Call in sick if can’t get time off?

[OctoberRainStorm]

we have arranged a week long cottage holiday to celebrate DM’s big birthday. It’ll be me and my family, and my sister and her family plus DM and DF. We are all very excited. It’s in April.

DN is 19 and has a minimum wage job in a chain pub. She asked for the time off and they said no as other people already off the same time. DN explained about family trip and they wouldn’t budge. It’s not a great work place. The people who are off work different jobs to my DN. And there’s a high rate of calling-in-sick so staffing is never as they planned.

the cottage is too far to pop back for her shifts. DN says she’ll call in sick. I don’t feel bad for her employers as they aren’t good to her. They make her stay late unpaid. They make her attend staff meetings unpaid on days off. They change shifts last minute. But my question would be, could she get into trouble for this as they know she wanted those days off? Would they have to prove she wasn’t ill?

she can’t just quit really as there aren’t a lot of jobs where she lives. Though if she got fired she’d be alright. But we don’t want her to have that happen really.

People have short memories especially about others they don't particularly care about. So I think that if your daughter keeps her mouth shut between now and April then calls in sick, they're unlikely to remember she'd asked for holiday.

Up to her but she does risk being sacked it would look very obvious seen as she’d brought attention to it and asked

no help now but common sense would tell u to book both then cancel the one you didn’t need it

on the plus side pubs struggle to recruit nowadays as no one wants to work so probably won’t sack her as they struggle to replace her but it’s a risk

the fact other people booked it isn’t the employers fault that could happen in any job

everything you have described is normal in pub work
theres high sickness as a lot of the time this is a 2nd job and people have zero loyalty and ring in sick for anything

in every bar job I’ve had you get paid for a set amount of time 20 or 30 minutes to clean up regardless of it took 10 minutes or 2 hours

You attempted to suggest that employers acting illegally isn't surprising because employees call in sick when not actually ill, which is not illegal. You made an explicit link between the two.

Presumably you understand that the victims in the workplace here are the employees who are being subjected to illegal behaviour. That's textbook victim blaming, and the idea that you might transmit that sort of value to a child is appalling. It takes us well beyond different strokes for different folks territory. You're just all the way in the wrong there.

As for the rest, actually I think it's up to the DD if she wants to quit, as and when it suits her. It may or may not be in her best interests to continue working there until Easter, that's up to her. It's inappropriate to say the victim 'should' leave when they may not have anything else to go to. It's for her to decide that.

As its so far in advance could she not swap the shifts with someone else?

No, you misunderstood. I did not in any way suggest that employers act illegally because employees call in sick when they're not. I don't believe that for a moment.

What I did say is that both behaviours arise - independently of each other - from the underlying belief that ethics and integrity in the workplace don't really matter. I stand by that.

The people who feel that they don't owe their employers anything and that it's fine to do whatever they can get away are often the ones who go on to treat others like shit in the future when they find themselves in positions of authority. I've seen it happen. The people who are committed to doing the right thing because they place a high value on behaving ethically and with integrity will typically carry on trying to do the right thing in the future.

Well no, that's not what you said. You wrote 'I guess it's no wonder that we end up with poor employers treating people like shit if parents teach their kids that ethics and integrity don't matter'. That means you made an explicit connection between the two.

Your last paragraph is anecdotal vague stabs, and anecdote is not the plural of data. It's meaningless, particularly as you utterly fail to take into account the issue of power structures and who has the most power in workplace scenarios. A whole part of the picture is completely ignored.

You seem to have had a logic bypass.

The section that you've quoted doesn't say anything at all about employers treating people like shit because people call in sick when they're not. I didn't say that and I don't believe that is the case.

There is no causal link between the two. However, I do believe that both behaviours stem from a lack of care for doing the right thing. A lack of integrity and ethics, much of which we originally learn from our parents.

So yes, it's not surprising to me that both employers and employees have low moral standards when that's what their parents are teaching them. I wouldn't expect anyone to suddenly find a conscience when they're appointed as a manager if they haven't had one previously.

And of course there are power imbalances in workplaces, but I'm not sure what that has got to do with anything. There is a much lower risk that power will be abused if those in positions of authority place a high value on behaving ethically. That's just common sense.

