Sexist policies - lack of childcare currently meaning mothers can't return to work

[midclegs]

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/24/sexist-policies-mothers-struggle-return-work-uk-childcare

I'm lucky - I can work from home.
I really feel for those Mums who can't go back until they have childcare, it's something the Govt have totally overlooked.

But even I'm struggling - as a single parent this week has been more difficult with the kid not having any schoolwork and daily structure. Like many I'm working 10 hr days whilst still trying to give my kid some sort of quality of life.

On a plus note, it's good to see the words women and mother used in a Guardian article.

Thanks @IloveJKRowling.

My DD after school club is operating in Sept as normal.
My DS school has no after school care at all, ever. It's a small primary PRU next to a large primary school that does have after school care but they won't take him. He has SEN and was permanently excluded from his previous school where he was coping well with after school club (but not school, owing to them totally ignoring his EHCP and recommendations of professionals)
So just like many of you are wondering how nobody notices you need childcare to work now, I've been wondering this for a while.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@whatnow41
The economic consequences you describe are real, but not because you had a child. They are because you took 12 months off work for maternity.

I’ve had 4 DCs and was off 12weeks with all of them in total (pre and post childbirth). No more than many men who get injured, cancer or need major surgery. I experienced no falling behind because I didn’t disappear for a year per child. I also during the year I had a baby, ensured I accomplished as much work in the 3/4 of the year as my peers got done in the whole year (measured by #projects completed adjusted for size and complexity as tracked by my senior management). I was even promoted right before baby #3 and they just set the start date for after my maternity leave.

And to my mind, it is perfectly fair to fall behind a peer who has stayed in work and gotten that much more experience.[/quote]
Well bully for you who didn’t suffer any physical health consequences from pregnancy/ birth.

I must have missed your post @PlanDeRaccordement.

I have had birth injuries with 2 of my children. Neither of which I was able to return to work after 12 weeks, in fact nowhere near it. One of them I took my planned 6 months maternity leave, my ex husband took his planned 3 months shared leave at the end of my 6 months but I was unable to physically return to work at that 6 month mark. I could hardly walk due to a huge episiotomy which failed to heal. I was off work sick for a further 4 months.

Men don't suffer birth injury. Women do. Women need time to heal, recover mentally as well as physically and you need to take in to account breastfeeding. It is best for women and children to breastfed and be breastfed, so if you wish to promote that (which the government do) then it needs proper facilitation by way of leave. All of which means it is women who suffer unfair disadvantage because they are the ones who take the toll of childbirth. Plans to take minimal leave don't always go as, well, planned. So women should suffer for that? I can't agree.

In any other country, at any other time, the present development of events would have been the prompt for a root-and-branch rethink of how society can support families of all shapes and sizes.

To be honest childcare is an issue in lots of countries. The birth rate is very low in places like Spain and Italy as childcare provision is poor and women often rely on families of just stick to one child. It’s not just here.

It’s economically risky to have a child. It’s probably the biggest risk we take as women and the effects will be lifelong.

I am assuming the poster with 4 has a high paying job and either had a partner at home, employed a nanny or managed (fulltime?) nursery fees out of a single or dual income household. So possibly in the top 5-10% of earners. That’s out of reach for the vast, vast majority of households in this country, especially with wage stagnation, and even if both parents are on board. It’s not really an example to extrapolate from as a ‘solution’ to women getting a raw deal in the workplace. Some industries still wouldn’t employ you as even 12 weeks out would be deemed unacceptable. It’s also reliant on completely problem free pregnancies. In other words you are a complete outlier.

Also, in truth, there are better health and educational outcomes for babies to be looked after by families - though I think this flips around the age of 2 where, in balance, access to nursery and early years education improves outcomes.

Men don't suffer birth injury. Women do. Women need time to heal, recover mentally as well as physically and you need to take in to account breastfeeding. It is best for women and children to breastfed and be breastfed, so if you wish to promote that (which the government do) then it needs proper facilitation by way of leave

Absolutely this. We're supposed to pretend the risk of significant physical injury isn't true - but it is. We're supposed to pretend we can breastfeed and do everything else at the same time, this just isn't true. It takes time to establish supply and to get breastfeeding right. This is one way biology absolutely favours men in the type of society we have. And if we want women to be equal in the workplace we need policies to address this inequality.

Also, in truth, there are better health and educational outcomes for babies to be looked after by families - though I think this flips around the age of 2 where, in balance, access to nursery and early years education improves outcomes.

