To be sacked due to sick children?

[Spamup]

Regular user but have NC for this!

My children, DS and DD both under 3 have several bouts of sickness before christmas and today my DS is not well which has resulted in a hospital admission - my employet has casually mentioned before about how i would probably be better off not working but nothing has been written down regarding this - ff to this evening, it has been sent to the HR department for formal disciplinary process to start and i am in bits - i am a lone parent and no family or friends to support me with emergancy childcare as they all work full time - can i really lose my job over this? I have bills etc to pay and worked a long time in this field to get to where i am now :(

And yet she should seek double what they are offering her, even though they don't need to?

If they want her to leave, they have no grounds. So, in pure terms, they simply carry on employing her and she carries on not turning up. Not quite sure how this benefits anyone.
So, if they want to move her out of the organisation, they needed to pay to avoid both process and potential claim.

They don't need to do this. They can go through a fair, possibly lengthy, process and potentially dismiss fairly. It is their choice not to.

She is not currently owed or entitled to anything from them. It is their choice to avoid employment law by doing this, so obviously it should cost them. And clearly it's a negotiation.

The OP can also simply say 'no thanks, I want to stay in my job' and there's not much they can do if she does.

The OP can also simply say 'no thanks, I want to stay in my job' and there's not much they can do if she does ........... apart from dismiss her if she isn't able to get to work

I think it's OK to try to negotiate higher than their first offer. No one comes to the negotiating table with their final offer. But I don't think OP is in a position to be too greedy / push her luck. If no agreement is reached and she can't attend work regularly then she's on sticky ground I think

I’m surprised how subservient most people are. She hasn’t been employed out of the goodness of their hearts, she’s been making them money.

I’m surprised how subservient most people are. She hasn’t been employed out of the goodness of their hearts, she’s been making them money.

Not much as she hasn't been there!

I sincerely hope, if they need staff in the future, they employ a man

Just.... wow.

The OP can also simply say 'no thanks, I want to stay in my job' and there's not much they can do if she does.

Except dismiss her?

I’m surprised how subservient most people are. She hasn’t been employed out of the goodness of their hearts, she’s been making them money.

That's her job. Except she has done her for less than half the 5 years she has been there. I am getting they have made very little of anything.

it's actually a man that has caused this

We all bear a personal responsibility for the choices we make, women are not some brainless species.

But even though much of the ops personal life is due to a shit partner, that doesn't mean she then is justified in behaving immorally.

If this was her employment was being terminated and it was wrongful. Then the advice to get them for every penny would be good. But this seems to be a company who have taken a lot and are still trying to do their best for her, but understandably can no longer sustain this.

In this case the advice to fuck them over for cash she's not entitled to is morally reprehensible.

@ethelfleda

It would save them a hell of a lot of trouble, wouldn’t it? OP’s childcare issues are not her employer’s problem. She was employed to do a job and hasn’t been there to do it . They’re not a charity.

I agree with Bluntness.

With all due respect, the OP chose the man she decided to settle down with and have children with, why is that her employers problem?

ODFOD

Nice bit of victim blaming there. Women are responsible for the violence inflicted on them by male partners.

I defend mn to the hilt when the instamums call it a nasty unsupportive place. But reading threads like this, I see their point tbh.

it's actually a man that has caused this.

So that means that all men should be shafted does it? What a ridiculous attitude.

I think that was the poster's point - the suggestion was that only men should be employed because women all take loads of time off for sick children. Apparently men don't have children and women do nothing else.

Lets be clear here:

• this is not a small company where one person being absent is a crisis
• this is not an employee swinging the lead, she has taken unpaid leave to support a hospitalised child
• she has no local support, I'm guessing because she has been moved away from her abusive ex.
• that ex was responsible for her own illness.
• the company itself has not been flexible in its working options due to its own antiquated systems requiring fixed hours and fixed location when most paper based work would afford more flex.
• her LM says she is good at her job and productive in the office

A compromise agreement is probably the best option for both sides to buy the OP some time to regroup, build more connections in the new area to find more reliable help when she is ready to work again. She will need to be careful about impact on UC etc.

The only option I'd say might be better short of more flexible working is a career break for a defined time.

I find it quite concerning that people think taking maternity leave is evidence of "unreliability".

I find it quite concerning that people think taking maternity leave is evidence of "unreliability".

I don't think people are?

OP said she took maternity, plus a year off relating to DV, and then has only been at work for 50% of her shifts between September and now.

