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?

@TorysSuckRevokeArticle50 I think what I am getting at is whether employers will remain willing to allow things that inconvenience them in order to accommodate the wishes of people who choose not to use available childcare. From what you say, it sounds like they would on balance prefer to have you working normal office hours, but that the flexibility they are giving you doesn’t really have much of an effect on the way they do business, or create inequitable distribution of work between staff. That’s great. One positive outcome of this whole situation is that employers may begin to be much more open to increased flexibility generally, having seen that it doesn’t have the downside that they might have feared. On that basis, an employer may indeed not give a monkeys what arrangements the employee chooses to make for their children and be happy to continue the flexibility permanently.

And of course, if the flexibility afforded to you does indeed result in a measurable downside to your employer then they are to be congratulated for their approach, although shareholders (if they have them) might have other views.

@Smellbellina

That's still 4 interrupted hours where they can WFH and be a lot more productive than if their daughter was there. It's about getting back to working, not getting back to the office where wfh is still possible.

Yes thank you for the explanation forgetmeyes but again, for quite a number of people who can’t wfh (like my NDN) it isn’t actually all that helpful in enabling them to return to work. Does that make sense? I thought it was clear before but apparently not.

I'm so glad I have the luxury of being a SAHM. DS is in Y7 so won't be returning until September at the earliest. I feel sorry for those who need to return to work but don't want to send their children back to school. It's an awful dilemma.

I don’t see it’s an ‘awful dilemma’ and am glad I have a job.

If strict working hours are not necessary for the business then the employer loses nothing by ditching them, so it’s not making any allowances.

It's hardly about the employer "losing out", it's about keeping a profitable business. It's the own interest of the employee that the business doesn't lose out, where do you think the money come from to pay you?

@Smellbellina in the OP I talked about people who were still working, but at less than full capacity (implicitly referring to people WFH, but could also have meant those going into a workplace for shorter hours than they were contracted to do). So the question wasn’t about getting people back to work as such, it was about employers ramping expectations back up once the employee had the option to get the kids out of the home. In the case of your friend, her employer would be entitled to ask her to use those 4 hours of childcare but could still make allowances for the unavoidable lunchtime commitments (as @forgetmeyes said).

@OneandTwenty where did I say that “losing out” was not the same as threatening the profitability of the business? I would have thought it was blindingly obvious that everything in business is measured with reference to its impact on the bottom line. Sorry if that was not clear.

Ah ok well that’s part of the reason DD1 won’t be returning to school when I do, as DP is WFH and he can get more done without taking the time out to do potential 4 school runs a day with other DC in tow.
I didn’t realise suggesting it wouldn’t be particularly helpful for many parents would be so contentious!

We've been badly hit by the crisis as our employees need access to client premises to carry out the work. We're looking at 3 or 4 months of no revenue yet we still have overheads to cover (furlough scheme is covering most of the wage costs).

We won't be able to continue to employ people who are unable to work. It isn't feasible to check kit, handle service enquiries, schedule jobs, troubleshoot problems from home whilst looking after young children. We still need that work done. We have been very supportive so far, but for the sake of 45 other jobs, we can't be that flexible. If people can't fulfil what they are required to do, then it is very likely we will let them go. Harsh, but too many livelihoods at stake.

If our cleaners choose not to come back to work we'll have no option but to dismiss and hire others. We will offer.as.much flexibility as we can but we can't open without them.

We’ve already furloughed staff who couldn’t do a reasonable percentage of their usual hours because of kids at home. We have been as flexible as possible as we know everyone is juggling including ourselves and you can also work when it suits you. The harsh reality is that they could well now be let go as the work simply won’t be there for them as it has been allocated to other people. (We suffer in recessions.) I will be as flexible as I can, but I need staff bringing in income and if they chose not to use childcare/schools and can’t do most of their hours, then I simply won’t have a choice. (They will still be working from home.) This is sadly disproportionally affecting women.

If they choose not to send the kids back, how long will employers keep paying them full pay to sit at home? September? (From March). Longer?
Hardly fair on those pitching up to actually work for their pay.

As an aside, we have obviously been open for key worker children throughout. If one falls over we pick them up, put a plaster on and a quick cuddle if needed.... absolutely as normal. Are other schools not doing this? Or is this something they are planning on changing when schools reopen?

I ask because I see lots of parents quoting this as a reason not to send their kids back.

I cannot see how any school can refuse to provide any minor first aid to young children.

I work hard for my pay. I am not sat at home. It's not ideal having the kids off. It's a balancing act but my employer appreciates my efforts, empowers me to work the way I need to, and is flexible and understanding so I am motivated and do my best. This idea that we are sat home doing nothing is bizarre.

I would fully expect that those who choose not to send their kids back and then who arent as productive to reduce their hours and pay a such as they not as productive.

Why should those who dont have children or do send theirs back have to pick up extra work for no extra pay just because of someone else's choice.

My husbands company will not pay anyone who does not work (including wfh) if they don't send any of their children to school who have school provision available.

This has been made clear today as many schools are asking parents now to let them know what their plans are wrt sending children to school.

They will then have 14 days to get back to work or will be made redundant. All watertight and checked by emolument lawyer apparently.

I would tell your husband he doesn't even need to make them redundant @peoplepleaser1, he can dismiss under 'some other substantial reason' and save himself the redundancy money.

If the job still exists then it's not redundancy. It will be breach of contract on the employee's part and therefore dismissal.

It will be interesting to see how this is viewed in (the inevitable) tribunals.

The problem is, the schools might be open but some are piling a lot of emotional blackmail on parents to stop them sending children in. There is some horrible rhetoric on Mumsnet alone.

I think a lot of people will not be sending back so there will have to be some understanding from employers because it won’t be a rare phenomenon

I am working as usual (wfh) and working weekends and evenings to ensure all work gets done while caring for the children

The problem is, the schools might be open but some are piling a lot of emotional blackmail on parents to stop them sending children in. There is some horrible rhetoric on Mumsnet alone.

There’s two weeks till the earliest possible start date. Things will calm down before then. Ultimately we all need to be brave, it isn’t as easy as the Netflix meme suggests.

The R figure might go back up though - might not be a linear recovery process