This is all nonsense you've just pulled out of your arse. The fact that you could even write that you're not sure what power imbalances in workplaces have to do with the situation says it all. You've come up with this theory that totally ignores the whole cohort of people who never have any power in workplaces and wouldn't be in a position to treat anyone badly, who are the ones most likely to be on the receiving end of mistreatment from employers like these. You've not considered that some people are never in a position where the power imbalance is such that they've no choice but to accept mistreatment, and that those are the people who are more likely to be able to get into positions of power. It's simply not possible to come up with any valid argument about ethics or the right thing when there are these kind of gaps.

It really is quite a lot of guff you've come up with to try and justify telling the least powerful person in this scenario, the one whose time and labour is being stolen, what she should do and that she has ethical obligations towards the thieves.

It would be misconduct in all the jobs I’ve had to call in sick in this situation.

I agree with this, and make sure she doesn’t mention it whatsoever between now and then.

DN is 19 and has a minimum wage job in a chain pub. She asked for the time off and they said no as other people already off the same time. DN explained about family trip and they wouldn’t budge. It’s not a great work place. The people who are off work different jobs to my DN. And there’s a high rate of calling-in-sick so staffing is never as they planned.

the cottage is too far to pop back for her shifts. DN says she’ll call in sick. I don’t feel bad for her employers as they aren’t good to her. They make her stay late unpaid. They make her attend staff meetings unpaid on days off. They change shifts last minute. But my question would be, could she get into trouble for this as they know she wanted those days off? Would they have to prove she wasn’t ill?
----

They'll know, she has already asked for time off and it was rejected. We actually had this brought up at our last meeting. Don't book a trip without time off first, ask for time off after booking only to be rejected which causes them to call in sick. As our managers said, they're not silly. In those instances, people have been caught out and given formal warnings.

I'm well aware of power imbalances in workplaces and of course some people will never be in positions of authority over others. That's all the more reason for arguing that ethics and integrity in the workplace are important, surely? So that those at the top behave decently towards those over whom they wield power, because that's the right thing to do?

The fact that some people will never get to inflict their shit moral values on others irrelevant. You seem to be suggesting that ethical behaviour isn't important for people at the bottom of the power structure because they are at the bottom, but presumably you think it does matter from people at the top of that power structure because you don't like employers that treat their employees like shit. But those people at the top haven't always been there. Do you honestly think that they will suddenly have personality transplants when they move up the hierarchy? That isn't going to happen!

Some people will never progress through the ranks and some will, and it isn't always possible to predict who will end up in a position of authority and who won't. If you're teaching your dc that ethical behaviour in the workplace doesn't matter because you're convinced that they will never climb high enough in the hierarchy to inflict their shit morals on anyone else, then that's rather sad imo.

Your assessment of the situation seems to be entirely situational. The OP's dd is the least powerful person in this situation so she should do whatever suits her without worrying about issues like honesty, integrity or ethics. I have a different view, and that is that honesty, integrity and ethics always matter, no matter where you are in the food chain.

You've misunderstood my position: ethics matter, but your approach is not ethical or moral. The idea that the people with the least power have an obligation to be honest to a body that's dishonestly stealing their time is unethical in itself.

Also, some people never being in a position where they'll ever have power over others is supremely relevant when a person is making the argument that you are. You invented something about people who started at the bottom and behaved badly also doing the same when they got to the top, and decided it was relevant despite the fact that even if it were true it leaves out the most vulnerable cohort of the workforce.

Now I myself don't draw any moral conclusions from that claim, because it's just something you trotted out. But as you actually think it's important, it matters to your stance that your anecdote ignores so much of the workplace.

Hopefully this is just an internet argument you've ended up in and not what you really think, because if you're actually passing this down to children as workplace ethics that's really worrying.

The idea that the people with the least power have an obligation to be honest to a body that's dishonestly stealing their time is unethical in itself.

Both parties have an obligation to be honest. Dishonesty from one party doesn't cancel out dishonesty from the other. If the employer is dishonestly stealing time from employees, the solution is not to be dishonest in response. The solution is to challenge the dishonest behaviour and/or to withdraw labour and find a more ethical employer instead.

Can you tell me how exactly it is unethical to say that everyone has a moral obligation to behave honestly?

As to the rest of your argument, I don't understand why you think I'm ignoring the most vulnerable cohort of the workforce at all.

