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.

If l had young and had the choice then l would go with 1. 15 weeks annual leave is amazing and covering summer holidays would be less difficult. What are the angles with you and your husband?

Young = young children

As a child I would have preferred 2.

Option 1.

Could you not work away 4 days as long days instead and have the holidays as well? If they’re shorter days how come you can’t get back? Sounds like they’re 2 different jobs!

Option 1.

15 weeks off is almost 4 whole months or 1/3 of all days free to spend time however. That's massive! I'd have loved to have that much free time with my parents.

As it was they both worked from home but worked 12+hrs a day, 6 days a week. Sure, they'd carve out time for us as well but it was no where near 15 weeks a year.

And I agree. The second option: would your time at home be during their waking or sleeping hours? In one instance you might as well work away from home anyway.

Option 1. No brainer. More quality time with kids and more money

Option 1 would be out of the question for me, whether it’s the Mum or dad being the one working away. It puts all the onus on the other parent to pick up the slack if a child is ill, or the parent is ill, with no ability to attend any school assemblies etc. I’d feel like I was opting out of family life.

Option 2 would be better if you could spread hours over 5 day to be home earlier. Then perhaps do the compressed hours during school holiday weeks to give you the friday off if that flexibility is available?
I personally couldn't work away monday - friday, but could manage if my husband needed to. That is just my preference.
Neither option is unreasonable if that is what you need to do, and they have a parent at home.

Option 1.

I don’t understand why everyone is saying option 2? You wouldn’t see the kids anyway because they would be in bed when you get home and asleep when you leave. If your DH is okay with it, option 1 would work better and then you’d have a lot of quality time during the weekends/ holidays.

Option 1 without a doubt. With 15 weeks annual leave, you can get even have a couple of Fridays off as well to make the weekend longer.
On the other hand, is there a reason why you have to live where you are? Otherwise as dh works from home, if he can do his job anywhere, you might as well move the family to where the job in option 1 is.

If your husband’s preference is option 2, I’d say he gets the casting vote as he’s the one left with 100% of the responsibilities while you work away. But if your preference is option 2, I think you get the casting vote as it’s not for him to decide for you to be absent from your kids on a day to day basis.

Neither is unreasonable for the children. I’d make the decision on the jobs. I wouldn’t want to do option 1 more than a year for my own sake (I’d miss my home and family) so would be thinking about whether there were more local options afterwards.

Is it a permanent arrangement?
How far away would you be? If something happened to one of the kids how quickly could you get home?

Could you negotiate 4dats working away with a Monday or Friday from home? That would be a much better scenario for me.

I work away a lot, probably average 10-12 nights a month. It’s the one aspect of my job that both the kids and I hate.

Option 1

I meant to add, my worry would be that travelling back Friday night, then having to leave Sunday night or very early Monday morning, having to unpack/repack in between doesn’t leave much of a weekend.

For me the money wouldn't come into it when the choice is being present or not present in the family home.

I think that ignoring the value of the one day a week you wouldn't be working is undervaluing it. That means regardless, there would be 52 days of the year when in the school holidays you would be there and in term time could do the school runs etc. Equally your youngest wouldn't need to be in nursery and you could spend some quality time with them before they start school. That's worth way more than 11k.

Yes you get all the summer holidays the other way but the children will never see you in the week. At least even leaving early they may come to you in the night if need you or if ill etc; regardless of how good their father is sometimes it is only mum that they want!

A colleague made a decision to do the travel/away type job for similar reasons. Has loved the opportunities it's provided but has run herself down and ended up with two children - similar aged to your eldest - who are incredibly emotionally needy now yearning her. She's got better income but her homelife is nowhere's bear as positive as it was a year ago.

I don’t understand why everyone is saying option 2? You wouldn’t see the kids anyway because they would be in bed when you get home and asleep when you leave.

I guess for me because it’s not just about whether I see the kids, it’s how involved I am in family life, how much support I can give my partner, how much I can be there for assemblies or school activities, how much I can see friends and family, how much time I have for emergencies or illness.

Actually spending time with children is a small part of parenting relatively speaking - all the other stuff matters too. I wouldn’t do option 1 and I wouldn’t accept it from my DH either.

I suppose I’d also want to know if “away” is a couple of hours drive or a flight to another country. Also if an office job you could get emergency leave from or if you’re offshore or similar and totally out of play no matter what happens with the children.

Pros and cons. I think more money and more holiday is probably better. 15 weeks is a lot of leave compared to 5. You are home with your children 179 days in this version but version to you are home 129 days.

From the viewpoint of a child, I much preferred it when one of my parents worked option 1. It meant that when that parent was off we had proper quality time with them. The holidays would be a big bonus for you. And the money makes life easier. When my parent worked option 2, I never saw them anyway because they were out of the house while we were awake and then shattered at weekends from their long days..

Option 1 - how much of the kids would the mum realistically see anyway with option 2?

If the father works from home then it's no more unreasonable than a dad who works away M-F with a wife around.

Is one a permanent job and the other as a contractor. If yes, what are the benefits included in the permanent job?

For the kids option 2. For the mum it depends on what she is looking for. Number 2 offers a better balance but on working days she won't see much of the kids. Whereas with number 1 she would be away all week but sounds like a really good job opportunity. Lots of dads do this and families seem to cope but I dont think that mums and dads are interchangeable both parents usually bring something different to the table. Really depends of what you feel is best for you family x

1 no question! You can take significant time off when kids are on holiday, you are more likely to see them on the days you work, plus more money! I do not see any advantage with option 2.