretty impossible to find the right care . So the upshot is that we lose highly qualified people . What if that person is a cancer specialist or a heart specialist . As a society we need to address these structural issues.

But @DinoDave you have to realise that's not possible for lots of people?

Finding childcare 5 minutes from work is luck as much as anything else - lots of people have to drive considerable distances to get from work to childcare.

Compressed hours again is only possible in certain industries. If you work for a company that only operates 9-5 then working 8-6 isn't possible. Where I work, for example, you have to work 10-6. Working compressed hours to collect children from school isn't possible, working from home isn't possible (retail). If you wanted to work four days that would be fine, but you'd have to sacrifice a days salary which lots of people can't afford to do.

Flexible working just isn't an option for lots of people. MN seems to be a huge hotbed of people who can work whatever hours suit them but in reality it's not possible for lots of people. Lots of businesses require you to be present all day, or if you're management you have to leave last to lock up, or be early to open up/set up, or to work shifts (so no set days) - it's just reality for huge numbers of people, particularly those who are either low paid, or very well-paid (ie. you just have to work until the job is done, going home for 6pm means you won't keep your job for long).

She has said she is prepared to pay , but I found that being prepared to pay wasn’t enough , because it still proved pretty impossible to find the right care

Yes, exactly. In most places, early morning/late evening childcare is practically non-existent, so unless you can afford a nanny or have the space for an au-pair it's not possible.

She just didn't want to pay someone only to be available for her kids. Which may not seem like doing much to her, but as she's finding out, it's what allows people to work long and unpredictable hours and have kids. There are countless threads about how wohp do exactly the job of a SAHP with school age kids and a job on top - this thread demonstrates the fundamental untruth of that. Yeah maybe vital health workers should be paid more. Maybe men should be encouraged to step up. Absolutely. But the basic problem is a lack of willingness to pay for childcare because it's seen as less important than paid employment.

Working part time doesn't have to be a compromise, it is my way of "having it all" as I get to be fulfilled at work and I get to spend quite a lot of time with my children. The juggle can be hard but I work for a great flexible company which values its employees, and am paid well enough for it.

Also it sound like you just need a better nanny... There are some rubbish lazy ones and some brilliant ones out there.

Recently heard of one response to a request for shared paternity leave “ does he want a career- absolutely no way !”

Given the request was to share parental leave, I wonder if there was a mum-to-be on the flip side of that leave request who also wants to continue a career, and was expecting her DH to share the hit with her.

(I know it's an aside, but that response also implies that shared paternity leave would have been granted. It may have been frowned on, and his career may not have been as steller for a year or two after. But I don't think it's realistic to expect anyone's career to remain unimpacted after having children.)

This happens to women all.the.time. Why is it so completely unacceptable for it to be expected of men too?

And we're not talking about going backwards in his career, merely giving up the possibility of progressing any further for a few years. He may fall behind the pack, but guess what? That's exactly what happens to women.

A lot of the time having it all just means someone else having less. Outsourcing to others paid less than you who then have to cover the antisocial hours.

In Norway, where my sister lives, she and her dh set off for work at 6am. Her 9 yo ds and 7yo dd, get themselves up (alarm), sort their own breakfast out (just cereal, already laid out), leave the house and walk to school themselves. That is completely normal in her village.
That being the normal way to do things makes situations like this far easier.
Remember op, and I'm sure someone will have already says this, this will only be for a few years. I'm (and my friends) perfectly happy to leave our 9 year olds home alone for an hour or so.

oh OP you are so frustrating, you are obviously an intelligent woman, but you are failing to see the real problem - it's not you having career aspirations, it's yours combined with your DHs - it's your DH's job that's the real problem!

from what you've said, he doesn't do shift work, so he could do closer to 9-5 hours, but he doesn't want to/you don't want the step down in income that will come with that.

Stop comparing the Nanny costs to your job, compare it to the difference between what your DH earns now, and what he could earn in a lower status, lower paid job.

If he moved to a 9-5 role and it wouldn't mean a pay cut of more than a full time Nanny wage, then he should be prepared to consider it. If the pay cut is more than a Nanny's full time wage, then perhaps you should consider that the compensation for his long hours is a wage that is high enough to fund the childcare he requires to work full time at this level.

It is his job that's the problem. He has a career that potentially could be child-friendly, it's just would mean at a level that doesn't pay that well, and probably be less interesting/challenging. (Or maybe not, depending on what he does).

What you have just accepted though, is that as the mother, if you aren't going to do the childcare yourself, it's your job to make sure you have it in place, compare the cost to your wage, and your DH can pursue any career aim he would like without having to make this his problem too.

Your DH's boss might not believe in being family friendly, but what about the competitors? Has he even tried to find a job with hours that work better for your family without a dramatic pay cut, or has he presented it at your problem to sort becuase he earns more?

Outsourcing to others paid less than you who then have to cover the antisocial hours.
They’d have even less though if someone wasn’t paying them for their services.

I don't think it is feasible for both parents to have long hours and demanding jobs. But I don't think that means they need to take a massive pay cut.