To my mind, the most vulnerable workers are the ones who are most likely to be exploited by shitty employers and the least likely to be able to challenge that behaviour. It is therefore more important for that cohort than it is for anyone that the people above them in the power structure behave ethically and act with decency and integrity.

As far as I'm concerned, values such as honesty, integrity and decency etc are not things that you can just switch on and off according to the situation and/or your status in any given situation. They are fundamental principles that guide how you act through life.

I genuinely can't see how teaching your dc to be dishonest when it suits them is going to do anything to help the most vulnerable people in the workplace. I think it just teaches them that you don't have obligations to anyone except yourself and that it's OK to do whatever suits you as long as you can get away with it.

We will have to agree to differ.

It's unethical because you're expecting the party with no power, the victim who is being stolen from, to do something that the thieving party with the power isn't doing and she isn't in a position to enforce. While you've couched it as they should both be honest, the party with power isn't being honest and so that is not the situation we're in. Your analysis needs to be based around the stronger party being dishonest and stealing in order to have any value or relevance.

You expect the victim to risk considerable disadvantage to herself because of some abstract concept you hold. Certainly she can shop them, but that's not to say the outcome will be them making restitution to her, and it also leaves her without a job and income while she finds another, assuming she can. Your expectations are unethical.

WRT why I think you're ignoring the most vulnerable cohort of the workforce, it's because that's literally what you did. You invented something about how people who don't adhere to your idea of appropriate conduct are 'often' (your word) ones who treat subordinates badly in the future, and clearly thought this claim was of sufficient merit and importance to draw conclusions from. It wasn't until it was pointed out to you that this ignores the most vulnerable cohort of workers that you even admitted such people exist, much less factored them into any analysis.

So yeah, we'll have to agree to differ.

Indeed, we'll have to agree to differ.

You appear to believe that two wrongs make a right. That poor behaviour on the part of the more powerful party (the employer) justifies poor behaviour on the part of the lea powerful party (the employee). I fundamentally disagree with this stance.

Your comments about the most vulnerable people in the workplace are utterly nonsensical. You are the one who is arguing that ethical standards can be legitmately breached in certain circumstances (ie if the perpetrator can find a way of justifying it to themselves). I am the one who is arguing that people should abide by the principles of moral decency regardless of the circumstances.

Anyway, we're going round in circles here, so I am not going to carry on having a pointless argument. You're convinced that you somehow have the moral high ground whereas I think that your approach to ethics is part of the problem. If you feel the need to have the last word on this, then by all means come back and tell me why I'm wrong to argue that everyone in the workplace should act with honesty, decency and integrity. Your "apply it when it suits you" approach to ethical standards is never going to convince me so I'm done.

In future when she sees holidays clear she needs to provisionally book with employer. It is easy to say you don't need them anymore. Unfortunately that's working life. I'd imagine they have a limit on the amount of staff on holiday for a reason.
I wouldn't be encouraging the work ethic of calling in sick to go on a jolly.
Staying late unpaid etc are separate issues. If they are treating her like that and she is unhappy then she does need to look for other work.

Obviously we are indeed going round in circles and as such I don't need to counter your points again, but one thing I will say is the comment about the moral high ground is funny. This entire discussion started because you were under the impression that you did. You had ample opportunity to demonstrate that, but instead you had to fall back on things you've pulled out of your arse and giving views on hypothetical scenarios that don't actually exist, as meanwhile you advocate for the victim to be the one to lose out. Which says everything.

Late to the thread but I would start looking for other jobs and explain at interview that she needs this time off. Then hand in notice hopefully with another job to go to.

I worked in hospitality until a couple of years ago and the way a lot of places treat their staff is just unbelievable.

Your dear niece is being treated like a slave and she deserves this time off.

DN has plenty of time to get another position. I would advise to call their bluff and hand in notice. She's obviously valued if they want her there at staff meetings.

This is a day of celebration. Just a day when family can get together. It adds to her CV in hospitality that she recognises this.

I hope you all join in for the celebrations. xx

I may be biased - my lovely mum is celebrating her 100th in May.

Sorry to be that person…but what does DN mean? 👀 I’ve tried Google but nothing is coming up

Oh God no. They will put two and two together with your leave request and your sick day and perhaps result in a disciplinary.

Dear Niece x