in being upset (pissed off) with parents who bring their obviuosly sick children to the nursery?

[QuintessentialShadowOfSnowball]

Shouldnt a child that is coughing his guts out be home? Or with rosy red feverish cheeks? Why do some parents think it is ok to lumber nursery staff with children so ill they need carrying around all the time? Why do they think it ok to keep passing on the germs to other peoples children?

how is it different to nurses and doctors having to be in contact with germs all the time though. they are with it all day every day and it's not very often you see one coming down with that many illnesses. they could wear a mask or something aswell.

i was just thinking if one nursery could do it why can't others.

and i was thinking more of the cough/cold/sore throat type illness than throwing up or anything really infectious like chicken pox.

I have only read the first few posts.

A few weeks ago, as I was signing in DTS at 7.30am, the staff called a parent to collect their baby (about 15 months old). The baby had thrown up all over a member of staff and a couple of other childen. It had also been ill the previous day but the father still brought him in. He had a high temperature, it was obvious he was not well and imho, the staff should have sent him straight home and not accepted him in. Poor little thing.

The father works from home too.

OP is definitely not being unreasonable. It irritates me too.

I can see both sides to this story - so thought I would just add my opinion to the mix as well ...

My daughter attends nursery on a full time basis and I have had quite a few days off work to look after her when she has been sick .... subsequently I have just been pulled in by my HR department and given a verbal warning for my attendance record...so its not that easy to just take time off when your lo is sick....my daughters nursery has a policy where u have to go and collect them if they are physically sick more than once (which aims to prevent the bug being passed round). I have not been in my job for a year as yet and therefore am not paid for any time I do take off. Its not that easy to strike a balance. If we could all afford it Im sure every mother would stay at home with their children when they were under the weather but life doesnt always allow us that flexibility.

From Littlesleighsbellasringing

"I didn't say it's not the parent's responsibility to arrange childcare; I said it's not the parent's responsibility to arrange childcare if the parent has no control over whether they work or not. IMO, if the state forces women to work, then the state must provide the childcare. But as we all know, the state cannot possibly provide childcare for really sick children, so it should stop saying that it is going to force lone parents to work."

IMHO, the state does not force people to have children so why should they be expected to provide childcare too? I sympathise with the logistics that some lone parents may have but there are many that have extended families or friends or backup childminders that they can rely on. I know a few single women with children and that is what they do.

I have joined emergencychildcare.co.uk because where we live, DH and I have no family or friends that we can rely on so this is our backup option (albeit an expensive one but that's life). So far we have not had to use it but the point is, we have made provision in case there is a need for it.

It just shows what Bauble below was suggesting, parents who has to go home to take for sick kids should be paid in a similar way as with SSP, or SMP.

I have my son home today, as he seems to have caught whatever it was that the little girl coughing all over the party food on Friday was having. Our doctor have now confirmed that my son now has a typical asthmatic wheeze, and we are told to stay on the inhalers till Easter.

Spokette most LP's have children when they are in a relationship and therefore have a backup. They can be forgiven I think, for not being able to foretel the future, it's not a very constructive approach to say the state doesn't force people to have children, the logic of that would be that no-one would ever have them, because none of us know what the future will bring. Which tbh is a little silly imo.

Emergency childcare is no use if your child is sick. If my child is really ill, too ill to go to school, I don't want a stranger coming in to look after him / her, I want the legal right to look after him/ her myself, without being disciplined by my HR dept.

This attitude that having children is just another lifestyle choice, like going on holiday, really pisses me off tbh. It isn't. Even the hostile state recognises the social good of having children, that's why child benefit exists and holiday benefit doesn't.

LSBR, you misunderstand me. Of course I know that most LP have children whilst in a relationship. I personally just don't believe that it is for the state to intervene in particular aspects whether you are a LP or in a relationship. After all, how many times do people complain about the nanny state interfering with family life? If we want autonomy in our personal life, then we have to accept that the state will only assist in those aspects where the greatest need is required. Providing care for sick children so that parents can work is not one of them, imho.

