To have called in to work when child

[CheeseAndBeans]

Mum of two, youngest is 3 and goes to nursery 3 days a week. I have recently returned to work part time on her nursery days after a few years out so am doubting myself and unsure of what's right....

DD was sick all through the night Saturday night, as per 48 hour rule she couldn't go to nursery yesterday and couldn't get anyone else to have her. She still wasn't right in herself. Called work 1.5 hours before shift was due to start and explained I couldn't come in as had to look after sick child. They were not happy and tried to guilt me into coming in, apologized as nothing I could do but would be in tomorrow as she is on the mend. This morning, she seems ok and no more sick so we all get ready to go, as we walk out the door she throws up! Obviously can't send her again today so had to call work. Again, they made it clear they weren't happy, it's busy today and short staffed as it is. Apologized and explained I couldn't do anything else.

I work in a minimum wage job, 4 hours a day, it's a pain when someone can't come in as others have to pick up the slack and I feel terrible but what can I do?
OH works 12 hour shifts and is much better paid. We would be so much worse off if he didn't go in, my thoughts are we have to put our family income first and so it's me that should take the time off. Neither of us would get paid for the time we didn't work. A friend this morning mentioned she would have shared the days with her OH but they are both in similar paid jobs.

What would you have done? What do others do if their kids are sick? As I said, am new to being a working parent!

"what 'emergency cover' do you suggest for a sick child?"

Those I knew who didn't earn enough for Au pair / nanny - or indeed for nursery ! - had to have jobs with hours that ensured someone was always home

i.e. one person did part time working evenings and / or weekends
or worked nights
Gruelling, but many people have to do this, to keep heads above water.

This is another reason why high-paid jobs can be an easier life than low-paid ones: paid live-in childcare

@greenwitch1

Like I care about your opinion anyway...please

People need to find a way to deliver their opinion with decorum and an open mind.

OP came on here to ask for opinions...I’m not about to have a debate with you about what works for my family.

You were right not to go in. Unfortunately a lot of employers just aren't very understanding but what could you do? Nursery wouldn't take her, you had no choice.
Try not to worry, many of us have been made feel bad by our employers like this.
I would go to your manager for a quick chat as soon as you are back in work just to smooth things over and apologize for the inconvenience of calling in. To put your own mind at ease more than anything

Can’t be arsed to take the day off work....

Yes becausebus single mothers would much rather work a 8/9 hour shift and paying half of that money in childcare than take the day off...

Some people are so clueless

If your child was sick on Saturday night then you must have know they wouldn't be in nursery on the Monday. Was your workplace open on Sunday to phone in and was 1 1/2 hours before your shift when the first person was available to contact?

Parental leave is completely different to emergency leave.

Like I care about your opinion anyway...please

Of course you don't. I'm just a random on the internet. However what you SHOULD care about is putting other children/people at risk (not to mention your poor sick child who should be at home), all because of your complete and utter selfishness. Clearly you don't though, and you'll carry on sending your sick child to school to spread their vomiting bug around. Nice.

As long as it 'works for your family though'

OP have you ever thought about temporary work ? Maybe you can sign up to an agency.

At least even if you can’t make it into work, the agency can find somebody to cover

@EssentialHummus

"This thread is a useful illustration of why it's so difficult (for women, but also for some men) to pick up or continue their careers after babies. I'm at a point now (and DD is only just two) where I do not think a marriage can contain two full-time jobs with work dependencies alongside young children, unless there's family nearby or their income is high enough to afford a nanny and account for a backup."

This is simply not true. The way you work around it is you work TOGETHER. OP says her and her DH are team but they are anything but. My DH and I did not used to be high earners, he is military, we had no family around, no nannies, I was minimum wage at one point, we always, always did this stuff 50/50. We both had to show our bosses willing, we put our feet down where necessary, but compromised between each other, no matter who was earning the most to be fair to our teams and jobs. That is the mature and respectful way of doing things. Funnily enough we have both progressed enough this isn't even an issue now.

It is incredibly disrespectful to treat one employer with less respect just because in your household it brings in less money, this disproportionately affects your colleagues. If OP and her DH want to jeopardise her own career like that, fine, their decision, but it is totally unfair to do that consistently to the employer. It also incredibly harmful to the representation of women in the work place generally, as let's face it, as this thread shows, it's mostly women doing it.

All those saying what she could do- her DH should have sorted today. End of. If he wasn't around, then yes of course, what else could should do.

YABU in general, but YABVU to only give them 1 and a half hours notice. Why so little?

At my work, we would have it recorded in your discipline file as a no show for failing to give proper notice about not being able to come in.

