WFH with children

[Annie232]

On many threads I hear women pop up and mention how they WFH x number of days and so don't need childcare on x number of days. Incidentally, within my NCT group on discussions on return to work a few of the women have said similar and that they plan to WFH 1/2 days a week and therefore save on childcare. Is this a thing now?

@sheepdogdelight I completely agree.

people seem to be deluded into thinking they are able to deliver the same outputs and quality as someone who spends a lot more time focused on doing the job.

mod course for some jobs this doesn’t need to be between 9 and 5, but it completely crazy to argue that a person juggling a small baby while working will be just as productive as someone completely focused on the job will no distractions and no play dates and school runs and park visits.

@sheepdogdelight @Stripedbag101 Agree. Sadly there’s no recompense or recognition of the fact that some of us are paid the same to do twice as much work!

I love how some people assume that those with no DC are somehow working harder. The laziest person in my team has no DC, I have no idea what they do all day but I pick up their slack a lot, they are never available on teams and always have an excuse for why they can't do things.

That’s not the point I was making.

my point is that is someone is caring for a small child while they are supposed to be working can’t possibly be giving it their all - people on this thread are describing two maybe three hours of actual work a day.

compare this to the average person who is not also caring for a baby it stands to reason that the person who is only doing one job will do that job better. Of course there will be outliers - but that is a performance management issue with these individuals.

it’s not about comparing the laziest employee who doesn’t have children (or has childcare) with the most amazing industrious superstar who is also caring for a baby.

it is like the person who is part time time and points to a lazy person in the office and says they do more than that person - it doesn’t mean they do more than the average full time worker.

This is an absolute piss take. I work with senior people in FMCG companies. There is not way they are out meeting NCT mums with their babies and baking for most of the day.

what if someone asks you to have a call at 10am? Do you just say sorry I can’t I’m at baby music class?

Agree this is not related to having DC and also note many of the lazy people I work with have no children (or grown up children).

The point that's being made is that, unless your DC are old enough to reliably amuse themselves, you will not be as productive with DC about as you would be without.

There is clearly a different argument running though which is that whereas you might not be as productive as you could be, you might be "productive enough" to keep your employer happy. People have different levels of professionalism - clearly some people think that if they employer is not complaining there is not need to do any more, or even work consistently through their contracted hours. Other people feel that if they are paid for 40 hours a week, then they should be working consistently for 40 hours a week (which might not be in a standard 9-5 type pattern, but more flexibly). And that the fact they can do a task quicker then someone else, or quicker than expected does not mean they get to put their fee up, but that they should move on to something else.

The people who are aspiring to "good enough" think those who work harder are mugs. The people who are conscientious think those who are doing less are skiving. I suspect the conscientious people are more aggrieved because a colleague not doing their work actually has a tangible impact on them - making their own job more difficult.

My comment was to @user1496146479

@Snoopsnoggysnog
My comment was a bold fail of a quote from @CherylCrows post from earlier.

My post starts from around mid way down 'I also have a global role....'

Yes exactly.
the fact they think their output matches that of someone who doesn’t have to do tummy time for 30 minutes is quite baffling.

I also think when people say “LO naps from 12.30-2.30” aren’t considering that that will change before long and isn’t conducive to long term working.

I can’t ever be convinced that people who WFH and have children not at school are doing a proper day’s work. It cannot be done in a way that means you do a good job, ever.

It’s also only a MN thing to do less work as you go up in seniority!
In the real world pressure and workload goes UP as your pay scale and seniority does.
Yes it comes with setting your own schedule, no micromanaging, less day to day accountability but the expectation is still that you actually work for your money.

Posting my own comment below, to try avoid any further confusion! This was posted earlier in a response to a post by @CherylCrows earlier, but I had a bold fail!

I also work in a senior global role, also in an FMCG company have huge flexibility in the hours I do, and to quote you I'm measured on output not hours. But your set up is so far off the mark for practically all professions it's really not comparable for OP to consider.

I can manage my diary, pop out for school stuff, appointments if needed etc, BUT I still have to do the work at other times.

I think if you are lucky enough to be in a role that effectively allows you to work fully for max two hours per day, you should also be gracious enough to accept that this is the not norm.

Flexibility is more normal these days, as is being measured on outputs not hours worked, but the majority of people would have higher expectations (than reading a few pitches, and one teams meeting per day)!
Maybe try being a bit more thankful rather than slating others not as lucky as you

I couldn't do it. Muddled through lockdowns juggling work and two kids as a lone parent (although it broke me and I still feel as if I might never recover). Childcare is so expensive but trying to manage without is even worse. I can vaguely understand how someone who is pregnant / has a baby under five months or so imagines it might be viable enough to try, but people who have 9, 12, 15mo babies and are actually trying to do this... I don't know what they're thinking.

