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.

I'd be inclined to consider moving the whole family to wherever option 1 was based. If DH works from home surely he can do that wherever "home" is. Kids can move primary schools - it's not ideal but they are resilient and I'm sure would rather see mum more if it's an option.

I think maybe 2, but in all honesty, neither really. I’m sorry but that’s my honest opinion.

I’m not being sexist btw, I would say the same whether it be mum or dad.

In both scenarios you will not see the children during the week (except for Friday in option 2), so I would choose option 1.

Option 1 allows you to work a standard 35 - 40 hour week, living away from home costs are covered, you earn an extra £11k per annum and will have 15 weeks holidays. Assuming you arrive home on Friday nights and leave late Sunday night or very early Monday, you shouldn’t be too tired to enjoy the weekend with your family.

Option 2 would leave you more tired due to 14 hour days (where you wouldn’t even see the children anyway), less income, less holidays and less flexibility for taking those holidays.

I would definitely take option 1, but if you don’t already have a cleaner get one so that weekends are for enjoying family time and not cleaning the house.

It’s not true that DC automatically have a greater attachment to mum at all. My DC have no preference.

I think some mums want to be seen as being more needed than dad and set up things in a way to make it so. I’ve seen multiple threads where mums won’t trust their DH to look after their own children alone for an evening. They always have to be in charge of DC and thus the family come to see the DM as the main parent which is how the DM wants it despite playing martyr.

Back on topic, scenario 1 is preferable as the holiday allowance is large and scenario 2 involves never seeing the kids during the week either.

Having done both kind of work pattern pre-kids, I wouldn’t want to be away from home so much and so regularly regardless of kids. It means everything that needs your input at home, your relationship, seeing friends, socialising as a couple and as a family gets squeezed into a weekend - which is fine if weekends are purely for fun but life doesn’t work that way.

While at the moment you might not see much of the DC, being at home means you’re there if they need you, or if your partner needs support. There’s so much stuff at those ages that kids need a parent there for and which my DH and I split between us so our DC know we both are interested in their lives. I also think at midnight when one child is sick and needs to go to out of hours, I’d want to be around to look after the other two rather than everyone being hauled out of bed. I’d also worry about how isolated my DP would be working from home and caring for 3 DC being home each night would mean we both had options to go for a swim, gym or just to meet someone for coffee (and yes, I’d think the same for a woman in the same position).

£11k is a lot of money, and would be very tempting but I’d rather be at home I think. Different if the kids were older, less reliant, more independent but when they’re still little I’d want to be close to home.

And before anyone trots out “but it would be ok for a man”, in my house it wouldn’t be. We both chose to have children, that meant changes to both our working lives amidst a very long, challenging process to have them - the very least we can do is be physically present.

Both perfectly normal working pattern. with a second work from home parent, the first might make more sense, but both are perfectly feasible

Based on the hours, I can't see it would make much difference to the children. However, it would make a massive difference to the other parent. There is no way I'd want my DH to work away mon-fri, no matter how much he earned.

I'd be inclined to consider moving the whole family to wherever option 1 was based. If DH works from home surely he can do that wherever "home" is. Kids can move primary schools - it's not ideal but they are resilient and I'm sure would rather see mum more if it's an option.

Yes, do this.

Given the information about DH's job, I'd say option one. If DH can pick up the slack and do the majority of weekday childcare.

It depends though how you would feel being away from the family. If you think you can handle it then option one. No one would bat a eyelid if a man worked away Mon-Fri.

If kids are getting the care they need then they generally adjust to the routine anyway. Short of being gone months at a time which some families have to deal with they manage.

I've worked every pattern going from nights to 12 hour day shifts and now 9-5. My son preferred shifts but didn't like me working weekends.

All parents have to do what they can to support their children financially, practically and emotionally. If what is best for the child is being centred then no family set up is unreasonable.

This is not about 'working mums' (what an outdated phrase) but the family set up and what is best for the children and on that basis it may be worth considering relocating the family to be near the primary earner's job.

If you take option 1, it will be very difficult for your DH.
He will be in the house working all day, then in the house looking after the children all night. He will be the only one there to do night wakings, sick children etc. He will get no down time at all, and could end up feeling trapped.I

Option 2 would mean he, and you, could go out in the evening, albeit separately. He would get time to have a break, go to the gym, see friends etc.
I think that would make a more sustainable future.

And the children will get older, and can have a later bed time soon, so you will see them more each day.

Family holidays can be taken in May or October half terms, so you won't miss out there much.
If definitely chose option 2.

I'd take option 2 and would only accept option 2 from my husband.

Even with the long hours you're still 'there'. If your child needs you in the middle of the night for anything you're there. If there's an emergency, you're there. That's priceless and means the world to children.

I've done the working away Mon-Fri thing before kids and the weekends weren't enough time with my husband, I can't imagine trying to share myself out between both my children and my husband across two days whilst also making sure I'm ready to leave again at the end of the weekend. Only financial destitution would make this an option in our future.

If it were me I’d prefer 2 because I wouldn’t like to be away and I don’t think my dcs would either.

The £11k difference depends on the salary in question.

Eg if it were £22k v £33k then fine. But if it was £80k vs £91k then less of a problem and I’d take the lower paid option to be around more on a more regular basis.

I don't see how you can be a mum and not be there at all Monday to Friday. Especially to those ages.

Could you do option 2 but over 5 days instead of 4?

My husband has been away a lot for work recently and/or back very late and it has been very unsettling for my 3 year old. She has much preferred the days he’s worked late as she does at least see him in the morning even if only for 5-10 minutes. I don’t think you can underestimate the positive affect of a small amount of contact v none. By adult logic, 1 would give you the holidays which would be nice but I don’t think small children would see it in the same way.

Having done 2 I think 1 would be no worse as kids in bed by the time you return anyway? 1 harder work on your DH as they have to run the home weekdays whereas 1 you could help.

Neither.

I would take option 1, especially now there is face time etc. I know that's not seeing the kids in person but you could still chat to them at night, read them a story. If option 2 is 6am till 8pm you wouldnt see the kids much anyway, plus option 1 has really good holidays and more money.

I know a family which does exactly this but with the dad working away and it works just fine for them.

Option 1 give more than 1 wees holiday per month, you may not be able to work it that way, but that's more than enough to make up for not being at home.

OP it's completely up to you what works best for your family. People who don't know you will judge whatever.

Option 1. 15 weeks holiday is nearly 1/3 of the year. Home every weekend and able to have all school holidays off with kids.

Option 2. Might as well be away if you are at 6am to 8pm. And only 5 weeks holiday that you can't take during the kids school holidays. No thanks.

And as for 'you can't be a mum and be away during the week', what a load of sexist bollocks. Would you say that to a man who works away?