Returning to work after having a child

[winneythepooh7]

OK, first off, let me say I don't have children, but this is a very interesting topic for me:

I have a good friend, that had a very good, well-paying job for many years. She went on maternity leave and when she was getting ready to return to work, her position had been eliminated.

I don't think FMLA was an issue, because she was not interested in staying there otherwise.

Fast forward a bit: she has been interviewing like crazy and is starting to feel "discriminated" against. Obviously employers can't ask if you have kids, but she does make it known during interviews, that while she will work overtime here and there, she is looking to work the normal 9-5 business hours.

Is that really so much to ask? I mean, in my job it could be 24 hours if I let it...........but it's called setting one's boundaries. Did any new mothers looking for a job after having the baby seem to run into problems with employers wanting you to work The Devil Wears Prada hours? (Or do you know anyone who is struggling with this).

Any ideas how to get around this issue during interviews?

[pisces2473]

Oooh, good topic! I don't have kids either, but probably will have one in the next 3-5 years. I'm also interested, because I want to know what I'm up against, NOW, so there are no surprises, LATER.

Yesterday, I asked my friend about her sister, who has a 3.5 yr old and a 1 yr old about how her employer is in terms of working with the kids, esp. with illness and all of that.

Before she had baby #2, her job asked her if she'd like to work 2 days/week from home--big help right there, not only w/ child care costs (the kids still go to "school" for 1/2 day when she works at home) but she has to drive pretty far for work (so gas $ saved!). She gets her work done, so they are happy...

I'm hoping my employer would be like this when/if the time comes. BUT, I probably won't be at my current company in 3-5 yrs...and the only people at my co. w/ little kids are MEN (so far). They work pretty regular hours (not much working from home, etc). Their wives DO work, but I'm betting they have different hours and set ups with their employers.

[pisces2473]

Oh, Winney, what type of field is your friend in that might require longer hours?

[sierra]

This reminded me of an article I read a couple of weeks ago - I can't find it, but here's a similiar one. http://savannahnow.com/node/428809

The 79% stat boggles the mind. I can't find the source for it (allegedly a study by the American Journal for Sociology).

I think it's not only the working extra hours impact, but the fact that moms have to take time off for kids' being sick, school events their kids are involved in, etc. The time off may seem minimal to a parent, but not to the employer, and it's got to be frustrating to have one group of employees who want special rights, because those options should be available to all instead of just to one group, and there's a definite potential for problems. I work in a library, and the only one allowed to take the flexible hours package offered by our organization is the one with two children and it does make things inconsistent in terms of her workflow (the rest of us can't take the package because a certain number of us have to be at work to help patrons with research at all times).

[winneythepooh7]

I think what is making it difficult for my friend is she is looking for an "executive assistant" position. Where she was before, she had a really good deal. 5 minutes from home, really tight with her boss, awesome, awesome salary............I know she was also there for a long time.

I think she is going to end up either having to compromise on the salary or the hours, if not both!!!

[winneythepooh7]

This reminded me of an article I read a couple of weeks ago - I can't find it, but here's a similiar one. http://savannahnow.com/node/428809

The 79% stat boggles the mind. I can't find the source for it (allegedly a study by the American Journal for Sociology).

I think it's not only the working extra hours impact, but the fact that moms have to take time off for kids' being sick, school events their kids are involved in, etc. The time off may seem minimal to a parent, but not to the employer, and it's got to be frustrating to have one group of employees who want special rights, because those options should be available to all instead of just to one group, and there's a definite potential for problems. I work in a library, and the only one allowed to take the flexible hours package offered by our organization is the one with two children and it does make things inconsistent in terms of her workflow (the rest of us can't take the package because a certain number of us have to be at work to help patrons with research at all times).

All good points. For me, on one hand, I feel blessed to work in a more specialized field, because I think that it will make finding a job after childbirth a lot easier. On the otherhand, my field is just as demanding, and I am pretty positive I'd have to give up an administrator role and the pay that comes along with that if a baby comes into the picture.

Not to mention the fact that if I have to work 12 hour days, I wouldn't see my kid!!

And drama does always have the potential to come about with employees w/ kids vs. employees without.

[asm198]

I don't have kids, but here's my opinion.

I think that employers should attempt to work with parents, to a point. I don't think that parents should take a job where it's laid out upfront that they will have to work odd hours and expect the job requirements to change to their situation. That's unfair for everyone involved.

I think it might be difficult to find a job that will match everything that she's looking for and she may have to do some compromising with either salary or hours. Although, I'm not sure what "well paying" means in her situation.

It's a tough situation to be in, but I think it's good that the places she's interviewed with have been kind of upfront with her about the hours she'd be putting in. Because it would be unfair for them to spring that on her after the fact.

I was once asked in an interview if I had kids. I didn't know they weren't supposed to ask that, but it didn't bother me. The reason they asked is because they had several problems in the past with people who said they could work any time, but once they were hired, said they could only work very set hours. The people were hired for a particular shift, but said after a couple of weeks that they weren't available at those times because of their kids.

[diesel]

I'll come out of lurking to throw in my .02 and my experience.

I work in education. It doesn't make my principal any more sympathetic about being a working mom (even though she was one herself - her kids are out of college now). Fortunately, my husband has been home with our daughter so it hasn't been much of an issue. Though there have been times I have needed to stay home because he has an appointment or some thing that has to happen during the day and I find I get more flack from the principal because she knows our situation than mom's where both parent's work.

However, there is also a double standard too that those of us with kids aren't as frowned upon taking a sick day as those without kids. I do not think it's fair. It wasn't all that long ago that I was single and childless so I remember my annoyance with the special treatment. My whole thing is don't give everyone sick/personal days if we aren't really supposed to use them. I think there are people with and without kids who abuse their sick/personal/vacation time. In my experience it seems the employer lets some get away with it and reprimands others...like some are more favored than others - kids or not.

