To choose to work school friendly hours?

[Niliu]

I will soon need to make a big decision about role at work- either way will be a senior position.
I can choose to do school hours (9.30am-3pm) 4 days a week at £60k, or work FT for £100k.

In the latter role I'm also more likely to be able to expand the role and have £10k rises quickly, whilst in the former school hours role my pay won't see any major leaps and I would have to take on more hours to get any more money- there's also a chance I could get 'stuck' in this role.

I feel annoyed at myself contributing to the female 'pay gap' by taking the lower paying role and I love the idea of being able to afford a a bigger house and better holidays. However my kids are still only little (5&3) and I feel they will benefit from my time.

If it's relevant husband works 30 hours week hybrid job at £35k. He is an equal parent.
Actual content of role is fairly similar so no differentiating factors there either.

Help me decide!

I do 4 long days FT rather than trying to do school hours because you just don't stop then racing around trying to do everything.

Yeah this. ^

@Niliu What on earth is it that you do - that pays £42 an hour?

I know a number of professionals, including doctors, reverends, architects, bankers, dentists, vets, teachers (even headmasters,) etc, who aren't on anywhere NEAR that. Many are on half that or less.

So what is this amazing job that pays £42 an hour, and lets you work school hours - 9.30am til 3pm?

.

So interesting, the split of opinions on this thread. It’s almost 50\50.

It’s mad to me how many women would give up £40k a year additional salary in order to be with their kids between 3-5pm on school days (objectively the worst hours of each day anyway). What do mother and father have to do during this time, really? Are fathers not perfectly capable of walking a kid home from school, checking their reading diary and cooking some pasta? What would the second parent even do in this scenario? And are these the dizzying heights it’s worth sacrificing a 100k a year job for?

The fact OP says she feels “guilty” letting her (part-time) husband do all the school pickups leads me to believe she would do all the after school stuff herself to give DH “a break”, which is just such bollocks.

@LikeWhoUsesTypewritersAnyway It’s a bit tiresome to quiz the OP, comes across like you think she is lying. There are lots of sectors where £60k-£100k salaries are normal, especially when you get to manager or director level - finance, pharma, IT.

@YellowCloud

Agree

There are a surprising number of posters who just can't accept the idea that there are women who can earn high salaries - I notice no one ever implies that husbands with high salaries are fictional

The OP doesn’t need after school club as she said her husband can pick up.

A few people have said or implied this. But that's not what she said - she said he can do most but that they would need a bit of after school club

Which makes sense because 30 hours a week isn't that part time, it's the equivalent of four normal length working days.

Would these illustrious hugely paid jobs (that pay £42 an hour) allow you to work part time school hours though? Just 9.30am to 3pm? (Monday to Friday)

It's just a simple question that I'm sure many others would like to know the answer to. What is the job? It's just a question ... Some people are simply curious, as they may like to try to reach out and apply for something similar. Who WOULDN'T want a job that pays £60,000 a year and you only have to work school hours - 27.5 hours a week?!

No-one has accused the OP of lying. You're the only one who has suggested that.

@LikeWhoUsesTypewritersAnyway I know a part time director in the civil service, she is SCS2 earning over £100,000. You can get flexibility at a senior level.

(Well the FT pay is over £100k so the part time will be less, but over £60k).

When you take tax into consideration, I don't think OP would be better off if her husband gave up work and she took the full time job.

Yes, there are lots of sectors where people who are senior enough can have part-time or flexible hours. It’s not the kind of jobs you can walk into though, so no point mentioning here so the people of mumsnet can “apply for something similar”. They’re usually highly specialised.

With any career where your specific expertise is valued more than the hours you punch on the clock, flexibility is possible.

I work in one of the three sectors mentioned above, and I earn in the range mentioned, and I have flexible hours - by which I mean, no one is checking when I am logged on. I work the hours that suit me, as long as the work gets done. I can pick my kids up from school.

60k for 27.5 hrs a week is the equivalent of £87k at 40hrs. It’s not insane to think a woman might earn this. And lots of workplaces do offer part-time hours - usually for existing, known employees, not the kind of thing you can walk into.

There are so many helpful contributions here and so much food for thought.
Just at work so can't reply individually yet but will go through properly later.
It's really made me examine my own prejudices and despite husband 'doing more than most' in my friends words I think I do see the kids as my responsibility which I just delegate out!
Reflecting on my own upbringing too I was raised by a SAHM (by necessity not choice) who was very vocal about how it was important for her to be at the school gates and was scornful about kids being 'dumped' at childminder etc but then tbh she was quite unhappy and I don't remember the time spent fondly. I think that has muddied my feelings too.
Job wise the senior school hours role is just because it covers more long term planning so doesn't need someone in every day, whereas the other role does need someone there every day just to do a 'sit rep' and touch base, it's not necessarily more intense just slightly different.

And I won't be sharing my job role-sorry! As someone said it's not just something you could walk into without the technical skills and experience, realistic timeframe from grad entry to senior role 10-15 years with additional qualifications taken during that time. At the moment there's a skill shortage hence the keenness to offer flexibility but who knows in ten years that might be different 🤷‍♀️

My usual thoughts on it are money isn't everything. Ur kids are only little once. If u want a bigger house though and cld use the extra money wisely then it's more difficult to say no.

