Page 12 | To feel it’s a motherhood penalty… AIBU?

Yudl · 2025-05-13T14:31:47+00:00

Recently got a new job in which they offered 95k. Unfortunately they would not be flexible on hours despite the fact that in my current role I work after collecting dd. Instead they said they would pay me until 3:30 which means my pay is effectively cut to under 75k (and only a small pay rise from where I am). I feel annoyed as I can do the hours they need but do need to do a pick up in between. We are expected to work some evenings anyway. AIBU to feel miffed about this? DH is sadly no longer around to help

BIossomtoes · 14/05/2025 09:31

Sheldonsheher · 14/05/2025 09:15

You can work well flexibly just as well as someone hanging out in the office during core hours. People are not working solidly 9-5.
people need to move with the times!

You can say this as much as you like but at the end of the day employers decide what they want and need to meet the needs of the business. He who pays the piper and all that.

gattocattivo · 14/05/2025 09:35

Interesting that some people assume that any employer who places any expectations on their employees to work outside the home, or work certain hours, is somehow not being innovative and is just stuck in some outdated rut.

most employers want the job done well. And if that involves being in the office/on site/ with clients/ somewhere which isn’t the employee’s house then that’s entirely reasonable! If it means being available in person/ online at 3:30 in the afternoon and not doing the school pick up - that’s reasonable too!

there’s a difference between being flexible (which the OPs employer clearly is) and thinking employees have a right to dictate exactly when/ where/ how they want to do the job they applied for!

gattocattivo · 14/05/2025 09:39

And my point about 30 years ago is that the 9-5 working paradigm was absolutely in full flow then. And there was no paternity leave, transferable leave or lengthy maternity leave. Yet many of us mums returned to work, paid for childcare and expected our partners to play an equal role in the home and with nursery pick ups.

in 2025 when there is way more flexibility and far more favourable maternity and paternity rights, it’s a bit pathetic to hear women complaining that they can’t possibly use childcare for a school pick up, or that they expect to be able to be free at 3:30 every day without it having any impact on their job.

Sneezetimeagain · 14/05/2025 10:05

gattocattivo · 14/05/2025 08:59

I agree.

and I’ve never understood this idea that people (which usually means mums!) should be paid to stop working and be at home. I mean, being a SAHP is a perfectly valid choice, if you (or your partner) fund it.

A lot of this comes down to the partnerships that we choose. Dh and decided from the get go that we wanted things on as equal footing as possible. We both worked and both took equal responsibility for housework, nursery drops etc. And this was 30 years ago.

the OP is earning decent money. She has the choice to either accept the flexibility offered by her employer to not work core hours but to stop at 3:30 and collect her child from school, which would mean earning about 75k. Or she can work the full core hours and earn 95k, using some of that extra money to pay for a childminder or other form of care for the pick up and after school hours. Like millions of other people do (on lower incomes too!)
it’s really not a bad choice she has there and it’s a bit pathetic to see a woman in the 21st century whining that they want to do school pick up every day while still retaining the same salary as if they worked the full core hours

Show quote history

I agree with what both of you have said about @Grammarnut reply to me.

I won’t even unpick everything again as I think you’ve both summarised well some key issues with their proposals .

I will say that I completely disagree that you can confidently say a man in OPs position would be allowed to work more flexibly and they would accommodate his wishes.

A man would almost certainly work round this one. My DS works from home. In the summer the DGC are with him for half the hols. He has no problem with work - and organises his days in the office around the DC.

It obviously varies from workplace to workplace, therefore citing an example of a different company allowing a man to do this as proof of sexism doesn’t make sense.

You would need to compare like for like, as in a father within Op’s company who was allowed to take time off to pick up the kids.

I mean I could equally cite companies including mine that let certain mothers in my team take a break do the school run.

Ddakji · 14/05/2025 10:29

LimitedBrightSpots · 14/05/2025 09:00

The way the birth rate is going, looking after children will be a generational problem that will end with the next generation.

OP, you'll get a lot of people saying "you chose to have children" and all that guff.

