Work being difficult about covering child illness

[Dontnic]

Help. Tell me I am not unreasonable. I am part time, earn a lot less than my DH and have a far junior job. We have 2 children at nursery at the moment and between them I have needed to take off 12 days since July when I went back to work (I work 3 days a week) to cover illness.

They both had chicken pox, which lasted over 5 of my working days. Also, they keep getting S&D that does the rounds in the nursery. This means if they get it on my 1st day of the week, they can't go back in at all that week due to the 48 hour rule.

DH has had some days off to cover illness, but it just doesn't make sense for him to take equal time off when he has targets to hit, meetings to attend for clients/prospects etc. If his job is affected we are financially buggered. So he does take time off but I do the lions share.

Work have now had enough and said that I can no longer take my holiday at last minute notice to cover child sickness and I have to take unpaid time off for dependants.

However, the BIG sticking point is that they deem a 'reasonable' amount of time for this as up to 24 hours. So I can leave at 2pm but need to be back in the office for 9 the next day. That is the exact example they gave.

I've called my union and they said that this was correct! Apparently the law says 'reasonable' time off but various other places deem reasonable to be up to 24 hours as it is only to arrange alternative care - not to give that care yourself.

I have no family in the area and friends/neighbours are not going to want a sick child... that is if they are free as most of them work too.

What on earth do working parents do during sickness? Apparently even child minders don't take sick children so it isn't as though I can change to a child minder.

Nothing really helpful to add other than I don't think you're taking the piss. You're in an impossible situation as you understandably want to be with you DC when they're ill especially when they are so young. I went through this myself with DS who was forever taking chest infections and whatever D&V bug was going around at the time. I had a fair few days off because of it and did feel bad but not too bad as my boss was a bloody nightmare and would often disappear for 3 hr gym sessions in the afternoon and be uncontactable when an important client needed to speak to her. I also tried to be as flexible as I could and got landed with a lot of extra work when they got rid of several employees who were not replaced. I was then made redundant at 8months pregnant with DD !

Having said all that I can see the employer's side of the argument too. It can't be easy to run a business and keep up morale among the rest of the staff when someone is absent so often.

Who would risk a £40,000 pa professional job for a £10,000 pa unskilled one?

Not many people, probably, but if you make that calculation, then you are accepting that there is a risk to the lower paid job by prioritising the other one. That might be entirely rational, but there are consequences nevertheless.

Are they saying you can't actually have the time or that you can have it but it will be unpaid?

The company is a business. They have allowed you 12 days paid so far in 6 months. That seems very reasonable. I am going to be in the same position as you. DS is 7 weeks and I am on ML. We have no relatives at all up here. My parents are dead and PIL live 130 miles away. I have no brothers or sisters or other close family. All of DH's are where his PIL are.

I don't know what we will do. We are both teachers- not in the same school. One of my friends pays a 'retainer' to a friend who was a childminder so that if her daughter is ill, this lady will look after her. She pays £100 a month but has only used the service 4 times in 2 1/2 years. She knows and trusts her and thinks it is money well- spent, ontop of nursery fees. It's £3000 for four days! But I suppose it's the peace of mind.

I don't know what we will do. PIL would come and stay if it was going to be a few days but not for a day. Will just have to take it unpaid I suppose. I don't expect to be pad but would like to have something. I wouldn't want to leave him poorly with just anyone though.

Oh yes,absolutely Snapes.
The lower paying job would undoubtedly become the one which you are risking.

So nearly a whole month off work but it's your employers who are unreasonable? I'm guessing they think otherwise.

Your DH needs to step up. Women have a hard enought time in the workplace as it is. This is the reason many avoid employing women in the first place.

While it does often suit employers for employees to take annual leave in the odd short notice emergency care related situation, it doesn't suit them to have people taking holiday at short notice on an ad hoc basis. That sort of arrangement only works where it is a mutual benefit.

In a situation like the op's where she has been taking the piss (for all the reasons outlined above) the employer just wants it to stop and IME once you insist on people taking unpaid dependents leave, where the required notice for annual leave has not been given instances of inconvenient, short notice absence rapidly decreases.

It's amazing how unpaid leave and a smaller pay packet focuses some people to turn up to work.

workplace doesn't account for human things like caring for family,ill children etc. More flexibility is needed

Not all employers have businesses where work can just be put off to another time. If i own a hotel it's not much use to me if the breakfast chef phones in sick and suggests they come in in the evening, is it ?