[pisces2473]

I think what is making it difficult for my friend is she is looking for an "executive assistant" position. Where she was before, she had a really good deal. 5 minutes from home, really tight with her boss, awesome, awesome salary............I know she was also there for a long time.

I think she is going to end up either having to compromise on the salary or the hours, if not both!!!
Sounds like she'll have to compromise on both, esp. in that kind of role. Executives often want their assistants working as long/as hard as they are working. Maybe when the child/ren are older, she can go back to something like that, but for now, might have to do more of an admin asst. job? It sucks, but in reality, I highly doubt there are execs that don't mind if their assts. leave early b/c baby is sick or Suzy has a soccer game.

[pisces2473]

I'll come out of lurking to throw in my .02 and my experience.

I work in education. It doesn't make my principal any more sympathetic about being a working mom (even though she was one herself - her kids are out of college now). Fortunately, my husband has been home with our daughter so it hasn't been much of an issue. Though there have been times I have needed to stay home because he has an appointment or some thing that has to happen during the day and I find I get more flack from the principal because she knows our situation than mom's where both parent's work.

However, there is also a double standard too that those of us with kids aren't as frowned upon taking a sick day as those without kids. I do not think it's fair. It wasn't all that long ago that I was single and childless so I remember my annoyance with the special treatment. My whole thing is don't give everyone sick/personal days if we aren't really supposed to use them. I think there are people with and without kids who abuse their sick/personal/vacation time. In my experience it seems the employer lets some get away with it and reprimands others...like some are more favored than others - kids or not.
HEY STRANGER!!! :) Come out of lurking anytime!

I don't know about you, diesel, but my mom also works in a school and she finds it VERY hard to abuse her time, because she can never find a sub and it's not worth the hassle.

I also see some favored and some not, in my job, and some of those people have kids, some don't.

Spinoff type question--anyone w/ spouses or SO get weird looks/comments/treatment from their bosses?

My husband had some dr's appts. before the holidays, and I needed to go with him, and went in to work late once a week. My boss was kind of irritated with it, even though I was always in by 10:30, I had given him notice up front about the reoccurring appts., AND always reminded him the day before with an email, "remember I'll be in late tomorrow." This is over, but my boss said something to me like "in the new year, hopefully you'll be in to join us for the conference calls on Tues. mornings", which was the morning my husband's dr's appts. were. Grrr.

My husband's car was hit while parked last week--at the end of this month it's going to the body shop for 2 days to be fixed. I'll be bringing him to work and picking him up both of those days and I had to reschedule a conf. call that my boss and I were in on. Boss was like, "oh this mtg won't take too long, do we really need to reschedule it?" and I said, "yes, b/c I need to leave to get my husband." and the boss was protesting, until I pointed out that I need to leave BEFORE the mtg even starts. Like, hello, my husband works in the ghetto (no joke) and he can't hang around his workplace after his shift is over, and there's no place to hang out at until I can get there...well, a place that's SAFE. I didn't explain any of this to the boss, it's none of his business.

He's older and from what I can gather from what he's said, I'm betting that his wife quit working after they got married and she was always there for him and he never had to do any juggling. It's annoying.

My husband and I are a family--deal with it.

[TinyDancer]

I will probably be in this boat someday. . . although I'm not there yet. None of my friends with kids have had trouble finding jobs, but they have been pickier in what jobs they would take.

My thing is. . . I think you have to prioritize. I know it's not easy. . . and maybe it's not "fair". . . but there are some jobs and some levels of management that you can't attain or keep up with if you can't put in enough time or focus (for whatever reason). This goes for guys, too. If you have decided that it's a priority to coach Jr's little league team, you're not going to be able to work until 6:00 each night.

I'm not saying that kids shouldn't be your first priority. . . that being said, if I have kids, I may compromise my career a bit, because I can't work the hours I work now, can't drop everything at a moment's notice and go into work, etc. I am okay with that.

I was actually going to start a thread about this a few months ago. I actually had a co-worker say to me (as she's walking out the door to her sick kid for the umpteenth time this year sticking me with her work) "You'll understand someday. Just wait until you have kids. . . they will turn your world upsidedown!" How patronizing is that? I wanted to say. . . "F$@# YOU, B@#$!@#!" I understand that she has to do what she has to do. . . But sorry. . . I can't help but be a little bitter about this.

[wordsmith]

I'm told by the parents that I work with that our employer is the most generous they've ever worked for in terms of no questions asked when it comes to time off to deal with family/kid things. It's apparently a very family-friendly workplace. I know I've filled in numerous times for a coworker who has a sick son, so I know she's not given flack when she can't be at work. I don't presume that every workplace is like this, so I think it's cool that mine is.

I don't think working parents should be given carte blanche, but I also think that boundaries should be set and stuck to. If you have kids and can't work more than your 40 hours and don't want to be pressured into it, set it up that way and make sure it's iron-clad. And, as mentioned, understand that if you're making the decision to be a family person, there are certain avenues at your job that may not be as open to you, ones that require that the committment be first to the company and to yourself and your personal interests secondarily. You do have to make a choice, between your work and your family. Everyone does.

I've definitely, as an unmarried person without children, been treated as if my time isn't as valuable as that of my coworkers with kids, and as if, when there's a sacrifice to be made, I'm the one who should be making it, versus those with kids. When I was at the newspaper (where unconventional hours are the norm), I was point-blank told that when staying late/covering something in the evening/on the weekend was needed, I should be the one to suck it up and do it, because I "didn't have a family." Oh, really? Just so happens that I DO have a family, I have parents and siblings that I just as much wanted to spend my time with on evenings and weekends as coworkers with kids did. Completely unfair double standard, and discriminatory against people who DON'T have kids.

