Help: FT lawyer having a horrible time (long...)

[lemur]

All advice on how to sort my working world out would be gratefully received... here is the thing:

I have a 9.5 month DD, in FT nursery care, a job in the City as a FT lawyer in private practice and two male partner bosses who just don't seem to realise the pressure that the above combination creates. It is Saturday night and I have just had huge row with monster of boss because I have to be in meetings tomorrow (Sunday, yes, I know it is the weekend) and I physically cannot be there as have to look after DD. DP cannot look after DD as he has football match to play(and does not want to be dictated to by my bosses) I have no handy relatives nearby who can look after DD and cannot leave DD with a friend as the meeting could go on indefinitely (i.e until Monday...).

And why am I even worrying about that level of detail, when the point is that the monster boss has, beyond saying "well you are the breadwinner so DP should sacrifice what he is doing" is also making me contact all my childless colleagues in a grovelling fashion to ask them to go to the meetings tomorrow, to punish me.

I am a lawyer and I know that somewhere in all of the S**T that is currently part of my working world, there is something breaching some of my employment rights, but I am not an employment lawyer. DP is away all next weekend and I am supposed to be working then too. I feel like just not bothering to go into work ever again.

DD had Chicken Pox just before Christmas, I had to be home with her for 7 working days and the matter ended up being referred to HR and me having to take unpaid leave because I came into work one day while DP looked after DD and so lost my right to any more emergency leave for the rest of the time DD was contagious (as was not an emergency as I knew she had CP!!!). This gives you a flavour of the way it works at the firm I work at.

I have only been back at work since the end of September 2006 and the gruelling routine of half an hour each way walk to nursery and then to work plus the working on work from 8pm until midnight plus the manipulative bosses (who had/have wives at home to look after kids) being totally unreasonable plus the fact my mum died a month before DD was born and I miss her all the time = I am somewhat losing the plot. That is a bit of an understatement.

So I guess the question is, do I just accept that you cannot do it all and find new, normal, job doing something that will never mean I have to work after 5.30 or weekends, or try and win against forces of chauvinism in the City of chauvinists?

Ideas welcome. Thank you.

agreed. however not surprisingly this criteria is aimed more at the smaller business where for example someone announcing in a sweet shop where there are say 3 employees or where a sole secretary in a very small office says they want to change shifts to non core hours or to work from home where it may not be feasible. It is more difficult for bigger companies to argue that it won't work (e.g. prohibitive costs where the company makes £millions+)- the onus is to try to make it work and only where it is not feasible is this defensible.

True but not sure if the normal job is often working ong meetings. How can anyone say to a client this meeting (which of course might take 14 hours or however long it takes) this lawyer she can stay in it only for 4 hours and someone else will then take her place who won't have been in the meting for the first 4 hours (because you can't charge the client for both their time). I just can't see how the employee in that sort of work could argue the job could be done flexibly. If instead all they did was drafting in an office that's a different matter or what if they're in court all day and then have to prepare for the next day's hearing. Do they say well I can only do half day hearings but if the judge orders the case to carry on in the afternoon then I can't do it... obviously it's fairly easy for some employers to meet the test that flexible working isn't possible in some jobs.

It's very expensive to hire staff and if employers can keep them by offering them the time they need or the 3 month sabattical for the childless to study painting in Italy or whatever then they will try but there will be many many cases where an employer lawfully rejected a flexible working request. It is a right to request and not a right to work flexibly. (Also flexible working usually just means your husband exploits you at home by making you do more than your fair share of childcare so ulti ately is very much against women's intersts anyway)

Xenia, you are right it is not a 'right' to work flexibly but there is a burden on the employer to truly consider flexible working. All too often management are so unimaginative they cannot see past their noses. There are many ways around it and sometime you just have to try it and see. As I said before what you might think is unreasonable and unworkable may be viewed differently by a tribunal.

Believe me working full time does not mean you won't or can't be exploited at home but that is not really the point.

Work/life balance is better for the employer (happier more productive staff and less tribunal costs), the employee and society at large. The economy relies on women working including mother.

i think i was right jampots

I know. Employers particularly in these sorts of jobs lose a fortune because of women who leave to have babies (although sometimes that is a convenient way to weed out people there isn't space to promote anyway I suppose). I see there's a new right to request flexible working to look after elderly relatives coming in or come in too or others you care for. You can see why some employers like to turn to contractors, contracting out, hiring call centre staff in India etc though.

Anyone had a nanny request flexible working? I don't know if it applies to domestic employees. It was certainly very very difficult both times I had a nanny on maternity leave.

Xenia the right to work flexibly is open to everyone for any reason.

That's one of the reasons I didn't hire a nanny. I cinsidered it briefly when returning to work but the cost and all the employment issues put me off. It's a risk yo tak I guess.

Should say - right to request to work flexibly.

I just want to pick up on this point about childless people resenting having to cover for parents who have cannot work at certain times due to children.