Plus if ur dh can cover most school picks up and drop offs then it wld make more sense to go FT. It depends how flexible the job is too though and if u can wfh.

I have recently been feeling frustrated that I have not progressed in my career because I had decided to be part time while my children are young.

However, reading through this thread I am glad I have. Missing milestones and being too tired to engage with them after work, would have been a much bigger regret for me.

Having said that I have friends that make it work because they both share the parenting fairly equally, have a grandparent nearby and also have the flexibility at work, to attend assemblies, sports days etc.

Instead of doing 9-5 could you do 8-4 if DH is able
to do school drop off/breakfast club? You’d be home by 4:30 and able to go to the park/after school activities whilst still taking the full time role. Or at least 8-4 on some days if not all.

@Niliu I get it my DH gets paraded as some sort of pariah because he cares for his children and shock horror the man is working part time and flexibly as well! To me it just makes financial sense for my family. The most frustrating part I find is usually other women's attitudes to our set up including statements like lucky you your husband will babysit....ummm no their his kids! I have always been upfront that parenting is 50/50 or as close to possible. I also get the your so lucky comments my usual response is it's a shared effort. But I have quite a few friends who OH are frankly lazy and selfish when it comes to their children.

Go with your gut, then you can’t regret it!!

Some great points on here.

a couple of thoughts that I’m not sure have been mentioned…

• with the part time role being 4 days rather than 5 (I think I’ve got that right?) you have one day less a week to cover during the school holidays. Also more likely to be able to make it to school events etc - 1 in 5 chance it’ll be on your off day! Also a day to do doctors appointments etc.
• again one day in the week off means you have some actual time to yourself - hobbies, downtime, something fun. Worth its weight in gold if you ask me. Work life balance and all that

• someone mentioned taking the full time and getting a nanny and a cleaner…. Wouldn’t that wipe out a lot of the salary increase?
• another poster mentioned not wanting to just ferry kids to clubs / sit outside choir etc. I am so so grateful my mum did this for me, I had an interest which became a career because she did ferry me about and wait around for me. I do not wish we had had more money or a bigger house. She died when I was quite young which probably colours my view. Of course dads can do the ferrying around too!
• i hear that teens need you around even more as they get older (need the emotional support). Mine are still little so no practical experience I of this yet!

Good luck op, you’ll make it work whichever you choose.

I have experience of both! Similar to you, senior position, I did school hours until my youngest was in Y5 and have now moved to full time
(with a nice pay raise!).
Being able to be there after school daily was invaluable, and using after school clubs would have made the evenings stressful / not enough time for homework / tired children.
Post Y5, as much as I enjoyed the time off, there is no real need. A bit inconvenient to lose the flexibility to book appointments just after school but well, the pay rise makes up for it! And I can remind DH that he is now in charge as much as I am.

I'd go school hours. No-one on their deathbed wishes they had worked more in life. Your salary is good enough to still have a decent standard of living and from 60k up is where higher tax and loss of child benefit etc make the extra hours less worth it

someone mentioned taking the full time and getting a nanny and a cleaner…. Wouldn’t that wipe out a lot of the salary increase?

I think that was me. I wasn't talking about a full time nanny, but an after school nanny which wouldn't wipe out that much of the increase, especially as the DH can do 1-2 days anyway.

It wouldn't need to be forever and the OP's salary will continue to rise so long term they would be better off. It would allow for the kids to be ferried to extracurriculars.

I personally am very happy to work more to avoid doing my own cleaning so that side doesn't bother me

They'll be plenty on their deathbed that regret not retiring sooner.

Staying full-time and investing wisely will enable that to happen. The UK is basically pushing the retirement age so high the only way to get a retirement is to fund it yourself.

I see little point in both Op and her DH sacrificing full-time work and the opportunities that go with it.

I'm at this decision point now! Have parental leave to take, could take one day off, but would likely end up just doing my FT role for less money & more stress

The factor being ignored here, is which role interests and motivates you most? If you are career orientated a part time, potentially more restrictive role may bore you. People who are not career orientated will not fathom why you would consider and busier role, so you need to take responses with a pinch of salt if your career is an important asset to you. Hyperbole about death beds don't mean anything if you enjoy your work.

I'd go school hours. No-one on their deathbed wishes they had worked more in life.

On the contrary, I think there are plenty who regret:

• Not retiring sooner (as another poster has said)
• Not travelling more
• Not having more once-in-a-lifetime holidays with their kids
• Not being able to help their kids get on the housing ladder
• Not being able to afford their dream home / losing their house when interest rates rose and they couldn’t afford to keep the payments
• Spending so much time cleaning instead of being able to afford a cleaner
• Not being able to afford an expensive extra-curricular for their kids
• Never knowing how successful they could have been in their career, if they hadn’t taken a step back (“Could I have been a professor?” “Could I have opened my own firm?” Etc).

The list could go on and on and on.

I see such a double standard here. If a man got home at 5.30pm and spent the evening looking after his kids, doing homework and bedtime every day, he’d be praised. So involved. Even though he is the high earner? What a saint!

But if a woman contemplates getting home at 5.30pm instead of 3.30pm and she gets a lot of sniffy, dreary responses from posters about they could never do that, because they cherish spending time with their children.