[red]

pls don't quote this post

i am actually struggling with this issue right now, except that i already have the baby. so i have to go back to work eventually... now my job is one that doesn't pay very well and is pretty regular in terms of hours. but my boss was really a creep to me when i was pregnant. i asked to work from home (which other childless people do!) and they turned me down, etc. my boss doesn't have kids...

honestly, i want to spend as little time in the office as possible. i get my work done and don't shove it off on others. i work in an office, so it's not like someone has to be on shift or whatever. the rules are just arbitrary and unfair. now i would suck it up if i made more money, but i don't. so i don't want to. my husband works 60+ hrs a week but he is compensated for it and can work from home.

i have had several employers ask illegal questions on interviews, like if i am married or i have kids. it's one thing to forgo having a family if you want to trek to nepal or something, but for your average BS office job, it's too much to ask. you should not have to choose.

[ebruening]

I've definitely, as an unmarried person without children, been treated as if my time isn't as valuable as that of my coworkers with kids, and as if, when there's a sacrifice to be made, I'm the one who should be making it, versus those with kids. When I was at the newspaper (where unconventional hours are the norm), I was point-blank told that when staying late/covering something in the evening/on the weekend was needed, I should be the one to suck it up and do it, because I "didn't have a family." Oh, really? Just so happens that I DO have a family, I have parents and siblings that I just as much wanted to spend my time with on evenings and weekends as coworkers with kids did. Completely unfair double standard, and discriminatory against people who DON'T have kids.

I work in education, and I have been told that same thing by coworkers. I took over sponsorship of a club this year, and the previous sponsor said, "you'll have time for it, because you don't have a family like I do." Uh...real nice way to pass on the position to me. Yeah, because I don't have kids, my time is automatically seen as less valuable.

Because of the whole "family" push at my school, I haven't even told my coworkers that I'm getting married. It will be too much to endure the "when are you having a baby?" comments. Maybe it's weird, but if I do go back to work there next August, I have no desire to announce to anyone that I got married over the summer...if I tell anybody otherwise, it will automatically bring about the deluge of baby questions.

[spiritedaway]

I agree with the unfair double standard. The places I have worked for are usually good about not having double standards, but there is the occasional unspoken "expectation" (particularly around the holidays) that so-and-so should have certain days to visit their in-laws, etc (as if other single people don't have "family" to visit)

I've definitely, as an unmarried person without children, been treated as if my time isn't as valuable as that of my coworkers with kids, and as if, when there's a sacrifice to be made, I'm the one who should be making it, versus those with kids. When I was at the newspaper (where unconventional hours are the norm), I was point-blank told that when staying late/covering something in the evening/on the weekend was needed, I should be the one to suck it up and do it, because I "didn't have a family." Oh, really? Just so happens that I DO have a family, I have parents and siblings that I just as much wanted to spend my time with on evenings and weekends as coworkers with kids did. Completely unfair double standard, and discriminatory against people who DON'T have kids.

[winneythepooh7]

pls don't quote this post

i am actually struggling with this issue right now, except that i already have the baby. so i have to go back to work eventually... now my job is one that doesn't pay very well and is pretty regular in terms of hours. but my boss was really a creep to me when i was pregnant. i asked to work from home (which other childless people do!) and they turned me down, etc. my boss doesn't have kids...

honestly, i want to spend as little time in the office as possible. i get my work done and don't shove it off on others. i work in an office, so it's not like someone has to be on shift or whatever. the rules are just arbitrary and unfair. now i would suck it up if i made more money, but i don't. so i don't want to. my husband works 60+ hrs a week but he is compensated for it and can work from home.

i have had several employers ask illegal questions on interviews, like if i am married or i have kids. it's one thing to forgo having a family if you want to trek to nepal or something, but for your average BS office job, it's too much to ask. you should not have to choose.


I know you asked not to be quoted, but honestly, this is more with where I was going with my post, in asking for "advice" for my friend. Somehow it's seemed to have turned into a "parents get more favoritisim thread". (At least that is how I am reading it).

I think if my friend at this point is just looking for a basic 9-5 job, to be treated like everyone else, whether or not they have kids or not..........wanting to work the 40 hours as advertised in the job ads, but, there's "judgement" already. Interesting too that it's WOMEN as well making that judgement call.

Just an update, I saw her last night and she had some really positive interviews this week, so hopefully, something good will happen for her. *Fingers crossed*.

I also think people with and without kids abuse benefits like "days off". I also think (and I don't have kids), that if employers were more "family friendly" in general, for those with and without kids (ie. offering perks to all employees like being able to work from home), many people would be more productive, especially in lower paying fields. For me, that's a big reason to actually take a pay cut. And again, there are some people NOT JUST MOTHERS who abuse that.

I also know "mothers" who do my same role at work, who do an amazing job, and set their boundaries with the hours. If they can do the job, and aren't pushing their work off on others (my friend is looking for positions where SHE is the person responsible for all the work anyways) why shouldn't they be given a chance too? Just some food for thought, because I am sure many of us may be in this exact same position one day ;).

Again, employers shouldn't be asking if you have kids during the interviews. Again, I also like to make it known that while I will be available for my set hours at work, and overtime on occasion and in an emergency, I still want to have my own life. And I don't have kids ;). Maybe I've just been fortunate that I haven't run into "discrimination" yet. Maybe I can get away with this more in my field because it's more specialized and flexible.

I think with my friend she also feels discriminated in general to older people, or those fresh out of college, because she "appears at child bearing age".

[winneythepooh7]

Also, going back to "myself" from earlier, I say right now that I am not sure if I would be able to do my job if I have a child.........but I guess I'd truly never know until I was actually faced with that.

