I want it all!!!!!! (long rant warning)

[webmum]

I want a job with flexible hours, good pay and low stress level.
I want a job that's interesting and challenging and part-time.
I want the best of nursery/nanny type of childcare but not the downsides!
I want to work part-time without feeling like a spare wheel, or a 'filler'.

Do I want too much??
Please tell me I do, so I'll shut up and hold my peace. (and live happily ever after-not)Help me come to terms with the fact that I can't have a child and a fulfilling career at the same time, and even when she'sm grown up. I will have missed on too much to be ever able to catch up.


Apologies: don't really know what to expect from you mumsnetter (a solution to all my problems??), but after finally finding a partptime job (which is in fact a demotion in terms of pay and responsibilities from what I did pre-baby), now 5 weeks into the job, everything is crumbling down: the communtingis horrendous,dd's been sick twice already, the job's is boring and with little future prospects, I don't even get to socialise as I'm running late all the time and scoffing down a sandwich in the 30 minute break....I just feel so disappointed.....sorry

[webmum]

Haven't been on mumsnet for a while: lots of interesting comments!!


emwi I take your point, but I know from experience that while you're settling down in a new job, with new people it's always difficult to begin with, that's why I want to try a bit longer, also I don't think it would look good on my CV having stayed in a job less than 2 months!!

Things have already improved actually, I think they were assessing me as much as I did with them last week my manager was impressed by something I'd done for her and that felt really good!!
And sort of answers your question Gizmo, I find it challenging when I am given something to do, more or less freedom to figure out the best way to do it, work on it on my own and possibly be rewarded by the fact that I've done a good job. I don't like managing people (don't think I'd be very good) or work in a customer contact kind of job (even though my last job was similar but at least I knew my customers well)

Why do I want to work? I think I like feeling useful/productive as a person besides the home.
I would never consider staying at home altogether. I need to feel busy but a hobby it's not good. Can't explain exactly I hope you understand. I also like the social side of it (even though I'm getting very little at the moment) and I'm not talking pub after work, rather chat with coffe or lunch together.

I even enjoy taking the train into town, I enjoy that time as me time only, I think, I read mostly (without feeling guitly for not doing something more useful in the house). I guess I'm just not a house person!!

I also want to keep my skills alive as I know dd will not require my undivided attention forever and dread the idea of ending up stuck at home, or having to start all over again when I'm 40. ALso My mumk has always worked, and I can see now that she's 60+ and in theory retired she still helps my sister who inhereted the family business, she finds it extremely rewarding.

so it's all those things together.

Re comments on husbands not helping, my dh can't help it he works very long hours, sometimes weekends, his salary pays our mortgage and everything else, and in his line of work, you have to do what you ahve to do, and there's no excuses (apart from really serious emergencies), and you may think you can do it, but you would be first on the list for the next round of redundancies!!!!

so I'm feeling better about the job now, and dd has not been ill for the past 2 weeks (fingers crossed) or at least not on my working days (she chose instead the bank holiday weekend...but that's another story), I've also decided to atke a short course in bookeeping, see if I like it, then maybe take an accounting qualification (I work in a Finance dept) which should improve my chances of getting a better job. And then hopefully be bale to fit in a second child!!!! (that's IF dh agrees)

well this has been a really interesting thread and has given the chance of thinking about waht I want and how to get it and tom put things in perspective.

tahnk you mums once again!!!!

[tallulah]

Quick update.. I've got my promotion & I'm off to a different office. My replacement is a part-timer who works school hours Mon to Thurs.. The others are NOT happy!!! There have been a lot of retirements/promotions etc in the last couple of months & it leaves them with 16 staff- only 7 full time, and we're busier than ever.

[Tinker]

Oh, and our union agreed to the new pay scales which were part of a package linked to promotions (basically, the old system of advertsiing all posts went out of the window in favour of a 'who you know' system). Their 'argument' being 'Well, it's going to be imposed by management anyway so what's the point in opposing it?' Er, 'So what would we have to lose by opposing it?' Within months of the new scheme being introduced many of the senior union bods gained promotion!

