Advantages of Going Back to Work Early

[Judy1234]

Coming out of several other threads this is interesting. As I said elsewhere with my first child I went back to work after 2 weeks. I always work up until I went into labour. I think the longest I took off was 5 week with any of the 5. You don't often get parents writing about returning to work quickly so I thought just setting out some of the advantages might be helpful for those who can't decide how much time to take off at home. I don't want this to be seen as me saying all parents should both be back at their desks within 2 weeks however; just food for thought particularly with the new paternity leave rights coming in next April.

1. The baby does not have a huge wrench when you suddenly return at 6 months or a year. At 2 weeks she can get used to her good childcare from the father, relative, nanny or whatever so has continuity and no shock to the system of a later return.

1. You don't have time to get out of the swing of work so it's all less disrupting to your life.

1. You can establish a breastmilk expressing system early on without worrying about how to manage breastfeeding when going back at 3 months.

1. Both parents are equally as involved with the children. The pattern at home isn't established that the mother does everything to do with the baby. The mother isn't better than the father at child things. You may get a more involved husband.

1. You only lose 10% of pay in the few weeks you take off.

1. You don't lose touch with work, lose promotion, position etc.

1. If I'm allowed say it, being at home with babies can be boring (not for everyone, I know) so you can skip all that and concentrate on the fun cuddles bit.

1. You inconvenience an employer or your customers less. No one will like me for saying this but in the real world fathers and mothers taking leave is hard to manage. I can say this having had to manage maternity leave for two of my nannies over the years.

1. You may find the physical recovery from birth easier in an office than managing small children and domestic work at home with heavy lifting, toddlers who kick you, heavy rubbish to put out, floors to scrub etc.I certainly found sitting still at a desk, time to rest, relax, get drinks at my leisure helped me get back to normal. Dressing in office clothes too helps get you back to being your normal self. I loved leaving behind the clothes at home covered in baby sick etc.

10. Sometimes it aids mental health particularly if you hate being home with a baby.

(2) is within our hands as mothers to some extent. All my sons are or will be femininsts, will know how to cook etc. They will not expect their wives necessarily to be the ones at home.

I thought either sex to request flexible working and some men do.

WhenS, that's fairly typical. When you came to have the first baby how did you decide which of you gave up work?

Also women often marry men a bit older which leads to a pay discrepancy just because of age and I suppose a lot at the back of their minds have a plan to give up work so you don't tend to marry someone who earns a lot less than you do if you've that life plan in mind.

They can request flexible working but there is no right to it. You have to put forward a case of how it will not affect the business you work for. And the company have a lot of easy get out clauses in the legislation. Dh tried it and couldn't get it (he's a journalist).

Xenia, I don't think 2 is really in everyone's hands. I think it is in yours, and largely in mine. But, many woman (have a look round MN) are not actually willing to take that stand. They don't want to stand up and be equal. They aren't willing to go to work and let their DH/DP spend their time with the kids. Socially, we are not there.

Yes, father can request flexible working just as mothers can. This is good. Father should have the same parental rights (and reponsibilities) that mothers have. And, in my view, this means they should get the exact same offering for paternity leave that mothers get for maternity leave. I'm talking about 90% of their usual pay for six weeks, followed by £105 SMP (or SPP) for the remainder of the six months. Then an additional six months. And the same rights to return to the job they left.

I suppose, Xenia, that because I got paid maternity leave (up to 6 months) that sort of cast the die for which career would take the backseat. I think I decided that seeing as I had clearly marked my card where my employer was concerned (by having children at all, being pregnant in the first place and having 6 months off), it seemed silly to compromise his career as well, leaving us with no main career.

And once that trend was set, it has been perpetuated.

An interesting question for mothers is - would you go back to work full time if you knew that the children were being cared for by their dad?

And I have to say that I might have considered it. But where would breastfeeding fit in, and physical recovery from pregnancy (which I did take almost a year to do)?

I honestly believed that the dice were so stacked against women in the workplace that there is little point trying to make it the main career once you have children. If employers were not so terrified of the fertility of their female employees, then it would do a lot for the prospects of all women in the workplace.

Where I work is very female dominated (except for the top job which is invariably a man), and the fact is that the women take time off when the children are ill, the women are the ones who go part time, the women are the ones who ask for more flexibility than the men. Until this changes as the norm (which I don't believe it will), men will always be the employee of choice for them, given a free hand.

