Mumsnet need your opinions for Jeremy Vine show today!

They've already been on - its on Radio 2. You can listen to it though if you go to the Website.

When is the programme on, what channel?

custardo

oke doke

Thanks

i started a new job and for 3 weeks in a row i had a child ill. but it only happens touchwood occasionaly, it is not evey week and i bet workingparents are less ill than not parents, they have to be fit for their children

yes, her bark is worse than her bite

telly lady you kangaroo silly person - please dont take anything i say to heart. i love you - you tell me whats on telly. please toughen up to my ill concieved and badly written porly spelt and gramatically piss poor posts.

Well argued Carrie!

WhatI meant by backlash was the view posted on here that firms wouldn't employ parents. Perhaps I should have expressed that more clearly.

On a slightly more abstract note: I am quite disappointed about the extent to which people believe that ill people, pregnant women, carers and anybody else needing time off should be consigned to the employment scrapheap. Threads like this really bring those attitudes out. It really is survival of the fittest, isn't it? Let's hope that none of our "why should business / taxpayers pay" posters ever get diagnosed with a chronic disease that needs regular hospital treatment. Although judging by some pof the posts on here, they would happily go to the wall to avoid causing unnecessary suffering for employers / taxpayer/ colleagues...

custardo

Sorry I didn't mean to offend

I don't work so I was just thinking hypothetically

where i used t work it was at the discretion of the manager, and who elses' business is it. if you are trying to work you shoud be applauded for trying.

I can't see why it wouldn't work, bar very small companies. As I said, I have it now and when I was in state school teaching too. If it is limited to certain number of days each year, then why not? And the alternative is sometimes for parents to have to lie about their own sickness to employees - bet that happens a fair bit to avoid unpaid leave.

I can't see it working, though I do like the suggestion of being able to take it out of your annual sickness allowance.
It should definately be able to be used for dependants/partners/parents etc. Actually it should be allowed for pets as well, as that may make the childless more accepting. Employers may then think that since it could be anyone it is not worh discriminating against working mothers.

Or
Make it possible for people to work from home. All a sick child wants to do is curl up on the sofa watching TV, it is pretty easy to work then - impossible if you trying to entertain an active & healthy 3 year old

so only those who can afford to have their children sick are ok?

thats not fair.

if anyone wants to get on in their career they are not going to fragrently flout the leave.

although that assumes most careers have an upwardly mobile path - its easy to become isular isn't it - however i have working in factories etc. where although you are entitled to the leave - temp contracts through just legal agencies force low paid employies not to gain access to great HR legislation - beuase if your child was sick - you wouldnt be back after your contract of 6 weeks renewable

piglit - I don't have to provide any evidence of my child's illness, no sick note or anything. They believe me.

If I didn't have this policy I admit there may be times when I would have lied and said it was me who was ill, rather than DD. Luckily I am never put in that position.

Message withdrawn

I already have this (unofficially). This would work as part of wider changes to increase the number of jobs avialable which offer working from home, job sharing, flexible working (the things that most good, larger companies do already).

Get off here and write your report, you yellow gloopy sweet thing you. Poor ds, though.

Actually perhaps the fairest thing would be to make it UNPAID leave

Then people won't take advantage of it

So I think that to make it UNPAID leave for 10 days each adult so they can look after ANY dependant

firepile- why would that reduce the backlash? if the government were to pay as they do ssp, then that's coming out of everyone's taxes.

at the moment i have to take annual leave. or i make sure i build up my toil and flexi ewith evenign meetings incase one of the three falls ill.

i have sent my son into school protesting about his ongoing long suffering stomach ailment today.

he had friday off - and came into work with me and stayed int heboard room - all of which was just about ok with my collegues. and i dont work in an arsey place.

but he simply couldn't have had today off becuase if i dont write this report and get off mumsnet - i'm going to be sacked. - its lunchtime!

In Germany each parent is entitled to 10 days paid leave per child in a calendar year and up to a max. of 25 days where there are more children. Single parents are entitled to 20 days per child with a maximum of 50 per year for more than one child.
All very laudable. In reality, of course, employers hate it and in my experience the snotty wee child in kindergarten or school is often the child of a stressed working mum. Rights enshrined in law don't always translate to the workplace, imo.

Agree that it would just be another reason for employers not to employ me, sadly!

And would an employer insist on a sick note for the child?

iirc

In NORWAY each parent gets 10 days off a year so 2 parents get 20 days off a year paid

I think it is a good idea to make it for all dependants ie wife/husband/grandparents etc.

One of our friends has had his wife in hospital and has had to take time off work to look after her when she came home

So IMHO it should be dependants rather than children