Children need you to be available to them (even quite big children!). You know that child development experiment, where the mother makes a blank face and the baby gets freaked out? I think that's v similar to their experience with a parent who is preoccupied by the laptop for most of the day. And your work also needs your time and your focus. Working parenthood is hard enough without trying to literally do both at once.

I don't think my work allows it, but I think they've not been very assertive on this point so far and I definitely know people who are trying to get away with it. It's messy.

I work quite closely with my bosses who are directors but they work 4 day weeks.

on most of those days bar one they’re expected in the office and have a lot more responsibility which I see from emails etc.

but then again they’re also paid £100K and above and have a good pension scheme etc and they seem to have supportive spouses too.

one of the other female directors who’s not married, no kids apparently works from
8am to 10pm every day and no 4 day week either. I don’t know how she does it to be honest.

even the associates in our office are accountable but have more flexibility than eg the directors.

I’m quite happy to be a Team Assistant/PA in less pay!

Muddled through lockdowns juggling work and two kids as a lone parent (although it broke me and I still feel as if I might never recover).

You see this is me too. My health still isn’t right.

In the real world pressure and workload goes UP as your pay scale and seniority does.

I think some people don’t find those things to be work. Either those who are in senior roles and quite enjoy the strategic/ decision making side, or those who are on the lower rungs and see that those above aren’t doing the obvious work of whatever the company does. If that makes sense. But obviously it is work and quite stressful!

In the real world pressure and workload goes UP as your pay scale and seniority does.

I think that entirely depends on your job.

DH's current job is far less stressful and demanding than the one he was promoted from. It's not piss easy by any stretch, but overseeing and planning is far easier for him than the hands on-making it happen role that he previously had.

I have a one year old with a childminder for half day only (5 hours) and I'm currently trying to do a full time job WFH. I also have a 5 year old at school.

I'll say that my job is very flexible in that I don't really have a strict timeframe I'm supposed to be working, I'm part of an international team so we're all in different time zones. We're expected to structure our hours so we overlap for part of the day on most days and the rest we can organise independently over the week.

So I get 5-6 hours a day mostly uninterrupted (I start work before DH drops them off unless he has to go in the office which is 1-2 days a week). The rest I make up after kids' bedtime or the weekend.

Even with all this flexibility, DH who also works mostly from home, and a baby in childcare for half a day Mon-Fri it is so, so hard. I feel I can't do much more than the minimum and even that is often a struggle. I just about make enough hours but my capacity to focus has got worse and because of that many tasks take longer or I need to spend time doing additional admin like extra reminders because I don't hold much in my head anymore. If I weren't so established at my position I don't know how I'd do it.

It saves us up to £700 a month so it's worth persisting with it but I'm really stretched. I'm 100% sure I wouldn't be able to do it if the kids weren't away at least part of the day.

Sure, but oversight means stepping in when it goes wrong or losing money / a client etc. surely your DH has to put more time in then.

I was agreeing with you I think @CherylCrows is lying or deluded

I think most employers would not be happy if they were aware that certain staff were wfh whilst in charge of a baby or toddler

Some employers have changed the standard contracts for their business to specify wfh does not include employee doing childcare at same time

You can't look after a baby / toddler and work full time at home. It is a nightmare, WFH with no childcare during lockdown was a nightmare, and that was with 2 of us. When my 4 y/o is sick, I have an unspoken agreement with my manager that I will have him at home and work, making up time in the evening if necessary. This is also a nightmare as he ends up just watching telly in my bed (opposite my home office) and constantly shouting to me for stuff or watching his iPad / playing toys on the floor in my home office constantly talking to me and wanting to sit on my knee.
It's not sustainable for any length of time.
It's not fair for anyone - you, your employer, and especially your child.

Mine are 6 and 9, I do the drop off for school, they do clubs 2 days of the week at school, but on other days I collect them at 1530, and work for another 1.5hrs. They keep away and I can get on with work. In school holidays if I'm not taking annual leave, my oh takes time off so I can work or we use holiday clubs, they aren't home all day while I work. Wrap around care yes, all day, no. I couldn't work with them here all day.

There is no chance of wfh with a baby/toddler. My now 3 year-old would probably launch an object at my laptop screen if I was ignoring her working all day. She has to go to nursery for me to actually do my job. Once over the age of about 8, it could work I guess.

My babies were walking at nine and ten months, and my DS was a mountaineer, I couldn't take my eyes off them. No way could I work a 9 to 5 with toddlers in the house. Not good for either my kids or my work.

I've been forced to look after my toddler at various ages, whilst working from home due to unreliable childcare and tight deadlines that meant just being off wasn't possible. In every case, I neither parented nor worked well and it was absolutely awful. I would never, ever agree to it as a flexible working/WFH policy, and if I suspected someone was doing it secretly I would definitely look at disciplinary action.