Expected by colleagues to work full time with a family

[Tilly0921]

Just out for opinions...I work in accounts and used to be full time prior to children, my kids are now approaching school age and is now the expectation within the team that I should increase my hours potentially to full time. Is this the new normal? I was born in the 80's, this would have been frowned upon in their day. Why is it so different now and expected of mothers to do this?
In my opinion, I want to be there to nurture and support my children in their education and out of school hours activities.

There's still loads of shit wrangling to do when kids start at school. Keep to a four day week if that suits. Do your colleagues not have kids?

My immediate colleagues bar two all continue to do a four day week. Management understand the issue and it works for them too.

I worked full time whilst my child was a baby/child in 80s, only reduced hours in lead up to retirement. Do what is best for you as long as you and dad are paying for your family rather than the public. I do not approve of people having kids then reducing work abd getting benefits ... part of the reason our country is in such a state.

This matches what I see around me with friends and colleagues - part-time in the primary years and back to full-time in the secondary years when the children are more independent. As other posters have mentioned, school is trickier than nursery with the shorter days and 13 weeks of holidays, and not everyone has family to help out or wraparound care/ holiday clubs available to use.

Assuming you’re not in the position where you’re employed full-time but not doing your full hours @Tilly0921, it’s none of your colleagues’ business! Do they have young children?

I was born in 1956 and I worked full time from age 23 when I qualified as a solicitor in 1980 until I retired at 68.I had 6 weeks off work when each of my sons was born. Full time work and short maternity leave was very common and not frowned on as childcare was far less expensive then. We had a live in nanny which is not affordable for many now. My children grew up just fine.

It’s more common now than it was in the ‘80s, mostly because housing costs have risen so drastically. But as others have said, it’s absolutely up to you.

It's your choice, but many people work full-time with kids.
Also, I don't think there are agonised conversations about whether men with kids should work full-time.

I’m very part time and the only benefit we receive is child benefit. The two don’t necessarily go hand in hand.

Why shouldn't you get promotion if you're part time? Being p/t doesn't make you useless.

From so many threads on here, and from friends in real life, it is very very hard work for a family with children and no outside help to have two full time wirking parents. Every single family I know either has extensive help from Nannies, babysitters or family members if both work full time, or at least one parent works part time or is a SAHP. People may comment that’s it’s technically do-ablebwith loads of wraparound school care but why would you put your whole family under that sort of strain unless you absolutely had to? Every family unit should ideally have a bit of ‘give’ and not mean
every member working at full capacity at every given moment

why are you answering on behalf of the OP.....?

It's not really any of their business, I'm surprised they've bought it up at all. My youngest has just started school and I've no intention to go full time yet. We have no family help so it would be expensive and my dd is still only four, by 3pm she's had enough and wants to go home (and I don't blame her)

I know loads of families where one parent is part time. It pretty normal here. If you're happy as you are then carry on.

Because advancement often requires a certain amount of presence and co-ordination with other people. It's not just about doing your job and going home. Anything less than 4 days a week makes it more difficult. Unless you're in a job share situation or you started FT and structured the team in a certain way with efficient deputies.

Promotion is about the job role not the person, appreciate it depends on the industry but in most places I've worked in, there's a specific amount of roles per grade. Less than 4 days part-time would have to be superhumanly efficient to produce the same as a full-time in absolute terms.

There are so many threads on Mumsnet & Facebook pages from people complaining that the school holidays are too long & impossible to cover (unless you put the children into kids club all week). So I think that it's actually helpful to stay part time to cover school hols & also sick days when they are little. I would say more women stay part time than men.

There's no right answer though - I think whatever we do is wrong. Whether you work, stay home or work part time.

I am just wondering if your colleagues want you to take on some of their workload?

"Why is it so different now and expected of mothers to do this?"

I'd say staying home is a privilege only afforded to a lucky few, nowadays. The cost of living has increased dramatically since the 80s so can't be used as a comparison. A lot of homes need both parents working, especially after the largest portion of child care costs have stopped meaning it is worthwhile to work.

My mum worked full time and I was also born in the 80s and that was the norm with my friends. Only one or two didn't work in my primary class. More seemed to not work when I went back to work after DD in all honesty.

It's nothing to do with them but remember your career path is reduced/non-existent when part time. You may not always have a husband so it's best to have a fall back plan and being out of the workforce can hamper this.

If you do have the opportunity to not be full time, I say grab it with both hands. They're only small for so long.

We obviously have worked in different industries. There's not been that sort of barrier for the last decade.

Thank goodness ( I didn't say people don't have to work to get it, they do but they can).

My children are in final year at school and first year college. I still work part time and will continue to do so until we retire. We can afford it and it’s suits us as a family and my husband and I as a couple. Just do what works for you it’s no one else’s business.

It's a personal decision. It's really up to you.

However, I was also born in 80's and I work full time and have dine since DS was 9 months. I think it's quite common.

In my opinion, I want to be there to nurture and support my children in their education and out of school hours activities.

BTW you can still do this while working full time.

It’s a million times harder to work when kids are in primary in my experience. Then again we have zero family help and there’s v limited wrap around . I only managed to get afterschool for 3 days this year and they are days that in fact I didn’t need tbh but have had to work it out. We have three dcs and no family support though so it’s a constant juggle , I work f/t but in education so it’s “easier”

I don't understand, I was born in the 80's and my mum went full time when we went to school, so it's not a new thing.

I think it's weird that your colleagues are asking, unless you are good friends generally and it's just career chat. Otherwise it's odd.

FYI I worked full time since my kid was about one. It's been fine, but it's an individual choice.

Also our afterschool closes at 5pm . Camps here (I’m in Ireland ) are often times like 10-13.00 which is also zero help 🤷‍♀️

It's entirely up to you, don't let others expectations influence you if it doesn't feel right for your family. I worked for myself until youngest was yr 6 so that I could be around for pick ups and clubs etc. I was able to work flexibly as I was my own boss even if occasionally that meant till 2am.

When they were in high school I went back to employment but only 3days a week. Now it's uni and college and I'm doing 4 days but would actually prefer 2 or 3.

Your own financial security and the needs of your family are more important factors.

I mean you do what you want to do and what works for your family.
But please don’t suggest what you say in this OP to others – especially to any daughters or sons, yours or others’.

FWIW I was born in the 60s and my mother (and my father! why is it the mother?) both worked full time once I and my siblings were in school. Where were you brought up that parents working was "frowned upon"?

I've never worked less than full time.
Somehow I still managed to love and nurture my children. Odd that.
However... there is no 'norm' ... its whatever suits you, your partner and whatever childcare arrangements you may or may not have.

I don't think you get it. I'm not talking about the need for 'presence' simply to be visible, schmoozing big bosses, or anything of that sort. Maybe your industry had all that and did away with it, in which case, great.

I'm talking about the need to be available in order to make key decisions under pressure (which is what more senior people are paid to do), in an environment with complex dependencies. You can't just tell people to wait until your next working day. You also can't delegate this to others because you're paid lots more than them, precisely to make the decisions and take accountability. If other people could do it then they should be doing your job instead.

All the people I know who tried PT went back FT (or 4 days a week at least) because, with the best will in the world, it was untenable. That's just the nature of the job. On the flip side it's well paid and lends itself well to flexible working, so people manage.

Also bear in mind not everything can be scaled neatly to PT hours and measured scientifically (saying you work 80% of the hours so do 80% of the work). And sometimes, FT staff work more than their hours, PT staff do the same and end up working FT hours anyway.