Also women often marry men a bit older which leads to a pay discrepancy just because of age and I suppose a lot at the back of their minds have a plan to give up work so you don't tend to marry someone who earns a lot less than you do if you've that life plan in mind.

Xenia, I don't think 2 is really in everyone's hands. I think it is in yours, and largely in mine. But, many woman (have a look round MN) are not actually willing to take that stand. They don't want to stand up and be equal. They aren't willing to go to work and let their DH/DP spend their time with the kids. Socially, we are not there.

L+ I think you are ooking at things from the wrong angle. As long as it is assumed to be an all or nothing situation - either join the working full-time, long hours culture or opt out of employment completely to stay at home with the children (which some on here assume) - not many men are going to take the leap out of their workplace and into full-time caring for the children.

What we do know is a high percentage of men want to spend more time with their families. A lot of women want to sacrafice their career but don't want to (or can't) work the long hours that they did pre-children.

Employers need to stop being afraid of flexible working. The more that ALL people (not just parents) are given the chance to work more flexibly, both parents will benefit.

ignore that last post it's very muddled. I pressed post messgae too soon QUOTE "Also women often marry men a bit older which leads to a pay discrepancy just because of age and I suppose a lot at the back of their minds have a plan to give up work so you don't tend to marry someone who earns a lot less than you do if you've that life plan in mind."

The life I lead now wasn't as contrived as you suggest Xenia. I met my DH, fell in love and chose to have children with him. He is 6 years older than me and more established in his career. This did have a bearing on who continued to work full-time after the children came along. But previous to that I had partners that were the same age as me and younger. I wasn't consciously pursuing a partner older than me.

QUOTE "Xenia, I don't think 2 is really in everyone's hands. I think it is in yours, and largely in mine. But, many woman (have a look round MN) are not actually willing to take that stand. They don't want to stand up and be equal. They aren't willing to go to work and let their DH/DP spend their time with the kids. Socially, we are not there."

I think you are looking at things from the wrong angle. As long as it is assumed to be an all or nothing situation - either join the working full-time, long hours culture or opt out of employment completely to stay at home with the children (which some on here assume) - not many men are going to take the leap out of their workplace and into full-time caring for the children.

What we do know is a high percentage of men want to spend more time with their families. A lot of women want to sacrafice their career but don't want to (or can't) work the long hours that they did pre-children.

Employers need to stop being afraid of flexible working. The more that ALL people (not just parents) are given the chance to work more flexibly, both parents will benefit.

Which is why women like us owe it to other women (and the men who want to stay home) sometimes to put our own desires to be with our children (if we have them) aside and keep working so employers don't have this correct view that women give up work and men don't.

As I said elsewhere I took 2 weeks off (so that had no impact on an employer) but I was lucky not to have any physical problems and I never had full pay for 6 months as some women (but not men) seem to be offered.

I agree with U that if we could make the rights similar for men and women then things would improve in terms of equality and choices and we're getting there - paternity leave next April but not full equalisation of the rights by any means.
Not all women choose to breastfeed (although I did) and many are at 6 weeks recovered enough to sit at a desk or even do more strenuous work (nothing is more strenuous than being at home with 2 toddlers anyway).

If Santa you are happy with that then that's great. If I had loved being home with small children I might have chosen to be home. We had a deal that if we couldn't get good childcare my ex husband would stay home but it never came to that. I do think if it had he would. He was around a lot in school holidays (although we had a full time nanny) so spending more time with the children and I did in fact to such an extent I thought he might "get" them in the divorce. Another issue for women... there was an FT article about this last year - women with househusbands who on divorce "lose" their children and then have to move out and financially support the family whilst being denied much contact with their babies - a risk women run if they reverse things and a risk men run when they take on the going out to work role.

Argh - A lot of women DON'T want to sacrafice their career.

Ad, yes but subconsciously you may have done.
On flexible working some mumsnet posters are employers so see it from both angles. Most employers don't want to lose key staff by refusing a flexible working request. Some jobs can't be done on that basis.
We could change the law to say that flexible working requests must be accepted in all jobs unless a tribunal holds otherwise perhaps. I think most employers in the UK employ under 5 members of staff or something like that so it's those tiny small businesses often run by working parents who are having to grapple with most of these requests. It's not easy.

That was me correcting my typo.

Flexible working is a pain for companies; and they will always prefer the employee who isn't seeking it. It is more expensive to hire two employees for 20 hours per week each than it is to hire one employee for 40 hours.

