Did You Get The Work Arrangements You Wanted Post-Baby?

[FabFiona]

I got the arrangements I wanted but not the role. I was hoping to go back to the role that I'd performed before going on mat leave the first time. Technically I had no entitlement to it but I was the best person for the job. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way. I had to fight to keep my pay level the same due for a range of reasons but it all worked out in the end.

[wysiwyg]

While on maternity leave with DD made redundant (whole team moved to KL) - so no job to go back to. I then looked for something full-time and DH was part-time, was hard finding something didn't involve travel but eventually got a contract with my old company for 3 months, but I really hated working full-time so when offered me another contract I said yes if could do three days a week and they agreed. That contract ended a month before had DS.

When DS was 14 months I started looking for work again - it took three months to find anything and I only found anything when I resigned myself to fact would have to go back full-time and negotiate it down. I applied for a three month contract full-time direct with employer (most are through agencies) and luckily it actually worked better for them to have me three days a week than five (they hadn't advertised for part-time because as they said "no one is interested in part-time" ;-)). They do sometimes need me more than three days a week, and I do have to travel to Sydney so have had to get mum over from UK to cover days I don't have daycare - so it isn't totally ideal. They are quite understanding but don't totally seem to grasp that I can't just come in on the days I don't have childcare without a fair bit of notice and that it is quite difficult for me to do that.

I was quite happy to have far more junior or different positions to what have had in the past as long as part-time but no luck there as people just wouldn't believe I would stick around, and seem to have very little grasp that work is not my main priority at the moment.

[Mrs P]

Yes I'm lucky my work is very family friendly. I told them I wanted to return to work part time after DD and that I would do three days a week. They were stoked to have me come back (ha!) and let me pick the days I wanted.
This time round it's the same thing.
They are also very good regarding time off for sick kids.

[fionas]

Thanks so much for responding everyone.

It's good to hear that there are so many flexible employers out there and that many of you have had great experiences.

It's all so hit, miss and unpredictable as to whether we're going to be able to find the working arrangements that we want/need.

My sympathies to those of you who've found it tough - I was in the same boat.

Wanted to work part-time after having DD1. Employer (of 36,000 people) said - no problem. BUT, you can't do your old job part-time and nor will we let you job share with the person who did your job while on maternity leave who also wants to job share BUT ... how about we give you a job two levels below what you were doing previously but pay you at the higher salary. I didn't have much choice other than to take it. To me, it wasn't about the money, it was about wanting a job that I found challenging. Anyhow, that job drove me slowly batty and I didn't return after having DD2, taking a redundancy package instead.

I can feel a research project coming on into what experiences women have when seeking part-time work with their employer on returning from maternity leave.

It's also interesting that (reading between the lines) the smaller employers can be the most flexible ones.

[nickle730]

I went from full time to part time after I had DD1 (now 10). I have two other children and have worked for the same employer for about 15 years. My job involves shift work, we are a 24/7 service. Each time I have returned form maternity leave I have had to fight for reasonable shifts - my employer tries to bully mothers returning part time into working only Friday and Saturday night shifts. I was successful in getting the approval of the shifts I wanted with DD1. I had to work shifts which were exceptionally difficult in terms of both child care and my health after having DS - I was working a 14 hour night shift, coming home to care for two children (ie. no sleep) and backing up for a second 14 hour night shift. These were the only hours my manager at the time would approve. I was not safe to perform my role and my health suffered, as did my family. Ultimately, with my doctor's support I achieved a better roster. After DD2, I had my preferred roster approved - but not without a fight! I now work 12 hour 'afternoon' shifts one week day and weekend 10 hour day shifts.

My employer is not family friendly and it has caused untold stress for many women returning from maternity leave. There have been plenty of women who have been left with no choice but to resign. My employer is the only provider of this service in the state, so to resign means to walk away from an entire career. My employer only offers part time employment until my youngest child is school aged, at which time I will have to return to a full time roster. This will not be at all possible given the shift work (hours change each week) and the specific hours of the shifts. I cannot fathom why my employer thinks that my five year old child will be capable of getting herself up in the morning, preparing and eating her own breakfast, getting herself ready for school and then finding her own way there. My DH leaves for work any time between 4.30 and 6am. My dayshift starts at 7am, which is the same time a night shift ends. There is no possible way we can facilitate me working a full time roster. My employer does not care - which is ironic, given we are in the business of caring for others.

My employer does not allow for the career advancement of part time employees. I have been offered a multitude of opportunities over the years - on the condition I return to full time. Not one of them has been available to me on a part time basis, although many would have been absolutely suitable for part time hours.

Sorry, you hit on a raw nerve!

[wysiwyg]

Nickle - I am not surprised the nerve is raw - that really is shocking. I think is great to hear real examples of work such as your though, as I have been amazed at the attitudes people in general have towards extending childcare hours to overnight and weekends etc and the more people hear real stories and are reminded that the world is not 9-5 the better in my opinion.