The research I've seen suggests that limited hours of childcare / nursery from age 2 is beneficial (basically social opportunities) but that it is still the case until at least 4 that very long hours in group care leads to worse outcomes (i.e. 8-10 hours a day 5 days a week). The amount of time away from family matters.

Very rich people tend not to use nurseries but have nannies - that tells a story. And most people who can, opt for family care rather than nursery.

Many people are forced into putting their kids in nurseries for long hours when they don't want to. That, I think, is pretty appalling. Especially in cases where they could care for kids themselves if the state were to give them the exact same amount of money as they provide to nurseries so they can work in a min wage job. Of course whilst doing so would give better outcomes for children and parents, it wouldn't make profit for the 1% (nurseries are profit making), which is probably why it isn't a thing.

@ThisMustBeMyDream
Yes, women do suffer birth injuries. I know how that goes as I had a 3rd degree tear with my first and 2nd degree tears down scar of the first one for my next two babies. They do take along time to heal.
However, I agree that was not a choice in your case. But the fact is that the penalty you suffer from missing the extra months off work to heal is no different from anyone who is off work for months due to injury from anything- sports, car accident or from major illness such as cancer. The studies have shown no matter why you are off work, you will suffer and economic penalty. It doesn’t matter whether it’s by choice or ones fault. So, yes, I agree it is unfair for women with birth injuries to suffer but it is also unfair for men and women who are injured in car crashes or hit with cancer which puts them in recover for many months.

As for breastfeeding, i exclusive breastfed my four even though I went back to work so quickly. I bought a hospital grade double breast pump and pumped milk while at work. The nursery then fed my babies my expressed breast milk. Work is not a barrier to breastfeeding.

So you are comparing accidents illness and injury to childbirth? When one can affect both sexes equally. And the other just the one sex. Women.

Please take some time to reflect on your last post to realise how absurd that is. I don't want to patronise by pointing out all the flaws, but will if you wish.

As for breastfeeding, work is absolutely a barrier. As others have pointed out, your circumstances are fairly unique.

As a midwife, how would I find the time to pump at work when women need me present and my colleagues can't pick up the slack. On a 12 hour shift I regularly don't go to the toilet. The only time I go is in sheer desperation (period related or bowel movement - I've learned to hold my bladder for 16 hours). There isn't time for expressing no matter what the law says. Our employer continually puts the onus on us and our fellow colleagues to facilitate it. And that isn't possible.

@fascinated
Well bully for you who didn’t suffer any physical health consequences from pregnancy/ birth.

That’s not the case. I had 3rd and 2nd degree tears one of which reopened and to be stitched a second time, broken tail bone, two pregnancies I had repeated fainting due to too low blood pressure, I had mastitis three times, the list goes on.

@ThisMustBeMyDream

So you are comparing accidents illness and injury to childbirth? When one can affect both sexes equally. And the other just the one sex. Women.

Please take some time to reflect on your last post to realise how absurd that is. I don't want to patronise by pointing out all the flaws, but will if you wish.

As for breastfeeding, work is absolutely a barrier. As others have pointed out, your circumstances are fairly unique.

As a midwife, how would I find the time to pump at work when women need me present and my colleagues can't pick up the slack. On a 12 hour shift I regularly don't go to the toilet. The only time I go is in sheer desperation (period related or bowel movement - I've learned to hold my bladder for 16 hours). There isn't time for expressing no matter what the law says. Our employer continually puts the onus on us and our fellow colleagues to facilitate it. And that isn't possible.

No I’m not comparing the two- accidents and childbirth. I’m saying that the economic consequences of the two are the same and for both, the victim is not a fault or making a choice to be injured.

As for breastfeeding, if you let your employer trample on your legal right to express at work that’s on you. I fought hard for my right to express and won.

I'm bloody lucky and determined, and have managed to hang onto a high-earning freelance career through 2 kids, which gives me the flexibility I need.

But, had an opportunity not come along at exactly the right time, I really think my relationship would have ended when, after DS2 was born, I went round interviewing and was offered a couple of excellent jobs, with great benefits and salaries, but when I went to DP, who had a similarly upper-management job, allegedly with flexible working, to discuss who would do pickups and who drop offs, and how we could make it all work (and I was suggesting he did drop offs, the easy, reliable one), he said that he wouldn't do it. That at his level he couldn't really be flexible. I suggested this was bunkem, and he needed to model this behaviour to his staff, but frankly I was gobsmacked. And had another job opportunity not come up, working from home, with a similar salary, I would have been so angry that I don't think we'd have a relationship now.

I’d be angry too treestumps. Partners do their fair share. Not dump all the child responsibilities on you because you’re the mum.