Anyway, this is all off the point...

[Tinker]

Wow, understanding the complexity of civil service pay structures would take a whole thread of its own. Not sure which dept talullah works in but in mine the old incremental pay structure was replaced by a new 'improved' pay structure about 10 years ago. The old system ensured that after 5 years you would be on the max. Luckily, I was when the system changed. Thereafter, there were so many spine points, plus performance related pay was introduced, that it was pretty much impossible to ever reach the max. The system was revamped again approx 2 years ago and now it will take 9 years to reach the max! However, for those of us on the old max there was little incentive to get promoted since the pay jump was so small. A colleague, doing the same job as me but joining the dept later used t be paid £3k less than me. He was temporarily promoted for a while but his acting up pay was still less than my pay. What incentive is there (for those on the max) to take on more responsibilty?

I know this isn't directly relating to talullah's situation but it indicates the craziness and complexity of civil service pay scales.

[Gizmo]

Tallulah

Utter madness. Definitely the sort of thing organised unions were invented for. Do your direct management have the power to do anything about pay structures or is that something that rests higher up the line?

Hope you can get it sorted soon

[jac34]

Tallulah,
I think the situation were you work sounds very unfair. Do you belong to a union, who could take this up, since your employer does not seem to take an intrest. If you don't belong to a union, then the CAB give employment advice, certainly sounds like discrimination to me !!!

[tallulah]

Seem to have stirred up a hornets nest here. Isn't it funny how no-one can appreciate someone else's point of view over an issue like this. It's like there's a fence & you are one side or another & won't budge..

Our pay structure has gone stupid over the last few years. Used to be you started at the bottom & each year you went up a rung until you got to the maximum. That doesn't happen now. We have an office of women all doing exactly the same job. Some have more experience than others but once you've been there 2 or 3 years you're all about the same. The pay differential between the full-timers is over £6000.

Obviously those part timers who've been in the job 15 years or so are earning a much higher hourly rate than those of us who did our part time hours in "part time jobs". Also you've got the tax thing as well, plus apparently the part timers get more per hour because they are "paid for meal breaks" & we aren't.

I have taken it up with management. They are not interested. It isn't their problem because they've got the full timers to pick on! They know that although we could say "ok I'm leaving early" that then puts more pressure on someone else.

I could go elsewhere but can't find anything! In an ideal world I wouldn't work at all, but that isn't going to happen.

[Gizmo]

Different thought process:

Webmum, what specifically do you find interesting/challenging about work? Multi-tasking? People management? Intellectual challenge? A bit of influence?

Do you want to work for the financial side of things or for the social stimulation? Are you keeping some skills and contacts alive for career advancement later or is it comforting now to have a role outside home and family?

All that probably sounds really nosy, but it is (slightly) related to my last post, because (mad as it might sound) I hadn't thought about my working motivations until I fell pregnant and had to assess whether I would work at all.

[Gizmo]

To continue the having it all - is it realistic? theme. Surely it depends on what your definition is? There was a popular stereotype of corporate high flying 'supermum' in the 1980s and 1990s, true. But even then it only applied to a tiny minority of women and a lot of people didn't aspire to it.

A lot more people, judging by this discussion and others like it on mumsnet, just want a balance that keeps them and their children happy and solvent. It could be based around part-time, flexitime, working from home, whatever. I refuse to believe that this is unrealistic thinking. In fact I know it isn't, because there are a number of people here (myself included) have achieved it.

I do agree with annoymouse, though, that large traditional plc's, no matter how many nods they make to child friendly employment, are basically incompatible with parenting for a majority of people (including any men who want to be involved outside the traditional role). As annoymouse says, they are set up on white middle aged male thinking and competing with other organisations that think that way too.

