Do you work from home and look after kids at the same time

[Amy8]

I've posted about this on my socials today and many agreed with this article
I was mortified ! Does anyone else find it sexist ?

I do it 2 or 3 days a week. I pay my older child to do the school run and then he often goes off to meet friends or whatever.

I have a cast iron rule that ds2 doesn't barge into my office to chat and he's perfectly capable of amusing himself for the hour and a half before the end of my working day.

I often think it's a bit shit for him, but he was adamant after Covid that he didn't want to go back to afterschool care (and in any case, the waiting list is longer than he still has time at primary school).

It's a far cry from my office days where there's loads of non-work related chat going on which quite frankly I find very distracting.

I appreciate the flexibility of my employer wrt to my location of work, and my hours and in return I am also flexible to their advantage.

If I wasn't pulling my weight then I'd expect to be pulled back into the office full time. If I had my current working arrangements changed because someone else was taking the piss and the manager decided that making a blanket rule was easier for them than actually managing, I'd be looking elsewhere.

I was going to say, we had to WFH with our then just turned 3 year old when nursery was shut during covid. It was awful, we found it so difficult!

Personally I don’t do this (my kids are not the sit and game/draw quietly type) I book them into clubs.
However I seem to be the minority in my office. (Men and women)

You missed out a crucial detail. This comes into effect the term after your child turns 3. If you have a 1 or 2 year old there's sweet FA.

True - nothing at the moment until the term after the child turns 3 (so eg no funding for children born on 1 April until September), but plans afoot to make funding available for younger children. It's being staggered but over 2s are eligible for 15h from April:

"When does the 30 hours free childcare start?

Eligible working parents of three- and four-year-olds already get 30 hours a week of free childcare.
The increased offer will be rolled out in stages to allow childcare providers time to be able to implement the changes, making sure the places that are needed are available across the country when the offers are introduced.
From April 2024, working parents of two-year-olds will be able to access 15 hours of free childcare.
From September 2024, 15 hours of free childcare will be extended down to the age of nine months for working parents.
From September 2025, working parents of children aged nine months and upwards will be entitled to 30 hours free childcare per week right up to their child starting school.
Like the existing offer, depending on your provider, these hours can be used over 38 weeks of the year (during school term time), or up to 52 weeks if you use fewer than your total hours per week."
Also - the £100k limit is per parent not per household so 2 parents earning £99k each would be eligible (but 1 earning £101k and another £20k wouldn't).

I also work 2 days a week in a band 3 NHS role and until recently did half of that from home. There is absolutely zero way I would have been able to do my job to an acceptable standard if I was looking after my 2yo and it would have been blatantly obvious via comparing my output to my colleagues who all work very hard.

This isn't a dig but more just amazement that either your children are extremely self-sufficient, enabling you to go about a full working day effectively (although I'd then be concerned for your children to be frank with the lack of interaction that would entail) or alternatively your employer doesn't monitor your output/productivity effectively and isn't getting anywhere near what they should be out of you. Which in the public sector again really isn't ideal for the running of essential services.

I get the cost of childcare is horrendous, until September we had two kids in nursery and as I say like you I also am paid B3 but husband is B7 and so we have always been just slightly over the threshold for UC support. However we still have always paid for nursery care, it's not fair on the kids otherwise. If I couldn't earn enough to cover the nursery care I would quit. But I was still earning just over the cost of a nursery place for two of them on the B3 salary so you would be too.

Appreciate that doesn't fix the issue of lack of childcare space at all but then I can't imagine applying for jobs if I had no childcare in place.

I did it during covid and it was hell. I can't understand why anyone would make the choice to work from home (if truly working - not making up hours at other times/delaying emails etc) and care for a pre-schooler.

On the odd occasion I work with my 6 year old at home and it's fine for an hour or so but not all day.