I was talking to my mum earlier and we were just talking in general about parenting and working etc and she said to me that should make sure I try direct DD into a career that can be family friendly/part time suitable - and I just thought how sad that was that it should even come up in conversation as needing to be a consideration - 99% of jobs should be able to be family friendly with a little thought and effort from employers and government/service providers (childcare). Considering the return on investment the government get is something like a dollar spent on childcare 1.8 dollars back in tax, it makes good financial sense too.

[Rowellen]

I find it odd that employers refuse to be family friendly. We are having a similar problem with DH looking for work ATM as he needs to be home on Thursdays as I work & no CC. Employers just aren't willing to consider being flexible. Mind you this is for carpet cleaning so not like it can't be flexible!

I have been very lucky with my employer. What I do is not something many people would choose to do or would do well but suits me perfectly. Because of this, my empoyer was happy to go with whatever I wanted. I started there about 2 years before DS was born. After having DS, I worked from home 3 days per week from when he was 6 weeks until 3 months. That was way too hard for me so I took some more time off. I went back when DS was 5 months but went into the office. Much better for everyone. After DD, I had 6 full months at home before returning to work 3 days per week. I have gradually increased my days and now I'm working 4 days per week. In July I will probably go to a 9 day fortnight. It's a small firm with only my boss, myself & 2 other staff. All part time

[*beannaithe*]

I am in the same boat in regards to inflexible employers and 24/7 service. Pre maternity leave, my boss told me (plus told several others that he'd told me this) that I could do whatever hours I wanted, just as long as I came back from ml. I have come up with several scenarios over the past few months that I thought would be mutually beneficial but each has been met with a resounding no and I have now been told its full time or nothing. I am due to return to work in about eight weeks which is going to be a load of fun, working ft, a 2hr+ daily commute and looking after small twins out of work hours. I would dearly love to stay at home but for financial reasons, I need to work and I am so bitter that I am being made to choose between money and my long fought for babies. Three days a week would be the perfect balance but apparently that is no longer an option. As for the 24/7 service though, my hours are officially 8.30-5pm and anything else is by mutual agreement. I can be totally inflexible too hehehe!!!!!!

[Doing my best]

With the employer before DD, no, didn't get what I wanted. Circumstances changed at DH's job that saw me seeking employment when DD was 6 months old. The company I was on leave from agreed to part time hrs till mat leave was up (they were confident I was going to return full time). Even though I made it work, they still wouldn't agree to it, so I resigned when maternity leave was finished. Ironically they took me on part time on casual basis until about 4 months pg with DS..

Then I stayed home till DS was 8 months and I was forced back to work due to DH career change. Unable to find part time work, I agreed to go back to my old workplace F/T as they were short staffed and I knew the place. Thankfully a random call the receptionist didn't answer that I did, led to 2 days a week job share that I have now done on/off for the last 3 years, which has been permanent over the past 18 months looking forward.

Even though I had a female boss who had her own children, she was a workaholic, and expected the same as me. When I left on Mat leave, I was in a management position, and I really think they thought that I couldn't go back to more mundane work. But all I wanted was a less stressful job that I did at work, and left it there when 5pm came around.. In my current job, I am happy to use my past experience, and help and guide the less experienced staff, but I am technically the lowest rank on the ladder, and I don't shoulder the responsibility of being in management, and I love it!

[RhiChiChi]

When I returned to work with DD1 myself and another lady negotiated a job share role which I stayed in until some structural changes occurred. This meant that the team I was working for was being relocated to another floor under another manager. In this new team there were not enough jobs to accommodate myself so my direct manager created a position for me. So job share ceased but I worked the same hours just in a part time capacity. Following DD going to kinder, the job hrs /days did not suit me so I asked to work two days in the office, half a day at home and I continued this until going on Maternity Leave for DD2, which I am still on. My direct manager did advise me (verbally) that when I come back to work that I most probably won't be doing my old job because of structural changes, which are in the process of occurring now. I am entitled to a comparable role at the same pay and hours I was doing before I left.

[Rowellen]

Of topic a little I know but I find the equality in employment debate interesting in that the media is regularly reminding us all that women in general are under represented in upper management. Every time the topic arises, I shake my head and sigh because I have long thought that women (in general - not all of course!) just don't want those jobs and that is why they are under represented. This thread really confirms that for me.

[wysiwyg]

Of topic a little I know but I find the equality in employment debate interesting in that the media is regularly reminding us all that women in general are under represented in upper management. Every time the topic arises, I shake my head and sigh because I have long thought that women (in general - not all of course!) just don't want those jobs and that is why they are under represented. This thread really confirms that for me.