It's hardly unsurprising that women are increasingly choosing not to have children. And many of the same people who go on about "small state", "personal responsibility" and all that are now becoming quite upset about this. Certainly, everyone will be when income tax goes up to deal with the economic consequences of a declining birth rate.

Childcare maybe. Elder care? Spousal care? That’s just going to ramp up.

So framing this as “mothers want something I don’t have because I don’t have children and that’s unfair” is very shortsighted. Unless you have zero personal connections at all, you may well be called on to provide care at some point in your life, and wouldn’t it be good if the work could be done to show employers that they can be more flexible than perhaps they think.

Ddakji · 14/05/2025 10:33

Radra · 14/05/2025 08:34

I actually think in many ways when workplaces do accommodate this, it's not good for women really. It sounds like it should be but I dunno that it really is.

It sets an expectation that women can somehow literally do everything at the same time - hold down a senior role and also look after their children.

When done properly, logging in early, working through lunch, logging on in the evenings are really unhealthy habits and I think lead to burnout much more than just using wraparound care.

I also don't think it's great for children to get home and be told not to disturb mummy because she has an important meeting. Not against children entertaining themselves and I know all children of mumsnetters who do this do worthy activities and never look at a screen but I do think it's different when you know a parent is available to you if you need something.

And of course my experience TBH is that the vast majority of parents (it's been men and women in my workplace) don't do this properly - I am currently performance managing one who does both school runs, looks after 3 children under 7 after school, and takes a full lunch break, she basically works 4 hours a day which does not get the work done and is unfair on everyone else.

It also - though it doesn't for me personally - lead to people being unwilling to allow WFH across the board because that is a simpler way to police this and I think that's bad for women and disabled people. I do use wraparound care (obviously I know most mumsnetters live very rurally and have no childcare or running water) but lack of commute from being be able to WFH helps immensely and I will be really annoyed if my employer ceases to allow it because of the pisstakers.

It also makes wraparound care harder to make sustainable which is tough on typically lower paid women who work in roles where they can't WFH.

Some really good pints to ponder here.

It is certainly true that societally we don’t value motherhood, and therefore don’t support it. So women have to juggle it all, and yes, making accommodations for that could damage women long term.

But rigid working hours don’t really help anyone. My dad was WFH from the 1980s, for himself to be fair, and would pootle off to do some gardening on a sunny afternoon and catch up in the evening. He made it work for years.

Need to think more about this!

Radra · 14/05/2025 10:49

Ddakji · 14/05/2025 10:33

Some really good pints to ponder here.

It is certainly true that societally we don’t value motherhood, and therefore don’t support it. So women have to juggle it all, and yes, making accommodations for that could damage women long term.

But rigid working hours don’t really help anyone. My dad was WFH from the 1980s, for himself to be fair, and would pootle off to do some gardening on a sunny afternoon and catch up in the evening. He made it work for years.

Need to think more about this!

Show quote history

I absolutely agree that being rigid about working hours isn't good - but I really feel like there's a big difference between the sort of flexibility that I enjoy and encourage my team to have, for example:

I have a regular exercise slot 8:30-9:30 one day a week, by the time I shower, I am at my desk for 10 which is later than usual but not excessively. I can move it for important meetings.

I will pop out to watch my kids in their school performances and then work a bit later. Back in the day, you would have to book a half day off for it - I think it's brilliant we can now usually WFH and just take it as a break.

This sort of thing is generally fine because you can work around it and it's occasional.

But that is very different to day in day out doing the school run with primary age children

gattocattivo · 14/05/2025 12:32

Women don’t have to juggle it all. Men have just as much right to request flexible working. Women can transfer some of their mat leave to their partner. And of course many couples continue to work equal hours after having kids and it’s up them whether they also share house and child responsibilities equally too.

the reality is that some women don’t want to share things equally. If one partner is going to stop work or go part time, they want it to be them. You see it frequently on Mumsnet…. Women who choose to reduce their hours while their partner remains a full time earner.

there Is nothing wrong with couples dividing up home and earning workload whatever way works best for them, but it’s disingenuous to either juggle it all, or to intentionally step back and let your career take the back seat, and then complain about it.

