Is it unrealistic to have a city career and see your kids much?

[mickb]

Might seem like an obvious qu. but would be interested to see if anyone's come across an enlightened employer who has provided flexibility in hours to enable this to happen.

Or is this still pie-in-the sky stuff?

Most of the senior women role models in my place extol the virtues of round the clock nannies or SAHD's in order to get up the ladder. Not much evidence as far as I can see of any other way at least where I work.

Its all about compromise and if you want to pursue a career or just a job. When I had DD1 I was moving up the career ladder really well, but after she was born went to part time 2 days in the office 1 day work from home. This worked okay as I had resigned myself to not really seeing anything of her on my working days, but I did feel that tried to do too much as I felt guilty all the time and when she was ill it was a logistical nightmare. My career was pretty much on hold for the 2.5 years I was part time, which was a bit depressing as I wanted more than a job, but I guess thats banking. I left when I became pregnant with DD2.

both dh and I work in senior roles and have dcs

we have a nanny and could not do our jobs without her

both of us travel and we do a lot of muddling together

it's perfectly possible

I had my children in my mid 20s so by the time I had got to the top of my career ladder, my children were in late primary/early secondary which is a lot easier to handle than toddlers/babies! For a start, they stay up a lot later, so even if I'm getting home late and working late, they are generally awake.

If I don't see them one night due to work, I make sure I try and see them the next night. And if I have a week of travelling, I try and make sure I don't travel the next week.

I think you do have to have little rules for yourself. They won't always be possible to follow but you can only do the best you can.

It really depends on what kind of City job though doesn't it.

So - trading, equity sales you have to be in very early but people leave at 5pm often although you do sometimes have to entertain clients.

M&A - I would say almost impossible to have any kind of normal family life unless you are very senior and even then, shocker

Law - frankly from observation possibly the least family friendly policies I have seen including banks.

Asset management/HFs - incredibly family friendly, decent hours, output orientated as opposed to face time.

You are not going to be home at 3pm with any of these jobs but a few are quite flexible which is the key really.

BelleDame - I quit my job and left London. Now I'm not working and panicking slightly but my DS is delighted to have me around so much.

I've always worked in M&A and similar though so the hours are always very long - even if you try and fit them in at home. And I'm a single parent which doesn't help

LadyB, I worked in a big US communications company and moved to a bigger UK one because of their more family friendly approach.

Now I'm earning half as much as I was before and I don't think I see DD any more than I would have done otherwise

Hey ho. I'm single parent too. It's hard but I hope things will work out ok somehow. A lottery win perhaps

I admire you for putting your son first.

Career of any kind vs children - it's heartbreak. I wish there was an answer beyond tears every night - dd's or mine... often both. This is the price of a home, food, clothes and some sort of direction.

I've been a nanny for women who have jobs in the City (or international equivalent).

In one job both parents worked in banking. I was on duty 24 hours a day, 5 days a week working at least 2 overnights. I never left work before 7pm (except the occasional Friday when the weekend nanny took over) and worked overnight at least 2 nights a week, usually in a row, because both parents were absent. I covered everything to do with the child so that when my MB was there all she had to do was focus on her DC which to her credit she managed at least 2 evenings a week and most weekends although she always had backup in place.

One I temped for had a bizarre arrangement. She liaised with international banks so worked all night, got her kids up in the morning, handed them over to me for nursery runs/activities, slept all day, got up in the evening to spend time with them and put them to bed and then went to work. Her DH was responsible for getting up in the night.

The one I felt most sorry for had the traditional set up - 7-7 live in nanny (with flexibility to reflect her theoretically flexible hours) and one day working from home. She was just run ragged and quit after her 3rd child.

So I think it's only possible to have a career and spend time with your children if you can have the ultimate in flexible childcare (or a SAH partner) and you don't have to spend your time doing relatively menial child related things. Sadly few people can have that. In fact in situation #1 it was less like being a nanny and more like being a 3rd parent in terms of time commitment. Obviously the emotional investment can't be compared!

I think it's practically impossible to have both. I worked for a City Law firm in a senior role, however when i had my second child i found it difficult. I now work as a Consultant, which is extremely flexible and pays very well.

