to be riled by this comment from a colleague?

[dancingwithmyselfandthecat]

Someone I manage has requested emergency leave (unpaid - for the next couple of weeks) because her childcare arrangement for the holidays has fallen through.

I said that I would bring it up with my manager as soon as I could today, but explained that it is unlikely we will be able to accommodate the request because we are low staffed anyway (what with it being August and having accommodated other people's planned leave requests) and have some big deadlines coming up. I said that we may be able to meet her halfway, but she may need to make other arrangements, and if she needed some time today to ring around that would be fine.

To which she replied "Well, there's no way I can ask my husband because he earns more than me and has the more important job".

Now, I won't take this comment into consideration one way or another, but AIBU to be annoyed by it? From our perspective, she is a well-paid, full time employee with responsibilities. It is neither here nor there as to whether in a private context she and her DH consider him to be the "dominant" worker. And from a women-in-the-workplace/feminist perspective, what hope do we have of gaining greater equality when women treat their professional responsibilities in this way?

I frequently get clients coming to me saying that their absolutely-critical-to-the-business, difficult-to replace-at-short-notice person is constantly taking time off for the kids and is there anything they can do about it.

These are small businesses, often operating pretty close to the bone, and without a large workforce where covering a vital position is much easier.

Now in reality, dismissing someone for this is more trouble than its worth, disciplining not unheard of although also something employers not keen to do, but in a redundancy situation, that person will be front of the queue.

Thanks to everyone who has posted, I've found this thread really interesting for the different perspectives it has given, and really heartening in terms of the couples such as IntheShed, who recognise that importance of a job isn't just determined by its salary.

As quite a few people have raised the question of my posting this in this level of detail, I thought I'd answer. I obscured some details in the OP and later posts because a) I didn't want it too recognisable and b) I was more interested in the general discussion than on the specifics of our business. In practical terms, this is my decision to make. There could be ramnifications from posting this, but that is my call. I am a partner in this business, and my "manager" is my co-partner, our HR adviser someone external. We are a fledging business and have been going for under a year. The deadlines which will be jeopardised if I were to grant this woman her request in full are our first for a client who will hopefully bring lots more work our way.

On the ethical side as to whether I should have posted this, yes I can see that there are arguments as to why I shouldn't. However, I have found this very useful in opening my eyes to different perspectives and arguments so I stand by it.

We pay this woman a very handsome salary - not megabucks by South East terms, but as much as she could get in any other organisation. In setting her salary, we didn't take into account whether she was the lower earner, or could afford emergency childcare etc because that was her decision to make.

This is not the first time she has made an emergency request (although none of the others have been so extreme) and to be honest, I am coming to the end of my tether with it. If she were a single mother, I would probably be more patient with it, but I do find it annoying that she expects us to respect the unequal domestic responsibility arrangement which she and her husband have agreed.

I gave her two options for the rest of August. One was that she brings her kids in every day, we put them in my office and I work in the main bit. The other was that she has today off (paid) to organise care for them and then gives me a call to discuss how she will do her work around that plan - bringing them in a bit/taking work home/leaving early and making up the hours in the evenings, whatever. I feel that both of these options are extremely fair. I was rather annoyed when in response to the kids coming in she said they'll "get bored". I'm sure they will, but that can be managed with books and DVDs and it isn't my concern.

If she decides not to come in for the next two weeks, well we are royally stuffed for an important client. In terms of managing her, that would be a serious disciplinary matter and I'm fairly sure it would be considered gross misconduct. If she provides a doctor's note, well I'll need to take some advice on that.

I don't see the problem with saying her dh couldn't take the leave. I have said similar to my
boss in the past. If dp took a week off we would lose 600ish quid, if I take a week off it is considerably less. I need my bills paying, I appreciate my job but it's not my priority.
My bosses took it at face value and understand that viewpoint as if their kids were sick it would be their wives that took time off.
However 2 weeks is a bit silly, I'm sure there is some scheme running that they could use.

You have been more than fair with those two options OP.

I'm sure you're getting good advice from your external HR but make sure those offers are in writing won't you, so if push comes to shove you can prove how far you went to accommodate her.

Interesting. To not to want to come in for 2 weeks in August still smacks to me of premeditated.

SPB yes I have 2 DD & will tell them what my mother told me, marry someone you like as well as love, money doesn't make a relationship people do. I am lucky & know it, I have had the choice to not work while my children are young and I have loved it. It wouldn't suit everyone but it suited me and DH . And yes the money inward is 'pin' money but again it works for us.

SPB - oh & I'm not little

yanbu to be riled

really fucks me off that women always carry the can on this issue

then they wonder why they are seen as dispensible?

OP, she sounds shite. Its got nothing to do with having kids or not

entitled, ungrateful

P45 time (I am harsh tho!!!!)