And yes, they can just sack you. All absences, regardless of reason, are documented and too many will flag you up as a problem.

purple it just looks to me like spreading the letting down, from one parent to both. Which is absolutely more equitable, but doesn't make the system itself any more sensible or fit for purpose. Why isn't there legislation addressing the fact that children get ill and someone needs to stay at home not to find childcare but to take care of that child?

(No need to @ me, I'm on the thread)

For those saying it should be shared, I get that. And maybe our decision for me to be off yesterday was selfish as was thinking about the money. But it is what it is, the decision was made.

Today I fully expected to go to work, and DD to nursery. We were ready to leave when she threw up! OH was already at work. He is picking older DD up from school on way home so we don't have to take sick DD out again.

Not in again til Friday. So I'll see what happens then. If I get sacked, so be it. DDs will always come first.

YABU in general, but YABVU to only give them 1 and a half hours notice. Why so little?

Agreed. OP should have known that the little one was just about to throw up just as they were leaving. Shame on OP for not having supernatural abilities to prevent her 3 year old from being sick. In fact the 3 yr old is probably unreasonable too. Shame on you @heartsonacake

Been there 6 months. Never taken time off before for myself

that's normal though and nothing noteworthy.

vladmirs the first day was the day she only gave one and a half hours notice, not the same day her child was sick when leaving. She had k own since the Saturday that she would not be able to use the nursery due to the 48 hour rule, and didn't have any other childcare, yet didn't tell them until 1 and a half hours beforehand. So shame on you for not reading OP properly

YABU, yes it's nice to earn some money and not just be mum but why should others have to cover your work so you can look after a sick child.
Some of us didn't go to work because we had no cover for sick children.
Fair enough if you are a sp and have no choice.
Your attitude is bloody selfish.
Let someone have the job who can do it.

YABU, yes it's nice to earn some money and not just be mum but why should others have to cover your work so you can look after a sick child.

So you think all families should have a stay at home parent then? Unless they are lucky enough to have family living close by to look after their children if they get sick? You realise not all families can afford this?

Don’t worry too much about losing your job. I think they would be on a sticky wicket to sack you for having an ill child . They would have to give a verbal warning then a written one before just sacking you even during a probationary period

Wrong.

Schools are full of bugs and viruses and germs anyway and in my sons school we are encouraged to send our children in even if they have colds and runny noses.

Not vomiting bugs though. There’s a reason the 48 hour rule exists. You’re nothing but selfish if you send your child in when you shouldn’t.

OP should have known that the little one was just about to throw up just as they were leaving. Shame on OP for not having supernatural abilities to prevent her 3 year old from being sick. In fact the 3 yr old is probably unreasonable too. Shame on you @heartsonacake**

VladmirsPoutine As specified, I was talking about the day she gave only 1 and a half hours notice when she had decided way before that she wasn’t going in. I’m embarrassed on your behalf for your comment, by the way.

And I still want to know OP, as I am not the only one who has asked and you appear to be deliberately avoiding answering. Why did you only give 1 and a half hours notice?

You did the right thing and had no choice. Employers need to understand that parents have to take time of if their children are sick. If they can't they will lose a lot of very good motivated employees.

heartsonacake Tbh I just didn't think. Sunday was busy cleaning up puke etc and was probably not thinking properly due to lack of sleep. I then called on Monday, the day I was meant to work, as soon as I knew my manager was in.

No excuse, I know. Genuinely didnt want to let them down and probably should have called on the Sunday but it's done now.

Essential because the OP's employer has now been impacted 2 days running, which sounds like it has been difficult for them. Whereas if they had of split it each employer would have only had 1 day to deal with? Obvious surely, I don't see how you can justify causing a much bigger inconvenience to one employer, it's nonsensical. Why should it all be on the OP's employer, yes sharing it means it causes inconveniences to two, but it's less of an inconvenience and the burden should be shared, it shouldn't be just women who are impacted by this. Even if the OP doesn't care this attitude then puts expectations on the rest of us. As a manager, I would not tolerate it if I felt an employee was continuously the childcare contact when they have a partner and I would pull them up on it.

As for legislation I personally feel covered, unpaid leave is there if you don't want to do that you take annual leave, it's frustrating but we all know that comes with the territory of children, but in my experience when you build rapport with an employer (ie don't show outdated views of I have the vagina so I will be off for all sickness) other options are available.

"DDs will always come first."

You don't need to play the martyr card, no one is saying you should have left a sick child, of course your child comes first, but your DH can meet those needs too. You keep saying "well the decision is made" as if it's all a moot point, but you've posted on AIBU for opinions, so here you go!

Your children come first. It's likely your child will get loads of illnesses when first at nursery but then it'll settle down. This will happen when school starts too.

If your employer really would let you go for caring for your child, I'm sure you could find another job. Just leave this employment off your cv and tell the next one you're only just returning to work!