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 ?

The issues I have with that article is tarring all women with the same brush. It also doesn't separate school aged children from preschoolers.

Massive difference looking after a 5yo for an hour or two after school and looking after the same 5yo all day during holidays. Boredom kicks in and they need entertaining. Also children bicker.

However It's not just women trying it on. Men are at it too. I know a man who's job is on a shakey nail, out put is being questioned, and it's suspected he's trying to wfh and care for kids.

At the moment the economy is booming plenty of work about. When recession hits and redundancies are on the cards and jobs are hard to come by that's when employers will separate those who are really productive and those who are less so.

As for what aboutary on costs of childcare.
Nobody ever said children were cheap there are always articles on how much children cost. Biggest cost is childcare, either in paying for it or in reduced earnings.

Not every job can be done from home or with children at your feet. People need to manage the circumstances they are in exactly the same as people did pre-covid and pre-internet.

Show me a single human being who is as productive at work when looking after a toddler, as when not looking after a toddler.

The public pay for this unproductivity twice-over, both in the sense of getting less good service, and in the literal sense of paying for it. Public sector workers are paid via our taxes; private companies are funded by our fees/overheads on products.

So, no, I am not going to just 'adapt' having to pay to receive a less good service from someone who is distracted by a toddler meltdown, thanks.

We desperately need better investment in the public sector, but that investment needs to provide better outcomes for service users, not be pissed up the wall by paying people to WFH who aren't actually working.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

Me .

I'm more productive when I know a workplace supports my wfh and flexibility to look after my toddler. I work . I work better and happier - you're missing the point , flexible working means you may need to do outside office hours because office hours aren't conducive to raising a young family - I add young! You're flexible now !? I'm gonna give you extra when she's not.

Nobody on wfh is pissing anything up the wall
Whatver your sector you're probably being underpaid for your services as a woman anyway.

Don't be angry at home workers for your lack of services too - or has nothing to do with them, but everything to do with lack of investment from those with the most money and those at the highest levels

The ones who can do do what they want

1 in 10 mothers leave work because they can't afford childcare
And apparently some here think those mothers shouldn't be allowed to have children then !

Blame game is as ever targeting the wrong people and normally the most vulnerable

@Amy8 there is a difference between flexible working, meaning working while children are sleeping or someone else is caring for them in the evenings, compressing hours, and wfh while looking after children.

There are definitely chancers pissing opportunities up the wall. Which in turn will make it harder for the generation coming up behind you.

Some employers are already reluctant to employ newly married women, they'll be having a year off soon, never mind adding they've go 2 primary kids and want to wfh, sod that they'll be useless in the summer!
It's a discrimination that is almost impossible to prove, the other candidate had more closely matched experience or came across better in the interview.

Oh come off it - you're being really disingenuous here. Having the flexibility to do the school run etc (which I support) is in no way the same thing as caring for a young child while you are working.

And of course reduced productivity has an impact on service users. If someone is distracted so 20% less productive (say), then service users are getting 20% less service for their money.

Agree. And there is a lot of middle-class privilege showing on this thread. By and large, low-waged workers do not get to WFH (yes, some exceptions, but I'm talking about the majority). They still have to cover childcare costs. And they are at the sharp end of poor services, as they tend to be the most reliant on them, and the most vulnerable to cost rises (less productivity = more staff needed = more costs).

So this thread is a load of middle-class professionals, convincing themselves they are sticking it to The Man by quietly quitting to look after their kids, when what they are really doing is widening the unfair advantages they have over poorer people, by avoiding childcare costs, and creating productivity gaps that disadvantage the poor.

The women aren't the problem the leadership and male orientated working patterns are the problem.

Mon-Fri working patterns is not the issue. Childcare is available.

I see working patterns as far more of an issue for anyone to works shifts. Doesn't matter if its health care, transport, national infrastructure, entertainment or retail if you work shifts childcare is a serious issue. And those are mainly jobs that cannot be done remotely.

Jobs that can be done remotely can be outsourced to India a whole lot cheaper than in the UK.
I worked on a construction project where the design team were in India working standard Indian daytime hours. Email an issue during the day, the answer would be returned by morning.

People need to be very careful about what they wish for.

The women aren't the problem the leadership and male orientated working patterns are the problem.

Do you want schools to be open during normal working hours? Hospitals? Shops? Banks? Nurseries? Cafes? Emergency services? Social services? Care Homes?

Who do you think is staffing all those services? You are incredibly privileged even to have WFH as an option. All the women working in those services don't, yet I doubt you want to them all to close during normal working hours. So what is your solution for staffing them? You seem to live in some fantasy bubble where work can be done at whatever time suits the worker, but that isn't practical in many industries.

What you are asking is that a bunch of mainly middle-class professionals should be able to WFH without incurring childcare costs, while working-class women provide the services that you wish to use, and pay childcare on top.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow - at work we have told everyone that the opportunity to work from home is a privilege but can be withdrawn at any time. It’s a two way relationship - the employee works from home with a better work life balance, more time for family and no commuting time and costs but the employer expects high performing employees meeting their contractual obligations as to their hours of work.

I saw a recent survey that many employers expected to return to more office based work within the next two years.

Are you serious those services are not available 24/7 - have you ever tried your gp after hours ? Care services and many essential services serve the most vulnerable and should be available for those that most in need
I'm happy to wfh in my "middle class" job have the office flexibility, work out of core hours (because I can), I don't need servicing from those essential services

If anything I'm less a burden - tbh In not entirely sure why this has become a home working issue - the post was about childcare whilst working at home , my only point is people doing that are desperate in most cases not taking the mick to try and save money

Work life balance and ability to work from home suits a lot of employers too

Our policy is 12, but I think 10 is alright really, mine is 7 and quite good at entertaining herself. It's ok for the odd day but I won't replace childcare to have her with me because she'd be bored shitless.

