Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

work/life balance - here's a discussion

71 replies

UnquietDad · 16/01/2007 10:08

This is probably more for you SAHMs than anyone else.

Your DH, who works full-time, doesn't spend enough time at home in your opinion. After this has gone on for a while and you've made your feelings clear, he offers to try to increase his time at home - for the sake of argument, say by 20%.

So here's the question - do you want him home a bit earlier each day? Or do you want him to work it so he has an entire day at home with the children - leaving you free to do exactly what you want that day?

Please discuss!

OP posts:
sunnysideup · 16/01/2007 11:58

I would take a 20% drop in salary to have my DH at home 20% more of the time because I know how incredibly important and valuable his input is to my ds. His involvement and relationship with ds is worth 20% any day.

But of course that is because we could JUST manage to lose 20% and pay the bills....

I think in answer to the OP I would say one full day at home because it is always difficult to leave work on the dot, as someone already said this then eats in to the time at home if you are trying to leave early.

Original poster
UnquietDad · 16/01/2007 12:00

ladymuck - ah, but could you afford a cleaner with the 20% pay cut? ;)

beckybs - it's just a hypothetical question really! Wanted to see how many people want their DHs to spend less time at work as this seems a common complaint. e.g. for him to work 4/5 of the time he currently does. And then, to see how many people REALLY still want it if it means he works for 4/5 of the pay.

controlfreaky2 - not an option! ;)

I'm just making the point that there is an upside to all this "long hours at work" culture which people could have to sacrifice.

OP posts:
kickassangel · 16/01/2007 12:01

um, it would also depend on what would make him happy. we both work ft, i am going to apply to shorten my hours so i can pick dd up from school in sep. dh hates his job, and if we could afford it, i would support him walker out & being a sahd. personally, i understand why people sometimes want to work, but also think you should spend a reaonable amount of time with the kids. would accept a 20% pay drop - would expect it. would also think someone damn lucky if they have a job where they can achieve that.

i happen to think that balancing things is harde where one partner works ft, and one at home - very diffiuclt to define who is 'on duty' when.

bigwuss · 16/01/2007 12:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PeterJones · 16/01/2007 12:08

Just realised I never really answered the OP. No I would not want him at home 20% more. Just a couple of hours more a week..............not sure I am going to be in the majority saying this...........!

beckybrastraps · 16/01/2007 12:10

I think perhaps one of the issues about the long hours culture is whether working very long hours is actually necessary to do the job. At dh's company, staff fill in a time sheet with the number of hours worked on each project. If too few hours are recorded, questions will be asked, but they'll also be asked if too many hours are recorded. The thinking is that if you're taking that long to do the work then you're not working effectively. Of course, in professions where everyone works long hours, then that doesn't apply - that's what the job involves - but for lesser mortals excessively long hours may well be an indication of ineffective working practices.

mumblechum · 16/01/2007 12:12

My dh loves his job so much, he objects to the concept of work/life balance, he says it's all just life.

He gets paid on results, not hours, which makes more sense to me.

sunnysideup · 16/01/2007 12:15

yay, WELL SAID becky! There is a serious lack of good systems in place if excessively long hours are always worked; if the job is advertised as 37 per week but it takes 60 to do then it helps nobody if this work is just absorbed - we need to be putting our employers on the spot and showing that the job is not achievable in the contracted hours, and that they need to be addressing this.

jamum · 16/01/2007 12:16

I'd prefer him home earlier each day, rather than an extra day of looking after, and running around the children AND dh!

Original poster
UnquietDad · 16/01/2007 12:18

Fair point, beckybs. It sounds as if it's closely monitored at your dh's company, which is good! I've often thought more companies should get out of the mode of thinking where more hours=better. Problem is, of course, in a lot of places, if you turn something over in half the allotted time and still do it well, you'll just get a reputation for being quick and efficient and have more piled on to you. I used to work for a charity where I was perceived as being the person with the most "available hours" and so I had lots of stuff dumped on me which wasn't in my remit.

Then there is the question of all the extraneous stuff and how far it is part of the job - when you've been out of office culture for a while it's easy to forget how team-building weekends, office meals, drinks etc are sometimes seen as things you're expected to do or you're not a "team player". It can seem like a "jolly" to the person on the outside when it's realy far from it.

OP posts:
singledadofthree · 16/01/2007 12:36

there are siuations where long hours are unavoidable, nothing to do with poor working practice. used to work as an engineer. contracts - whether commissioning or shutdown always had limited time for completion. also, there was always a shortage of personnel in my discipline so full commitment was expected. was reminded that there still arent enough engineers prepared to work in such conditions - a recent job ad was offering £415 per day.
i however, have spent the last 5 years or so as a handyman/gardener.

beckybrastraps · 16/01/2007 13:01

Actually, DH is an engineer!

