Nice People Thread No. 14, all Nice and Proper

SingleSue

LydiaJ wrote: »

I went back to work (part time) more or less on DD's first birthday. DS was a few weeks off 3. I looked at nurseries, and found one that I thought would be great for him, but none of them struck me as a place I'd want to leave my one year old. Instead, she went to a childminder, an amazing woman who did all the sorts of activities good mothers are supposed to spend time doing with their little ones, while feeding her healthy food and maintaining a spotlessly clean and tidy house. I was in awe of her domestic abilities. DD was very happy there, although of course it was occasionally a problem when the childminder was sick. I didn't have any problems with the childminder taking holiday, because she had a kid of school age, so took her time off out of term time, when I didn't need her anyway.

By the time DD turned 2, we had moved house and I had moved job, too, and the childminder was no longer geographically convenient. However, I found it much easier to find a nursery I thought would suit her once she was that year older.

I went back to work part time when James was 6 weeks old, I say part time but it was two part time jobs and the hours just seemed to increase week on week.

Childcare was relatively easy in the beginning as the first job was early morning cleaning and I would be back before now ex hubby needed to leave for work and the other part time role was as a care assistant in a residential home for the elderly in the evening once ex was home.

Unfortunately, the care assistant job hours kept extending and it went from being 6 hours a week (as advertised - never ever did only 6 hours) to being rostered on for full time hours the week after I left. Childcare got a little complicated at that point...

I took a small break (health reasons) and then returned to work again when James was 15 months old working 5 afternoons a week. James spent 3 afternons at a daycare nursery, one afternoon with my mum and one afternoon with various friends or the mother in law. It did mean that after the nursery and travel had been paid, there was not a huge amount (if any!) of my wages left but it was the done thing to go back to work even if it didn't make much economic sense (this was pre tax credit days, family credit was around but we missed the cut off by 50p a week on his wages and it was nowhere near as generous as now anyway)

I was in that job until halfway through my pregnancy with Josh...whereby I had to take them to an employment tribunal.

The best solution for us though was when I returned to work after youngest (he was 2), I worked in the evenings when ex was home and extra hours during the day when time/appointments/mum babysitting allowed. Initially we were worse off as I had to give up carers allowance and there was a reduction in our tax credits plus travel but with payrises, bonuses and overtime, we were soon reaping the rewards, so much so that we could come off tax credits completely, take nice holidays etc.

I didn't take the job on for the money though, it was for my own sanity! I got a rest from the caring role, met people who were not talking in baby speak and I became an individual again instead of a mum or a wife juggling medical appointments and therapies.

hjd

I also had a brilliant childminder, who is still a friend more than 20 years on. She only worked part time and so did I. I used to work all day Tues and Fri and part time Mon and Thurs. Wednesday off. The children went to nursery Tues and Fri and to my childminder Mon and Thurs. As DH was then a teacher school holidays weren't a problem. My two loved going to their childminder.

silvercar

For DS1 I had a decent childminder, kept her charges warm, clean and fed, went to a few play groups with them, had lots of age appropriate toys etc. He was there 2 full days a week, so it suited. Not sure I would have used her if I needed full time care. As the eldest I wanted him to be in an environment with other children, so it worked. He own kids were teenagers, so that provided babysitters.

For DS2, I needed care for just 2 mornings and sometimes 1 afternoon, term time only. That proved a nightmare to find. In the end I found someone that was caring for friends children, who didn't seem bothered about breaking the rules on numbers. He was 2 years old when he started there, so I was more relaxed than leaving a baby. It suited me because it was just like him having a couple of play dates with other friends' kids. I wouldn't have used her if I had needed care for any longer periods of time. After about a year I stopped using her for other than occasional gaps in term times between his nursery school and my college hours. Soon after that she was investigated and shut down and then went to live in Ireland. All very suspicious.

chewmylegoff

SingleSue wrote: »

...I didn't take the job on for the money though, it was for my own sanity! I got a rest from the caring role, met people who were not talking in baby speak and I became an individual again instead of a mum or a wife juggling medical appointments and therapies.

I think this is the main driver behind OH wanting to go back and I can understand that as it is a grind to look after babies - although that said I think she has got through the worst bit when every day is the same and it is becoming more fun now. I think she probably over glamourises work in her mind - a number of times she has accused me of swanning off to have fun at work all day!

I have found work a lot more difficult since the babies were born - both because my brain doesn't work properly when sleep deprived but also as there is a lot more time pressure when you simply cannot stay late to get things done. It makes work much more of a functional grind as well.

Ultimately it is up to her to find a balance she is happy with and I will provide as much support as possible but it is easiest to do so when it also makes economic sense. For now it is justifiable on the basis that she stays in her v good pension scheme and puts herself in a better position re future promotion but at some point in the future I expect there will be a reckoning! I think ultimately she will need to find a job much closer to where we live and I think that will happen naturally as she will decide she can't stand the commute any longer.