I also think that in some instances, if you have a proven track record at a company, you have a better chance of getting the "mommy perks", like working from home, coming in later, etc.

What happened with my friend, (got more clarification yesterday), her former boss retired while she was out on maternity leave. The new person coming in to his job, brought his assistant with him. So now she kinda is "stuck" because she has to interview at places where they don't really know her or her work ethic.

[diesel]

Hi Pisces!! For my position they don't get a sub. So I can understand that then there's no one there if a kid needs me. Really it hurts me the most when I take the time off because I have to deal with whatever piled up when I come back. The other counselor doesn't have to see my caseload when I'm gone unless there is a real emergency or she's familiar with the situation.



Spinoff type question--anyone w/ spouses or SO get weird looks/comments/treatment from their bosses?


Totally! My boss knows my husband works from home so if I take a day because of our kid or him she acts like I'm making stuff up or something. Last year they both had the stomach flu and I was out for two days because of it. Dave was really ill he couldn't take care of a baby at the same time.

I do wish all workplaces would become more family friendly. I agree that it would make everyone more productive. Haven't they had studies that show that when people have time off it makes them more productive? As a nation we don't believe in time off any more and I really think that's what it comes down to. Businesses want to expand into people's personal time, but they don't want employees bringing their personal lives to work. That's where the real double standard is in my opinion.

[TinyDancer]

Winney--I meant to look at my law books. . . still haven't done that. I know that some laws don't apply to some employers when it comes to holding jobs for people that are out. . . but I don't see that very often. Did she work for a small company? Had she not worked at that place very long?

I didn't mean to turn this into a thread about childless people getting screwed. I guess my whole point was that in *some* jobs you DO have to compromise. It sounds like red's job is not one of those though. . . so it's too bad that her employer is taking this attitudes.

[Deavan]

I've definitely, as an unmarried person without children, been treated as if my time isn't as valuable as that of my coworkers with kids, and as if, when there's a sacrifice to be made, I'm the one who should be making it, versus those with kids. When I was at the newspaper (where unconventional hours are the norm), I was point-blank told that when staying late/covering something in the evening/on the weekend was needed, I should be the one to suck it up and do it, because I "didn't have a family." Oh, really? Just so happens that I DO have a family, I have parents and siblings that I just as much wanted to spend my time with on evenings and weekends as coworkers with kids did. Completely unfair double standard, and discriminatory against people who DON'T have kids.

DITTO!

The same things have happened to me in the corporate world by people who have kids who feel that my time and my plans after work are somewhat less important since I don't have kids. I was just chatting about this 2 weeks ago with another childless coworker...

[SmilesSoSweet]

DITTO!

The same things have happened to me in the corporate world by people who have kids who feel that my time and my plans after work are somewhat less important since I don't have kids. I was just chatting about this 2 weeks ago with another childless coworker...

This was how I felt at my last job ALL THE TIME. And sometimes at my current job, I'm looked at being the most "available" because I'm the only one that isn't married/have kids.

[winneythepooh7]

TD: to answer your question, my friend worked for a school district. She was the assistant to the superintendant. While she was out on maternity leave, he retired and a new superintendant was hired. He brought in his own assistant, so therefore, her contract was terminated. She is getting unemployment right now, though.

I know that the comments from people with kids to those without kids are annoyingly inappropriate, but are they your boss? How do they get off telling you what you should be doing then (this is a question for everyone making that complaint). Just speaking for myself, but I'd nip that in the bud right away. I also would set boundaries with my boss because this isn't appropriate from them, either.

I know people again IRL WITHOUT children who have similar "dumping" tendencies. Again, it's setting your boundaries. If you let people get away with this kind of stuff in general, they think they can do it all the time. Again, just sayin'.

ETA: Do you all think that employers IN GENERAL expect more of their employees (like way beyond what is in their job description, sometimes doing the work of 2-3 people), so therefore, it makes it even more impossible for someone like a mother or someone who really wants to stick to that 9-5 to find a job?

[pisces2473]

ETA: Do you all think that employers IN GENERAL expect more of their employees (like way beyond what is in their job description, sometimes doing the work of 2-3 people), so therefore, it makes it even more impossible for someone like a mother or someone who really wants to stick to that 9-5 to find a job?
Currently at my job, yes. My boss gave me a HUGE list of things to work on, then he asked me to help so & so with her work. At first, it was fine, but today he asked me how one of my projects was going and I said, "I haven't looked at it since last week, been so busy helping out (coworker)." He was like, "OH." Yeah, good job, buddy.

I'm not too worried, b/c it'll get done, eventually. I just don't know how it's expected to get completed in a "normal" workweek.

[pisces2473]

TD: to answer your question, my friend worked for a school district. She was the assistant to the superintendant. While she was out on maternity leave, he retired and a new superintendant was hired. He brought in his own assistant, so therefore, her contract was terminated. She is getting unemployment right now, though.
Wow, was it a sudden retirement for the superintendent? Most superintendents give the district a lot of notice, so I'm surprised she didn't know...unless everyone thought she'd be kept on.

I think that's kind of unfair, shouldn't the district have found her a different job w/in the system? When my husband was out of his job w/ an injury for over a year, his employer had to keep him employed. He didn't go back to the same job, but a comparably paid one.

[winneythepooh7]

She had her suspicions this was going to happen, because he was planning to retire before she left. She also pretty much suspected that if she took more then the 12 weeks or whatever it is you are able to take off under FMLA that there was a good chance they wouldn't ask her back and give her her role back.
(She stayed out a year).

I don't think she is eligible for another position because of "her contract ending and not being renewed". HR people may be able to explain this piece more.

And even if a similar job was offered to her, doesn't mean it would be her cup of tea. I recently went through a similar thing at my last employer when my position was terminated because the program closed. They offered me something else which turned out to basically be staffing home health aides on cases. They would've paid me the same, but I didn't go to grad school to become a social worker to staff HHAs! At present, most of the staffing coordinators are HS grads at best.

[steph78]

DITTO!

The same things have happened to me in the corporate world by people who have kids who feel that my time and my plans after work are somewhat less important since I don't have kids. I was just chatting about this 2 weeks ago with another childless coworker...
I got this all the time for the first five years in my job. I was pretty much the ONLY one without kids, so I was always the one staying late to finish projects by deadline because the principal engineers (all male, by the way) had to leave by dinnertime to go pick up kids from daycare, coach soccer practice, you name it. Even though I felt totally taken advantage of a lot of the time, and felt like my company was "making" me prioritize my work ahead of spending time with my husband, I sucked it up and did it (and resented the unfairness of it all).

When I had a baby about a year ago, I cut back to only 10 hours/week, paid hourly now, and I work entirely from home (so I don't send my daughter to daycare, I just work while she is napping). And my daughter is a great reason for finally standing up for myself - if they try to pressure me into working more than our 10-hour/week agreement I am a lot better at saying no and setting boundaries now. I made it really clear that my family is priority #1 since my husband has become the primary breadwinner, and they've respected that for the most part. Of course, it's a lot easier for me to say no when I am working from home than it was when I was standing face to face with my boss. But you know, Winney was right, I never would have gotten this opportunity if I hadn't put in 5 years with this company before the baby came along and proved my responsibility/work ethic, etc...if I tried interviewing for a new job and asked for this arrangement I'd probably get laughed out the door.

[wordsmith]

ETA: Do you all think that employers IN GENERAL expect more of their employees (like way beyond what is in their job description, sometimes doing the work of 2-3 people), so therefore, it makes it even more impossible for someone like a mother or someone who really wants to stick to that 9-5 to find a job?

If it's laid out that way at the outset, and you agree to take the job with that understanding, I have no problem with it. If you willingly agree to certain things, including the expectation of extended hours, you really have no room to complain later in the game when those expectations crop up. However, a job that's billed as 9 to 5, 40-hours maximum, etc. should be just that. I've become a big stickler for job expectations being laid out these days. I would not have taken my current job had it come with an "additional hours as needed" open-ended addendum. Been there, done that, moved on.

[winneythepooh7]

If it's laid out that way at the outset, and you agree to take the job with that understanding, I have no problem with it. If you willingly agree to certain things, including the expectation of extended hours, you really have no room to complain later in the game when those expectations crop up. However, a job that's billed as 9 to 5, 40-hours maximum, etc. should be just that. I've become a big stickler for job expectations being laid out these days. I would not have taken my current job had it come with an "additional hours as needed" open-ended addendum. Been there, done that, moved on.


Sometimes it's not that easy though...........I don't think a lot of employers are going to lay it out like that. In my field, it's just an unwritten rule that once in awhile you are going to need to stay late. Things come up, from audits to client crises. However, with that said also, it's not all the time. And if you have good time management skills, you should be fine. But I still think if you go into an interview and portray yourself as not being flexible, at all, the job will go to the person who portrays that they are willing to "do whatever it takes" to get the work done. And people do often renege on that later. I've seen that as well. I've been the supervisor who gets "stuck" doing all their work for them while they do whatever the H they want. It's the reason I left one job.

But then again, on the flip side, I personally wouldn't want someone who isn't flexible in general working for me, because that trait translates to so many other aspects of the job, from when they are willing to come into the office to do their "paperwork hours", being part of a team, to how they work with the clients on their caseload, etc. etc. etc. even during the 9-5 hours.

[winneythepooh7]

I got this all the time for the first five years in my job. I was pretty much the ONLY one without kids, so I was always the one staying late to finish projects by deadline because the principal engineers (all male, by the way) had to leave by dinnertime to go pick up kids from daycare, coach soccer practice, you name it. Even though I felt totally taken advantage of a lot of the time, and felt like my company was "making" me prioritize my work ahead of spending time with my husband, I sucked it up and did it (and resented the unfairness of it all).

When I had a baby about a year ago, I cut back to only 10 hours/week, paid hourly now, and I work entirely from home (so I don't send my daughter to daycare, I just work while she is napping). And my daughter is a great reason for finally standing up for myself - if they try to pressure me into working more than our 10-hour/week agreement I am a lot better at saying no and setting boundaries now. I made it really clear that my family is priority #1 since my husband has become the primary breadwinner, and they've respected that for the most part. Of course, it's a lot easier for me to say no when I am working from home than it was when I was standing face to face with my boss. But you know, Winney was right, I never would have gotten this opportunity if I hadn't put in 5 years with this company before the baby came along and proved my responsibility/work ethic, etc...if I tried interviewing for a new job and asked for this arrangement I'd probably get laughed out the door.

This is another reason I've decided to continue to work for the state program I've worked for for the past 3 years. I've had to switch agencies, however, overall, we are a pretty close-knit group of colleagues, regardless of WHICH agency we work for. Two of my references actually came from people I work with within the state program. I know that even though I am new to the agency I work for, if I decide to have a child a year or two down the road, people still know my work and that I pretty much always do what I say I am going to do, even if that's not from the actual "office". This program in general also allows for the flexibility to work from home from time to time if needed.

The clients overall tend to be pretty high-functioning, and the philosophy of the program is about "independence" and not "doing everything" for our clients. Those who are lower functioning, have support staff in the home, so fortunately, not everything and anything is going to fall on me, like it does in other social work programs where the social worker is the only go-to person. It's a good environment I think in the realm of social work to be in for someone who wants to have a baby. Other aspects of social work..........not all are as flexible IMO.