I am not convinced about that - I think sure a lot of women might not want 'those' roles while they have a very young family/in the process of having a family - but would later on but the years of not being able to find suitable employment during those young years then affects them for the rest of their working life. The attitudes of employers towards fathers taking more of a family role allowing women the higher level roles also negatively impacts women reaching those upper management positions too. In the past I think I thought it was women not wanting those roles but since becoming a mum and returning to work myself I think is maybe partly that but a big part of the reason are problems with the 'system'. I do however think the media focus on the wrong things because you have to address the problems lower down first to eventually get the flow through to upper management. More stories about issues that occur at a level that more people can relate to would help.

[peanutter]

I think also that not every job (particularly a lot of senior jobs) simply cannot be done part time, or reduced hours. Not everyone *wants* to work a 60+ hour week. And a lot of those jobs need that, plus travel, conferences, overseas trips, weekend work, and oodles of hours in the office.

Plenty of parents just don't want that. And that's a valid, understandable decision.

Some jobs can be done in shorter work hours, less days per week, partly from home, etc. And with those, it's good if the employee and the employer are able to come to a win-win arrangement.

But some jobs just can't be.

[Doing my best]

I think also that not every job (particularly a lot of senior jobs) simply cannot be done part time, or reduced hours. Not everyone *wants* to work a 60+ hour week. And a lot of those jobs need that, plus travel, conferences, overseas trips, weekend work, and oodles of hours in the office.

Plenty of parents just don't want that. And that's a valid, understandable decision.

Some jobs can be done in shorter work hours, less days per week, partly from home, etc. And with those, it's good if the employee and the employer are able to come to a win-win arrangement.

But some jobs just can't be.

I totally agree with that. The job I left couldn't be done part time or from home.. In the industry, and office, I was in, there would've been plenty of work to do and coming from management, I knew most roles and was able to just jump in where needed. HO agreed to the part time hrs, and I had negotiated a lower hourly pay from the position I left, just the local office management wouldn't agree. In the end, their mistake was realised, but I had already moved on and in my mind had said I wasn't going back to the 'devil you know'.

[wysiwyg]

Of course there are some jobs that can not be done part time but I think that number is actually quite small and I do find it strange that discussions everywhere always end up with that point. I thought this article on BBC was interesting


Can you be part-time and powerful?
By Anna Browning
BBC News
7 hours ago

A part-time executive has been hired to revive Marks and Spencer's clothing lines. Is this proof that you can work reduced hours and still be successful?

It has long been received wisdom that getting ahead at work is largely based on long hours and a willingness to put the boss's whims before your personal life.

Tales abound of city workers and ambitious junior lawyers who put in 18 and 20 hour days to prove their mettle.

It is inconceivable that a candidate on The Apprentice could hope to impress Sir Alan while asking for Friday afternoon off.

And for those at the top there can also be lots of time at work. Jack Dorsey of Twitter and mobile payments venture Square once said that he put in eight to 10 hours a day at each of those businesses - effectively two working days in one. Yahoo chief executive Marissa Mayer reportedly worked up to 130 hours a week while at Google.

But the necessity of long hours appears to have been challenged by two recent appointments.

After reporting disappointing sales, Marks and Spencer has hired a new style director to turn things round. Belinda Earl will work two days a week.

And a new vice president at Facebook, Nicola Mendelsohn, will be their head of Europe, Middle East and Africa. She is expected to work four days a week - as she currently does as head of advertising agency Karmarama.

It could be taken as a sign that you do not always need to be at work to be an executive.

For Prof Cary Cooper, an expert in organisational psychology and health at Lancaster University Management School, the benefits of part-time working are obvious.

"The evidence is clear that when people are able to work flexibly you get the most out of them. There is more job satisfaction and they are more productive," he says.

Juliet Kinsman, editor-in-chief of boutique travel specialists Mr & Mrs Smith, is among those with a big job, part-time.

"It's about letting go of being Miss Control Freak," says Kinsman - who since having her daughter five years ago works two days a week in the office and then a minimum one day extra. Before then, she had a seven-day working week.

"It's very easy in modern-day life to let a culture develop which is too competitive and about who spends longer at their desk."


Juliet Kinsman, editor-in-chief of Mr and Mrs Smith hotel guides
For Kinsman, going part-time, meant she was able to "step back and do what I do best, which is being creative".

"The worry is that you are either stuck to your career and then a bad parent, or a really good parent and your career is neglected."

But, she says, being a parent has made her a better employee.

"Your priorities shift, they are realigned in a more healthy way."

Another part-timer is Chris Hobbs, partner and deputy head of compliance at legal practice Norton Rose.

He has worked three days in the office and one at home for about four years.

Hobbs took the decision to cut his hours after his family located to Bristol.

"I was coming up [to London] on a Monday and going back Friday evening for two to three years. I was becoming the quintessential grumpy old man.

"So I went to management and said 'I need to change this'. The reaction was 'yes, fine, we'll see what we can do'."

