Feel like the choice is binary re: whether to work or not after baby is born

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: if we know that a parent (not just women) staying home with their kid can be beneficial to some - preventing PPD, not financially penalizing those who’d earn less than the cost of childcare, or just plain personal beliefs - why don’t companies do more to be truly family friendly? Why do we make it so difficult for those who choose to stay home? This isn’t about me: I recognize that I have a strong resume/credentials, and am entrepreneurial anyway so wouldn’t be afraid to start my own company, but I think it’s a pretty pathetic commentary on our society that we basically treat parenthood as a disease.

I would love to hear your solution. Tell us what big, small, private, NPO, govt can do to make it less "dfficult fo those who choose to stay home" (your words).
Make sure your solution doesn't cut into profit, productivity, or easily abused.

Fwiw, Google, Netflix, and other biggies offer unlimited maternity leave yet ironically most employees return w/n months; not years. So not sure folks want to stay home for long periods of time.

Generally: not penalizing people for having resume gaps. In many cases you’re penalizing people for having obligations :gasp: that are life, rather than work, related.

This. Once up on a time a resume gap was presumed to be caused by something nefarious that made a person an undesirable employee. That is an antiquated and probably discriminatory point of view. What is the justification for dismissing a mother returning to the work force in a job she's already trained to do with a track record of doing it very well?

That there is another equally well qualified candidate who hasn’t been out of the field for two years.

So?? It seems to be more about penalizing people for having a gap at all.

[Anonymous]

If you want to work again, you need to work after the baby is born. You may be able to negotiate 60% or 80% time or a 16-20 week maternity leave, but you need to go back.

Do you have a prenup? Your DH may be able to take care of you if you stay home, but the stats for both 2nd marriages and for entering the workforce as a woman in tech after 1-3 years away are not good. As a female exec at a large tech consulting firm, I will also add that you are not young. Re-joining the work force at 28 is a lot different than at 40. It’s not fair, but tech is not kind to middle-aged women.

If your 2nd marriage fails and you have stepped out of the workforce, you will be SOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the "horror stories" are not actually based on real experiences and so are overblown and come from people who didn't take the leap due of fear and people who want employees to be afraid to take a sabbatical. The reality is that you will still be qualified for the job, and most jobs are compensated based on the position due to equal pay act requirements -- same pay for same work.

If you are GS-9, you are GS-9. If you have 10 years of experience, you have 10 years of experience. If you have a masters degree bump, you ave a masters degree bump. If you have certifications that are up to date you have the certifications. If you have a professional license, you have a professional license. Your resume will fit the job search algorithm.

Even on this thread, the people who actually did it are saying they did get back in the workforce. One said it took 20 months (though she did not say how long she had been out or what kid of job she was looking for), not that it was impossible.

Has anyone said they tried and never got a job again?

For the PPs in IT who are terrified to take time off -- is there a crisis in IT talent or not? If everyone keeps saying we are desperate for IT talent, are employers actually turning away such talent if it arrive in the form of an experienced worker who took two years off to raise an infant? If so, then the "crisis" is of the employer's own making, right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/magazine/tech-company-recruiters.html

I work in IT federal contracting. My department awards hundreds of millions of subcontracts a year.
OP says she could start her own company. That’s great, but there are so, so many small women owned companies and most don’t survive 2 years. A lot of larger companies have strict rules in place that limit contracts with ICs and sole proprietors because of IRS rules. It’s not impossible, but it’s hard and there is a lot of talented competitors.

The skills and technologies I am buying now are not what I was buying 1-2 years ago. Things change fast in IT - even in the federal marketplace. It’s not impossible to re-enter the workforce, but I have more qualified resumes that I can interview lately and if I have to choose between someone current and someone coming off a break, I am not picking OP coming off a break.

It sucks. It’s not fair or right. I still have a for-profit business, not a charity. It’s my duty to pick the best candidate with the most current skills and references.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: if we know that a parent (not just women) staying home with their kid can be beneficial to some - preventing PPD, not financially penalizing those who’d earn less than the cost of childcare, or just plain personal beliefs - why don’t companies do more to be truly family friendly? Why do we make it so difficult for those who choose to stay home? This isn’t about me: I recognize that I have a strong resume/credentials, and am entrepreneurial anyway so wouldn’t be afraid to start my own company, but I think it’s a pretty pathetic commentary on our society that we basically treat parenthood as a disease.