. I don't care what people think about my set up, I'm open and honest and my boss is very happy with me as an employee
If you have a way where you're able to manage your working hours and caring responsibilities in a way that is above board and you're doing a good job of both, I doubt many people would have any issue with it.

The main issue with piss takers isn't that they've got an above board flexible work arrangement. The issue is that the piss takers are almost always doing less work or having a negative impact on either the team, clients/customers/service users, or both.

The way I see it there can be three people:

• Person A has core hours 9.30-3pm. Their workplace is happy with staff making up their hours as they need to outside of those hours but they expect all staff to be available within those hours. Person A uses this transparent flexible working to pick their 8 year old up from school so they can't do meetings between 3-4pm. This is within the agreed working structure. Anyone getting shitty is being unreasonable, assuming person A is doing a great job in their area and work is getting done.

• Person B is WFH. Their work hours are 9-5pm. Work has the ability to build flexitime and take it off as agreed, but Person B doesn't do that. Person B regularly can't make 9am meetings (because they're on the school run) and mid afternoon they're suspiciously never available after 3pm (because they're on the school run and sorting their KS1 children out). Instead of being available for colleagues like they're employed to, they're actually down on availability around 2.5 hours a day. They're doing the employer out of 12.5 hours a week of work, but instead of applying to be part time for their part time hours they expect to be paid for the full time job.

• Person C has a job where they're expected to have meetings/calls and concentrate on work. They think it's fine to have their toddler at home with them until the 30 funded hours kicks in. This means that they try to schedule meetings around nap times, and then are never fully present as a parent or as an employee. The child isn't getting the full attention they need and the employer certainly isn't getting an acceptable level of work from the position. When someone highlights that WFH is WORK from home, not sort of work, do some emails, watch cbeebies and entertain a toddler from home, person C gets shitty and claims their workplace isn't family friendly.

Very few people would have an issue with Person A.
Many people would think Person B and C are piss takers and their behaviour is likely to lead to a roll back on the sort of genuinely flexible working that Person A requires.

Not being available for meetings because of the school run would be a big issue in our company. If there is a meeting within working hours you are expected to have prepared for it and be on Teams at the time of the meeting.

I do it (man). I just don't tell my work when I'm doing it.

No. But my husband does. There’s no childcare available here - rural area and a child with additional needs. I have a job involving seeing clients which I can’t do and keep an eye on DS. So DH does it. His boss is fully aware; it’s a tiny family business and DH is pretty much indispensable, and also his boss is a good friend. So we make it work.

Sexism and Daily Mail narrative aside, are they getting their work done? If they are, who cares? "It never used to be like this". Ok? Adapt, progress.

But having kids is a lifestyle choice really, given the massive overpopulation of the planet. Childless people shouldn't have to pick up the slack any more than parents should have to accommodate people wanting to spend time on their hobbies.

I work from home in a fully remote company.
My children are 13 and 10 so are not really in need of childcare, although my youngest is still at the age where we wouldn't leave him alone for more than a quick "popping down the road to the shops" length of time. They are at home every day after school while I am still working and in school holidays my annual leave will only stretch to a few days off in each holiday, so they are at home whilst I am working during the remaining days.

It's no issue with a 10-year-old, it was doable with an 8-year-old when I started this job 2 years ago. I don't think it would have been fair on the children or my employer to do it if they were any younger though. Right now they are pretty self-sufficient and reasonably capable so they don't distract me, and I don't feel my work suffers. But I do feel I am functioning somewhat under par as a parent (i.e. not being stimulating or creative or giving them much of my time. They have more screen time than they ever used to).

My employer is fine with people doing the school run in the afternoon because they want to encourage a diverse workforce and enable women with parenting responsibilities to get back into the workplace. (For which I am very grateful because I was struggling to find any employment to fit around family responsibilities previously). I always make up the time taken for the school run by taking less of a lunch break or working later. I think it helps that the company has a flexible working approach, where as long as we all broadly work within certain hours we can plan our day as we see fit.