Plus, I know I can always step down from an administrative role if I have to, and there will always be another agency (maybe even my own) there who will hire me as a service coordinator, which is another flexible role of our program.

[red]

ETA: Do you all think that employers IN GENERAL expect more of their employees (like way beyond what is in their job description, sometimes doing the work of 2-3 people), so therefore, it makes it even more impossible for someone like a mother or someone who really wants to stick to that 9-5 to find a job?

yes, definitely. as i said before, i don't mind working extra hours, but not if i am not going to be paid for it.

my entire department (except for one woman) is people without kids. and they are the biggest work-dumpers in the world.

i am on leave now, and my boss didn't want to hire a temp. so she gave my entire workload to my coworker bcs my clients are the most demanding. she is doing both her work and his work. so that says something about my performance and the way the work is distributed right there.

the crappy thing about looking for jobs is that if you ask about maternity leave or family-friendly benefits or anything like that, chances are they won't hire you! so it's hard to find out ahead of time if a place is family friendly without showing your hand, so to speak. sometimes you can find that info online, but different departments in a company can vary greatly with their policies.

[wordsmith]

Sometimes it's not that easy though...........I don't think a lot of employers are going to lay it out like that. In my field, it's just an unwritten rule that once in awhile you are going to need to stay late.

Perhaps not, but I know for a fact that after six years of "You need to stay at work until work is done, no matter how long that takes," I made DAMNED sure that "Come in at this set time, go out at this set time, no expectation of overtime" was at the very TOP of my list when I went looking for the next job. At this point, an employer who "wouldn't lay it out like that" is not one that I would choose to work for. You live and learn, and what I learned from a half-dozen years of being at arbitrary beck and call is that you must be clear about your own expectations, you must not pander/suck up to employers by playing johnny-on-the-spot who will take on extra work only to get taken advantage of and get snowed under, and you must look out for your own best interests.

I made it very clear when I interviewed that I was coming from an employment background that expected me to sacrifice my personal life for the job on a regular basis, and that I was very much looking for work that had defined hours and none of that sprung on you. I took the job in part because I was assured that not only is overtime not encouraged, it's actually not allowed, except in extreme circumstances that have to go through board approval. They don't WANT people working overtime. I actually made a point to ASK about "unwritten rules of staying late," like you put it. Which is not to say that I wouldn't voluntarily stay late...just that I was not okay with being required to and wouldn't take kindly to repercussions being visited upon me for not doing something that is not in fact a job requirement.

I suppose I could have been less stringent in my expectations in that regard, but then I'd have absolutely no room to complain when the call is made for me to stay late or come in on weekends. You talk about boundaries and what you can and can't live with, and this is just another example. You do have a choice in what you accept, going in. That way, at least if somebody does attempt to renege on the agreed-upon arrangment, you do have a valid complaint. If you don't establish your expectations earlier on, you have less of a leg to stand on.

If I were raising children, this would be even LESS negotiable. Now, if I choose to, I CAN stay later in the day, take work home, but that wouldn't necessarily be the case were I a parent. I fully recognize that there are jobs where this extra work is required, and those jobs aren't good jobs for people with young families; they're not family friendly.

My issue is that the expectations need to be made clear and that things need to not be changed up. If I start a job with the understanding that it's going to be one way, and it gets changed on me, that's an issue, so being clear from the outset is pretty crucial.

[steph78]

Perhaps not, but I know for a fact that after six years of "You need to stay at work until work is done, no matter how long that takes," I made DAMNED sure that "Come in at this set time, go out at this set time, no expectation of overtime" was at the very TOP of my list when I went looking for the next job. At this point, an employer who "wouldn't lay it out like that" is not one that I would choose to work for. You live and learn, and what I learned from a half-dozen years of being at arbitrary beck and call is that you must be clear about your own expectations, you must not pander/suck up to employers by playing johnny-on-the-spot who will take on extra work only to get taken advantage of and get snowed under, and you must look out for your own best interests.

I made it very clear when I interviewed that I was coming from an employment background that expected me to sacrifice my personal life for the job on a regular basis, and that I was very much looking for work that had defined hours and none of that sprung on you. I took the job in part because I was assured that not only is overtime not encouraged, it's actually not allowed, except in extreme circumstances that have to go through board approval. They don't WANT people working overtime. I actually made a point to ASK about "unwritten rules of staying late," like you put it. Which is not to say that I wouldn't voluntarily stay late...just that I was not okay with being required to and wouldn't take kindly to repercussions being visited upon me for not doing something that is not in fact a job requirement.

I so identify with this - the first five years at my job were like this, and while I liked the work and the people very well, I totally resented the expectations that I would stay late whenever necessary and work evenings and weekends in order to get jobs done. And I didn't get paid for this overtime - I was salaried.

I knew that I'd be moving when my husband finished his PhD and found a "real" job, so I just stuck it out till he finished school, expecting that I'd be leaving the company when we moved. When I found out I'd be having a baby at the same time, I totally expected it to be a clean break and for me to become a stay-at-home mom, but then they offered this arrangement to me (because they're desperate to have any help they can to handle the massive workload in the office). I was excited about the prospect of working from home, but was totally afraid of them pushing more and more work onto me, so I made sure to arrange it so I am paid hourly (so if I DO have to work a little extra some weeks I at least get compensated fairly for it), and I made it really clear that family was priority #1 from now on - I was happy to help them out with projects, but I only work 10 hours/week now, not 40 (or 50 or 60+) like I used to. I said if I had a choice between working 20 hours/week (which they tried to push me into) or not working at all, I would choose not working at all. And they backed down and said they'd rather keep me on at only 10 hours than not at all! So it's working out so far, but there were plenty of awkward conversations when we were hammering out the details of this arrangement.