I would love to hear your solution. Tell us what big, small, private, NPO, govt can do to make it less "dfficult fo those who choose to stay home" (your words).
Make sure your solution doesn't cut into profit, productivity, or easily abused.

Fwiw, Google, Netflix, and other biggies offer unlimited maternity leave yet ironically most employees return w/n months; not years. So not sure folks want to stay home for long periods of time.

Generally: not penalizing people for having resume gaps. In many cases you’re penalizing people for having obligations :gasp: that are life, rather than work, related.

This. Once up on a time a resume gap was presumed to be caused by something nefarious that made a person an undesirable employee. That is an antiquated and probably discriminatory point of view. What is the justification for dismissing a mother returning to the work force in a job she's already trained to do with a track record of doing it very well?

That there is another equally well qualified candidate who hasn’t been out of the field for two years.

As someone who has done a lot of hiring, there are many situations in which I'd rather take the person who just took two years off, whether it was to stay home with a baby, to care for an ailing parent, to do some bucket list travel, or to work on their novel. My experience is that what you lose in taking that amount of time off (a certain amount of industry familiarity and comfort in a 9-6, 5 day a week grind) generally comes back quickly as muscle memory. But what you gain (perspective, a better understanding of WHY you work, some valuable self-knowledge that can help with your mental health and make you easier to work with, etc.) is impossible to find in someone coming directly from another position somewhere else.

I'm sure people on here will scoff at this, but taking time off to attend to personal or familial matters, especially if you do something challenging but very different than work (like caring for a baby or toddler day in and day out) can make you better at your job -- more efficient, better attitude, etc.

I love hiring people off an extended maternity leave and view it as a bonus to the employer, a way of catching someone who is eager to work when they would otherwise not be on the market.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s important that your older two aren’t your DH’s bio children. I’m not sure what kind of support arrangement you have but in my experience, no matter how great the step-parent is, the dynamics are different particularly if you don’t earn an income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: if we know that a parent (not just women) staying home with their kid can be beneficial to some - preventing PPD, not financially penalizing those who’d earn less than the cost of childcare, or just plain personal beliefs - why don’t companies do more to be truly family friendly? Why do we make it so difficult for those who choose to stay home? This isn’t about me: I recognize that I have a strong resume/credentials, and am entrepreneurial anyway so wouldn’t be afraid to start my own company, but I think it’s a pretty pathetic commentary on our society that we basically treat parenthood as a disease.

Even though most corporations pretend to be oh-so-woke, they really have zero concern about your family obligations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: if we know that a parent (not just women) staying home with their kid can be beneficial to some - preventing PPD, not financially penalizing those who’d earn less than the cost of childcare, or just plain personal beliefs - why don’t companies do more to be truly family friendly? Why do we make it so difficult for those who choose to stay home? This isn’t about me: I recognize that I have a strong resume/credentials, and am entrepreneurial anyway so wouldn’t be afraid to start my own company, but I think it’s a pretty pathetic commentary on our society that we basically treat parenthood as a disease.

I would love to hear your solution. Tell us what big, small, private, NPO, govt can do to make it less "dfficult fo those who choose to stay home" (your words).
Make sure your solution doesn't cut into profit, productivity, or easily abused.

Fwiw, Google, Netflix, and other biggies offer unlimited maternity leave yet ironically most employees return w/n months; not years. So not sure folks want to stay home for long periods of time.

Generally: not penalizing people for having resume gaps. In many cases you’re penalizing people for having obligations :gasp: that are life, rather than work, related.

This. Once up on a time a resume gap was presumed to be caused by something nefarious that made a person an undesirable employee. That is an antiquated and probably discriminatory point of view. What is the justification for dismissing a mother returning to the work force in a job she's already trained to do with a track record of doing it very well?

That there is another equally well qualified candidate who hasn’t been out of the field for two years.

So?? It seems to be more about penalizing people for having a gap at all.

In my field, which is very much network-based, if you have been out for two years about 20% of your contacts have moved on. So I will be telling you who you have to email for 20% of your work, or who took on what role, or why Jen is no longer the correct touch point for whatever. If I have someone with your exact skill set who has up to date contacts, she is better than you for the job. It’s not penalizing you if someone else is better at your job.

[Anonymous]

A quick thread summary:

Women who worked straight through: yes it is a binary choice and it's a mistake to take time off.

Women who took time off: it's not really binary, I didn't find returning to work that big of a deal due to other factors, if you plan carefully for returning and set your family up for that inevitability, you can absolutely do it and not magically become a permanent SAHM.

