Workings mums

[AliceWho12]

Without full context for full view which of these is more reasonable

1. Mum who works away Monday - Friday but has 15 weeks of holiday per year.

1. Mum who works four days a week, unable to take holiday in January, July and August and the four days are long days (leaving at 6am returning at 8pm).

No 1. Earns 11k more.

Kids ages 8, 5, 3.

Held settle a debate between me and my husband.

Neither sounds ideal, I’d probably pick the second one.

There’s not enough context. Is there a partner and do they work? What sort of hours and holidays to they have? What other family support is there- grandparents, aunties/uncles, etc?

Can’t assess which job is more “reasonable” for family life without seeing what rest of family consists of & everyone involved in raising the kids in question.

As a working mum (forces) during the Iraq invasion and Afghanistan war there were several years back to back where I was gone for 6mos, home and working FT for 6 months, then gone for 6 mos repeat. Even during the home and working FT for 6mos I would have short jaunts where I would be gone for 2wks here, 6wks there etc.

But my partner was a FT stay at home parent. Zero extended family support.

And there you have it. Context. If you’d seen my work schedule in isolation...you’d be like WTF? Are the kids in orphanages half of every year?

Given the information about the dad’s work, I’d probably go for option 1.

2 would be better. I wouldn't want to be away from.dc multiple nights every week.

Having been in a situation where DH worked away Monday - Friday I have to say I wouldn't wish it on anybody. It was tough adjusting to being effectively a single parent every working week and DD missed him terribly. She'd get upset every Sunday when he was getting ready to leave again, and often told me she wished he didn't have to be away all the time.
He's changed jobs now and works locally. Sometimes the hours are long, the pay is half what he was on before, and he gets less holiday, but he's home every night. We're all happier, less stressed and generally better-functioning as a family.

But that's us. No doubt many families could make option 1 work, it just wasn't for us.

I personally wouldn’t want to miss out on 5 days a week with my children (even if it’s just bedtime) however dad works from home and this sounds perfect.

Many dads work away Monday to Friday and plenty of families work perfectly well this way so why should it be any different for mums. 1 st options holidays and 11k more sounds a great option.

@AngelasAshes

Is there a partner and do they work? Husband works from home, job is very flexible.

What sort of hours and holidays to they have? Six weeks of holiday per year (it's project based so there can be longer 'quieter periods' where not working FT hours.

What other family support is there- grandparents, aunties/uncles, etc? Family lives locally, don't use specifically for childcare but see a lot of them.

I think for the children, 1 is better. They won't see you mon-thur anyway given the long hours of 2.
So the trade off is every Friday versus 11 whole weeks (assuming 4 weeks holiday in job 1). There's 52 fridays a year, vs 11x5, 55 holiday days extra.
Option 1 they'll see more of you.

What about your relationship with your husband? You have to consider that in both scenarios too. I cannot tell you how many of us got “Dear John/Jen” letters while deployed. Many military spouses cannot put up with long and constant absences. They feel like single parents and then actually leave to be a single parent because of the turmoil and uncertainty.
Since your DH works from home, have to consider which dovetails with his career as well. Can he realistically cope M-F with zero support for child care and do his work? Would taking an extra 11k actually turn into a loss if he lost his job due to extra childcare he has to do?
Also, don’t think long term. Think short term because jobs change it’s not likely you’d be doing same thing in 3yrs even if in same company. Is this good for your family as a whole right now?

Those who are saying 2 is better, why? May as well be away anyway given the working house.

Option 1 gives much more time with the kids, given the annual leave. 15 weeks is a LOT.

No brainer as far as I'm concerned. But then I'm on my own with 3 kids and nobody seems to question their Dad not being around for weeks at a time

Hey on option 1- working away does that include accommodation or would you have to rent a flat to sleep in? If you have to set up second home for away location...that 11k will be completely erased and then some.

My dh did 1, he missed out on so much.
Children are older now and say they hated him being away.
They had lots of perks because of the money but would have preferred their dad.

Dh got quite depressed towards the end too and I was done being a weekend wife.

Me and my husband aren't worried about the effect on being away on our relationship - just from a child perspective.

Obviously older two are at school and 3 year old goes to pre-school.

Would only really be one day additional childcare between two scenarios.

As stated previously I'm primary earner - mortgage etc is solely based off my income.

Option 1 - would include everything being expensed travel/accommodation/food,

I personally think this is a difficult one to really comment on and only OP knows the answer.

Is option 1 working for the same employer in the same place? Or would you be moving around different locations?

Neither is more or less "reasonable" - it is personal preference.

The fact that Dad is at home FT, and able to work very flexibly, and that there are also extended family nearby makes all these things much easier.

Same with the money really - clearly the salary is already very high, so whether the £11K more salary is that important is difficult to say - it will clearly be less of a factor than if one job were only paying £15K and the other £26K.

Totally personal choice.

It's really funny how it is not ok for a mum to work away from home even though she could take more than one week a month annual leave, yet there are lots of fathers mentioned on here who work abroad for months at a time not just Monday to Friday, and that's fine.

Before I had DS I had a job with similar patterns to job one, I worked with lots of parents who felt they had more quality time with their children, than they did working commuter jobs with ten hour days and 4/5 weeks leave. I often travelled on a Monday morning after rush hour and could be home sometimes by Friday afternoon

Because however much it's un-pc to say it, children have a different attachment and bond with their mothers. That's why.

If you are working 6 am to 8 pm then you might as well be working away from home - your kids aren’t going to see you on those days. I would take the higher paying job with more holiday.

I don't think either is ideal.

But I would choose option 1. Especially because option 2 doesn't allow you to take holidays during the school holidays.

Because however much it's un-pc to say it, children have a different attachment and bond with their mothers. That's why.

It depends who has been the primary carer. I’m the OP’s situation, it may well have always been her DH.

Are you anywhere close to being a primary career? I think any scenario where Mum is away for multiple nights can be really hard for little kids

I don't see how this is an issue

It's number one. And you're earning double if you do number one?

If DH is primary carer, either neither or both are unreasonable.

I can see why PPs are saying 2 is better, but the hours are so long you wouldn’t see much of the DC anyway, plus not being able to take school holidays.

I personally would go with 1, even without it being extra money.

Is there any scope for flexibility with 1 or 2 in the future? Ie away mon-thu for 1 or shorter days but mon-fri with 2?