To work an extra day or not?

[principalitygirl]

My PT post is being made FT next month. I currently work two days a week but have the option to increase to three ( and job share with a new, to-be-recruited colleague) or go FT. I definitely don't want FT. DC is 18 months and we'd like a sibling but no guarantees on if and when that'll be as we needed assisted conception with DC so there's more uncertainty than usual about how long it'll take to conceive another baby, if at all.
We don't need the extra money to survive, though obviously it all helps. All things considered I'd gain about £45 a week (net gain for the extra day) by going up to 3 days a week from the current 2. That's based on childcare for just one child though. If, down the line, we're able to have another, then if both needed to go to childcare at the same time I'd gain about £15 a week as that'd be all I'd gain from the third day.
I know earnings average out per day worked usually but in this scenario I'm choosing between 2 and 3 days so am looking at financial gain from that extra day.
I can't decide what to do. Aside from basic financial considerations, other things I'm mulling over are:

• if I go to 3 days now, but want to decrease to 2 if another baby happens, I probably won't be able to.
• would I be at a greater career disadvantage to be the 'junior' job sharer doing 2 days rather than 3, esp if as-yet-unknown job share colleague is a childless eager beaver?
• I value my time with my child when not working and am glad to have to option not to need to work FT.

Other relevant info:

• PT jobs in my chosen field and geographical area are unusual.
• There are no current promotion opps from this role with this same employer, regardless of how part-time I am.

-I have ten years experience in my area of work.

Views pls!! Oh, and if anyone has any top tips for successful job sharing, please let me have them. Feel a bit nervous about it all tbh!

Thanks muchly!

I would jump at 3 days like a shot. I found it the perfect balance while my children were pre school. You're in work more than you're not, while still retaining a really good balance.

The money issue wouldn't bother me tbh because the expensive pre school years are so short, relatively speaking, so it's well worth taking the financial hit. When your child (ren) are in school you could be kicking yourself to only have 2 days work when you could be doing more and having minimal childcare costs.

Ps- also think about your pension. It'll get hit anyway with you working part time, but 3 days will be far less of a hit

I think 3 days would be better than 2. As someone who ended up for various reasons completely stopping her professional career and at least partially regretting it, I think 3 days would be the right amount to work.

Remember that when your older child is 3 you will be able to get some free childcare hours (term after they are 3).

It's pretty unlikely that someone wanting a 2-day-a-week job share is going to be a childless eager beaver. Aren't the company closing down options by making you choose before they recruit, or are they trying to give you first refusal on how much of a job they advertise?

Childcare costs are not forever, so you probably need to be looking at what is the best option for you over the next 5 years, rather than the next 2. I would hedge your bets and go for 3 days, as it may give you a slight edge in the long term.

Hmmm, food for thought.
I'd forgotten about the free hours of childcare from age 3.
Yes, employer is working around existing staff's wishes re: hours which is a relief as I'd been worried they'd not agree a job share and say full time or nothing.
I really hope the job sharer is another working parent tbh but with the unemployment situation being as it is, I'm worried I might end up with a super keen youngster who'd do the unpaid overtime that I can't and would make me look bad...

Just bumping this as I need to decide v soon and would love some more views and experiences to inform my decision. Thx!

If the job sharer is a superkeen youngster, it would be better you do 3 days than the job sharer do 3 days. The increase in salary is rather small but see this as an investment for the future and preserving your rare pt job.

Alternatively, if you are up for a gamble, you could let your employer advertise it as a 2 day or 3 day job and see what the candidate prefers.

Surely the new recruit can either work 2 or 3 days depending on what you want to do. Don't discount your career on the basis of children, a second may not happen, and if it does it's not long until they are at school and you want to work more. As someone who took 5 years out and is now really struggling to get back in to work, I wish I'd hung in there!

3 days. It makes you look much more committed to your job (whether you are or not). You will also be bored stiff with 2days once DC is at school.

If you can afford not to I wouldn't do it, or could they do it rotating so you did 2 days one week and 3 the next? So 2.5 effectively, the free 15 hours may help but not all nurseries will work them to suit some may only offer 9-12 and 12-3 and you paying for lunch time/any hours after 3 but some will do them in blocks but still much better than paying for all the hours.

I think 3 days too - as others have said, looks more committed and if you were to move firms, I anticipate new employers would look at someone with 3 days experience for x years as someone who wanted a work life balance whilst she had pre-school children, but her career was still important. TBH, I'm not sure a 2 day a week role gives that impression (sorry, don't mean to sound harsh). It obviously depends what you do.

Don't forget too that if you have another child, you'd get additional child benefit so you'd need to add that into the equation (still a hit going from 1 child to 2 but not quite as much).

Hmmm...consensus here is clearly to go for 3 days then...
Am leaning towards that myself now mainly as I don't want to end up feeling squeezed or seen as the 'junior' partner if I stick with two days. Were the role not increasing to FT, two days would be fine by me though. I take the points about 3 days seeming more commited and the need to plan for longer term etc kiddies being in school before you know it, though that also makes me think maybe it's best to stay home as much as possible when they're small...? Aaaaagh, am confusing myself again now...

You should plan for the long term. Children don't just need you when they are small. They need you even more when they are older and have issues with friends at school or help with homework, where only a parent will do, not just any old childcarer who can wipe their bottom.

3 days a week should give you a reasonable work-life balance to spend time with your dcs whilst keeping your professional life in good nick.

If you work 3 days you'll get more mat pay next time

Yes, I'd thought about mat pay if there is a second baby but not sure it's so relevant as my employer only gives SMP so the difference would be marginal and only for the first six weeks. After that I'd get full SMP whether I do 2 days a week or 3. If they offered more than SMP it'd be a big factor in my decision though.

The more I think about it, 2.5 days would be my ideal outcome. Fingers crossed!

3 days / 2 days on alternate weeks that someone suggested above would be great but I couldn't work childcare to make it happen unfortunately as my little one goes to nursery so I can't be flexible with days in that way.

If my employer offered mat pay above statutory then the decision would be much clearer.