Ddakji · 14/05/2025 12:35

gattocattivo · 14/05/2025 12:32

Women don’t have to juggle it all. Men have just as much right to request flexible working. Women can transfer some of their mat leave to their partner. And of course many couples continue to work equal hours after having kids and it’s up them whether they also share house and child responsibilities equally too.

the reality is that some women don’t want to share things equally. If one partner is going to stop work or go part time, they want it to be them. You see it frequently on Mumsnet…. Women who choose to reduce their hours while their partner remains a full time earner.

there Is nothing wrong with couples dividing up home and earning workload whatever way works best for them, but it’s disingenuous to either juggle it all, or to intentionally step back and let your career take the back seat, and then complain about it.

Well, it’s all irrelevant if you’re a single parent whose partner has buggered off!

Grammarnut · 14/05/2025 12:45

gattocattivo · 14/05/2025 08:59

I agree.

and I’ve never understood this idea that people (which usually means mums!) should be paid to stop working and be at home. I mean, being a SAHP is a perfectly valid choice, if you (or your partner) fund it.

A lot of this comes down to the partnerships that we choose. Dh and decided from the get go that we wanted things on as equal footing as possible. We both worked and both took equal responsibility for housework, nursery drops etc. And this was 30 years ago.

the OP is earning decent money. She has the choice to either accept the flexibility offered by her employer to not work core hours but to stop at 3:30 and collect her child from school, which would mean earning about 75k. Or she can work the full core hours and earn 95k, using some of that extra money to pay for a childminder or other form of care for the pick up and after school hours. Like millions of other people do (on lower incomes too!)
it’s really not a bad choice she has there and it’s a bit pathetic to see a woman in the 21st century whining that they want to do school pick up every day while still retaining the same salary as if they worked the full core hours

Show quote history

I agree re OP. But it is not just mothers who have extra responsibilities. Many people are carers. It is a true though that the burden of care rests on women. Despite my utopia costing it would be the true cost of running an economy. At the moment 50% of the population are giving free labour to keep the economy going so that companies can make ever greater profits. What I meant when I suggested my utopia (but utopia is not what I mean - utopias e.g. Moore's and Plato's tend to be tyrranies) is that employers and government pay for the unpaid work women do which makes the economy work. Or we could all just stop doing it and see how that pans out.

cramptramp · 14/05/2025 12:47

Pay a childminder. On that salary you can afford it. Your childcare issues are not the concern of an employer.

PurpleThistle7 · 14/05/2025 12:48

No this is fine. Either your child is too young to be left to their own devices while you're working and you are expecting to be paid while providing childcare, or your child is old enough to consider either them walking themselves home or paying for after school club. I make nowhere near that salary (like miles away from it) and have paid for after school care for my children for 11 years now so I can't see how this would be impossible. Or take the win and work school hours. Sounds like a genuinely wonderful place to work if they are willing to flex around your home life like this.

Hoohaz · 14/05/2025 12:51

This seems like a very solvable problem. After school club, nanny, childminder, friends/family. What on earth do you think the rest of us do?

WineIsMyMainVice · 14/05/2025 12:51

Moveoverdarlin · 13/05/2025 15:39

I’d be inclined to go back and say ‘It’s sorted. I’ll work full time for 95k thanks v much.’ And I’d just carry on nipping out and picking her up, or do afterschool club a few days, a playdate here and there and just make it work.

Like others have said it depends on how old she is. Tricky to WFH with her there if she’s 4, anything 7 and over should be much easier.

Edited

And this is the exact reason employers are calling people back into the office! You would specifically deceive your employer as to your whereabouts would you? What would you do if you are in a meeting and it’s pick up time? Lie again? It’s people who do this that spoil WFH for all.

BoudiccaRuled · 14/05/2025 13:10

This is not a motherhood penalty.
Find a childminder or use after-school like everyone else.