[winneythepooh7]

Perhaps not, but I know for a fact that after six years of "You need to stay at work until work is done, no matter how long that takes," I made DAMNED sure that "Come in at this set time, go out at this set time, no expectation of overtime" was at the very TOP of my list when I went looking for the next job. At this point, an employer who "wouldn't lay it out like that" is not one that I would choose to work for. You live and learn, and what I learned from a half-dozen years of being at arbitrary beck and call is that you must be clear about your own expectations, you must not pander/suck up to employers by playing johnny-on-the-spot who will take on extra work only to get taken advantage of and get snowed under, and you must look out for your own best interests.

I made it very clear when I interviewed that I was coming from an employment background that expected me to sacrifice my personal life for the job on a regular basis, and that I was very much looking for work that had defined hours and none of that sprung on you. I took the job in part because I was assured that not only is overtime not encouraged, it's actually not allowed, except in extreme circumstances that have to go through board approval. They don't WANT people working overtime. I actually made a point to ASK about "unwritten rules of staying late," like you put it. Which is not to say that I wouldn't voluntarily stay late...just that I was not okay with being required to and wouldn't take kindly to repercussions being visited upon me for not doing something that is not in fact a job requirement.

I suppose I could have been less stringent in my expectations in that regard, but then I'd have absolutely no room to complain when the call is made for me to stay late or come in on weekends. You talk about boundaries and what you can and can't live with, and this is just another example. You do have a choice in what you accept, going in. That way, at least if somebody does attempt to renege on the agreed-upon arrangment, you do have a valid complaint. If you don't establish your expectations earlier on, you have less of a leg to stand on.

If I were raising children, this would be even LESS negotiable. Now, if I choose to, I CAN stay later in the day, take work home, but that wouldn't necessarily be the case were I a parent. I fully recognize that there are jobs where this extra work is required, and those jobs aren't good jobs for people with young families; they're not family friendly.

My issue is that the expectations need to be made clear and that things need to not be changed up. If I start a job with the understanding that it's going to be one way, and it gets changed on me, that's an issue, so being clear from the outset is pretty crucial.

I'm glad that you found a job that doesn't require overtime. My whole point though, is that in general, most jobs aren't like that. In my field at least. And as I suspect, many others, which is what makes it hard on women with children in general to find an appropriate fit.

I also suspect that a big struggle, especially for women who are used to working in high-powered positions, or positions of authority, is making that shift from that role to a role like you have at work.

Again, I am certainly not expected to work 24/7, but, if something comes up, I am expected to follow up on it in a timely manner. That's often pretty rare, because usually there's someone else with my client who can step in, so it's not like I actually have to go out into the field or anything often. 9 times out of 10, a phone call will suffice.

Fortunately, other people are also on-call, and not me (been there, done that too). I also tell my staff that even though they have company cell phones, they can screen their calls if they choose to do so. To people with brain injury, everything in their world is an emergency, but in reality, that is not often the case.

[pisces2473]

And even if a similar job was offered to her, doesn't mean it would be her cup of tea. I recently went through a similar thing at my last employer when my position was terminated because the program closed. They offered me something else which turned out to basically be staffing home health aides on cases. They would've paid me the same, but I didn't go to grad school to become a social worker to staff HHAs! At present, most of the staffing coordinators are HS grads at best.
Oh I understand completely, as my husband was given a position that was also waaaay below him upon his return to work. At that time, he had to take it (long story) but is finally, hopefully getting out. There was no choice for him.

[pisces2473]

When I had a baby about a year ago, I cut back to only 10 hours/week, paid hourly now, and I work entirely from home (so I don't send my daughter to daycare, I just work while she is napping). And my daughter is a great reason for finally standing up for myself - if they try to pressure me into working more than our 10-hour/week agreement I am a lot better at saying no and setting boundaries now. I made it really clear that my family is priority #1 since my husband has become the primary breadwinner, and they've respected that for the most part. Of course, it's a lot easier for me to say no when I am working from home than it was when I was standing face to face with my boss. But you know, Winney was right, I never would have gotten this opportunity if I hadn't put in 5 years with this company before the baby came along and proved my responsibility/work ethic, etc...if I tried interviewing for a new job and asked for this arrangement I'd probably get laughed out the door.
Part of me hopes I can hang on at current job until we decide to have kids, SO that I have that leverage to bargain for working from home, or 3 days/week, or whatever. I'm actually scared to leave for something else, wind up getting PG and finding out that the mat. leave sucks or is non-existent.

My mom didn't have to worry about this. She got PG and at 6 mos. along, had to quit b/c of toxemia. She never went back (until I was much much older). Luckily my dad's salary back then covered everything. Today? Ha, one salary barely covers 2 people, never mind an infant!

[pisces2473]

my clients are the most demanding
I'm really sorry to hear that, if you know what I mean ;)

the crappy thing about looking for jobs is that if you ask about maternity leave or family-friendly benefits or anything like that, chances are they won't hire you! so it's hard to find out ahead of time if a place is family friendly without showing your hand, so to speak. sometimes you can find that info online, but different departments in a company can vary greatly with their policies.
YES!!!!!! I swear, people can sniff out a current or wanna-be mom. I think my boss is waiting for me or my coworker who is like 32 and also newly married to get knocked up....we've both had a lot of dr's appts lately and he's always like "everything OK???" I swear, I'm about to say "NO, I"M NOT PREGNANT."

My company is SO small, no woman has ever been PG there. There's no policy. I HOPE that someone gets PG before I do so I can find out the deal. I'm really scared that they might be like, "thanks, bye now!"

[steph78]

Part of me hopes I can hang on at current job until we decide to have kids, SO that I have that leverage to bargain for working from home, or 3 days/week, or whatever. I'm actually scared to leave for something else, wind up getting PG and finding out that the mat. leave sucks or is non-existent.

My mom didn't have to worry about this. She got PG and at 6 mos. along, had to quit b/c of toxemia. She never went back (until I was much much older). Luckily my dad's salary back then covered everything. Today? Ha, one salary barely covers 2 people, never mind an infant!
Yeah, my mom quit work halfway through her pregnancy with me and never went back! I am so, so lucky that I could do the same if I wanted to, my husband makes enough to support us comfortably (turns out that the seven years spent on the PhD are paying off now!!), but I'd feel totally weird to not be pulling in ANY income of my own. I am not exactly raking in big bucks working only 10 hours/week, but it's enough to cover a healthy 529 contribution every month for Caroline's college fund with some left over. Plus I'm still contributing to my own 401k this way! It basically makes the difference between having a tight budget and having a little wiggle room for fun stuff.

Another thing to consider when having a baby is insurance and whose company offers a better plan. My company's health insurance was kick-ass, it literally covered my hospital stay at 100% when I had Caroline, it was basically an all-expenses paid luxury hotel stay except for the whole giving birth part (it was a REALLY nice hospital!) :) It was really good to be on my company's plan for that part of things. But once maternity leave was up and I cut back to part time, they said they were going to cut back their contribution to my health insurance and I would have to pay a larger chunk of the premium since I was only part-time. Which made it RIDICULOUSLY expensive for me to stay on that plan, so we all had to go on my husband's plan at his new job then, and his coverage is not as good. So whenever we have baby #2, we are going to have to pay more out of pocket for the prenatal care and hospital stay and it is going to suck.

[steph78]

My company is SO small, no woman has ever been PG there. There's no policy. I HOPE that someone gets PG before I do so I can find out the deal. I'm really scared that they might be like, "thanks, bye now!"
Um, I think that's illegal. If they do that you can totally sue for discrimination. I know what you mean, though - I was only like the 2nd person to ever have a baby at my company, and so it was a little awkward, they were not totally sure what procedures to follow. Luckily, the OTHER woman who had kids at my company was our HR/financial person, so she was really nice about everything when she was working out the details with me.

[winneythepooh7]

Insurance is a big thing in our relationship. As most of you know, my husband is self-employed. We wouldn't really be able to afford paying for insurance on our own for the long-term. We are planning to pay COBRA for the next couple of months since I just changed jobs. That's over $1200.00 a month for the two of us. It would be around that if we paid our own insurance plan monthly, and we can't really do that. Imagine if I wasn't working, trying to come up with that money on top of our mortgage and basic needs for a baby (diapers, formula).

[pisces2473]

Yeah, my mom quit work halfway through her pregnancy with me and never went back! I am so, so lucky that I could do the same if I wanted to, my husband makes enough to support us comfortably (turns out that the seven years spent on the PhD are paying off now!!), but I'd feel totally weird to not be pulling in ANY income of my own. I am not exactly raking in big bucks working only 10 hours/week, but it's enough to cover a healthy 529 contribution every month for Caroline's college fund with some left over. Plus I'm still contributing to my own 401k this way! It basically makes the difference between having a tight budget and having a little wiggle room for fun stuff.
That's great! I actually make a little bit more than my husband, but he receives a monthly payment from a settlement following his accident that is as much as some people make in a month, so we'd be OK if I stayed home for a bit, then he took some time off after I went back (if I went back to work), etc.

Another thing to consider when having a baby is insurance and whose company offers a better plan. My company's health insurance was kick-ass, it literally covered my hospital stay at 100% when I had Caroline, it was basically an all-expenses paid luxury hotel stay except for the whole giving birth part (it was a REALLY nice hospital!) :) It was really good to be on my company's plan for that part of things. But once maternity leave was up and I cut back to part time, they said they were going to cut back their contribution to my health insurance and I would have to pay a larger chunk of the premium since I was only part-time. Which made it RIDICULOUSLY expensive for me to stay on that plan, so we all had to go on my husband's plan at his new job then, and his coverage is not as good. So whenever we have baby #2, we are going to have to pay more out of pocket for the prenatal care and hospital stay and it is going to suck.
Oooh, good one :) Right now, we're still on our own plans since we haven't even been married a full 4 months yet. :D I know it would be crazy for him to be on mine (we'd have to pay 100% of the cost for him, while my company covers about 2/3 for me), and I think he only pays something like $7/week (no joke!) for a really good plan. Plus, he's looking to leave his job, so it would be dumb for me to go on his, and then he switches jobs and we end up paying COBRA. So for now, we're OK, but that is definitely something to keep in mind, so thanks for the heads up!

[steph78]

Insurance is a big thing in our relationship. As most of you know, my husband is self-employed. We wouldn't really be able to afford paying for insurance on our own for the long-term. We are planning to pay COBRA for the next couple of months since I just changed jobs. That's over $1200.00 a month for the two of us. It would be around that if we paid our own insurance plan monthly, and we can't really do that. Imagine if I wasn't working, trying to come up with that money on top of our mortgage and basic needs for a baby (diapers, formula).

Yeah, the hospital bill for me was somewhere in the neighborhood of $8500, and that was just for ME, Caroline had her own $1000 bill just for the basic blood tests and 2-night hospital stay. This was for a totally straightforward delivery and recovery with absolutely no complications. I didn't even have an epidural or any anesthesia. Can you imagine paying for that out of pocket at the same time you are trying to furnish a nursery and start feeding/clothing/diapering a baby? Thank goodness for insurance. This is why I was so excited about having 100% coverage for the hospital stay, and why I am dreading the reality that my husband's insurance will only cover 80% of the hospital stay for the next baby.