To be annoyed at new boss' pregnancy?

[Biscoffscoff]

Ok so I know I probably am. But I need to vent (and preferably not at a pregnant woman) And maybe get some advice about boundaries.

I work in child protection, and it's a stressful job. I'm not going to complain about that part - you have to accept that when you choose the role. But having a good manager makes a massive difference to being able to do the job without burning out, especially as good supervision helps deal with the emotional side of the work. The nature of the job means it's very difficult for people to cover if a manager isn't available - not just because the other managers are too busy with their teams but even if they were free, the manager needs to know the families and the dynamics to be able to help.

The woman who got the managers job used to do (my level) job years ago, so she knows what it's like to be in it. She left to move away from front line work as she wanted more a break/more predictable hours. I was surprised to hear that she'd gone for the job.

A month into post and she's announced her pregnancy. She's already had to take quite a lot of time off sick, or working from home - the team aren't WFH and not having the manager in the building is difficult.

I can't help but be a little bit peed off that she went for this job. She got married earlier in the year and from what I've heard from colleagues in her old team, she was very open about hopes of starting a family once she was married. I know noone knows when/if it's going to happen when TTC but her old job was secure and far less stress, so I just feel a bit peeved that she chose this time to go for this job. I can't imagine that she would/could return to the post after mat leave - the job really isn't accommodating for childcare. I know thats not very feminist but it's the reality - its mainly a female workforce and people usually move out of this part to have kids and move back when they're older.

New boss is already asking me to cover for tasks when she's not in, or in late/leaving early, eg supporting less experienced colleagues. I'm also struggling with the idea that I've got no real support for the next six months - doesn't feel like there's any point getting her up to speed when she'll be off soon.

How do I put in boundaries about the extra work that's being expected of me when new boss isn't around? And how do I get past being annoyed that new boss is going to be just passing through, and not really there for support ?

Having reflected on this thread a bit it occurred to me how often I see posts on here slating non resident dad's for choosing to do shift work (that get in the way of contact) or people who have the audacity to ask for a family member to do the school run because they don't finish work in time for pick ups. It was kinda on those terms that I questioned about the choice of role at this particular point. But I guess it's how its framed in AIBU.

Fwiw I delayed going into social work due to caring for an elderly parent. I did support work instead. Maybe that was me being a bad feminist in not 'having it all' but it wouldn't have occurred to me to go for a job if I didn't think I could commit to it. Appreciate TTC is different circs and maybe I'm more cautious about job hunting.

YABU. I’ve been a child protection SW, eventually moving to adult SW. I’ve been around a long time in various LAs. Your gripe shouldn’t be this woman being pregnant. The problem is, you have inadequate management. I’m a senior SW in adult care. Every team has the minimum of 1 manager, 1 deputy and 1 AP. There are usually a few seniors, although it varies according to team size.
Objectively, it seems you are under additional pressure because of structurally poor management as opposed to one pregnant manager.

I worked in child protection but from a policing side. When a jobs in you’re in until the child ceases to be at risk. I’ve been at work for 24 hours straight. When I had my own child I moved into a non operational training role and have remained non operational ever since. I would need to have a much greater support network around me than I do to carry on the role. So while I have the “right “ to do it, and the “ right “ to conceive and have a child I know I would be having to walk out the door at a set time.No adjustment in the organisation is going to make that work for me or my colleagues. If the management role cannot be completed WFH then the person needs to be in. Or someone performing that role needs to be in. I would not take a job knowing that I was not going to be able to perform the full role.

Appreciate those that have taken time to support, and apologies to anyone I inadvertently offended about their own experiences of pregnancy in the workplace. The latter is something I'm probably less sensitive to simply because it doesn't tend to be the same issue in public sector - I don't think I've worked anywhere that women don't outnumber men in senior positions (tho men may be disproportionately represented in management compared to lower grades)

@Twigletfairy

YABU

So she isn't allowed to go for that kind of job if TTC? I get it's a little annoying, but at the same time it's really fucking annoying as a woman for people to expect us to put our lives on hold so we can bear a child.

This.

Also you cannot assume that because the job isnt the most compatible with childcare, she won't come back. Mine really isn't either but we make it work as a family.