Don't be angry at home workers for your lack of services too - or has nothing to do with them, but everything to do with lack of investment from those with the most money and those at the highest levels

^^ @Amy8

But they are investing. They're investing in staff. Staff are the biggest investment made. If you're not getting a return on investment on staff and quality services drop, revenue drops which then means a drop in the bottom line.

What don't you understand? It's not sustainable to spend huge sums of money on workforce to then allow them to look after children. If a business doesn't make money then the first cut will always be to headcount.

There's two ways to increase profit. Increase sales or decrease cost. Quickest way to decrease cost is staff.

How do you think that makes people feel who aren't taking the piss and getting cut loose?

I think for afterschool 10 is OK but for all day I'd agree 12 is the age when they can reasonably hang out at home all day or go and meet friends. And presumably get themselves home from school without needing picked up.

I also think individual circumstances play a part, if kids can make their own way home younger, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect to take 2.30 - 3.30 off every day or have people avoid that time slot for meetings or contacting individuals.

Both parents need to be mindful that these are all things that may be taken into account when redundancies are looming. You might never be told we are keeping Bob and letting you go because arranging meetings round pick-up is a PITA but it's impossible to prove or disprove "Bob scored higher on future potential".

I've been through the whole redundancy consultation shit more times than I care to count. It's never nice but it leaves you questioning when you're on the hard end of a 'tough decision'.

Where I live, it's a workplace health and safety issue to have young children at home when you're working. It just shouldn't be an option to have a child at home when you're working. Because...you're working, not caring for a child.

@theveryhungrybum can I ask where you are?

Some MNetters seem to have the same mental model of employment as a 10 year old does of its parents. Employers have bottomless pockets - if they won't pay for something (more staff to the same job), they are just big old meanies.

In reality, most UK workers in the private sector work for small and medium-sized enterprises, where profit margins are often already wafer-thin, and in businesses that are often still trying to recover from Covid.

In the public sector, budgets are tighter every year. It's a struggle to hang on to the staff numbers you already have, let alone pay for more people.

If your workforce's productivity drops, you either need to employ more people to get the work done, or you need to reduce your output. Neither the private nor public sector can afford more staff. Reducing output will send many private businesses under. The public sector can only reduce output by cutting services still further, which disadvantages everyone.

there is a difference between flexible working, meaning working while children are sleeping or someone else is caring for them in the evenings, compressing hours, and wfh while looking after children.

There are definitely chancers pissing opportunities up the wall. Which in turn will make it harder for the generation coming up behind you.
I totally agree!

Men doing a greater share of parenting, normalising flexible working etc is good for women overall on many levels.

The is a huge difference between:

• flexible working, as part of a company's operating plan, where any employee can manage their work/hours in line with the organisation's policy

And

• People who seem to think that WFH means that normal business requirements and terms of employment don't apply to them, so they have toddlers at home with them, are unavailable for hours a day because they're doing non-work related things such as school runs.

The first is good for women all round because it means that everyone can use above board flexible working in a way that balances work and home (whether that's young children, health conditions, pets, personal wellbeing, caring for older relatives etc). It no longer means that women are viewed as default parent or the one who always takes afternoons off for children's appointments etc.

The second is a huge problem for women because it's not above board. It is likely to prompt a roll back on flexible working practices (which harms everyone who isn't a piss taker).

I'm totally appreciative of how capitalism works and the "need for productivity "

Tbh I've seen dossers in all walks of life - I just don't target mums who are juggling childcare whilst trying to work - even at home , or in any industry

If the work gets done then what's the bother ? Some people are just out for mums in general

So you would be fine with a toddler next to mum (or dad) on the checkouts, or at school, or in a lab, or in your smear test, or in a tank, or in a police car...

There's only a small number of jobs where you could effectively and safely look after a toddler at the same time. Theres not judgement thats just life.

If the work gets done then what's the bother ? Some people are just out for mums in general

Half the problem is that work doesn't get done properly when people are using their working time to care for young children instead of working.

Flexible working is great. Flexible working allows employees (of either sex, parents and non-parents) to structure their work according to their organisation's flexible work policy and their home circumstances. Very few people would have any issue with any employee structuring their work hours flexibly in these situations. It's all above board and people in organisations know when to expect everyone in and which parts of the day people may work flexibly.

People using large sections of their working day to do stuff that isn't work (whether that's taking double the lunch break when WFH to bugger off to the gym, or doing the school runs and childcare on work time) isn't an issue about flexible working. It's an issue of people taking the piss. If there's hours people are expected to be available and working then they should be there. If they don't want to be, they need to formally reduce their hours or find a company that has core hours that work for their family situation.

As they say….

There is a huge difference between flexible working and not having child care.

I am only going to talk about parents and flexible working because we are talking about childcare, but flexible working can be used by employees who don’t have children too and make everyone happier and possibly better at their jobs as a result.

flexible working allows parents to do the school run. Flexible working allows parents to cover a sick day. Flexible working allows parents to be at that school play in the middle of the day. It can be managed through having core hours or just having a total number of hours the employee needs to do in a week with an expectation that most of them be during the day, but not all. It works easily in some fields and not as well in others. You can still do all the work and put in the same hours, but perhaps not between 9-5.

not having child care on a regular basis is entirely different. It means you are always multi-tasking. Even if it is not about children, multitasking has been shown time and again to reduce productivity. People make more mistakes and they suffer more burnout.