If your husband is very senior then he could move jobs. It sounds like he just doesn't want to. It also sounds like he wants to keep movin up the career ladder or he wouldn't be afraid to have a frank conversation with his boss. Doesn't matter that she has done 14 hours a day for ever. He is her employer and if she values him she will work with him to come to some sort of agreement. F she doesn't give a shit then I would suggest he should move jobs anyway.

The only people who get to say they can't do flexible working are fire fighters / ambulance people etc. People who have set shifts usually in nhs it equivalent.

My husband has just deployed for 7 months and I am job changing to a demanding role. I am getting an au pair. Not long after he gets back, husband is leaving navy and going to look for a local job, still in his field, still around 40-45k mark but that is flexible. He will be doing the drop offs and picks ups. Not becuase I earn more more money or have better career prospects but because we are a team and I took a hit for 5 years when we had kids and so now it is my time to see what I can achieve. He is luckily that he is an engineer so will probably not struggle.

My dsis and dbil were both Drs...Dsis was GP partner and dbil consultant at large teaching hospital
They have four dcs and the only way they were able to work full time/ oncall was by having a woman who lived near them , basically become the housekeeper/ childminder who used to come over to the house for 7.30 in morning to help get the dcs ready for school, dbil would then take dcs to school as he worked in hospital in city where the dcs went to school , while dsis went to work in surgery in town opposite direction to where the dcs went to school.
This wonderful childminder/ housekeeper would then clean house, do washing cook food for evening meal...she'd then go home until the dcs came back from school and would then get their tea....she was a single woman and had no famil of her own, , and she was treated as a member of their family for over 25 yrs
It was the only way they could both continue in their careers and it worked for them and their dcs...when I was considering doing medicine my dsis discouraged me as she felt it wasn't conducive to family life

Your husband needs to do the morning drop off on the days you are working 8-4pm shift. If he currently leaves at 7 - he can easily change to do 7.30 drop off at wrap around care. He will get to work less than an hour later.

You also then need an after school nanny, childminder or student (3pm-7pm) who you pay for whenever you have shifts to cover, or on a permanent basis if you need to keep the space free. This will be hard when your kids are at infant school age but will get easier as they get older (e.g. a six former can look after an 8 year old - but I wouldn't ask them to look after a 4 year old - the advantage of six formers is they are also free after school hours and come in groups of friends who can offer flexibility - i.e. one can't do this Monday that you need, but he has a friend that can. The alternative is that your husband needs to be back for 6pm to collect from wrap around care - if you work shifts - and only 3 days per week - this is only going to be for the days when you are on the 4pm-12pm shifts. If he logs on later anyway, it won't make much odds to his output. He will be allowed to do this if he is senior, he just doesn't want to. It does make you a bit less successful career wise but that goes with the territory. I think the first years of school are easily the hardest for a working parent but it does get easier after that up to a point (they have to be about 16 before you can leave them alone until midnight!)

We manage it. We are both a similar grade in a public sector organisation. I have a very niche job and have negotiated hours that work for us. But they only work because my husband is able (and, more importantly, willing ) to work flexibly as well. It's not easy and I in particular have sacrificed a salary far in excess of what I earn now were I to be in the private sector, but the pay off is I am able to work the pattern I do. I have made all of my career progression while working non-standard hours around child care, and studied for further qualifications. I know many families who make it work, who both have successful careers but you have to work as a team to avoid making a big sacrifice. Many many places allow flexible working for men as well as women and it's on the increase. It is unfortunate if you both work in jobs with barely any leeway, but I do think a large part of the problem is your DH's lack of willing to work flexibly.

My dh is the first director in his company to have children with a wife/partner with a career too.
He’s had to push hard against a culture where the men above him have all had sahps and never done school run. But he does it. He drops off at breakfast club (8) up to three times a week and picks up from after school club (6) once or twice. So not half, but 3-4 out of 10 school runs a week. Maybe his superiors think less of him for it but that’s tough.
I run my own business in my profession which can be flexible but I have to travel to meet clients at their offices and cannot ever just leave early.

Going further with the ops issue, girls should be told they can have it all, but only if they chose a partner who will also support their career.

Supporting your career isn't just saying "do whatever you like", but accepting marrying a woman with career aspirations and planning dcs, means the man also has to fit his career around having joint responsibility for the kids.

The Nanny isn't really a cost of the OP working, but of the dh wanting a job with such long hours.

The only standard jobs that are compatible with family life are teaching (and I bet there a quite a few teachers who would beg to differ)

Yep - retired teacher here, and when we had two under-fives we got a nanny, as my husband was working long hours. It meant that until they went to school our income took a hit, but it was a good solution at the time.

That said, I am pleased to have spent my working life as a teacher. It was, for the most part, compatible with family life. I think I was in education before the "girls can have it all" nonsense was banded about. It always seemed fairly obvious to me that to raise a family, compromise was necessary to ensure a good work/family life balance.

Like it or not, you've got to compromise. You can rage against the machine all you like, but you need to deal with the situation in front of you.