Always frustrating when a colleague flakes out all the time and expects you to pick up the pieces. I’ve been on the receiving end of this in previous roles. I personally wouldn’t be as amenable or available to picking up the pieces. It’s her mangers job to sort all of this out

@Schuyler our teams were reduced in size so would be one manager one senior. There's never been a deputy role in any LA I've worked in in the last five years - they went when social work assistants went. We've struggled to recruit seniors so eventually the funding for the post was used for an additional temp social worker instead, as it was better than it being vacant

[quote Shayisgreat]@everywherethatmarywent nope - even SWs are morally allowed to have children. Do you really think the whole child protection workforce should be 1. Childless people 2. People whose children who are older? I think that's a very unreasonable expectation. We're allowed lives outside work. (And we're certainly not paid enough to compensate for not having lives outside work) If you removed women who may have young children or get pregnant at some stage in the next few years from the workforce, you would decimate an already stuggling area. Why do you think SWs should be martyrs to their job?[/quote]
Tbh no. It’s a vocation or should be. When your dealing with children’s lives you should be able to dedicate everything to that - or dont apply for the role. It’s not a 9-5 role. If you can’t commit to that, man or woman then pass the role over. This is why so many children are falling through the cracks.

I’ve seen it from all sides, SW and FP and it’s seriously lacking in support for SW, FP and the kids in families that need help.

Your not working in admin or Tesco’s.

@Divebar

I worked in child protection but from a policing side. When a jobs in you’re in until the child ceases to be at risk. I’ve been at work for 24 hours straight. When I had my own child I moved into a non operational training role and have remained non operational ever since. I would need to have a much greater support network around me than I do to carry on the role. So while I have the “right “ to do it, and the “ right “ to conceive and have a child I know I would be having to walk out the door at a set time.No adjustment in the organisation is going to make that work for me or my colleagues. If the management role cannot be completed WFH then the person needs to be in. Or someone performing that role needs to be in. I would not take a job knowing that I was not going to be able to perform the full role.

It’s about what works for different people. If every parent in my team moved to a non frontline role due to having children, we’d lose 75% of staff members. Yes, ‘Jane’ occasionally is off because her child is sick and she has no back up childcare but she works hard when she’s there and it’s rare. I’d rather have Jane there 95% of the time than an agency worker who takes forever to learn the ropes (understandable, of course) or even worse, nobody at all in Jane’s position.

There is no such thing as a "vocation". A job is a job. Whatever it is. "Vocation" is a term used to try to guilt trip people into subjugating all of their own needs and rights for a role. Just no.

[quote Biscoffscoff]@Schuyler our teams were reduced in size so would be one manager one senior. There's never been a deputy role in any LA I've worked in in the last five years - they went when social work assistants went. We've struggled to recruit seniors so eventually the funding for the post was used for an additional temp social worker instead, as it was better than it being vacant[/quote]
I’m surprised. I’ve worked in various LAs and they continue to have SW assistants but use other names for the role. In my current LA, I’m adults but childrens have a similar set up. I’ve not been anywhere in the last decade without a manager and a deputy (or similar role like senior).
It sounds immensely shit. Towards the end, it nearly broke me. You can’t pour from an empty cup and you need to take care of yourself.

@gypsywater

There is no such thing as a "vocation". A job is a job. Whatever it is. "Vocation" is a term used to try to guilt trip people into subjugating all of their own needs and rights for a role. Just no.

As some one that’s works with SN children and families I disagree.

@Newmumatlast its not just the hours that are very difficult with childcare. It's not the type of work that many new parents want to be doing. It is extremely difficult to be overseeing cases where say, a mum to be using drugs in pregnancy or a non mobile baby has injuries, when you've got a baby at home (or indeed had any difficulties with pregnancy or TTC)
Of course some do, and it's not to say people can't, more that but not many people choose to put themselves through that. As I said earlier there's no harm to career, or changes of pay that would necessitate picking CP over one of the other areas so people only do it if they are dedicated to this type of work & it's a post/team they're really happy in.

@Everywherethatmarywent

I’ve worked ridiculous hours, had to cancel leave at the last minute, laid in bed worrying about a vulnerable person, missed my own family commitments and gone above and beyond but I’m not a martyr either. It’s not sustainable like that. People burn out and go off sick and leave. You still get to be a human. Morally, I don’t shut my computer off at 5 if there’s an emergency, of course. Equally, I’m not sacrificing my personal life for the job. For this woman and for others, it includes pregnancy.

@gypsywater Eugh don’t start me on the “vocation” nonsense. It’s often something that’s used to justify the way things are and / or under fund them

@EL8888 Quite. It's just an abuse of the individual employee. The focus should be systemic, on adequate funding and appropriate staffing levels.