"No I’m not comparing the two- accidents and childbirth. I’m saying that the economic consequences of the two are the same and for both, the victim is not a fault or making a choice to be injured."

Women and men both suffer injury and accidents fairly equally. Only women get pregnant because men can not. This is exactly why women should not be discriminated against for pregnancy or maternity reasons.
So therefore out of those suffering economic consequences through time out of work, time and time again it will be women who suffer. Do you think that is reasonable?

As for breastfeeding, if you let your employer trample on your legal right to express at work that’s on you. I fought hard for my right to express and won.

My legal right to express at work is all well and good, but given that my legal responsibility to women is to keep them from harm during pregnancy, labour and postnatally - the two clash.

There are not the midwives sitting twiddling their thumbs who will come and provide care for women whilst I go and express (which on a 12 hour shift I would need at least 3 or 4 periods to express). We are still fighting for breaks to be covered! I can fight as hard as I like, but it won't do anything at all. The employer says your colleagues should cover. That is their obligation met. How do you propose to get those colleagues to cover when already stretched beyond breaking point on a regular basis? Would I put women and children at risk? Not likely.

Left the quotes off the 3rd paragraph. Those are @PlanDeRaccordement words.

Many people are forced into putting their kids in nurseries for long hours when they don't want to. That, I think, is pretty appalling. Especially in cases where they could care for kids themselves if the state were to give them the exact same amount of money as they provide to nurseries so they can work in a min wage job. Of course whilst doing so would give better outcomes for children and parents, it wouldn't make profit for the 1% (nurseries are profit making), which is probably why it isn't a thing.

I have some sympathy with your broader point but:
*The state only provides any money to nurseries for childcare at age 2 (age 3 for most children) so when women come to the end of mat leave no one is paying a nursery to care for their child but them (I actually think this is a problem, see my point 3 below)
*Nurseries are often (not always) profit making businesses but most struggle to break even - even more at the moment than usual. They're not exactly the biggest or most powerful of business lobbies - if they were the early years funding offered by the government wouldn't be so inadequate.
*Paying women to stay home rather than return to work may seem like a reasonable approach when children are tiny (though if it is paid for by removing early years funding then you're essentially giving one choice by taking away another for a lot of women), but leaving employment for prolonged periods leaves women economically vulnerable and disadvantages in the longer term. If you look at the disproportionate number of older women in poverty, you can see how undesirable it is to actively encourage women not to be financially self-sufficient. I actually also happen to think that encouraging a gendered division of labour where women do all childcare and domestic work and men do all paid work is bad for women, men and families but I accept that this is opinion, not objective fact.

If you look at the disproportionate number of older women in poverty, you can see how undesirable it is to actively encourage women not to be financially self-sufficient.

At the moment, some of that is that, as usual, things that were set up to give advantage to men, have now been changed to be 'fair' because those reasons are forgotten, and, once again, it's women who suffer.

The trouble, as Japan is seeing, and the UK is on the cusp of, is that society needs women to have children. The tax and NI we pay isn't for our pensions, it's for the people who are receiving pension now (a simplification, but broadly speaking true - the money is used now, not held in savings). Our pensions will be paid for by our children.

And much as women as a class haven't caught up with the idea that they need to be better at risk assessment and mitigation by remaining employable and not trusting the fairytale, Society hasn't caught up with the idea that if you don't incentivise women to have children (or bully them as in the past), they will eventually significantly reduce the number of children they have.

Eventually women will notice that having children screws them over, but not the men, and men will start actually having to work to persuade women to have them - that or society will turn right back around and start forcing us. The pessimist in me is expecting everything to start swaying a little too much towards the stick rather than the carrot.

Women and men both suffer injury and accidents fairly equally. Only women get pregnant because men can not. This is exactly why women should not be discriminated against for pregnancy or maternity reasons. So therefore out of those suffering economic consequences through time out of work, time and time again it will be women who suffer. Do you think that is reasonable?

Er, no. Fact is men suffer injury from work and car accidents far more frequently than women. It’s only sports injuries that are about equal. Men also suffer illness/chronic disabling conditions more frequently than women. So, no, it’s not equal. Only men can get prostate cancer or groin injuries, but women cannot. So why should there be special treatment for women with birth injuries? Both sexes have health issues that affect only them. And the economic penalty affects the sexes equally. I agree it’s not fair and something should be done, I’ve said that in my posts. But the key is that this type of time off work for injury doesn’t affect just women.