I requested flexible working when I returned from my second mat leave. I wanted to work the 40 hours Mon-Thurs, and still be paid a full time salary (10 hours per day). I was offered 4 normal days, hence a 20% reduction in pay. I said no thanks. So, the request was declined. I think this happens a lot.

Hmm - I knew if I wrote the word conscious you'd pick up on that.

So Xenia/Uwila - is your only solution that a mother and father both work a 5 day week or that they decide between them which one works the 5 day week and which one stays at home to do the childcare?

'Which is why women like us owe it to other women (and the men who want to stay home) sometimes to put our own desires to be with our children (if we have them) aside and keep working so employers don't have this correct view that women give up work and men don't.'

No, no, I don't owe 'other women' a thing. I owe many creditors. This is why I go to work.

Not to prove a point.

Anyway, flexibility isn't just about a 5 day week. Flexible working could include full-time hours started earlier or finished earlier. for example working 7am-3pm or 10am-6pm.

Xenia, I think this is a really important issue so pardon me for banging on about it.

I used to believe that women needed to stay visible in the workplace, that they shouldn't give up work or "downsize" to part time. That it was before I had children

Aderyn,
I absolutely think it should be up to the mum/dad to decide. Tha tis precisely why I think men should have equal rights to time off.

I think maternity/paternity benefits should be transferrable. I think we should each each get say 4 weeks of mat/pat pay, divide as we see fit resulting in total of 8 weeks @ 90%. But, I can't see the government doing this because it would cost them more. Not only is it 2 more weeks of pay, but men earn more. (Although I'm not actually sure if the government or the company has to pay this)

Re my comment about flexible working with early starts and late finishes. I see their is an article about 'shift-parenting' damaging families. I'm not suggesting it would be a solution for everyone.

That's wha tI wanted to do, Aderyn. I wanted to work longer hours mon-thurs, then have Friday off with the kids. I figured I would actually see more of them, and save a bit on the nanny by needing her for only 4 days. But, I got a big fat "no". I don't want to be part time, I just want the hours to be flexible. But, the flexible working law is a joke because the company has every right to say no.

I'm not doing very well today regarding typos. My their should have been a there.

I want to echo SantaGQM's post: I am a full time lawyer with children aged 3,2 and 1. I know I would be a partner now if I hadn't had the children. It sucks. But (as I said to them) would I trade the children for it? Nope.
FWIW I worked full time throughout, returned to work when they were 6 months and yes, its discriminatory and no, there's nothing I can do.

So I'm very lucky that I never felt torn. in other words if we can get parents to a psychological state which most men seem to have and most women don't that they can leave their children without feeling they are missing out (because most of us know if we have good childcare the children don't suffer so that's not really the issue) then we solve that problem. Or if we can make girls think career given up so what looking after my children, home and husband is my new career and I love it then no problem either. It's people in the middle who feel torn who have these problems. In other words it's a brain issue. So what makes these women (and a few men) torn and others not? Do I have more testosterone (unlikely, I'm quite feminine in real life and work for myself because I'm not good at managing others) or was it the way I was brought up?

Xenia, I think you're straying into the realm of altering human nature here with this last post.

Not to mention the larger picture that many feel torn b/c they cannot afford really quality childcare.

Many, many professional careers, particularly in the service industries, do not pay enough for this.

Some things are hard-wired in some peoples' brains and not so in others.

How annoying for you Tiggyhop. Did you find that once you had children, there was nothing you could do to make your employer take you seriously again?

I certainly did. I saw the reaction to other people taking maternity leave, realised that I was now a lost cause career wise, and decided to go part time. If you can't beat em, join em.

What was the point in me trying so hard when they had already made up their minds that I was heading for the career graveyard?

My employers were very enlightened in some ways, but not in others. I know so many people who got made redundant while pregnant that I just felt grateful to still have a job.

But it's not like that for everyone. There are a lot of mothers in the City of London, some with quite large families. A lot of women set up their own businesses too - just look at people like the founders of the White Company. if an employer doesn't treat you well say "s od you" and go off and double your income. It's free market particularly if men help a home. That last point is key to this - children have two parents but many women are happy for that almost not to be so. Only I have the competence to remove that poo from little johnny's bottom properly and you mere man are hopeless so get away back to your gardening and men's things you have hopeless kind of message passed on to men again and again day after day.