ANd yes, when the customer visit is looming and the machine isn't working, he does work the odd weekend, as he does when they are installing. But on the whole, they have a pretty healthy attitude to working hours.

Dinosaur · 16/01/2007 13:08

DH quite happy to have 4/5ths of the pay.

hatwoman · 16/01/2007 13:19

UQD - this might interest you. definitely go for 4 days a week - leaving at 4 pm every day will be difficult - people will begrudge it and forget you're on reduced hours/reduced pay. The one day off a week approach is great - you and dw can take it in turns to have time to yourself - and then dedicate the w/e to the kids. plus you get to experience a whole/normal week day at home (possibly alone whil dw plays tennis or whatever) with dcs. it's highly recommended. (now I;m off to read the rest of this thread)

titchy · 16/01/2007 13:23

We had this choice, and dh took a pay cut to reduce his hours. It worked well as he coudl be home early enough on 2 days per week to do theschool run which meant I was able to work those 2 days full time. Drop in salary well worth it IMHO.

Next job he had let him work one day a week from home, so again he did the schoolrun while I worked all day that day.

His new job though is 9-5 so I am having to use all my holiday so I can do the school run on the day he used to do it. Will have to reduce my hours in the longer term though, and again I'm happy to do this as it's meant that the only child care we have ever had is before the dcs were at school and they did 2 full days in nursery.

Now both are at school we have no need for childcare (except for 2 weeks in a summer holiday club) - we aren't very high earners but earn a decent enough wage for junior/middle management type roles, and I'm lucky enough to have been able to reduce and increase my hours as and when I've needed to.

Smug

hatwoman · 16/01/2007 13:24

disappinted to see that it's hypothetical.

funnypeculiar · 16/01/2007 13:26

One of those threads that makes me very grateful that dh works in science, is paid peanuts ... but is home in time for baths everynight.
We had to make the money/life balence decision more from the pov of my job - we would (obviously) make a lot more if he was a SAHD - & he'd be quite up for it. But my work culture & demands would have meant me doing long hours/being away regualrly. We took the decision to take a subtantial hit in income for a better home life. Have never regretted it ... even if it is a contant shock to find ourselves in the red bit of the bank account not the black one...
Wonder if it's easier to make this decision somehow for the woman in the aprtnership - outside the traditional supported/suportee roles...

funnypeculiar · 16/01/2007 13:27

PS I'd go for one day off - purely because its easier to make that happen (depending on dh's work culture...)

funnypeculiar · 16/01/2007 13:28

Sorry - somehow deleted part of msg which makes my 'obviously' comment rather meaningless - should have said I earnt the same in two days/week last year as DH did for the year ...

handlemecarefully · 16/01/2007 13:37

Unquiet dad, I really would want dh to work 4/5ths as hard as he does now and would gladly have him take home only 4/5th of current income. But can I get that through his pigging head? - No, can I heck!

handlemecarefully · 16/01/2007 13:38

And actually some of the reason I want him to work less hard is for his sake. It can't be healthy leaving the house at 07.15 everyday and working until 20.00hrs, and then frequently bringing work home with him

doggiesayswoof · 16/01/2007 13:42

OK, dh and I both work f/t. I used to do 4 days/week up until 6 months ago, then I changed jobs and went back to f/t. We have talked about reversing this pattern so that dh could do a couple of years of p/t work - this is possible in his line of work depending on the contract.

We are lucky as we have low outgoings/small mortgage (because we have chosen to live in a not particularly desirable area) so we can live with a 20% reduction of either salary. We both earn about the same.

If this happened I would want my dh to take a whole day, not bits of days as it would be easier to stick to.

I often hear comments from f/t childless colleagues along the lines of "she's never here" referring to workmates who leave at 3pm to collect kids from school. Obviously they only get paid till 3pm but this bit seems to be forgotten...I suspect if the hypothetical dad was away from work for a full day a week, instead of part days, this sort of sneering may be avoided. Someone has said something similar on the thread already - just wanted to echo it.

Original poster
UnquietDad · 16/01/2007 15:41

disappointed why, hatwoman?

OP posts:
paulaplumpbottom · 16/01/2007 15:49

I would love him home ealier everynight. We live in Belfast and he commutes to London most days so he doesn't get home till 7:30. We sit down to dinner and we put DD down after. I wish she just had a bit of playtime with him. Its not his fault of course, but it would be nice.

Original poster
UnquietDad · 16/01/2007 15:58

here is an interesting take on the whole thing.

"My husband is an artist. I adore him. He has never sullied himself with the likes of commerce and its filthy lucre. (He indulges me now as I sit furiously typing away trying to make sense of it all, bringing me odd cups of tea and updates on the plot of Desperate Housewives)."

Oh, lucky hubby. If only we could all lie so independently from "filthy lucre".
And can anyone tell me what the sentence "I adore him" adds particularly to this article??

OP posts: