Family Dinner together EVERY Night? Really?

[Anonymous]

14:26, you should be proud of yourself. The other pps are either just jealous or way too caught up in the women's movement of the 60s. Either way, sounds like you're doing the right thing for your family.

I totally agree - what should you have done differently? Work 4 days and get the same pay? mmm...k...cause that's fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women make $0.76 on the dollar relative to men, even adjusted for flexible work schedules. Not win-win at all.

The poster said she's happy. Work is happy. She's working 80% of the schedule she used to before kids. This IS A WIN WIN. It doesn't have to do with men vs. women.

So b/c one woman is happy, she represents all of us?

I agree with the the first PP - not a win-win at all! I am angry at the amount of pay I receive returning from childcare leave and "losing" two years worth of increases. And I even kept up with my certification during that time I stepped out.

Do I like my schedule? definitely

But until women start complaining more, our daughters will continue to suffer by receiving pay that's beneath them.

anyway - way off topic, I assume
But in any case, it's still the working mother or SAHM who's making the family dinner most of the time, isn't it?

I'm the four day a week "ganged up on" poster and in our house, DH does the cooking most of the time. He likes to cook, I don't, so that is how it shakes out. We try to do a lot of food prep on weekends though, and have some quick but healthy meal ideas for those days when we aren't pulling something we cooked from the freezer or eating leftovers. Once you get into a routine, it is pretty easy and not a big deal.

I don't know if it's because I'm a combo of lucky and lazy, but DH does more than me around the house. I do a lot, and we have a housekeeper for the deep cleans, but he does plenty. If both parents work I just don't see why it's fair to do it any other way. It's ironic though, that you said women should start complaining more about inequality at work - but it has to happen in the house too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14:26, you should be proud of yourself. The other pps are either just jealous or way too caught up in the women's movement of the 60s. Either way, sounds like you're doing the right thing for your family.

I totally agree - what should you have done differently? Work 4 days and get the same pay? mmm...k...cause that's fair.

Thanks for the support! Hopefully when our daughters and sons have families it will be the NORM and we won't have to worry about fair or unfair.

[Anonymous]

Completely, OT: As for big law firms, yes they can be a royal pain, but having worked at a couple, I can say they are not all alike. I worked at when where there really was a culture of leaving to eat with your kids (and then working at night/early morning/both). I've also worked at the classic sweat shop, so I do know the difference.

If you really are committed to staying at a big firm, it would be worth seeking one out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women make $0.76 on the dollar relative to men, even adjusted for flexible work schedules. Not win-win at all.

The poster said she's happy. Work is happy. She's working 80% of the schedule she used to before kids. This IS A WIN WIN. It doesn't have to do with men vs. women.

So b/c one woman is happy, she represents all of us?

I agree with the the first PP - not a win-win at all! I am angry at the amount of pay I receive returning from childcare leave and "losing" two years worth of increases. And I even kept up with my certification during that time I stepped out.

Do I like my schedule? definitely

But until women start complaining more, our daughters will continue to suffer by receiving pay that's beneath them.

anyway - way off topic, I assume
But in any case, it's still the working mother or SAHM who's making the family dinner most of the time, isn't it?

Why isnt' the next step pushing for more realistic flexible schedules for men, rather than just salary raises for women? Wouldn't that be the first step to get more dads to make more family meals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[


Why isnt' the next step pushing for more realistic flexible schedules for men, rather than just salary raises for women? Wouldn't that be the first step to get more dads to make more family meals?

yes yes yes! until more men start doing pt schedules to be with kids more or asking for/taking time out of the office to be fully engaged fathers, women sill still take less money to do the same or a slightly reduced amount of work. i could probably get an 80% pay cut, but my work wouldn't magically go away.

i think it is great that women here are getting what they ask for and need and are happy with the results. but i also believe that it isn't going to get "better" for all of us until men want what we want, too. sad but true.

[Anonymous]

I am the poster who mentioned the $0.76, which was not a comment on flexible or part-time schedules.

Flexible work schedules can be great. I am self-employed and get paid to write during school hours so I don't have to keep up the rat race. It's a good thing.

But that 80% salary the poster was happy with might still be too low.

Women make less relative to men even in the same jobs, and even working the same hours:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/equal_pay_day.html

PP might be getting 80% of an unfair salary, and many people are.

In some professions, the "part-time" option is illusory. Already efficient women who were juggling like mad before drop to part time, and get paid significantly less without working that much less, but having less "face time." A litigator I know eventually dumped her part-time government schedule because all it did was make her lose her benefits. Litigation waits for no one, and she was simply working at home at night.

Equal pay across the board is necessary to make part-time fair. And unequal pay is in part responsible for the responsibility gap-- as the lower wage earners, women often are the logical choice for part-time work or stints out of the work force. Sure, higher-earning women happen (more often in DC than elsewhere), but there's strong evidence that women's relatively lower earning potential drives us into the "mommy track," which perpetuates the gap because there's no protection for us when we come back.

I do NOT want my daughter to grow up to live with this inequality and with less meaningful choices than the boys in her class.

It's not about trashing part time, which turned out to be the best option for me, but about facing the fact that women aren't always getting a fair shake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am the poster who mentioned the $0.76, which was not a comment on flexible or part-time schedules.

Flexible work schedules can be great. I am self-employed and get paid to write during school hours so I don't have to keep up the rat race. It's a good thing.

But that 80% salary the poster was happy with might still be too low.

Women make less relative to men even in the same jobs, and even working the same hours:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/equal_pay_day.html

PP might be getting 80% of an unfair salary, and many people are.

In some professions, the "part-time" option is illusory. Already efficient women who were juggling like mad before drop to part time, and get paid significantly less without working that much less, but having less "face time." A litigator I know eventually dumped her part-time government schedule because all it did was make her lose her benefits. Litigation waits for no one, and she was simply working at home at night.

Equal pay across the board is necessary to make part-time fair. And unequal pay is in part responsible for the responsibility gap-- as the lower wage earners, women often are the logical choice for part-time work or stints out of the work force. Sure, higher-earning women happen (more often in DC than elsewhere), but there's strong evidence that women's relatively lower earning potential drives us into the "mommy track," which perpetuates the gap because there's no protection for us when we come back.

I do NOT want my daughter to grow up to live with this inequality and with less meaningful choices than the boys in her class.

It's not about trashing part time, which turned out to be the best option for me, but about facing the fact that women aren't always getting a fair shake.

I understand, but the way I am looking at it, I pay for flexibility. The fact is, there has to be some disincentive for others in my office/division to say, well, if she thinks she can get her work done in four days, I can too! This way, if anyone asks, it is clear that I took a pay cut. Most people without kids to get home to wouldn't be willing to take this pay cut of 20%. I was/am.

The REAL solution as was mentioned would be to just promote more flexibility EVERYWHERE, so that it isn't seen as a perk and there doesn't need to be a disincentive. But that is not realistic right now. So until it is, you take what you can get to make your life as a mom more sane.

I am doing pretty much 100% of my work. But, my boss will handle some things on my day off that I would normally handle. And I do check in and I do respond to a few emails, etc. But the fact is, I am not physically there and everyone else has to be. There is no telecommuting option in my division (and if there were, child care would be a part of it, and my deal is it is clear that I don't use daycare that day, the point is to spend time with my child, and other than a few minutes looking at email and ideally responding at nap time and after bed time, that is what happens.) So, this is the trade off.

Five years ago this didn't happen. Two women got pregnant, asked for flexibility, didn't get it, left. So there has been progress. It just takes time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women make $0.76 on the dollar relative to men, even adjusted for flexible work schedules. Not win-win at all.

The poster said she's happy. Work is happy. She's working 80% of the schedule she used to before kids. This IS A WIN WIN. It doesn't have to do with men vs. women.

So b/c one woman is happy, she represents all of us?

I agree with the the first PP - not a win-win at all! I am angry at the amount of pay I receive returning from childcare leave and "losing" two years worth of increases. And I even kept up with my certification during that time I stepped out.

Do I like my schedule? definitely

But until women start complaining more, our daughters will continue to suffer by receiving pay that's beneath them.

anyway - way off topic, I assume
But in any case, it's still the working mother or SAHM who's making the family dinner most of the time, isn't it?

I feel really ganged up on and it's crappy. FWIW, I am the first woman in my division to get a flex schedule. It is a huge division and since I have made the reduced hours work, two more women have gotten pregnant and two guys of working moms have had babies, and but one have asked for a change in schedule and gotten it. It was a big deal - the head of our division is a 65 year old "face time" old school boss who doesn't get it, and now he is coming around.

What would you have me do? Demand I work 4 days plus get a raise?[u] I'm sure that would have won me a lot of friends at work. I couldn't afford to quit or get fired.

Complaining is not the only way. You start by showing some courage, asking, and making it work. I'm not going take on the movement by myself. I'm proud of what I have accomplished. I hope more women ask for this, and more dads too. It's not easy but we have to start somewhere.

hell, yeah! Why not?

What does a PT schedule have to do with the QUALITY of work you're producing?

So a crappy employee who works FT should get a raise, and you - a successful PT worker - should sit back and just be "grateful" to have a job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

hell, yeah! Why not?

What does a PT schedule have to do with the QUALITY of work you're producing?

So a crappy employee who works FT should get a raise, and you - a successful PT worker - should sit back and just be "grateful" to have a job?

umm...because she's working 80% of what she used to. If she gets a raise from that point, great. Her point, I believe, is that she's not expecting a FT salary for working 4 days. Sounds obvious and fair to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who says that you can get family friendly work positions, just realize that it is a lot harder in this economy. In my professions of CPAs and accountants, firms are a lot less friendly to these alternate schedules when they know it is harder for you to move and get another job.

ITA. It seems that many people work in a position for a while (sometimes years) and then are able to craft something that is more family-friendly with work from home, flexible hours, compressed work schedules, etc.

Yes - there was no way I could have gotten my four day a week schedule had I not proven my value to my company by working hard for years before I had kids.

That said, I'm reading a book called "Womenomics" or something about how the faltering economy may be great for creating a need for more family friendly work schedules. Rather than laying a bunch of people off, companies can cut costs by reducing schedules. And a person on another thread was talking about how they got a more flexible schedule in lieu of a raise, etc. So it will be exciting to see what happens. On the flipside of that is people want to show their worth and feel like they have to work harder, or do more with fewer people, resources, etc. so it can work both ways.

In my case, my boss blatantly admitted recently that they love having me be so productive and having only to pay me 80% of my salary. So it's a win win in our situation as the pay cut is totally worth the extra time, even when sometimes I do have to work a bit during nap time or after bedtime.

LOL. Same here. I had to BEG to go part-time. Now, my firm loves me. They pay me for 3 days and I do the work of a full-time person (OK - equivilant to a lazy full-time person). Am I getting robbed? It depends on how you look at it. Regardless of part-time or full-time, there would be nights I have to take things home - simply due to pressing deadlines. And sure, on slow weeks, I could work full-time, and not work as hard the hours I am here, but those hours would still be gone from my life. So I'd rather work like a dog and spend time with my kid. Plus I have the luxery of knowing I can up to full-time anytime my financial situation demands it.