I personally would like to see more companies offer flexible working and be more accommodating to all workers who have caring duties, be it towards off-spring, elderly relatives etc. However, that must be reciprocated by employees not taking advantage of the goodwill of the employer and also recognising that employers are running a business, not a charity.

I'm lucky that my employer is quite relaxed about me having to take time off if my DTS are ill but in return,they expect a lot from me when I am there and I give it in abundance. Similarly with DH's employer.

Yes well I agree with you, but the point I'm making, is that the state is quite happy to tell LP's that they have to go to work in the cash economy, whether or not that is right and suitable for their family life. That appears to me to be an enormous intrusion in the family and my point is that if the state really does introduce this draconian intrusion, then it has to counter-balance it by picking up the pieces of the very serious problems it will create. You can't tell someone they have to live in a certain way, without introducing some measures to enable them to do so.

On that aspect I do agree and that is why it should remain a choice. It is the thin edge of the wedge towards the return of workhouses and that is something that should remain consigned to the dispassionate and unemphatic Victorian era.

I have noticed the suggestion of forcing lone parents into paid work with some bewilderment, as well. Many employers don't want to employ parents if they can employ someone else, and an individual who has been out of paid employment for several years, whose skills (if any professional qualifications etc) are out of date, etc, is hardly going to be the ideal candidate for a job. Also, job security for everyone is getting shakier, and many employers talk about 'flexibility' but they don't mean letting you take time off when your kids/elderly parents are sick or your boiler blows up, they mean you being expected to work unpaid overtime at very short notice.

QS - In answer to your OP - No, you are not being unreasonable in being pissed off that kids are brought into nursery who are clearly poorly.

Paid parental leave for sick children was introduced from Europe about 8 years ago.

Britain refused to ratify that part of the Social Charter

Spokette. Does that emergency childcare thing cover illness?

fizzbuzz. Who would have been expected to pay? The govt or employers?

Quintessential. SSP is not as clearcut as SMP. In most cases an employer can't reclaim SSP, unless they have a very small business with one or two employees.

YANBU when kids are brought to nursery clealy unwell. It pisses me right off. At the last nursery, they had kids go in with hand/foot/mouth, Chickenpox, German Measles, impetigo - or however you spell it, not just a cold and a cough.

Dh and I work, I used to fairly flexible working hours so if ds is ill, they let me work from home. They've now stopped that, so I have to take unpaid leave if ds is ill. I have sent ds to pre-school with a cough and a sniffle. I did feel guilty about it, but I couldn't take any more unpaid leave.

Can't remember tbh it was a long time ago. I think it would have paid for 10 days over a year, but don't quote me!

I definitely remember it, as I clearly remember discussing it with union rep at work

10 days would be a start if it was govt funded. Would obv have to be 10 days at a set rate, like SMP, but it would help families.

For a lot of businesses, covering an employee's basic work for an odd day can be done by others at no extra (financial) cost to the business. For some businesses (like mine) where we are required to work at strict staff ratios, unless it was govt funded, it would mean that we would have to pay the staff member and a replacement.

I think it went ahead in other European countries. Perhaps someone who lives in Europe can fill us in.

Or cover it yourself Bauble you mean!!

(is what usually happens!!)

I'm in the kitchen every day until after lunch. I could get Mr Bubble to cover.

DS3 and 4 love it if either of us come into the rooms to play. The staff say he is too soft, though - and he also gets the children over-hyped.

I bet!!

Rather than paid parental leave for sick children, maybe it would be a good idea for goverment policy to move in the direction of families with 2 parents being able to afford for one parent to sah to care for their children themselves.
A knock-on effect from this could be more adults available to care if a single parent needed cover for a sick child while at work.
Communities might start working together and getting to know each other.
I know, I know. I've got my head in cloud cuckoo land.

Lovely idea.

But the government wants the tax that workers and business provide.

It might work in parts of the UK where property prices and rents are sane.

In London and the SE both parents usually have to work to pay for 'luxuries' such as elctricity and food.