Sheldonsheher · 14/05/2025 14:25

There is also the school holidays and inservice and sick days to think about. It’s pretty hard being a single parent if you don’t have any help!

faerietales · 14/05/2025 14:31

Sheldonsheher · 14/05/2025 14:25

There is also the school holidays and inservice and sick days to think about. It’s pretty hard being a single parent if you don’t have any help!

I don't think anyone is saying it's not hard, just that being a parent is a choice and other people shouldn't be expected to pick up the slack.

I know I would never, ever cope as a single parent and it's one of the reasons I have never wanted children.

Icecreammaninavan · 14/05/2025 16:22

Sheldonsheher · 14/05/2025 14:25

There is also the school holidays and inservice and sick days to think about. It’s pretty hard being a single parent if you don’t have any help!

That’s not the problem of the other employees and team mates. There’s nothing that pisses people off more than the unequal distribution of the workload, particularly when people are using the old ‘childcare’ excuse.

TheHerboriste · 14/05/2025 16:57

Icecreammaninavan · 14/05/2025 16:22

That’s not the problem of the other employees and team mates. There’s nothing that pisses people off more than the unequal distribution of the workload, particularly when people are using the old ‘childcare’ excuse.

Show quote history

Exactly.

Not our problem. It’s something people beed to think about and problem-solve before producing offspring.

Zone2NorthLondon · 14/05/2025 16:57

Sheldonsheher · 14/05/2025 14:25

There is also the school holidays and inservice and sick days to think about. It’s pretty hard being a single parent if you don’t have any help!

And? 92k wage will buy adequate childcare
this isn’t a minimum wage scenario struggling to pay for childcare
By taking a job you job you anticipate you need adequate childcare and you pay and plan accordingly
Millions of parents manage this and let’s face it 92k is enough monies to cover costs. All this oh what to do handwringing- throw some money and buy childcare , this is not insurmountable

PurpleChrayn · 14/05/2025 17:00

That’s a fucking huge salary. You’ll survive.

category12 · 14/05/2025 17:49

Sheldonsheher · 14/05/2025 14:25

There is also the school holidays and inservice and sick days to think about. It’s pretty hard being a single parent if you don’t have any help!

With that salary, she can afford childcare.

Askingforafriendtoday · 14/05/2025 18:07

JoyousEagle · 13/05/2025 15:33

How old is your DD? I don’t think they’re unreasonable to say you can’t work while looking after a child at home. I think it’s more that you’ve been lucky with your current role.

ETA: at that salary, can’t she go into an after school club?

Edited

This

Verydemure · 14/05/2025 18:23

TaupePanda · 13/05/2025 19:35

Goodness, it beggars belief that other mums are so against a single mother earning great money (which I am sure they'll work hard for) and still wanting to pick their kids up. That is good money but post tax is about £5,500 a month take home which in many parts of the country won't exactly see you tripping over in cash. 2x parents on £33000 a year - not massive salaries - would take home around the same. Not an option for a single parent though, who is fulfilling the role of both parents at the same time without any respite.

I agree it is a penalty - whether you view it as a motherhood one or a single parent one. Flexibility is offered by many companies - could you offer to formalise it? Core hours and out of hours targets for example? I work in the evenings to make up extra hours - unless you have to be permanently on the end of the phone what difference does it make!

It’s not a penalty and the issue is very easily solved by the OP paying peanuts for after school club, or getting a childminder for a couple of hours after school.

This is such a non- problem.

plenty of parents on less than 95k make it work

FlyMeSomewhere · 14/05/2025 18:37

LimitedBrightSpots · 14/05/2025 09:00

The way the birth rate is going, looking after children will be a generational problem that will end with the next generation.

OP, you'll get a lot of people saying "you chose to have children" and all that guff.

It's hardly unsurprising that women are increasingly choosing not to have children. And many of the same people who go on about "small state", "personal responsibility" and all that are now becoming quite upset about this. Certainly, everyone will be when income tax goes up to deal with the economic consequences of a declining birth rate.

It's not just women that make the decision whether to have a child or not! Men are involved massively in deciding whether to have a kid or not! Couples are not as forced by societal expectations anymore to have kids! Both parties make these decisions, women cannot self impregnate!