I think you are right silveroldie2

I'm not surprised the company has decided enough is enough.

ThatBloodyWoman apologies read the OP wrong and thought she had been in the job since July.

It would be conduct ThatBloodyWoman. There are only four legal reasons for dismissing someone who has their two years service: capability (can they do the job?); conduct (are they doing the job?); redundancy (the job is no longer needed); some other substantial reason.

This situation would fall under conduct.

Women will never get equality in the workplace with attitudes like yours OP.

DH should be stepping up and sharing the load. He is just as much a parent as you are. 6 days each, especially as your DH is FT, whilst still a lot, is better than it all falling on you. Yes, your job may be less "important" than your DHs now, but surely your careers are of equal importance?

The trouble is, now you have to take it as unpaid, if your absence rates fall, they will think you have been taking the piss.

YABU.

Oh yes,absolutely Snapes.
The lower paying job would undoubtedly become the one which you are risking.

Yes, but the OP seems surprised that her employers are less than impressed.

Oh and breach of a statutory restriction but that only applies in a few specific situations.

MovingOn it might fall under absence capability too. Obviously the appropriate informal and formal warnings would have to be given.

I was in the same boat as you op and had to leave a job where I earned over ten quid an hour to become a childminder earning three pounds per hour per child, and I only had two other kids

yes its crap and it sucks and theres not a lot you can do about it

Good point made earlier. Your husband should have been doing his share because if your attendance now improves in the light of your company's intervention it won't reflect well on you or the way you've handled things up to now.

Wow, MovingOn you have a low opinion of the workforce,if I may say.

If action is taken I would expect it to be dealt with under conduct. It's a situation where the employee is knowingly and deliberately not attending work (albeit for what she sees as valid reasons).

SOSR is a possibility. Capability less so, this category is more for performance management and sickness absence.

A pp asked how the OP could be dismissed with 2 years' service. Quite easily as it happens. The 2 years' service is not a get out of jail free card. If you don't attend work and don't fulfil your side of the bargain then you can ultimately be dismissed, that would be the case even if there was a very valid reason for the absence such as a terminal illness.

Try a childminder. They will get ill less far less often because there are fewer children. Depending on the childminder they might also have some flexibility to look after them if they aren't too ill for you.

Too late for you but I got my younger two vaccinated against chicken pox privately to minimise time off work.

I used a nanny for a while as I thought one adult would take less time off than three kids but she took off 11 days in 6 months on a 4 day week. Scattered all over the place. I figured it was her job or mine.

Switched to use a reliable childminder and things have calmed down.

MovingOn.
She has asked for short notice annual leave and the employer has used their discretion and granted it,unless there's something I've missed.
Again,unless there's something I've missed it seems the employer has only now brought their concerns to her attention -she hasn't had warnings etc has she? (Or have I missed that?)

To this point she has done nothing that warrants the sack.

What are you talking about, ThatBloodyWoman? You asked what reason the OP could theoretically be sacked for, and you've been given an answer. There is no opinion of the workforce involved. If someone cannot do the job then they cannot do it. It makes no difference to the employer why they can't do it.

I've had to sack someone who was incapable of getting to work on time. And someone else who was alcoholic. Very sad but I have a duty to the company to employ people who are willing and able to do the job.

I suspect movingon is in an HR related field. Unfortunately as an employment lawyer or an HR person you do become more robust because a very significant number of people take the mickey.

my DH works away up to 8 months at a time, in a tough environment.... should he apply for special leave and pay hundreds of pounds to come back 4500 miles to "do his share" with a child with CP, or should my 12 hour a week minimum wage retail job take the hit...

You asked her a question ThatBloody

Hi sorry if already been suggested (only read page 1) but you may find a cm works better, for a start they will be mixing with a smaller group of children so hopefully won't pick up as many bugs. Plus cms will sometimes take children if they are under the weather (not sickness) and are able to give calpol or antibiotics if required.

If you are lucky you may even find one who is flexible with their days so you could work on a different day if needed.

Dd is older now 9yo but if I need to take time off because she is ill (lone parent) I either take annual leave or swap my days around. This usually happens once or twice a year though.