Day nursery fees

DrivingMissDaisy

To the OP, yes that is the norm. Do you get in-lieu days ? The nursery that my daughter goes too offers 3 days in-lieu so can use them to substitute for bank holidays, though that doesn't cover all bank holidays - it does offer partial relief.

rhino_horn

The nursery my daughter goes to does this:

"Fees are calculated evenly over a 50 week year and reflect an adjustment for bank holiday days and the period between Christmas and New Year, when the nursery is not open."

Jagraf

I had nothing after nursery fees financially.

What I did have was a very well rounded child
A foot still in the workplace
A busy active lifestyle

I'm not saying you can't do all of these things without nursery, but it's good to have the choice.

What my 17 year old daughter now sees is a hard working mum and still had friends she made in nursery.

I also have a career.

It worked for me. Nursery is expensive but it doesn't have to be the bad alternative to being a sahm or dad.

Scorpio33

onlyroz wrote: »

Is it seen a shame for the millions of men who maintain their careers after becoming fathers?

It is, as many men (like myself) are expected to sacrifice their time with their children to peruse a career - weather they want to or not.


As a man, I find that if you are looking for a role that is flexible enough for you to assist in the childcare, you come across with the expectation that it is something that your wife/partner does. You rarely get even the option of saying that you want a flexible role. I tend to find the flexible roles are much more available to mums.

heuchera

Jagraf wrote: »

It worked for me. Nursery is expensive but it doesn't have to be the bad alternative to being a sahm or dad.

Absolutely. Some people are cut out to be at home looking after kids and the house, others really are not.

onlyroz

Scorpio33 wrote: »

It is, as many men (like myself) are expected to sacrifice their time with their children to peruse a career - weather they want to or not.


As a man, I find that if you are looking for a role that is flexible enough for you to assist in the childcare, you come across with the expectation that it is something that your wife/partner does. .

These are the sort of societal expectations that need to change. It would be far better, for both men and women, if it became the norm for both parents to take equal roles in child-rearing and in bringing in the family income.

You rarely get even the option of saying that you want a flexible role. I tend to find the flexible roles are much more available to mums

All employees have the right to request a flexible working arrangement as long as they have a sufficient length of service. For example, my husband has an agreement to do three long days and two short ones, so that he can do the school run two days a week. This both saves us money on childcare and enables him to spend more time with the kids.

Scorpio33

onlyroz wrote: »

These are the sort of societal expectations that need to change. It would be far better, for both men and women, if it became the norm for both parents to take equal roles in child-rearing and in bringing in the family income.


All employees have the right to request a flexible working arrangement as long as they have a sufficient length of service. For example, my husband has an agreement to do three long days and two short ones, so that he can do the school run two days a week. This both saves us money on childcare and enables him to spend more time with the kids.

All employees do have the right to request flexible working, but the business does not have to agree to it.


In practice, this generally means that employers will reject flexible working requests from higher earning male roles due to "business needs", but be more open to make it work for female employees, in my experience.
Ok, this is a generalisation, but it is what my experiences have taught me.

onlyroz

Scorpio33 wrote: »

All employees do have the right to request flexible working, but the business does not have to agree to it.


In practice, this generally means that employers will reject flexible working requests from higher earning male roles due to "business needs", but be more open to make it work for female employees, in my experience.
Ok, this is a generalisation, but it is what my experiences have taught me.

I suppose it depends what you're asking for. My husband requested to still work his full-time hours but in an adjusted pattern over the course of the week (3 long days and 2 short ones), and his request was granted.


I know other senior men who requested to go part-time. They were told that if they went part-time then they would have to take a demotion because their senior role required full-time hours.


I suspect that these days if such cases went to an employment tribunal then the employee would win a constructive dismissal case unless the employer could prove that (a) the job did require *one* person to work full time or (b) the employer had tried and failed to set up a job-share.


I know an NHS manager who lost a constructive dismissal case when a female employee asked to go part-time. He was judged to have not adequately attempted to meet her request by advertising internally and externally for a job-share candidate. If a woman can win a case like this then I don't see why a man wouldn't be able to.

heuchera

onlyroz wrote: »

I know an NHS manager who lost a constructive dismissal case when a female employee asked to go part-time. He was judged to have not adequately attempted to meet her request by advertising internally and externally for a job-share candidate. If a woman can win a case like this then I don't see why a man wouldn't be able to.

What was her job? Was it admin (in which case yes it's pretty easy to get someone to job-share) or was it radiographer/consultant level medicine?

Some professions really require a full-time commitment rather than "I'll fit it in around the kids".

onlyroz

heuchera wrote: »

What was her job? Was it admin (in which case yes it's pretty easy to get someone to job-share) or was it radiographer/consultant level medicine?

Some professions really require a full-time commitment rather than "I'll fit it in around the kids".

How many jobs require full time commitment from one person? I would argue that there are very few jobs that could not be arranged as a job share. Even if you're a brain surgeon, or the Chief of Police, why couldn't you do Monday-Wednesday while somebody else does Thursday and Friday? Sure, you'd have to spend some time each week performing a hand-over to your co-worker, but that's not an insurmountable problem in most cases.


Only if your employer has exhausted all possibilities to find somebody to share the job with you can they legitimately turn down your request to go part time.