I made the switch out of a corporate environment before having my ds and in retrospect I am so glad that I did. I now work for a smaller employer. I find that the smaller the employer, the more absorbing the work, because you have greater visibility of everything that is going on and how you are contributing. OK, I'm not likely to make the front page of the FT, but I can live with that - my version of 'having it all' doesn't include 7 non exec directorships of FTSE 100 companies - I'd have to change my priorities pretty quick if it did

[bells2]

Well I think it's only fair to compare like with like. I.e. a full timer and part timer with similar skills and experience.

[rainbow]

I've only just started reading this thread but I have found in quite eye opening. I am a qualified nursery nurse and have been lucky enough to work around my children. Money may not be great but I do have fringe benefits(no childcare costs etc). When ds1 was younger I took him with me and although I was the Team Leader for the 3-5 year olds he was not in my class (3 year old ds, I had the 4 year olds and vice versa) I had no problems leaving him because I knew who I was leaving him with, my colleagues and friends. Ds2 was looked after by my mum while I worked this time I job shared with another 2 Mums. Our shifts were 8-2, 10-3, 1-6, which fitted in around ds1 and school. We worked well together so we never felt like a 'filler' or spare part. I am not working at present as new employer was a bit unreasonable about me extending my maternity leave (been there over a year) and am enjoying being a full time mum. I can understand the need to do some thing different and get out of the house and away from the 'child environment' Can I just say if you are going to put you ds or dd into a day nursery, check it out thoroughly, ask questions like what is the staff turnover, if the staff aren't happy is your child going to be, ratios adult:child,etc.

I'll stop waffling now

Keep

[jac34]

Your quite right sis,
I'd got to a senior position while full time, and I am payed more than some F/T, more Junior members of the department, because of my qualifications and experience.
While my boss is off work, myself and another collegue, run the department between us. She is also P/T, and is also in a senior position. We have worked together for many years, and run the dept. very successfully, only overlapping on a Wednesday. IMO we do a better job between us, than our boss does when he is there F/T. However, we are payed considerably less !!!
So it can work both ways !!!!

[sis]

Tallulah said she works in the public sector so perhaps the p-t take home more because an element of the pay is based on leength of service? Also some public sector employers have an element of pay based on meeting and/or exceeding their performance agreement targets.

so whilst some p-t earn more than some f-t, I cannot imagine of circumstances where a p-t would not be earning less than they would earn if they worked f-t! It all depend on who you compare the pay with.

[bossykate]

florenceuk, i couldn't have put it better myself, and i don't think your first post was too blunt.

[jac34]

Tallulah,
Agree about the fact that people are more useful if they work a full day, but surely it depends on what type of work they do ???
I'm part time, but would be of no use at work, if I worked short days. I work 3 full days, and I too come under preasure to go in on my days off, as we are so busy. I work in the NHS.However, I agreed my hours and took a pay cut accordingly,so basically they can foget it !!!
For about the last few months, two of use have been doing five peoples jobs, so I think they get quite enough out of me, thank you very much !!
As well as doing my bosses job, of running the department, for no extra pay !!!

[bells2]

Tallullah, am curious as to how the part-timers manage to earn more than full-timers? Wouldn't you be better off going down the part time route if that is the case?

[annonnymouse2]

I think that women who work in commercial enterprises inhabit a working system created donkey's years' ago by and for men who did not/do not have the same level of commitment or sense of responsibility for our children. IMO, none of us workers - part-time or full-time are doing very well out of it.

Some time since the early 80s, we've fallen down this big hole that says that now that we're 'liberated' we've got to sort ourselves out financially as well as cooking/cleaning/giving sex on demand. Men haven't done too well out of this either. The greedy bigwigs at the top of the foodchain have been rubbing their hands with glee at the exciting money-saving prospect of filling their cpy little, inflexible jobs with a cheaper workforce of women, whilst laying all the blokes off. And they've chortled with delight at breaking down the unions so that ordinary men can't earn enough to support a family any more

Webmum - I'm not surprised that you feel that there are very few options and not much in the way of satisfaction, because the big dream of 'having it all' is a myth in my view.