Which is not surprising. Women who really, really value that extra time with new babies will be motivated to make it work so they can get it, even if it requires extra effort to get their career back on track. Women who are risk averse about career setbacks (for whatever reason, and there are plenty of good ones) don't want to have to worry about how that time off will impact their career.

It really just depends on your career, your risk tolerance, your goals, and what you value most. There's no wrong answer (which means that it really is NOT binary, but I get why some women view it that way because it basically was for them).

[Anonymous]

OP here. This thread has me feeling more torn than ever! FWIW if I founded a company it would not be IT-related, but wellness-related as that’s what I did prior to working in IT (I actually don’t gaf about working in IT!). My ultimate goal is to be in politics, which I’m working toward. I know *for sure* I will not be a SAHM forever, but the idea of handing my kid over to an underpaid daycare worker is really, really unappealing - this is not a judgement on those who utilize daycares, which I once did, but it’s just not for me.

I guess all of this discourse goes to show that corporate America/the US government does not care a whit about the well-being of children and families, which of course I already knew. Its unfortunate that for so many working/not working is a zero-sum game. It’s for this reason that I will most likely exercise option 3, starting my own business, because I’m not so sure I want to be enmeshed in this system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’ll never get those years with your babies back.

I hate this. Nobody gets any years back. That's how time works. You still have a baby if they go to daycare.

np Yes but they are little only for a short time. If op had to work sure but, this might be her last baby. I would risk it op just to enjoy this time. You can maybe take classes or do something part time to keep your skill levels up.

Congrats!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This thread has me feeling more torn than ever! FWIW if I founded a company it would not be IT-related, but wellness-related as that’s what I did prior to working in IT (I actually don’t gaf about working in IT!). My ultimate goal is to be in politics, which I’m working toward. I know *for sure* I will not be a SAHM forever, but the idea of handing my kid over to an underpaid daycare worker is really, really unappealing - this is not a judgement on those who utilize daycares, which I once did, but it’s just not for me.

I guess all of this discourse goes to show that corporate America/the US government does not care a whit about the well-being of children and families, which of course I already knew. Its unfortunate that for so many working/not working is a zero-sum game. It’s for this reason that I will most likely exercise option 3, starting my own business, because I’m not so sure I want to be enmeshed in this system.

Don’t run for office if your attitude towards women is this regressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’ll never get those years with your babies back.

I hate this. Nobody gets any years back. That's how time works. You still have a baby if they go to daycare.

np Yes but they are little only for a short time. If op had to work sure but, this might be her last baby. I would risk it op just to enjoy this time. You can maybe take classes or do something part time to keep your skill levels up.

Congrats!

This. Saying "you still have a baby if they go to daycare" does not account for the feeling some of us have upon leaving our child in daycare to go to work. Lots (most) women do it, but to say "oh they are still your baby even though they are spending much of the day in the care of someone else" is to miss the point entirely -- some people just really want that time in the actual presence of their babies/toddlers and will always look back at that time and wish they'd had more quiet days at home with a little baby patting their face and blowing bubbles at them instead of sitting in an office doing their job.

Not everyone, but some. Nobody gets years back but people value different things during those years. I know not all women are into babies or felt strongly about a long maternity leave or staying home during that time (I had friends who felt ready to go back after two weeks and instead felt pressure to enjoy something that just wasn't their thing -- they are great moms, they just were not in love with the baby phase), but some do. And those women will never get those years with their little kids back if they go back to work because people kept telling them they have to. Even when, financially and personally, it turned out they didn't.

[Anonymous]

Pretty sure from her last post OP is the troll from the “why do you work?” thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure from her last post OP is the troll from the “why do you work?” thread.

Ah the DCUM sh*t stirrers strike again. I am not here to stoke the very dumb WOHM/SAHM debate, just genuinely trying to gather people’s experiences. F*** off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure from her last post OP is the troll from the “why do you work?” thread.

Ah the DCUM sh*t stirrers strike again. I am not here to stoke the very dumb WOHM/SAHM debate, just genuinely trying to gather people’s experiences. F*** off.

This is the definition of the “very dumb” WOHM/SAHM debate and you said it right here:

“I know *for sure* I will not be a SAHM forever, but the idea of handing my kid over to an underpaid daycare worker is really, really unappealing - this is not a judgement on those who utilize daycares, which I once did, but it’s just not for me.”

Weak troll.