I have encountered this at my previous company - my childless colleagues resented my working from home arrangement (about 4 days a month) so much that I was asked to stop it. To me the fault lay with the company, not me as a working mother. The company didn't extend this right to anyone else. This put me at odds with everyone. This was in the days before flexible working laws.

Now I have older children, one who needs no childcare and the other who goes to an after school club, so my need for emergency leave for childcare is getting less and less.

In my small team of six, two colleagues are not at work due to personal reasons. One colleague has a baby, toddler and (until recently) a sick mother to care for. Juggling all this has meant she has been off a lot. The other colleague (a manager, no children) has been off for 6 months due to stress. Both these people are still (of course as this is a local council) drawing full salaries. The remainder of our team have had to cope with the workload, including a very busy summer organising events which committed us to working many weekends during June - September.

Do I resent my absent colleagues? No. I am glad I am with an organisation that supports employees through times of crisis. Why? Because I may need that support myself one day. I know there is a limit to the support (my manager will soon be on half pay) but the understanding that people have lives outside work runs through the organisation.

Our department is being restructured as we are a newly formed department. I have worked hard, been given increased responsibility and have had very good feedback from managers since the department formed in the spring. My colleague with the young chidren has been away for much of that time and, when here has not able to concentrate on her work as well as usual. We are at the moment on the same level. I expect when the restructuring occurs, she and I will still be on the same level, irrespective of our recent performance. If and when my manager returns, my manager may well take over my more important projects. Does that make me resentful? A little bit if I am honest, but I chose to work for an organisation like this, I know my own contribution is recognised but the culture supports all staff so promotion doesn't take place in a dog eat dog environment. And that for me is more important.

Going back to the point that it's unfair that childless workers should provide emergency cover for workers with children. I agree if this is routine it is unfair. However, I bet a fair few twentysomething childless workers are noting down with relief if their company shows some understanding of the pressures of working parents. The childless workers of today are the parents of tomorrow.

'Do I resent my absent colleagues? No. I am glad I am with an organisation that supports employees through times of crisis. Why? Because I may need that support myself one day. I know there is a limit to the support (my manager will soon be on half pay) but the understanding that people have lives outside work runs through the organisation.'

Well said!!!

The better law firms I know do that too - support people, whether they're wrestling with alcohol or cocaine addiction or a baby who never sleeps. It's really what the true meaning of "partnership" is about and some City partnerships do still have that ethos. What you need to equality - acceptance it's just as okay to have time off because it's the baby or the dog or your aged mother or your battle with the bottle which is causing the problem.

But I do think in some types of work particularly where the pay is high and everyone realises that's the arrangement you come to - very long hours, stress and possiblity to be drawnig £2m a year (more if you're in IB etc when that's just you're bonus) then it's not possible to move to flexible hours or only rarely. Most workers in those jobs know that's the case so I don't actually think there's a major issue over this at all.

Very good point about getting yourself set up to work from home in the evenings. I have found it invaluable to be able to finish off documents, deal with emails etc when the children are in bed.

tigermoth excellent post. Xenia I am afraid I disagree - I have been with 2 magic circle firms and the support from both for various people (of both sexes) with issues was practically non existent - really I would say the opposite - show any signs of weakness and they look for a way to get rid of you. Maybe I have just been with 2 bad ones. I do agree that flexible working will not work for those earning £2m but not sure where such figures are from - I don't know any magic circle partners who earn this - the top 20 may earn around £1m ish but then it dips a lot for the rest - stil maybe I am out of touch. The same goes for IB. In any event if you are talking about women in such positions you are talking about 0.000000000001% of the workforce - this is not a usual scenario. The majority of associates earn nothing like this (£60-£110K), many do not even aspire to partnership and I do not think this negates the fight to request to work flexibly.

I think the biggest shame when one is talking about women is that in the context of solicitors they may have had a hard working dedicated career for several years and then there is no support when one has children. With the best helping husband in the world the mother is most likely going to be the main care parent (this is the way of the world before someone says different - all animals work that way) and I think the majority of women find themselves in an impossble situation unless they have understanding management. It seems such a shame that women have to choose between children and their jobs - and many do - cost is an issue and many women simply don't want to miss every key moment of a child's life. As per earlier posts I know that if my child was feeling ill my husband or I would want to be there, not a nanny - maybe that is just me. It is a shame that all these trained women are therefore lost from the job market - of my ante natal group I know 2 pharmacists, 1 lawyer and 1 retail manager who have all given their jobs up as the PT option was not there.