Forehead - i agree, I worked in M&A for a Big 4 firm and am now a consultant. Better paid and v v flexible. However it took me being made redundant to have the balls to go out on my own

frgr - "But you need a loving supportive partner, just as any man in the city needs. The problem is that men aren't stepping up to fill that supporting role at the rate it's needed, hence the media stories about how women "can't" have it all, or end up burnt out. It's a lie, and it avoids the REAL issue in the modern workplace."

I agree. It's the perennial problem of being the "second earner" in a couple - the economics/logistics just aren't the same as they are for the breadwinner in the breadwinner/SAHP model.

I know two-nanny families, families with a housekeeper, nanny and au pair, families with GPs on tap to fill the gaps. But they always seem strained, somehow.

But isn't there a distinction to be drawn?

Work can be very rewarding (on a number of levels) but can still be flexible. Intellectually stimulating, opportunities to contribute and progress, reasonable remuneration.

The really, really well paid jobs require absolute commitment. And that doesn't fit around family life, which is partly why they have to pay so well - to compensate for that.

So you make your choice. I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for very, very well paid and well-qualified people bemoaning the fact that their work intrudes on their family or private life. (And I have worked those long hours, my DH still works those hours). I don't like being home alone and I and the children miss DH, but I recognise that DH and I have made a genuine choice as to whether to keep taking the money and suck up the hours and pressure.

The check-out worker on the night shift is the one to feel sorry for, or the service family getting by while the Dad's away for months - they are genuinely trapped by the need to get by, make ends meet, with all the attendant impact on their family and personal life.

But to answer the OP - no, you can't combine a high pressure, highly paid job with seeing a lot of your family. Otherwise, we'd all be doing it!

Magichomes - that isn't very realistic I'm afraid. If there is a conference call with 4 international partners involved, saying I can't do the call because I have to bath my kids simply doesn't cut it.

Big 4/Magic Circle is a bitch and she doesn't take any prisoners.

Agreed Ladybiscuit

However, i had a conversation with a number of now potential clients last week and every one said they would be happy with someone working PT in a senior role on their deals, as long as they knew what the set-up was. They actually blame it on the Big 4/Magic circle partners for making decisions on their behalf (ie: that they wouldn;t accept it) rather than trying it out.

As a result, working PT as a consultant for people like this does work. Cheaper for them and more lucrative for me. Win win. Thankfully

I don't see where the kids fit in here. Ans surely if you are going to the trouble to have them they are deserving of time and attention? And I speak as FT wohm. One of the parents needs to be on hand "most" of the time surely?

Actually I should add -evenings and at weekends.

Magichomes, yes, people do manage to 'do it' by employing nannies - but they do give up family time.

I left the City and work p/t in the public sector. Great flexibility, understanding colleagues, money (especially ultimate earning potential) much lower . But still a respectable income.

But when you get to the upper income brackets, there are enough good people willing to make significant personal sacrifices that employers (and clients) don't have to accept being second (even if only some of the time) to people's family and personal commitments.

Agree Magichomes, and each to their own. But if you want to be the primary carer and be there for bedtime it is difficult to combine that with the time commitment required in highly-paid City jobs.

Magic/Alfa - i think the flexibility isn't possible within top firms in some professions. I am doing exactly the same job i did before in M&A VERY flexibly. Just not for a 'City Employer'

It is bloody hard. I need to move jobs really but most positions at my level involve a lot of travel. DH already travels most weeks. It would be impossible without at least an au pair. Yet I am hesitant to go there.

I like being there after school. To check homework, do bathtime, stick a chilli in the oven. And to talk to my only child about her day, test her spellings, watch tv, have a cuddle. This bit is about the only parenting I do do during the working week. I couldn't bare to outsource it.

"bear" even.

Agree Crispy - it's the top firms (= big profits and big remuneration) where the pressure is on - too many other people willing to take your place and put the hours in for firms to feel any need to offer flexibility.

Less profitable firms pay a little less, offer good work, and offer flexibility. That's how they gain & retain staff.

As I say - you make your choice.

It's shit isn't it porto? I really wish I'd been able to do my job and spend time with my DS but I just couldn't. And now I will sell them back my services as a consultant which costs them more probably. I wasn't at a very glamorous level (having had children and all that) but my role was about winning new business so when that needed to be done, hours had to be worked. I think a lot of those hours were wholly unnecessary