AIBU to send kids to nursery?

[MammyOoo]

Wwyd

Kids are 1 and 3. No health conditions. DH is a key worker, I can wfh. I can’t actually work while looking after the kids as they are so little and baby is Velcro. I can’t work when they are asleep as biggest doesn’t nap, baby isn’t a good night sleeper anyway. So if they don’t go to childcare one of us has to stop working. I earn shedloads more and enjoy my job more so no way it would be me.

So do we send them? Or DH quit work and take a key worker out of circulation? (He’s in food not NHS)

By the time my son is asleep at 8pm I would be far too tired to do my job even in a token way, never mind with basic commitment and competence

In many countries ALL the childcare facilities are shut.

How do you think they’re managing?

These aren’t normal times. It’s not easy, but people are doing it.

We really need to move away form the rhetoric of worrying we will get ourselves to worrying about the fact that we will infect others outside our families and homes. This bit is under our control.

Nursery workers are paid a pittance and do not deserve to have their viral load increased so that you can find WFH easy.

People need to understand that when sending their children to nursery they are ...

Putting their family at greater risk
Putting the nursery workers at greater risk
Making social distance measures less effective (thus likely to result in harsher measure or longer terms).

The facility is there for those who have literally no other option.

Those wanting to send their children in so that they aren't 'too tired' having to work around them need to wise themselves up sharpish.

I might be the only one here but I would send to nursery in that situation. Certainly with my job you cannot work from home with a child. Certainly not 2 children.

My DS is 2 years old. I'm single and not a key worker.

I need my job to keep a roof over my head.

I'm moving back in with my mum who will look after him 9-5 while still being asked to pay nursery fees.

My brother is an urgent care doctor who lives at home with my mum still and my DS has mild asthma so a big sacrifice is being made on our part JUST because I know it's impossible practically to work from home with a child.

OP I sympathise. If you don't send to nursery you may need to take annual leave between you both.

Or in some jobs as long as you do the hours it doesn't matter when so you may need to work before the kids get up or when they are in bed.

If you have a similar client facing job as mine that's not possible as you need to be on call 9-5 you may need to consider nursery.

@LaurieMarlow

In many countries ALL the childcare facilities are shut.

How do you think they’re managing?

These aren’t normal times. It’s not easy, but people are doing it.

I am talking about a very specific group here, being parents of children under 5. I’m sure that, as here, some are managing as follows:

1. Other parent already a SAHP
2. One parent has job that cannot WFH and has been lost/suspended due to quarantine eg clothes shop assistant, beauty therapist
3. Parents have each reduced hours/expectations by 50% and tag team having full childcare
4. They already had live-in help (this was how a lot of people in Hong Kong coped).
5. They are using annual leave
6. They are taking unpaid leave or a huge pay cut.

The others are not managing.

The problem with unpaid leave is that businesses/the economy are under severe pressure and many will have to make permanent staff cuts after this is all over. By taking yourself out of the workforce you are first unable to contribute to keeping the company afloat, and second putting yourself right in the firing line when this is all over. If in a client-facing business you are going to lose all those carefully- built client relationships by being out of sight and out of mind for at least 3 months. Yes, I know that parental leave is available and comes with certain protections but those only last a little while and then you are first in the chopping block because they know they managed quite fine without you during the virus.

Look, I fully accept that job losses are an inevitable part of this awful situation. We also all have a primary responsibility to do as much as we are able to stop the spread of the virus. However there is a lack of recognition that complying with “If it is at all possible for children to be at home, then they should be” may mean making severe, possibly irreversible, financial sacrifices, which is a very tough decision when an alternative is officially available but ethically dubious. There are a lot of memes going round saying “all you have to do to save the world is stay at home and watch Netflix”. No, not true. The sacrifices are, for many, significantly more life-changing than that and this flippancy is not helpful.

The others are not managing

Not necessarily.

I’m in Ireland. No childcare at all.

I have pre-school children, so most of my circle do too. I know quite a few couples with one parent is a HCP, the other is WFH in a demanding job.

If these couples had help, they don’t any more as the help is over 65.

They’re managing. They aren’t getting much sleep and they tag teamed work all over the weekend. They’re eating sandwiches and what can be thrown in the oven. Their kids are having a LOT of screen time.

It’s very far from ideal, but yes, people are doing it.

All of which is irrelevant if you're dead!

OP you both work and from the sounds of it you have the much better job. DH can’t call Key Worker and piss off saying you are now childcare. You pay for childcare ergo it’s a job. Sit down with DH ask him what HIS plans are for childcare. You need to stay healthy to look after kids and clearly working all day and night is not gong to work. Ask him for his thoughts. He needs to change his work hours to accommodate you which should be easy at the time of crisis or you will have to give up reduce your hours and he can cut his cloth according to his wage.

@LaurieMarlow what you describe is option 3.
And it is too early to say whether anyone is managing. That situation is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term for the parents, children or employer.

Personally I would

However there is a lack of recognition that complying with “If it is at all possible for children to be at home, then they should be” may mean making severe, possibly irreversible, financial sacrifices, which is a very tough decision when an alternative is officially available but ethically dubious

People will have to take tough choices, yes.

In Ireland, there was no ambiguity. I’m sure the UK will tighten up soon and the choice will be taken away from people.

In the meantime though, I do think people should try to do the right thing. Our economy is fucked regardless and the best thing we can do for that is for SD to be as quick and effective as possible.

what you describe is option 3

Businesses will have to adjust for that, it’s just how it is.

And it is too early to say whether anyone is managing. That situation is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term for the parents, children or employer.

People are giving it a go. Who knows how it will pan out in the longer term, but better right now to minimise risks.

Businesses will have to adjust for that, it’s just how it is.

Yes, the BUSINESSES will adjust. By reducing operations and permanently laying off staff, even after this is all over.

@LaurieMarlow are there any stats in Ireland re how many key workers have had to give up their jobs due to no keyworker childcare?

By reducing operations and permanently laying off staff, even after this is all over.

That’s going to happen regardless. Like I’ve said, taking SD seriously is the best thing anyone of us can do for the economy.

are there any stats in Ireland re how many key workers have had to give up their jobs due to no keyworker childcare?

Not that I know of.

Nursery workers are being redeployed to provide childcare for couples who are both key workers (defined much more tightly than in the UK).

Also, for context, Ireland has not committed to covering people’s salaries (as the UK has). People are terrified about the economic repercussions.

In the U.K. the salary cover is capped way below what a lot of people earn. It is a reassurance for low earners but it is not a panacea.

It is a reassurance for low earners but it is not a panacea.

I’d take it in a heartbeat.

The only thing we’ve been given is reassurance that we’ll qualify for JSA!