...I haven't read all the posts on this thread but quickly scanned through as I am in work at the mo! I too am a lawyer (albeit in an extremely specialised science field) and chose to not return to my corporate practice after my first son was born 7 years ago - the stress working up to maternity leave (I left at 8 months pregnant)was horrendous and dh was working abroad for 6 months. The final straw was when they refused my end of financial year bonus on some wooly grounds even though my billing was fine. I went to work for another 'lower grade' practice part time but seemed to receive all the low level work and I was essentially bored. So after having my second child I set up my own practice believing that this was simply the only way to achieve partnership on a part time basis and live my life as I choose to. 4 years later my practice has a turnover of £1million, 3 partners (1 male!!)and I earn in excess of £100k - its a complete juggle and can be stressful at times but I get to drop off the children at school each day and work in an office location of my choosing 10mins drive away. There was literally no other choice - I just couldn't face having to beg someone else for time off to look after my sick child - I'm not saying that this route is suitable for all lawyers out there but your children are only young for such a short time out of your career and try to enjoy them as a priority over your career if you can and can afford it.

i know this is off track a bit but which ones are now known as the top 5 or magic cicle onces. There are so many mergers these days ive completely lost track

Lemur, I am currently in work and not supposed to be on here but I just wanted to say it is possible to still be a lawyer, have small children and not lose your mind. You just have to make sure you are working for the right firm. You have had such great advice on here I won't echo it all but from my own perspective I was a London Lawyer (not corporate) but I left to be nearer family support. Not for green fields unfortunately but another smaller city. My life is very suburban now but I still work, still love my job most of the time, still struggle with nursery, school run etc and dh works all round the country so is not always here. You just have to make a lifestyle choice really. I actually earn more now than I did in London, work less days, and have friends and time to enjoy them. I am so sorry about your Mum you must really miss her. I hope you work it all out and find a different firm where you can be happier x

so where is Pinsents these days in the grand scheme of things? just plucking a random firm from thin air obviously

" With the best helping husband in the world the mother is most likely going to be the main care parent ". I think that is sexist and actually very untrue for many modern marriages particularly for women lawyers earning reasonable amounts of money whose other halves know the family needs the money. It really does women right down to say children are their responsibility. We all shoudl be going round saying these are male issues. I know men who wrestle with getting to drop off at nursery and those who have to alternate getting home to let the nanny get home. Some people may have chosen badly, taken on a sexist man but let's not tar all men with the same brush. Just because you've got a penis doesn't mean you can't do a nursery pick up and should.

On pay I was talking about equity partners in the biggest firms. It depends on the year and how much is invested back but if an average is £1m some are on £2m. Even for £500k a year I think you have to be prepared to put in a lot of hours and that is only fair. You might think at £100k it's not worth teh price but that probably depends what your husband earns and things like if you need a mortgage, private schools etc. £100k is still about 5 times the average wage.

I am very offended at being called sexist - I am probably one of the least sexist people around!!!!! I give up with you Xenia. I am a female lawyer - have worked with 2 magic circle firms for nearly 10 years. I have a baby and I am the main caregiver. I earn more then my other half but I am the main caregiver - this is what I expected and want it to be. That does n't mean my husband won't do a nursery pick up!!!! you seem to be confusing a lot of issues. Seriously I have never come across any contemporaries that did n't want to be there for their children which is why such big changes are made (see earlier posts from some of the women on here) I am afraid you are living in a different world to me.

magic circle firms are Allen & Overy, Cliffords, Slaughters, Freshfields, Linklaters(not sure about that one). firms such as Ashurst and Herbert Smith just outside this. would guess Pinsents are top 50 but on the up - I know 3 fee earners that have just been recruited for them.

believe me the firms outside the magic circle are no better with this. I do honestly think you would have to go a long way down the top 100 or find a unique practice to find any better attitude.

virgo - what a success story - very motivating. would love to hear more about what you do and if I ever get the CAT thing to work will contact you.

im sure they used to bang on about being one of the top 5 when when they were pinsent curtis - obviously misunderstood

I am in the magic circle;

I'm debating whether I am the "primary caregiver". Its quite easy for me in some ways that my husband is exactly the same age as me, from exactly the same educational background (by which I mean same degree, same year) and does (sort of) exactly the same job. So there is a level playing field in that respect.

I probably do slightly more things with the children on a day to day basis, but its probably only 55/45 split (and that is because when it comes to splitting out household tasks I tend to prefer to make the packed lunches than deal with the builders). The children now do not constantly seem to prefer one parent over the other (ie always want me when they wake up in the night etc) - they have fluctuating and changing views on which one they want. It was probably different up to the age of 12 months, largely because I had been with them more because of maternity leave and because I had fed them.

DH has always wanted to have an equal split of childcare and child related decisions, he has slightly more time than me, he loves doing things with them and doesn't baulk at the (literally and metaphorically) crappy bits of it and doesn't think it is automatically "my" job. If I'm tied up working late or at weekends, he just gets on with it. He may make decisions which I would not have made, but I would not call them "wrong" decisions, because I actually do not think it is my position to say what is automatically right and wrong re the children (which is the flip side of it being "our job" not "my job"). The "master plan" is not in my head, but written down in the diary, so anyone can access it!

I don't agree with Xenia's views on a lot of things, but I do strongly agree that women's lives will get easier when they achieve an equal split of childcare with their husbands and when it is not seen as "a woman's issue".

Not a point relating to the OP, by the way, just musings on how this thread has moved.