@Esmeralda94
Isn't smoking and drinking also a lifestyle choice but I don't see the majority of the population stopping tax payments towards additional healthcare services/care to support

So why shouldn't I expect the government to lower the cost of childcare/ do more to help make it affordable

Irrespective of overpopulation, I'm raising my children to actively contribute towards this society and if the government is pro family because let's be honest it really pretends it is , then let's making family life affordable so people aren't forced to compromise one for the other and struggle with this

Until such time as childcare for under 3s and even folder is more affordable overall then parents will do whatever it takes including working with their kids at home - productivity or not

Not too long to wait, this should make things easier for a lot of families.

www.childcarechoices.gov.uk/upcoming-changes-to-childcare-support/#:~:text=From%20September%202024%2C%2015%20hours,hours%20of%20childcare%20a%20week.

Do you really think the changes are going to happen? There is already a shortage of childcare providers and the government contribution towards childcare doesn’t make it attractive for nurseries and childminders to offer the subsidised hours.

Agree they won't do it

Then do you have parents working for you ? Because I find this an absurd expectation- so long as my colleagues and people I've managed can meet before or after id always accommodate

I get more staff satisfaction this way and better performance

An absolute brilliant illustration of why flexible working policies make better workplaces

Just read glass door to see that ! Some of the biggest FTSE 100 companies have policies to suit person A

Who wouldn't want a better performing and engaged workplace - your industry would have to be office cortical not to allow this ,maybe airline or manufacturing ? but most office environments can do wfh (Covid showed that), therefore most can allow flexibility around childcare to allow for school pick ups / drop offs and even the occasional kid at home day.
Because life happens and great workplaces will understand that.

Global company with lots of parents. We had hybrid working well before Covid. You can work from wherever you want - home, office, clients etc. However if a client wants a Teams call (often involving people from different time zones) you would be expected to attend if it’s during your workday - it’s what we get paid for.

Slightly off topic but what age do you think it is okay for children to be in the house when the parent is working. I know it depends on the child but I'm interested in the perception. I rarely do it (as the last snow day when I had to i feel so guilty I'm not fully available to the kids or work that i prefer not to - it just stresses me out more) but I am getting a bit sick of hearing others higher and lower than me in my organisation working with their children, often younger than mine and I wonder when morally I would feel comfortable doing it

OK, and what about the staff who are in the office, carrying the WFH-ers who are doing half a job?

And what about the customers/service users/patients? Have you tried getting help from an organisation that has moved to WFH recently? Customer service has dropped off a cliff. Posters like yours are always "Up the workers" but don't seem to GAF for people trying to use companies and services involved.

Oh yes remember that well seen none of the Scottish Government had children. I'm still realing over how they treated children of all ages with pure contempt so they fuck wits could go flag waving.
Even university were online remote learning for much longer than England.

Arrrr! Poor Children some might forget but I'll never forget or forgive.
We have a generation full of anxiety, speach and language issues. And holes in their education.

Amy8
Flexible working is a good thing, I agree.

Person B and C are piss takers because they're not using an above board flexible working arrangement that's appropriate for their role. They're taking their pay from work and using large sections of the working week to look after children on work time. Nobody would say it's fine to to go to the gym from 3pm within your contracted hours WFH, but piss takers will take the same amount of time and claim anyone saying otherwise isn't being family friendly.

What an appropriate level of flexible working is will depend on the role people are in and the organisation requirements. What people do with that level of flexibility is up to them when the flexible working is a transparent arrangement.

If Person B wants to not work from 3-5pm they could apply to be part time, or use their workplace flexi to build hours elsewhere in the week and it off in line with the flexi policy. They shouldn't expect to be paid for working 3-5pm each day but are actually doing the school run and looking after their kids.

The issue isn't whether flexible working is a good idea. The issue is people claiming they're WFH, but actually not working for large parts of the week. That's not flexible working, it's just piss taking.