It’s interesting that you mention this wouldn’t happened with a police officer or junior doctor.

As a junior doctor when our colleague was off sick with HG long term we all (male and female) rallied to support her and cover her work.

I as a junior doctor will take a promotion while TTC.

I know women who have been promoted into senior positions when TTC or even (heavily) pregnant because the service would rather have a transient blip and then a good person in the role long term. For the most part those who have had organisations supportive through pregnancy and maternity have repaid them with loyalty.

In the public sector there will always be more work to do than can be done. You need to work out how much can fit in your stress bucket and what is just going to have to fall and you shrug explaining you can’t do it all.

I used to be a wreck, caring too much and trying to give more of me than was good. Now I do what I can and then go home. I say ‘no’ when there isn’t time or resources.

‘Vocation’ is a stick to beat women with.

I’ve given all my late teens and twenties to my training, thousands in money, countless evenings, weekends and nights when I could have been clocking off and having cocktails at 5.

I’ll be damned if I’m going to be screwed out of motherhood too.

I totally understand where you are coming from OP, having unfortunately been the maternity cover for a role not unlike your manager. There was so much stress in the team and it's all well and for PPs to say it's the structure to blame. Well that's not exactly news to any of us but social care is on its knees! It's hardly following best practice for clients let alone employees. And yes that is bad but there's precisely diddly squat you can do about it and in reality you'll be punishing your families if you get all "my contact and not minute more".

I'm not sure why you're blaming her ... this is the ORGANISATIONS issue that they should provide adequate support for you to do your job

@Biscoffscoff

We'd all love for safeguarding to change re the resourcing, austerity etc but we'd need a complete societal shift and I'm going to be realistic and not wait for that to happen....

In other organisations, do people REALLY get extra management/staff because someone is taking time off due to illness in pregnancy? Is that a thing?

Yes it's a thing but it's not limited to pregnancy-related conditions (why would it be?). Organisations need to have plans in place for staff taking time off for medical reasons, be that pregnancy-related or otherwise.

YANBU. Unpopular opinion, but purposely having having a child is a personal interest project. Yes it’s something a lot of women want but it’s not a “need”. Yes women should be supported with maternity leave etc but the world does not revolve around them having a child. No other type of personal project would be allowed to affect a team’s ability to work to this degree. Her choice was to try for a child AND to apply for the job. Even if really wanted a child right now she could have held off TTC for a bit until the job was settled. It’s just very unfair of her to knowingly make the work of others more difficult because of her personal wants to have a child. Taking a job you know you might not be able to fulfil is very unreasonable. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Agree with the other posters that say this kind of thing makes it difficult for women of childbearing age to get promotions. Putting your own personal wants above other women is anti-feminist.

Putting your own personal wants above other women is anti-feminist.

Quite the contrary, society traditinally tells women to be kind and put others before themselves. Also keen to know how OP and you know that she was actively TTC, or whether the pregnancy was unplanned. Either way, attitudes such as yours show why maternity rights have to be enshrined in law, sad really.

@Biscoffscoff

Having reflected on this thread a bit it occurred to me how often I see posts on here slating non resident dad's for choosing to do shift work (that get in the way of contact) or people who have the audacity to ask for a family member to do the school run because they don't finish work in time for pick ups. It was kinda on those terms that I questioned about the choice of role at this particular point. But I guess it's how its framed in AIBU.

Fwiw I delayed going into social work due to caring for an elderly parent. I did support work instead. Maybe that was me being a bad feminist in not 'having it all' but it wouldn't have occurred to me to go for a job if I didn't think I could commit to it. Appreciate TTC is different circs and maybe I'm more cautious about job hunting.

Ttc is nothing like caring. It can take years to have a baby - took me 10 years to have my baby and in that time I had 5 promotions and a 100k pay rise. Once the baby is born, fair enough, you should consider your ability to care for it along with the job - but while you’re ttc? No way.

If you can’t commit to that, man or woman then pass the role over. This is why so many children are falling through the cracks.

Again, it's the systematic underfunding that's the issue and the reason children fall through the cracks. it's not a fair burden to place on individuals that children will be harmed if the staff don't do wildly above and beyond their hours as standard. The Tories must love you though, chipping away at public services but it's okay as people like you blame the staff who work bloody hard other than them.