To ask what employers will think when people refuse to send their kids back to school?

[ArgumentativeAardvaark]

Quite a lot of people on MN are business owners or senior managers. The general mood seems to be shifting towards parents deciding not to send their kids back to school when they re-open.

Many employers have, rightly, been happy to make allowances for employees working at less than full ability/hours while they have had children at home needing care. Do you think that tolerance is likely to change if an employee has school or nursery available but chooses not to use it?

Should I ask a healthy 60 year old BAME male employee to come to the office

If he doesn't need public transport and you as an employer practice proper social distancing and hygiene then I don't see why he can't work.

Why are you so keen for people to get the sack rather than have a compassionate employer who makes allowances so you can work from home or stay on furlough? I seriously don't get it

I’m not keen for anyone to get the sack but the upcoming economic crisis is a problem for all of us, especially the poor and vulnerable. Wanting to stay at home and have a reduced output or remain on furlough to avoid sending your child to school hurts the economy. We are all responsible for taking reasonable measures to try to keep the country on its feet. I think people are irritated that non vulnerable people want to sit back and let others take the risks as opposed to being annoyed at lack of school attendance per se.

@firstmentat I wasn’t replying to you so much as responding to the thread about what employers are likely to do, but I agree employers would be well advised to have a Covid updated policy as to working from home. I don’t think it needs to be a “universe” of them, and as long as the policy is reasonable and applied to all employees I don’t think they’ll be in that much hot water.

The bigger litigation issue for employers might be if employees say they won’t come in due to the workplace not being safe, as opposed to for childcare. That’s a minefield that’s about to explode.

ITonyah
We would try and work with you, but if schools were open and you were chooslng not to send them then we'd take a dim.view.

in my case - and many around here - that decision will make absolutely no difference until the schools are reopened in full, and wraparound childcare is back and running.

We are not there yet...

Why are you so keen for people to get the sack rather than have a compassionate employer who makes allowances so you can work from home or stay on furlough? I seriously don't get it

The furlough scheme finishes in October and some jobs can't be done from home. So then what?

OneandTwenty then it would be unpaid leave so we can employ someone else to do the job.

We can't have people just choosing not to go back to work indefinitely and expect to keep their jobs once restrictions are lifted . Whether it's due to them being afraid of contracting the virus, or not wanting to send kids to school, if they're not prepared to go to work then they should either resign or be sacked. There won't be any shortage of people willing to fill their vacant position.

I have continued to work a mix of WFH and community work in my senior role. I am a single mother with a 5 year old. I have used a mix of family childcare (non vunerable) and key worker school place.

Employees who's children are the age group requested to return to school will be expected to return to work on a part time/full time basis dependant on flexibility needed for child pick ups and drop offs.

Say you have a Reception aged child and a Year4 age child then obviously you can't return with only one in school.

Of you are a dual parent household and one adult will remain at home you will be expected to return to work.

If you are a single parent of a 8 year old who can not attend school, you will not be expected to return to work.

We can't have a scenario where employees with no children get hammered by workload and those with children who are able to go to school but choose not to, are able to continue to be paid and have limited to little workload or none whatsoever. That's not fair to all the workforce.

@womaninatightspot interesting approach using Game theory to analyse Covid - not sure it works for me - how useful have Australian Economists found it?

I don't think school will be back 5 days a week same hours though so employers may have to still try and be flexible
Children may only be going in a couple of half days we don't know yet and if you have year 2-5 they aren't due back on the 1st like younger ones so you still might have one at home
Plus there is no guarantee that it will happen in the 1st even Boris said they are not set in stone dates if the r rate or cases go up etc

@OneandTwenty

what did the OP means exactly by "schools re-opening"?

Perhaps we cross posted, because I answered this question three minutes before you posted it!

Totally agree @TooTrueToBeGood

I will be as flexible as I can but sooner rather than later staff will either have to work their hours,cut hours and pay or leave
It's a business and it's going to be hard enough keeping it going
If it goes down everyone loses their job and income,including me
I think most private business will be the same
Obviously the public sector will be different

Parents on here keep being reminded school is not childcare.

No, I really wouldn't, assuming that's not hypothetical?
Not an issue for me directly, but yes, not hypothetical. I promise not to take your commentary as legal advice on the matter
The reality is that the job still is there and has to be done. I am lucky in that my (very small) team's responsibilities can largely be performed remotely. Other managers are not that lucky and they will have to make a decision at some point.

