I have a colleague who often writes about women's affairs. She sometimes writes about childcare and education too, although she doesn't yet have a child. And each time I read her strongly held views, I wonder how much they will change when she does become a mother.
Because having a baby changes your life completely. Obvious when you think about it - I'm sure I haven't told you anything you didn't know. But let me be more specific. When I say your life, I mean your work/career too.
Some of my female colleagues (though not that many) have children. They have ambitions and aims. So do I. But I am realistic. Mine are difficult to fulfil because I have chosen (and yes, it's been my choice) to work part-time.
If you have a full-time job and then have a baby, you may then decide to go back to work part-time. Quite often your company will help you out and, together, you will sort out a favourable enough working solution. But what happens if you ever want to leave? It's incredibly difficult to get a part-time job, especially if you are professional, qualified and reasonably well-paid. Too many companies aren't open to the part-time option or to job-shares. Too many women are trapped in the job they have. There is nowhere else to go.
It's worse if you have had a baby without the security of a job to go back to. It took me years to get a part-time position, and I know I am not alone.
In fact, I have been banging on about this, and the waste of a whole tranche of intelligent, well qualified women, for years. Now research from Women Like Us has backed me up.
They found that there are hardly any jobs for skilled part-time workers and that many mothers face a 'career choke', which they describe as "the dead end choice between trading down on their skills and experiences to accept a role beneath their level of worth, and not working at all."
And interestingly, they add: "the lack of quality part time jobs has a particular impact on lower skilled mothers who face intense competition from higher skilled women competing for the same jobs."
This is fascinating stuff, though not surprising, I'm sure, to any part-time workers. The research said that just 3% of available jobs were for part time roles offering £20,000 (full time equivalent) or more. I'm amazed it's that many!
Women Like Us say that there is a lot of potential within the part-time market. I do hope that's true. But in my experience any changes will require a huge mind shift. And this is not only on behalf of men. So many famous female voices (including those with media influence) don't really have a clue about what it's like to work part-time. They don't know how it can trap a woman in a job because all the good jobs they see advertised are for full-time workers. They don't know how it feels to be looked down by full-time mothers and full-time workers (both think that part-timers don't care enough about either job or child) or what it's like trying to fit all the work they have into two, three or four days (I'm convinced that many part-time workers are incredibly proficient with their time). And they don't know about the endless struggle to balance childcare with part-time work (it's easier to get care for a child every day, than random after-school hours one or two days a week).
I'd love changes to occur, particularly as more and more women are doing well at university and going into high flying jobs - before they have children. Surely it would be better not to lose these women completely within a few years?
When Women Like Us carried out follow up interviews, they found that when a part-time employee resigns, only around a third (35%) of employers think of replacing the role on a part-time basis. If even these companies aren't forward thinking enough to consider another part-time worker, but are prepared to spend more money on a full-time replacement, then what hope do we really have for proper changes to come?
Follow Sarah Ebner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/schoolgate
Cassandra Scrimgeour: Pick: Have a Wedding, or Keep Your Job
Unemployment rises to 2.67million as women bear brunt of job losses, figures show
FactCheck: Labour's record on women's unemployment
Government is 'most female-unfriendly' in living memory, says TUC
The giant supermarkets have approximately eighty-per-cent of their workforce on them and that has allowed them to drive the High Street competition out of business.
(a) The employers do not have to contribute National Insurance payments for them.
(b) They do not pay them overtime rates, unless they exceed more hours than full-time staff.
(c) These part-time jobs are advertised as being 'plus benefits', as most part-time workers need to subsidise their income in order to pay Council Taxes etc.
In other words the High Street retailers are competing, unfairly, against a store that has free on-site parking plus a taxpayer subsidised workforce.
Professional part-time jobs may pay enough to negate the need to claim benefits, but in retail they are destroying the economy.
On the other end of the spectrum, I see full-time workers spending more time at work, as cut-backs and economic anxiety make them afraid for their jobs.
Businesses should allow more jobsharing.
But really the biggest barrier is mindset. I've worked at so many companies where presentee-ism still reigns - workers need to be at their desks to show they're working even if they could be more effective working flexitime or at a different location. Also, so many businesses that have part-time workers don't manage the position.
A good manager will have a plan when something arises in a worker's absence, so there's continuity and so employees don't think "Where is so-and-so? Who's going to handle this?" Businesses need to be vocal with staff about the benefits from part-time workers. (Not only can it be more cost-efficient, it can free up space and resources in the office for other projects, or allow coverage outside of the usual hours.)
Too often, it's left up to individual families to sort out looking after children, paying bills, managing school run (3pm pickup - not conducive to full-time work!) and find time themselves.
Having been made redundant after 20 years as a professional engineer in the credit crunch I now cannot even get an interview. I have lost absolutely everything - job, house, partner, health, self respect and frankly the will to live
I'm currently volunteering part-time but hope it will turn into a part-time job soon. I have so many hobbies and personal projects and a desire for plenty of chill-out time for balance, that working part-time enriches my life.
I know from experience working full-time and having lots of spare money means nothing without the time, and more importantly, the physical or mental energy to enjoy it! So despite me earning less I actually feel happier.
Unfortunately the very materialistic way most people measure success means that this lifestyle isn't considered worthy of aiming for. One of the reasons I left the world of engineering was because I couldn't find suitable part time work.
At the risk of sounding like a hippy, I'd love it if the emphasis on ridiculously long hours would change and people worked less, earnt less and stopped competing with one another. Surely that way there would be more jobs to go around too? It's a pipe dream of epic proportions!
So it's not just about helping parents who have little time, it's something lots of different people can relate to. I'm childless by choice and it still resonates with me.
Sarah you wonder if your friend's views would change if she had a child - perhaps it'll go something like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kara-gebhart-uhl/mom-judgments_b_1319775.html
Speaking of Grannies (and Grandads) I find they are the the major factor in those mums who get back to work and those who don't, and that's often down to luck. I had grandparents 5 minutes away who were fit enough and more than willing to care us from birth untill we were old enough to be left alone. Most people I know were not in that situation. Some families seemed to get hit hard from every angle and get none of the possible perks. It could be easy for me to look at my family and upbringing and say 'well my parents managed so why can't she' and not realise lady luck was on our side. Free childcare made EVERY difference.
You don't have to make a choice and there is a balance to be struck. Of course it means that your career may plateau, but that's the choice that many (including me) have made.
I definitely don't see having kids as a "part-time role". I didn't say it was and have happy, balanced, children, I am pleased to say. I just don't think it makes economic sense to train and support lots of intelligent women and then not give them the opportunity to come back into the labour market once they have children and still want to contribute. There are options out there, but lots of people don't want to see it.
Thanks for commenting.
The people I know who work full time never seem to have enough hours in the day to do their job and take care of their family and do anything at all for themselves.
Then there are the droves who suddenly are finding themselves jobless due to redundancies.
Why not job share? This way everyone gets free time and a job and pay, less people twiddling their thumbs at home while getting money from the government.
With the current economic climate, it seems that the government won't be able to afford to pay unemployment soon anyway, and raising taxes on those that are working isn't going to help the overall picture.
Job sharing - give everyone a go, have people work together and contribute with freshly inspired viewpoints.
A couple of points: Working for necessities, and not for extravagances, should (hopefully) allow for a balance between work and family life. After all, what is work truly for? I hope deeply that it is only for the sustenance of the family and the support of society. Otherwise it isn't in line with what life, as I see it, should be about.
That's another point: Anything, as far as I can tell, past necessity, is a corruption. Well, except for love--we can all love till the cows come home (please do!) and keep loving past then. But everything else, that isn't about love and connection, that is past necessities for what a person needs, seems to only lead, and actually be founded in, corruption--which ends up hurting the person (valuing extraneous things), others (due to the person having lesser regard for them since they are now out of balance), and everyone through the person setting an example for society that the pursuit of extraneous things, which truly aren't needed, has some kind of merit and value.
I think we have to remember, and give higher value than ever before (given that our world has become interconnected, through globalization): That living for others is what we should all strive for. We've lost this. We've come to think that we should live for ourselves and shrug the idea that we should "fulfill roles" in society.
But I think that's all wrong. Society breaks down otherwise.
Thanks very much for your comment.