It's the last part that appears to have been the final straw for her employers, and makes her appear unreliable. Her reasons are understandable and I would think that is why her company are looking at a settlement agreement rather than disciplinary action, because they know there is little OP can do to change the situation quickly. The only realistic suggestions to come out of this thread were time off for a career break; which OP didn't seem to want, or hiring a nanny, which she is looking into.

I might be wrong, this thread has got long and unwieldy now, but I don't think anyone (her employer or here) has taken the maternity leave into account. And very few people have been rude or unhelpful.

No one is saying maternity leave is evidence of unreliability, and if this was just she'd been off on maternity leave and they were terminating everyone would be up in arms.

You know full well this is not about her materiality leave. Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting we can't read and comprehend the ops posts and it's all about maternity leave.

The bottom line is the op is unable to do her role reliably due to personal circumstances. She doesn't even do it any more. I assume due to unreliability and the need for stability in the business, the work still needs doing, she is employed for a reason. Right now she does the bosses admin. Even when faced with dismissal she could not find a way to come in for a full day, this doesn't mean it's her fault, it simply is what it is.

The company has done nothing wrong here, their size is irrelevant. In five years she has worked approx 18 months, and due to age of children and year of for pnd,it would indicate much of that was in the first year, so over the last three years she's worked a few months max. On returning in September she's been available approx fifty percent of the time.

No one has anything but empathy for her, and it seems her employer does too, but most sensible people can see why the employer is now terminating and drawing a line under this.

Neither the employer or the op is at fault here, it's simply a set of personal circumstances that have led the op to not be able to do her role reliably.

I find it quite concerning that people think taking maternity leave is evidence of "unreliability"

Who said that?

No one singled out OP’s maternity leave as evidence of unreliability. But she is unreliable. It isn’t her fault, circumstances have conspired against her, and I have plenty of sympathy for OP on a personal level, but a business shouldn’t suffer as a result of her absence.

Sometimes no one is wrong.

It's very very bizzare behaviour when posters state something clearly not true. We can all read the thread and see that no one is saying maternity leave is a sign of unreliability. Not one person.

There was someone doing it on a thread the other day, some bloke with a habit of pulling his trousers down below his buttocks in public to sit down, the op was very clear what he did, and yet someone called it "turning his waistband back".

It's so Illigical, do they think we all struggle with reading comprehension or something?

It's the last part that appears to have been the final straw

Its only a final straw if you consider it to be part of a pattern which includes her own illness and maternity leave. Otherwise its a new issue on its own.

Bluntness you drew attention to the fact that in five years she has taken maternity leave, sick leave and now has sick children. Why raise the maternity leave and sick leave if they are not relevant?

You are not the only poster who has done this but you can't have it both ways - either its relevant and should be mentioned as part of a pattern of absence or it shouldn't be considered part of a pattern and therefore shouldn't be raised.

C8N Genuinely, do you think her employers should continue to support her abscence?

C8N Genuinely, do you think her employers should continue to support her abscence?

I've said upthread that a compromise agreement or career break is probably the best option for both sides.

Apologies, I missed that.

But reading your post, it does look like you think the employer is being unreasonable. They most definitely aren’t being unreasonable.

Its only a final straw if you consider it to be part of a pattern which includes her own illness and maternity leave. Otherwise its a new issue on its own.

No it's not it's absence related. Her year off, whatever the reason behind the illness part of her absence.

5 months of continued absence is enough to manage her out of the business. Not responding to HR won't help. Messing about with wether you are going into work or not or half or not. Isn't helping. She isn't reliable.

People have pointed out the maternity to point out she has actually worked been in work for less than half of the 5 years she has been there.

If you think absence doesn't cost a business if they aren't paying you, then you have No idea how business work or the costs associated with running them. Chances are that op has cost them more than she has brought in.

But reading your post, it does look like you think the employer is being unreasonable. They most definitely aren’t being unreasonable.

I don't think they are being unreasonable but they also plainly lack flexibility in their systems and processes. Which of course may be why they are under TUPE after acquisition. The LM says she is a productive worker when there so plainly not an issue with work quality. She has tried to mitigate by taking unpaid leave and offering flexible time.

At this stage the career break or compromise is probably the only realistic option but both sides have issues to address for the future.

If you think absence doesn't cost a business if they aren't paying you, then you have No idea how business work or the costs associated with running them

I'm quite aware of that - the point is that she has tried to mitigate the impact by taking unpaid leave. I'm also acutely aware of the cost of recruiting and training new staff and supporting people through difficult times, often with more flexibility, is usually long term net gain.

I don't think they are being unreasonable but they also plainly lack flexibility in their systems and processes.

Not every job can be flexible. To assume that is ridiculous.

They have been flexible. They could have have done this 3 months ago and managed her out completely by now.