Yorkie1

hjd wrote: »

The easy to remember one - 28C is 82F. Gives you a point of reference.

Viva's also mentioned 16 = 61

And for those amongst us who relate to aged footie success references, 19(=)66.

Generali wrote: »

That's quite cool, I didn't know that one. I just work it out in my head. C x 9/5 + 32 = F or (F - 32) x 5/9 = C.

The only ones I remember are -40C = -40F (or is it the other way round?), 0C = 32F and 100C = 200 odd F.

Although I know the official conversion formula given above, if I don't have a calculator to hand, I approximate the answer by doubling C and adding 30, or subtracting 30 from F before dividing in two.

Re the sexism stuff, I noticed something interesting (to me). Increasingly companies are recognising the value of having a gender diverse board. However if you dig a little deeper, women on boards are almost always in non-executive, non-chairman roles.

Generali wrote: »

For me the point is that if companies are run solely by middle-aged white men then they generally don't perform as well as companies run by companies run by a more diverse group of people.

There was an interesting documentary series on a couple of years ago, presented by Hilary Devey (?) of Dragons Den fame. She is the CEO or similar of a big trucking and transportation company in the UK, if memory serves right.

She investigated gender issues in the workplace, one of which was about the performance of single gender teams vs mixed gender. Almost universally, the mixed gender teams did better.

They also did some research among business women who would be eligible (in terms of experience) to apply for senior management level (perhaps including Board level) positions. The way in which the adverts were worded had a significant impact on whether the women felt they were either qualified for, or attracted by, the position.

The usual way of describing desirable attributes of prospective candidates almost always appealed far more to men than women.

It was a really eye opening few programmes.

vivatifosi

Yorkie1 wrote: »

And for those amongst us who relate to aged footie success references, 19(=)66.

Oooh, I like that one! I will have to use that, thanks.

In terms of working out what's where, I have my references...

0=32, because that's one I was taught in school
10=50, because it is nice and round
16=61, because it is a palindrome
19=66, because I've just learned that one
21=70, which is what I set my thermostats to in the UK and US
28=82, another palindrome
37=98.6, the human body temperature
100=212, another one I was taught in school

If I'm trying to work out any other temperature, I just go to my closest reference (eg 16 =61) and then add on 2 degrees fahrenheit for each degree centigrade. It isn't exact, but it is close enough.

ukmaggie45

Had my dermatology appointment today. Charming (male) Nurse Practitioner and trainee, lovely Dermatology Doctor... Who when I come to think about it is prob a "Junior Doctor" and I wish I'd told him how much I support them in their tussle with the blasted government.

One moley thing is definitely a sebbhorreic (sp?) wart so no worries.

The other he thinks is probably not bad, but it looks different. So he recommends taking it out. I have appt for an 8mm punch biopsy on 26 Feb. :eek: Can't say I'm ecstatic about that, but will be happier to get rid of anything that has a chance of being questionable. While I've never used sun beds, and have not gone to hot sunny places for holidays, I've spent a lot of hours on the water in a boat in hot sunny conditions around Abersoch. OH doesn't really get it, but I think that my solar exposure is probably quite high. Reflection off water really seems to make a difference when it comes to sunburn!

At least I escaped getting another biopsy of a small black spot. :j Many years ago I was cleaning out the chimney and fireplace, and managed to catch my arm on a bit of jagged metal on fireplace. Soot under skin! Doc said he was glad I knew the history of it as otherwise he'd definitely have been wanting to take it out! Phew!

michaels

Does anyone understand what the junior doctors dispute is about? Govt claims that it is about making Saturday day time count as standard time not overtime so they can afford safe hospitals at the weekends and about removing automatic pay rises for each extra year since graduating and instead fixing it to 'grade'. ON the face of it neither of these seem out of line with almost every other job so I suspect there is much more to it?

ukmaggie45

michaels wrote: »

Does anyone understand what the junior doctors dispute is about? Govt claims that it is about making Saturday day time count as standard time not overtime so they can afford safe hospitals at the weekends and about removing automatic pay rises for each extra year since graduating and instead fixing it to 'grade'. ON the face of it neither of these seem out of line with almost every other job so I suspect there is much more to it?

Well one of the nastiest parts of it is that time overtime starts will move from 7pm to 10pm during the week. And I think they start at 8am. So their hours are bloody awful just the "normal" day that they don't get to work as have to do overtime. The pay is pretty poor for what they have to do anyway, so the overtime they get just about brings them level to such as other post graduate level jobs. Except it doesn't really. What price do you put on having your life saved? Or your partner or children's lives saved?

vivatifosi

Maggie, punch biopsies aren't that bad. I've had one and it is tiny what they take out. I've had three different types of skin biopsy (scrape, punch and excisional). Punch I found the quickest, least painful, least scarring and healed the quickest. It will only be a couple of stitches (you may even get away with one) and will hardly show.