The latest government nod towards the right for parents to 'request flexible working' is frankly laughable. Nobody in their right mind who takes their career prospects seriously - or who has a working knowledge of most commercial employers' attitudes would even bother to waste their time asking.

I'm a company director who sits on the board of a plc-owned company, and - unfortunately - have an inside track on the fat, white, middle-aged corporate b**d thinking.

And I'm looking to change my way of life just as soon as I can find something that'll support my DP and DS to the same degree.

[florenceuk]

Tallulah - reading over that post, hope it wasn't too blunt. Realise that you might not have the option to find anything else, and may be feeling frustrated at what seems like an unfair deal. I think every employer who is asked to provide more "flexible" working will have similar problems though - how to balance needs of employees against demands of business. Ideally, I'd like to think that part-timers can contribute sufficiently to make it worthwhile employing them, and all too often it seems like we actually pay a lot more for the privilege of actually having a job. In your case, the job has changed but you're stuck with what is actually a pretty inflexible hiring pattern - too many 9-2.30pm'ers and not enough after 2.30pm-ers. But actually I think you'd find that this is pretty unusual (and on reflection could only happen in the public sector) as most employers would respond by getting rid of the 9-2'ers, and they would either be forced to find childcare or leave. I would just urge you to complain to management and seek some recognition of the extra hours you are putting in.

[florenceuk]

Tallulah, I can see your point - you feel that you are not getting as much reward for the hours that you work compared with your part-time workmates. But I still think the problem is with the employer (Govt) not the part-timers. Clearly they have a problem with resourcing and staff allocation, and if some of the part-timers are making more than you, then that's clearly bad management practice. If management aren't responsive to the need for more resources to cover the hours, then you could vote with your feet - if you could find somewhere else where your work would be more appreciated. Of course, as employees we don't always have that option but that's life. I'm just saying (as a part-timer) that we are not out to somehow rip off fulltimers - I'd say most part-timers haven't had the luck of your workmates and are actually paying for the "privilege" in other ways. In fact, in some workplaces (including mine), you as a mum with kids would have the "privilege" of going off home early while others got to work longer hours - therefore subject to just as much potential disdain as you seem to have for part-timers. My point is, focus on the source of the problem (management) not your workmates.

[tallulah]

florence, public sector, so the part-timers have exactly the same promotion prospects etc. They just don't get the s**t the rest of us get!

When my kids were tiny I worked part-time in a Call Centre that employed part-timers so that they could cover from 7 am to midnight. Everyone did their 3/4/5 hours when the business needed it & it worked fine. I came into this job once I was in a position to work full time & yes we need the money. I wish we didn't. Even with both of us working full time there is nothing left at the end of the month. We don't do anything extravagant but have to run 2 cars.

Anyway, most of the part-timers had their hours agreed when "business need" didn't come into it. Now the public sector is going down the "customer service" route & demanding that staff be available longer & longer, while only expecting the full timers to be "flexible". "Flexible" expects my kid to wait for me for an hour, so that someone else can nip off 3 hours earlier to get hers! The pay structure works in such a way that a lot of these part-timers take home more than I do for being there a lot longer. (so no, I don't agree they are disadvantaged for being part time). As far as "business need" is concerned they would be more use doing 2 or 3 full days than 4 or 5 part-days.

[bossykate]

i agree florence, bells and bozza.

[Bozza]

Drives me mad too Bells. I generally suggest that they put a request in to HR.

[suedonim]

Scatterbrain, I was interested in your comment about regretting leaving the civil service. My DS was in the civil service in Edinburgh, but resigned to live abroad. However, he has the option of returning to the CS at any stage in the future, albeit only at the level at which he departed. Do you have that choice or is this condition peculiar to Scotland?