Reducing his hours made him a better worker, he says.

"I'm much happier and more productive. I get more time to just sit and think about stuff, and concentrate. In the office you get interrupted.

It has meant learning to delegate: "The more responsibility you give people the more they take it up and run with it," he says of his team.

But, Hobbs says, there is still a stigma attached to working reduced hours.

"It's also been suggested that it was easier for me because I was in a senior position," he says. "I have some sympathy with that comment."

There are other part-time workers in positions of power. Bill Gates now works part-time at Microsoft. Mothercare has a part-time chairman and Dixons a four day a week chief executive.

Until last month former foreign secretary David Miliband was vice-chairman and a non-executive director at Sunderland football club. It was claimed that he earned £125,000 for a 15 day year.

But the reality of part-time work is far less glamorous for the majority of people, says the TUC policy adviser Paul Sellers.

"In recent years, since we have had an economic crisis, we have seen part-time work rising and underemployment."

Many of the eight million people now in part-time work actually want more hours to increase their earnings but struggle to find them, he says.

And even for those who want to work part-time, actually getting promoted can be difficult.

"There's been a reluctance to open up positions at the level of senior management," he says.

Women are worst affected because they are more likely to work shorter hours.

"We need to move away from a rigid culture of long hours at the top, so that it better reflects what people want at work," says Sellers.

Cooper says there is a certain type of manager - often older and male - who see flexible working as a sign that a person isn't committed. It can lead to the perception that they're not doing "a proper job" and affect their promotion prospects.

However, Cooper says the question needs to be "do they deliver?". People need to be judged not on how many hours they put in at the office, but on what they get done.

"I think we are losing a lot of good talent, particularly women, who we wouldn't be if organisations were much more flexible.

"Hopefully as more women push up the glass ceiling and get in senior roles they will see the benefits of working flexibly."

[Nai]

I have been meaning to reply to this thread but have been too busy at work

Anyway I returned to work after DD1 to a supposed Employer of Choice for Women - I had been working in a 4 day a week capacity prior to leaving as I had been doing my Masters and I wanted to return 3 days a week. Other people in the role (HR) had returned 2 or 3 days a week but I think they wanted to make an example of me and not being too flexible so they refused to let me return less than 4 days. It was too hard with a 1 yo and partner working full time so I looked for another job.

I then went to work for a smaller company and did 3 days a week. However they needed the role to be more days by the time I had DD2 and I was job sharing when I returned. this was working fine but then an opportunity came up for 2 days a week plus a day a week teaching swimming so I took that. So I guess I didn't have it easy but I am lucky in the type of work that I do that I can work part time especially in small businesses. If I wanted to work for larger corporates I would probably have to take a full time role as they don't seem to have the same level of flexibility. As it is I now work for a NFP and they tend to be much more flexible as they can't pay as much.

[Cass72]

Good thread Fiona and wonderful for someone to actually ask people who are directly affected. I get so tired of hearing news reports on what is best for new mums and returning to work (including paid maternity leave).

What worked for me is having a childcare centre in my workplace. The positives were:

• I could return to my fulltime position earlier.
• I could continue to breastfeed without having to express as well (DS2 was breastfed well into his first year).
• I could see my baby whenever I wanted as he was in the same building.
• My childcare fees were able to be salary sacrificed saving me a considerable amount of money.
• As he got older he enjoyed "going to work" with me.
• There was no anxiety over dropping him off at an external centre. I was on hand and could be there if needed as quickly as it took me to walk there.

Before I came back to work my supervisor asked me if I wanted to come back part time, ie job share. It was a definite no for me. As an EA (and where I am employed) it just wouldn't work. I made it clear that I intended to continue to breastfeed and, in our enterprise agreement, that is included. It does not come out of your lunch break and it doesn't come out of flex time. The arrangement worked well. The centre would call me when DS2 woke and I would make my around there to feed him. There was time for a play and cuddle before I gave him back to his carer. All in all it was like having a nanny on hand. I never worried about him, my supply or my job.

That being said, once DS2 commences school, I would like to review my work/position and, either take on a new position within the department that will give me greater flexibility (atm my core hours are 8.30am-5pm) so I can drop him at school in the morning and DH will pick him up in the afternoon. My preferred arrangement would of course to be working for myself (my own business). I will be looking closely at this over the next couple of years to see what would suit my family better.

In a nut shell, I am willing to take a pay cut and relinquish my positon to be at home for my son.

[Rowellen]

I can't see any reason why any job that one person does in 60 hours a week can't be done by two people working 30 hours a week each. All it takes is a little extra effort at communication between the two workers and a bit of thought and consideration on the part of the employer. ETA: I guess there could be a problem if expensive equipment is involved and the employees need to work at the same time but I don't think that would be the norm for jobs that women are more likely to do.