I can understand the 'get bored' comment. OP you know full well that when her kids are actually there if they start playing up because they're bored, disrupting the office and distracting their mother from her work you're not going to like it.

I would be really wary of taking up that offer, I suspect it's going to lead to even more problems for this woman.

I think you've been more than fair too and I am one of those who just doesn't 'get it'. It doesn't matter if one job is lower paid than another, all jobs are, well, jobs. If your business could cope without someone fulfilling that role, the role wouldn't exist. So it really doesn't matter if her husband earns seventy squillion quid elsewhere - you need her in the office to complete her contracted hours.

If your business has only been going a year it sounds like it's her first summer, I wonder if she's always planned this...

Anyway, two things: as flowery says, record everything that's been suggested. I would put it in an email to her as well so she can't come back and say it didn't happen.

And on the positive side, you've seen her true attitude. I would be keeping that very firmly in the front of your mind as your business grows...

OP all of you suggestions have been completely reasonable hopefully she see this

"if you want to empower the sisterhood you must respect the fact that family will always, always come first.

WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS

I am the sole earner, which means at times my job comes first. Its has to. get over it.

thats life. and I know alot of professional woman who manage themselves and dont pull the shit that the OP mentions

The thing is, while it may make more sense financially to the family for the lower earner to take the time off, it isn't fair to the employer or the clients or customers of the lower earner. What if the lower earner is a nurse, or works in a care home? Or works for a small start up company that would go bust if the whole workforce decides to take the summer off for 'emergency' childcare?

Irrespective of income, both the mother and father have equal responsibilities both to their employer and to their children.

Even looking at this from a purely financial point of view, most couples would still be better off sharing the burden, presuming both salaries are actually required to make ends meet. The lower earner isn't going to keep the job for long if they keep on taking the piss. And 2 weeks off during the holidays at short notice is absolutely taking the piss.

Sorry OP - she just doesn't care about your business or particularly value her job. If she did, she'd be very grateful about the lengths you are going to, to accommodate her request.
Is it horribly specialist or is it just the time to transfer the knowledge and get someone up to speed? Can you get a temp in?

Women like are giving women in the workforce a bad name. That attitude fuels the misogynistic excuses to not employ women. Regardless of earnings both parents should take turns to cover childcare and work the problem out.

she really, really doesn't care about her job.

I have found people like this in almost every job I have done - there's always some emergency or other, more than every other person in the business.
It's always this expectation that everyone else should bend to their requests because they're so important.

You've really worked hard to find a solution that suits her and your company, and she's just thrown it back in your face.
If this means she screws up the client, or the deal, then yes, it is a disciplinary matter, and gross misconduct and you would be well within your rights (and sound mind) to issue procedures.

Scrubber That's not always a true assumption. My DH is self employed and him taking time off doesn't just mean not earning for then but also sometimes for several months as one of his major clients gets funny about being 'let down'. So if we were in a similar situation it would be me as we could cope with loosing 2 weeks(lesser wages) to 3 months without his. However, at the moment I don't work and DS isn't at school. I'm sure if it were the other way round it'd be him taking the time off.

DH at one point called in sick from work, saying he'd be off a few days, because the DCs were quite ill. The person taking the call immediately questioned him saying "Can't your wife take care of them?" (completely inappropriate, but there you go) DH got irritated and said "my wife HAS been taking care of them the last 3 days they've been ill, but now she's so exhausted that she is ill herself and cannot take care of both them and herself. If I don't stay home at this point and help, I'll be gone a lot longer as she'll be so exhausted and ill she'll end up in hospital!" That was basically our procedure - I'm a SAHM and I took care of them when they were ill and DH had to work. And then if the illness lasted a few days and I started getting too worn out, he took time off work. They always questioned it though. Very annoying.

You don't call in sick because your dcs are ill - that's when you use emergency (unpaid) leave.

Trigglesx you think it was "very annoying" that your DH was questioned because he claimed to be ill when he wasn't and took time off for no other reason than you were "getting too worn out"?

I think what you mean to say is "When DH was silly enough to claim to be sick so he could give me a rest from looking after ill DC, we were really grateful they didn't take it further and discipline or dismiss him."

no.. I obviously worded that wrong. He didn't call in as being sick HIMSELF. He called in saying he couldn't come in because his children were ill and he had to care for them.

Actually, flowery, I simply worded it wrong. Obviously he didn't ring in saying HE was sick. He took unpaid leave, because the KIDS were ill and I was at that point too ill myself to care for both them and myself. Yeesh. Get a grip.

Kindly don't tell me what I "mean to say," when you don't know.

If you read my post, you'll see the employee taking the call questioned why his wife couldn't take care of them, i.e. the ill children. So he obviously was telling them he couldn't come in because of the ill children. Because why else would his children even come up in the conversation? It WAS unpaid leave, and the few times it happened, he was very up front with them about the situation.