ITonyah
OneandTwenty then it would be unpaid leave so we can employ someone else to do the job.

I am not sure you understand the reality of people working for businesses based in central London

Stop trying to make people who will make different choices to you sound stupid and naive.
“Employers aren’t going to be prepared to etc etc.“ how do you know?

I’m likely to be working from home until Oct at the earliest - realistically think could be after Easter next year till I need go back into the office. So I can carry on as I’m doing fine thanks (if knackered) home schooling and working. I know quite a few people in the same boat, where employers want buildings open and safe for those who need to be there and the rest of us can carry on at home out if their wat. We might be unusual we might not. Point is you don’t know what the norm is - none of us do.

Plus how many wrap around care sites will be open? Ours isn’t and the summer provision is likely cancelled too. The provision that is available isn’t going to cover enough for a lot of people who work.

These are my circumstances and I wouldn’t assume they apply to everyone. Assuming that would be stupid & naive.

I have a reception child and a year 5, so until year 5 is back I'm not too worried about sending the reception one back.

We haven't had the plan from the school yet so I'm waiting for that for a final decision but at the moment it seems easiest to have them both at home, where I can spread my work over a whole day (I have to get 5hrs done but work say I can flex it), then have to skip meetings etc because I've got to do the school run just for one child.

I do think, however, that this is a vulnerable time - mostly for women - for those with school age children. Yes, it's not fair that childless people might have to work more, but what is the solution?

The schools will open for around 6 weeks. Then it's a six week holiday with no summer clubs! Employers need to be understanding or willing to lose staff. Unfortunately, depending on the industry, many will choose the latter.

Every single parent I know is desperate to send their kids back to school but they also think it is way too soon.

I am in Scotland so it is unlikely schools will be back before our earlier summer holidays at the end of June. I am glad the teachers union and BMA are challenging the 1st of June date in England when there are huge concerns about the UK governments competence and priorities.

I work with colleagues from a wide range of countries every week and the UK governments handling of this crisis is an international joke, worse than Trump.

This crisis really shows people's true colours. Some employers are focussing on health and safety and really going above and beyond. Some only care about getting people back whatever the cost. The comments on here about letting people go/ making them choose between their kids safety and getting paid.....Glad I work for the former.

I am not sure you understand the reality of people working for businesses based in central London

Why would I? I don't live anywhere near London. Is this thread only for London employers?

I think people who can do there jobs from home will continue to do so and the government have encouraged this still , but some jobs simply can't be done at home and I'm not sure furlough covers just because someone can't do there jobs if place of work is now open ?
It's tough on parents who don't wan to send to school but tough for employers as well as they need there employees in
I've read on here twice now about grandparents having children for childcare but can't find anywhere that confirms this as I think many would rather do this if it adds the case but I honestly can't see how as lots would flock to grandparent rather than school ? Please can those that star this is correct post the relevant legislation ?? Thanks

Why are you so keen for people to get the sack rather than have a compassionate employer who makes allowances so you can work from home or stay on furlough? I seriously don't get it

I'm all for compassion, and we've been very flexible with our team. However ultimately if the business is not profitable it will not continue, and if our team is not able to earn more than we make or save the company, then we will be contributing to losses and need to go.

I don't need my team to go back into the office, but we do need to increase our productivity. Even with only one of two children back at school, for example, or for shorter hours, that is still going to allow for significantly more focus than has been happening for me and other parents trying to WFH with small children. It's hardly compassionate for me to let people continue to do less work than usual when they have a childcare option and then head office reviews the numbers and we all get made redundant in a few months...

To all the people still muddying their waters by saying “oh but schools re-opening doesn’t mean childcare back to normal”- I know, as do all employers!
The question was aimed specifically at the situation where the employee does have childcare available but chooses not to use it, the employee knows this, what do they do?

Incidentally, for users of private nurseries like me (I have a preschooler), full time places are going to be available again very soon and school holidays not relevant. Connected to this, it is very young children who are the most demanding of attention and the most likely to reduce the parent’s ability to work even if she/he is working from home.

So this question will arise quite soon for some.

Some only care about getting people back whatever the cost. The comments on here about letting people go/ making them choose between their kids safety and getting paid.....Glad I work for the former

Sorry but this is naive. You don’t sound like you have any idea how tough the business environment is. You might call it “getting people back whatever the cost”, many businesses would call it doing their utmost to survive in a hostile economy so that their employees have jobs to go back to.