To feel it’s a motherhood penalty… AIBU?

[Yudl]

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

Surely the problem there is the father?

Instead of defaulting to you to be primary career, your dh might have taken his share of parental leave and taken a more proactive approach to enabling you to minimise impact on your career.

That you (presumably, hopefully) agreed to him not doing so isn't the employer's fault.

Obviously social norms etc impose a "motherhood penalty" by making this so common - but if men are the ones who want children more these days, they ought to be taking more of the hit, which would make parenthood more attractive to women.

Although I get your point I don’t think it’s fair to expect x y and z from your employer and then get mad if they say no. I think it’s also unfair to claim it as motherhood penalty. It is just one of them things in general - if a dad was to ask of the same, they’d also get turned down.

I have no idea; I’m not in charge of the policies, which have been in place since about a year into Covid and which I assume have been legally vetted.

Too many workers were trying to save on childcare costs & not getting their jobs done. Kids running around in the background of teams meetings, etc. People really taking the piss with “school runs.” And guess who was picking up their slack? Mature & childfree as usual.

I agree that for children over 12, they shouldn't need childcare however I agree with the other points posters have posted.

I do think you're getting off topic. The point that is being made is if you are being paid to work from home then that's what precisely you should be doing. Bar an emergency, you wouldn't (or shouldn't) be doing elder care or child care during these work hours and expecting to be paid for the times you aren't available.

If you do need to child care or elder care then this is where flexible working comes in. Compressed hours, 9 day fortnight, starting or finishing earlier/later but these need to be negotiated with an employer. Employees can't just dictate that they'll be unavailable for parts of the working day or worse, lie about it and still think they are entitled to get paid for those hours and there be no consequences.

I'm a working full time mum and work in older adult social work so know the reality and how difficult it is, however it's something that needs to be worked with with your employer.

When my kids were too old for school childcare club but not old enough to get themselves home from school and be completely independent, I paid for childcare to do pick up and supervise at home. I just set out that it wasn’t full on watching the kids all the time, I explained I was quite happy for them to go up to their bedrooms, chill, watch a bit of tv, make themselves a sandwich etc but that they needed an adult for using the kettle, answering the door and dealing with any emergencies

Sending you the world's smallest violin lol

I guess this is the point, I've gone massively off topic but the main point is that no one could seriously argue her new employers aren't being fair by offering her £75k for part time hours!

I had a childminder pick up my kid from school and drop them off... Done.

There's a few reasons really, men have always in the past had the higher salaries and so it was the boat nobody wanted to rock.
There's also attitudes that men face in the workplace if they asked for flexibility - some years back I worked guy who got all the warehousemen in a room and laid in to them big time that they had no right to be taking time off to look after sick kids or do school runs "because that's what the missus is for" - horrific I know but in some of your grittier male oriented environments it would be frowned upon.

I don't know everyone's individual circumstances but the bigger question needs to posed is why is childcare not being shared equally between parents. Isn't childcare a shared expense and responsibility for both parents to consider when working not just always fall to the mum to have to organise everything

I hate this argument.

At the time - DH earned more than me - my salary was 17K Child care was 26K 3 kids.

How is ‘sharing the cost’ supposed to work?

I go to work - earn £4K less tax, getting 3 kids ready - DH salary drops by £13K to ‘share’ the child care and we all live on fresh air?

How does this make financial sense?

I feel I was lucky to stay home and take care of my own children.

Not many women get the opportunity.

yes but for some people, taking a financial hit in the short term is worth it for the sake of career progression, pension etc.

we had 3 children and in the short term were financially slightly worse off than if I’d stayed home, but in the long term I’m far better off. I feel very lucky to have the career I do while raising my children.

Its different choices

Exactly, @gattocattivo

People are so short-sighted to just focus on the income factor. There's also accruing seniority, contributing to pension (and perhaps gaining an enhanced employer's contribution to pension), job history, skills updating, networking and maintaining the discipline of working. All are worth staying in the workforce for.

There also was always the option for the couple to plan and save in advance for childcare costs, to cover any shortfall. Just as people are expected to save up for any other big-ticket expense in life.

Working is about more than income. These fluctuations can be planned and saved for, you know.

I don't want to hear anyone whining about the "career hit" or "motherhood penalty" if they choose to drop out of the workforce because of short-term cash flow issues, especially if they didn't bother to save in advance to cover mat leave and/or childcare costs.

Have you posted about this job before?

I agree. I did caveat and say there will always be individual circumstances apply however I find it strange there's always talk of his and her salaries rather than income being a joint thing when you have children. The default position seems to be in many cases, that the women automatically drops out the workplace completely rather than both couples looking at flexible working agreements or looking at how they can structure their work hours accordingly.

It's fine if that's what you want to do. I couldn't think anything worse than being out the work place and glad I can go to work while my child is young.

Fine if that works for you but I don’t see staying at home with kids all day as an opportunity. I want to work as well as spend time with then

It sounds like you wanted to stay at home anyway.

I was determined that having children wouldn't ruin my career so it was planned incredibly carefully and DS wasn't born until I was 36, in a senior role and with flexibility.

I also made sure to have savings which helped with the hit on maternity leave and I decided to not take a full years maternity leave or to drop to part time.

DH and I flex around each other which means one of us can almost always pick up DC early from nursery and it all doesn't fall on one person.

Taking a temporary hit was worth it to keep my career, as well as the fact that I work for so much more than financial reasons.

My husbands company is super flexible with childcare and as long as he works a certain number of hours a week he can pretty much do the hours that best suit our family life. It's great.

I'd probably feel sorry for you if you were on 30k but 95k, you can 100% afford a childminder/wrap around/ after school nanny/help.

If is very difficult legally for companies to turn down applicants for jobs, and this is about the only way they can do that.

That's not even vaguely true. It couldn't be easier to turn down applicants for jobs. It's what happens to the vast majority of applicants for jobs. They don't even have to respond at all.

It was probably a bit facetious, but there are some rules such as you cannot turn down someone for their colour, or religion etc.

You can though, easily. You just don't tell them that's why. Happens every day.

Is the new job the same company you previously worked at? If it is then I assume it’s a new job role and the flex hours will not apply due to the new role. If it as a new company then it doesn’t really matter that you have flex hours now as they have nothing to do with your old company. Surely you read the brief when you applied for the job/during the interview stage? It would have been the first thing I asked during the interview. You also can’t expect to be paid full time hours when you will not be working full time. Definitely not a penalty on motherhood.

Of course you can. If there's 100 applicants for one job then you can only give one person the job regardless of their colour and religion! The job should be going to the most suitable candidate. In this instance it seems they have been more than fair with the OP.

Depends on the job. Some jobs do need you to be available at set times, for example if dealing with the public or other offices. Not hard to understand surely!