If you’re off work for illness or injury childcare won’t get you back into work will it? This is a completely separate issue from the thread which is about lack of childcare and whether that directly discriminates against women (it doesn’t) . It’s relating to women who are able to work, but choose to have long maternity leaves or choose their partner to work instead of themselves or share childcare and both work. And falling behind from choice is perfectly fair and should not be fixed.

So why should there be special treatment for women with birth injuries?

Because society requires women to have children to function?

The sooner society steps up and acknowledges that, rather than just sweep it under the carpet with the rest of women's hidden labour, the betterr.

@TreestumpsAndTrampolines

So why should there be special treatment for women with birth injuries?

Because society requires women to have children to function?

The sooner society steps up and acknowledges that, rather than just sweep it under the carpet with the rest of women's hidden labour, the betterr.

Society also requires men to do the most dangerous jobs that cause their higher rate of injury too....

Society has stepped up an acknowledged that. That’s why you have long paid maternity leave well above disability benefits that men get from injury. What you are demanding now is that people who are still at work getting more experience than you be penalised so that you can get a pay bonus for doing nothing and a pay raise for doing no work.

We also need to take into account that predominantly female occupations - however important and socially necessary get paid less than male dominated occupations - nurses, social workers, teachers etc. So again structural inequality means women are more likely to be in lower paid occupations irrespective of who’ve they’ve ‘chosen’ to marry.

I’m surprised this thread has become all about women’s choices and the gender pay gap in general terms, when I understood the OP was posting about the effect of coronavirus on the withdrawal and unavailability of existing childcare on which people (predominantly women) have been relying on for years. It is a separate and specific issue of our times. We can debate the hows and whys that women are usually the main carers and therefore more harshly affected by it, but we’re not going to completely restructure the jobs market in a day, and this issue is biting now.

The government throughout the pandemic have blustered about employers doing the decent thing when it comes to staff having childcare problems rather than anything more firm or protective for employees. When all the redundancies bite, it will be parents who will be first for the chop, when performance assessments and appraisals come around, it will be the parent who had to take a conference call during a toddler tantrum who will be marked down as unprofessional. And all the “go to work, don’t go to work, work from home, don’t work from home, go to work” stuff from Boris seems to forget that it’s not as simple for so many as just donning a mask and catching a bus in to the office. As if office workers and their Starbucks lunches can singlehandedly save the economy when very many of us are still stuck in a semi-lockdown.

I don’t know what the answers are, but I personally just feel forgotten and although I don’t necessarily think it would be fair to ringfence jobs for parents when others have continued working through without furlough or holiday, higher priority to safely reopening childcare settings and a bit more legal protection against discrimination on the grounds of parenthood/childcare would help.

The government throughout the pandemic have blustered about employers doing the decent thing when it comes to staff having childcare problems rather than anything more firm or protective for employees*
This
Without legal protection against dismissal a lot of employers will sooner or later want a full day's work from employees and have scant regard to childcare issues etc
I think the tipping point will come in September
Highly doubt a Tory government will bring in any protection
And how would it work from employers' perspective,if there is work not getting done are they supposed to hire someone else snd continue to pay the original employee
And get rid of the new person when the original person wants to come back
I need a full staff back in September so we can hit the ground running and try and protect the business for the sake of all staff (some of whom have worked through out )

It is difficult, but if the childcare was there... we could fully work. I have made up some of the hours working every weekend and getting my DH to use annual leave (he has keyworkered throughout and used no holiday this year) in the summer holidays so I can work long days to make up some lost hours, I’m currently in deficit in hours to the tune of 2 weeks since June but by the end of summer it will hopefully be down to 1. We still have no wrap around in September but have (hopefully) found a nanny for this. It’s cost us a lot of money and all of our holiday but I should have fulfilled my commitment to my boss by the end of the year, and she has been really good about it. But some employers sadly aren’t and goodness knows how single parents manage .

Society also requires men to do the most dangerous jobs that cause their higher rate of injury too...

Does it? Society drove women out of mines, society prevented women from joining the army and police force, and restricted their roles in them. Society also produced H&S legislation, risk assessments and safety equipment (largely designed for men as CCP illustrates) which has made jobs much, much safer. Society requires someone to do jobs which are dangerous, and we've made strides to mitigate that risk where we can. Deaths at work have fallen by 75% over the last 40 years - currently at 0.5/100,000 - roughly similar to members of the public killed due to work-related activities. (things like falling from a height, or having things fall on them)

Maternal death rates are currently at 7/100k (fallen by about 25% over the last 40 years).

Construction and agriculture are required, they have been made more safe, but every person who does any job has been grown by a woman - it's a fundamental need that women have children, in a way that raising a herd of cows isn't.