AIBU to think that flexible, family-friendly jobs do not exist.

[MothersRuinart]

A job where you don't get penalised for having to stay home with a sick child, either by having to use annual leave or take unpaid leave. A job where you can leave earlier or start later at a short notice and be able to work up the lost hours another time. A job that would allow you to work from home regularly and/or often and/or at short notice. A company or a work environment that doesn't resent you for having to miss workdays due to childcare issues. Where you're not overlooked for a promotion because you're a parent.

I've never worked for a company like that, neither have any of my friends as far as I know. Tbf, most problems would be solved if more companies allowed their staff to work from home more often or were more flexible with their hours.

I understand that there are jobs where flexibility is not an option but I think most jobs could be much more flexible than they are now.

Furthermore, why should the woman who has 1 DC have to cover for a woman who is constantly absent because she has 5 DC?
What is it that's missing from that sentence?

Therefore parents should be cut some slack during working hours

Are you taking the piss?

I don't have children. Outside of work I do a lot of voluntary work for youth athletics so the eight hours you mention that is 'my downtime' does not exist several times a week.

What a poor attitude to work you have.

Iggi, yes, it should be "woman or man" or "person".

Because we live in a society. Today's children are tomorrow's tax payers, carers, and societal contributors. Are you saying that women (and presumably men?) who have five children should be excluded from the workplace in case they occasionally need to take time off? Given that those children are already here, and not theoretical things the parents can undo, how do you propose they feed, clothe and house them?

cross-countryrunner are you saying vomiting children should have to stay at school then as their parents shouldn't be allowed to pick them up? What a poor attitude you have. And what of health and safety policies that need following?

Ha ha, you're funny

user1487175389

Read properly user. I was referring to your stupid comment that non-parents have at least eight hours a day downtime to switch off from work.

Did I mention a vomiting child being forced to stay in school?

User is clearly taking the piss. Nobody is that much of a tit in RL

movingon I presume your incoherent posts are caused by you downing a shot every time you type the word 'piss'.

Crosscountry if you choose to do voluntary work that takes up your otherwise free time then that's your lifestyle choice. If you want to take time off work to look after sick kids because it's so unfair that other people do, then you have that option too. Not sure what your problem is.

I think a lot of jobs are ok if you take unpaid leave or annual leave to look after your sick kid? Not sure what else you want? But yes, a lot of us work hard to be trusted to doflecible hours domaine try that first.

I haven't read the full thread, so this may already have been discussed - but why do you consider an employee to have been "penalized" if they have to use annual leave or take unpaid leave to cover a child's sickness? Why should a company pay an employee to not work? If you have exceeded your paid leave time, do you really think you should just be paid to go home and deal with your family? Aside from compassionate leave for acute issues, I just don't think what you're saying is reasonable at all.

If you make it "family" rather than "child" you run into more problems. I have one parent with advanced dementia, and one mid eighties, with various problems. A call for me to rush to a sick family member is more likely to be to parents rather than to children.

I am in Norway. Almost all jobs here are as you describe. Where both parents work, each can take up to ten days off when their children are ill, and you can have twelve days off for your own illness (more with a doctors letter). My husband's company have allowed him days off whenever I have been hospitalised (several times over ten years). It's just the norm here. Companies are used to long maternity and paternity leave and they just deal with it.

We do pay a lot of tax though and everything is very expensive, because wage costs are high.

I understand fully that time off for a sick child has to be unpaid, but my concern would be people being penalised in other ways. Plus sometimes I do worry about a general lack of compassion.

I know a family whose toddler was hospitalised as an emergency whilst she was at work. Neither she nor her husband would leave their workplace to go to the hospital because they were 'too busy'. Both are in senior positions and by their own admission could have left if they chose to, but they thought work was more important and they wanted to make the example to their junior staff that work had to come first. But they at least were able to send a grandparent to the hospital so that the child wasn't alone, and when we talked about it they just couldn't grasp that not everyone has a grandparent to send. They were very proud that they had set a good example to all their staff that no family emergency needs to interfere with work .

That shouldn't say whilst she was at work, it should say whilst they were at work, because in this family the parents are together.

They do exist but they're rare, I think. I've got one -- I work for a small business with lovely bosses. I do wish more companies would be more understanding though.

Bloody hell treacle.
I am never leaving my current job. A colleague is about to have a grandchild, her boss as made it clear she expects her to drop what she's doing and go when anything happens.

Building family friendly workplaces that ignore those without children is degrading. I think there should be some clause in policy that states parents can have flexibility to attend to sick children etc but they must reciprocate the kindness of their colleagues doing their work for no extra pay. In other words if u leave 3 hours early then you need to offer to cover that colleague for 3 hours or give them 3 hours of your wage. They did your job and their own for no extra pay and it is never reciprocated. That is what breeds resentment. If ppl gave back occassionally then I'm sure ppl wouldn't feel the same attitude towards them.

I work for one - third sector organisation. Pay is not amazing but extremely flexible - as long as you are good at your job and get your work done no one cares how you shift your hours around to achieve this.

I don't get paid for looking after my kids though - I just move my work hours round to accommodate caring responsibilities. No employer is going to pay for you to look after your kids.

My current role has allowed me to wfh when I had to pick up teenager from school as she was unwell but also gave me 2 days paid leave (discretionary) to support DM when diagnosed with cancer. All good.
One male colleague regularly needs to wfh as he has a four yr old, a 6 month old with reflux and sleeping issues and his wife has CFS. Long lunch to go to nursery parents meeting. All good.
Another male colleague often needs to wfh as he needs to accompany his gf to psychiatric appointments. And waiting in for his landlord. All good.
We can be flexible with start and finish times plus lunch providing we don't take the piss and do our hours.
But we know that sometimes we have to come in at 8 and finish at 7 because of project deadlines. And we are a team.

Flexibility from both sides and for anyone that needs it. Not the best paid company -but flexibility is worth it.

Not child-friendly and not family-friendly; people-friendly or life-friendly.

OK Clarence if you can magic up an extra three hours in the day for your colleague, I'm sure he/she will be happy to do that for you. And maybe you could offer to babysit/Cook their dinner while they do it? Or invent flexible, wraparound childcare so you don't have to?

Not child-friendly and not family-friendly; people-friendly or life-friendly.

Exactly.