Should DH's job come ahead of mine because he earns more?

[OpalFruitsAreBetter]

Both DH and I work full-time with two primary age DC.

DH is the main bread-winner by far - he earns over 3x my salary plus share options etc. It's a demanding and often stressful job, but he is something of a workaholic and he is chasing a promotion.

I recently took new role at a 50% pay cut due to burnout, general unhappiness with my job and the fact neither of us had enough time to devote to DC as we both worked way in excess of our contracted hours. My new job has a much better work-life balance but it's still full-time and I have a team to manage, deadlines to meet etc.

Part of the 'deal' with DH in me taking a lower-paid job was that I'd be able to pick up more of the day-to-day work of managing school pick ups, running the house etc. But I feel like DH has started treating it as if I don't have a job at all and arranges his schedule with little consideration of what my commitments are. For instance, I always have to try to fit my office days around his and never the other way round.

This is starting to cause tension but his trump card is always that we can live without my salary but we can't live without his. Which is true. And my workplace is much more understanding of the demands of being a working parent, which is also true.

So do I just accept that my work has to fit around his?

YABU - he's keeping the mortgage paid so his career comes first
YANBU - just because I'm paid less doesn't mean my job doesn't count

(But we aren’t talking this kind of money in my house. My husband and I don’t come anywhere near 150K together! Seems like this sort of money would buy some solutions that wouldn’t even occur to me)

I understand your conflicting contractual agreements but the crux of the matter here is he didn’t even bother to contact her and ask if she could change, or say ‘I am contractually obliged to do this’.

If op's dh is on that salary then the chances are he works in a hyper masculine culture where even admitting you have dc is probably detrimental. The culture will likely be long hours, being available and present to outdo peers and doing anything remotely feminine like mentioning dc or leaving earlier for a vague 'prior commitment' will mean his colleagues will assume he's lost his 'edge'. And he will be aligned with the culture so that he thinks this is now normal and acceptable behavior - it's 'what you do'.

Well, he could start to change that ‘culture’ from within then.

If you are picking up the slack looking after children Etc. Then he should be compensating you for your contribution - including paying your pension as you have taken a hit by reducing your hours.
Any bloke that earns 3x more than the mother of his children should be doing that, if by being a partial or full SAHM, you are facilitating his promotion. The minimum he should be contributing is your loss of earnings and pension…

TNo, how much you earn doesn't tell us how important your job is. In some cases obviously it's simply necessary and pragmatic that the higher paying job is protected but I don't see that as being your situation.

But I also don't think your situation is as simple as the question in the OP. What I am wondering is what is the main reason you taking the lower paying job was predicated on you taking on more at home, and how did you guys manage when you had a more demanding job?

Theoretically, if your dh has had to pick up extra work or something like that, it could be that he needs the kind of flexibility he now seems to expect, and it could be that the combination of your two jobs just isn't workable.

I'd also wonder if it isn't possible that he wasn't feeling a little burned out as well and was hoping for some relief with the overall pay reduction, and that hasn't happened the way he hoped.

To me it sounds more like he just isn't taking your job as seriously just because of the pay differernce, and you guys need a discussion, because IMO that's not really reasonable or what you agreed to.

But this only seems to have been since she took on a new job. It seems to be totally about his attitude to the new job.

My DH is around similar and it would only be in an absolutely emergency he'd say no sorry prior commitment. Ditto with me when I was in a similar role. Unlikely you'll get the sack, but it probably won't work out for you in the long run (unless this is a very rare occurrence). What do you do that's so flexible, because usually in high earning roles you have commitments to your customers and clients that you can't turn down, and equally those roles are usually fast paced and something urgent always comes up at the last minute. I'd love to know what all these high earning jobs are on MN where you can work around school drop off's, pick ups, sick children, school events etc.

There is a difference between taking a role to allow flexibility and the expectation that you will always provide all the flex with no mutual, and importantly, equality based communication about this.

Yes his job pays more but is that the sole provider of value in a relationship? You provide the role of childcare, home management etc which has always been of no financial value to mostly men.

How much childcare and home management do you provide? What would be the cost of that if provided by outside services? Add that number together with your income and that is the financial value you bring.

I'm disappointed that many responses linked income to power (his importance is more). I thought this was the 21st C not the 20th.

But thats because OP has purposely taken a role for that very reason (work/life balance) so that makes sense and hes probably now thinking he can drop some of those previous duties (ie 50:50 is now 90:10) They just need to talk to each other about what the expectations are, they've both wrongly made assumptions.

I think everyone is getting hung up on OP being a woman. If this was a reverse, and it was the DH taking the 'lesser' role I genuinely think the responses would be the same.

You are still working those extra hours, but it's unpaid now.

I'd ask him to start paying you for all your unpaid labour, and to pay double rate when he doesn't check your availability.

There are loads of jobs on 200k+ that are nothing like that.

My DH is more than happy to tell work he’ll be away for a couple of hours for the kids Christmas panto or sports day.

If you’re in a high skills job then employers are more than happy to be flexible to help retain your services.

My DH does school pick up twice a week and blocks the time out of his work diary. It is positively encouraged by his employer.

The idea of long hours, masculine culture died out a long time ago in most workplaces.

What does he do and where does he work? What are these loads of jobs that are so flexible and aren't deadlines driven? I might need a career change 🫠

I'd have a conversation with him about the difference between flexibility (with respect and consideration) and ignoring anyone else's commitments. This needs to be the last time that this happens.

Suggest that you brainstorm together ideas to prevent it in the future. The shared calendar idea is a great one.

Ugh I've been reading this thread and there is a huge change in tone after OP announces their financial circumstances. Nobody had an issue with regards to childcare or op still working full time until this came about.

Op, when your husband told you, did you remind him that you already have plans to attend the office?

Yes, his job is more important in the sense that he earns enough to support the family but your job is equally important for your own mental health and he was in agreement about the pay cut, so he needs to be supportive of you being in the office and remember the impact it has on your mental health. He should be working with you, not against you.

He will find childcare would be a lot more expensive and general day to day a lot more difficult without you.
Sounds like he needs to remind you how much he needs you.

That is my question though/ was he really in agreement with the pay cut

Compliance. He is based at home so easy to pop out if needed.

Of course his role is deadline driven but that doesn’t mean long hours and inflexibility.

He works M-F 9-5 but has to deliver what’s needed so makes sure he can do that within his working hours. Evenings and weekends are family time not work.

OK I couldn't do that, that would bore me to death. But great for him 🙂

£200k and you won't pay for childcare? Cry me a river.

My dh is similar but I work (as a consultant) with professional and financial services and the culture is like this in these firms. It's cut throat and very masculine. People don't realise how so when they are in the lower grades and then they hit the point where they do realise, which is when they either comply, get forced out or leave because they hate it. So the culture continues.

You totally miss the point.

If FT childcare is let’s say £2000 per month and you are excluded from funded hours due to your partners income then it means it is totally unviable for you to do a normal job.

But if you’re both full time workers, then it’s irrelevant where you’re working surely? I assume you mean that as you’ve got to go into the office he should look after the kids if he’s WFH and vice versa? That’s never going to be fair to either of you - you need proper childcare arrangements regardless as to where you’re working.

Well of course there was a change in tone once OP revealed how much they both earned. Even OPs step back less stress job is paid a lot more than average wage. Between the two of them they have more than enough income to throw money at the problem. Most people don’t have that option.