pay docked for staying at home with ill child

[plainwhitet]

Does anyone know whether this is generally the case? I will be checking our employment policy and contacting our union, but essentially one of my colleagues has been told she will forfeit her pay when she stays at home to look after her one year old (normally at a child minder) who has chicken pox. We her colleagues are shocked, this "policy" is brand new and as far as we know, unofficial. Also a colleague was recently told she would be docked pay for time out taking her husband to hospital for oncology appointments.
We are on proper employment contracts, not piece workers/paid by the hour etc. Any views welcome before I take this further!!

How come it's OK to take a day off sick for yourself and not for your dependents?

Um, because your employer isn't employing your entire family. The fact that people like you would lie is one of the reasons why some employers only pay stat sick pay.

That's the thing with the private sector. It has to make enough money to support both itself and the public sector with it's 10 dependency days

Public sector, and we've never had 'dependents' days!
I've always used leave when children were ill, sometimes when I've been ill tbh. (though this has just been stamped down upon )

The only exceptions have been where a colleague had a very very poorly child in HDU for 6 weeks- he was given compassionate leave, as they didn't expect his child to be returning home (though thankfully he did ).

Annie - I am looking to employ some people at the moment. The pattern of work will be somewhat flexible but unless the people I employ actually come to work at the appointed time my customers will not get service and the business will make no sales.

In a tough competitive environment I dont have any choice. The company will go bankrupt otherwise. I can be somewhat flexible and change shift patterns, maybe get other people to come in and cover for them if they have need for a day off to go to hospital, look after a child, etc but I can't pay people for not coming to work (except what they are statutorily entitled to of course).

The public sector can tolerate a much higher degree of absence than private sector because it has no or at least very few customers that pay directly for its services.

I am very happy to employee people with children but if an employee lied to me about why they were taking time off I would not be happy. I do not agree with employers who impose things like 'zero hours contracts' which I think are abusive but I do think employees need to be fair too.

I think they key words here are in your last sentence - 'employment contracts'. Employment means work. That's what your paid to do. Not look after your sick child/ neice/ cat/ husband/ neighbour etc.

'You're' paid to do, not 'your' - sorry

All very well, but what about people with no family to look after their sick children who honestly can't afford to lose a day's pay? What an awful situation to be in. So yes, in that situation, I would lie through my teeth without the slightest ounce of guilt. Feeding my family is my first priority.

People aren't at work when they get paid to be on annual leave either. Being at work is not an absolute requirement for being paid.

Fair enough to take annual leave in most cases, but someone said their employer doesn't let them do this. Utter madness!!

Society really does need to refocus on the family, not big business.

Annie - like me? I have to take time off if my child is sick. But that is MY problem and not my employers.

It's difficult to balance I know Annie, but in reality is it really fair that an employer shoudl foot the bill for someone else's responsibilities? Most employers allow people to make the horus up or use annual leave in such circumstances. Children are the responsibilty of their parents at the end o the day not the emplyer. Shoudl employers pay parents a bit more because they have extra mouths to feed?

Adn I'm not sure you can argue that people get paid for being on holiday. I'm on an annual hours contract and am employed to work 35 hours per week x 47 weeks per year i.e. 1645 hours a year (pro-rata but the same principle).

God my typing's gone to pot - sorry.... it's Friday

We have no family to assist. My DP works away.
My company allows the first day of a dependent being sick as discretionary leave. Then it's use your holidays/make other arrangements or unpaid leave.

Exactly, annual leave is a known quantity, factored in to the contract. Time off because kids have colds isn't and varied hugely between individuals depending on number of kids and health of kids and parent's "sick" policy- ie does child have to be dying to get a day off school or is "mum I've got a bit of a tummy ache" enough.

Parents in the UK already get a fair bit of flex vs. non-parents. I know people in the UK don't think so, but they really do, compared with most of the world.

What about those people who have no dependents - they are effectively subsidising those with children at work if we paid people for looking after sick children. It is not callous. Some employers are more flexible than others IME. At least you can take unpaid leave if necessary.

Not sure what to say to this.

"Being at work is not an absolute requirement for being paid."

Well I guess that explains lot of the apparent epidemic of absences in the public sector.

One more time. Your employer is not responsible for your family as long as they are flexible in allowing you unpaid time off if you need it.

Just wondering what happened to compassion, that's all. And understanding, and other lovely human qualities. Seems employment and humanity are mutually exclusive. I really am shocked by the overall attitude.

Sure employees without children are subsidising those with children, until they have children themselves. Most people have children eventually. And children get sick. Sure as death and taxes. Surely it makes sense to acknowledge that?

People do acknowledge it. The law says that employers should give people with children the flexibility they need if a family emergency arises. The law says you should get maternity leave.

I know some employers treat employees badly and I dont like some employment practices which I think are exploitative. In general though I think an employer has a right to expect an employee to turn up when they are paying them for their time.

Why should people with children get more leave than those without? It's not a company's job to pay for the fact that your child is ill.

Parental leave is your right of course, but you can't expect to be paid for it - surely?!

I work in the NHS and I'm fairly sure that leave for looking after sick children is unpaid. I did get 2 days paid compassionate leave when my dad was in intensive care, I think this is at the discretion of the line manager. She probably paid me as she actually sent me home rather than me ring in sick. I think she realised I probably wasn't in a fit state to be concentrating on a responsible job.

AnnieL many people choose not to have children or can't. I would think about 25% of my university female friends have managed to reach the age of 40 without having kids and they definitely do not want to subsidise those people who have chosen to have children. Those with only one child may well subsidise those with 3+ children. You work, you make decisions about kids, you get paid for work not your lifestyle.

It's nothing to do with compassion or any kind of emotion. It's impossible to run a business if you have to pay staff when they're caring for other people. My ex-employer would let you have 13 weeks leave until your child turned 5 but that was unpaid. I thought that was pretty generous actually

Many many business just don't have the budget to allow for lots of unexpected paid time off for staff. Or paid sick leave. I know my small business clients mostly can't afford it, although they try and be flexible/allow holiday to be taken when possible. But it's not financially viable to offer those kind of generous lots of paid family leave/staggering lengths of time on full pay for sickness that many (not all) public sector organisations offer.

The majority of employers do help out their employees if the situation is serious and on-going.

I have a child whom consultants initially thought he'd never walk or speak. My employers have been very good a turning a blind eye to the various consultant appointments I have been to in the last 2 yrs. They have enquired about his health and my stress levels.

I have tried to work back the hours taken off.

And I think it depends on your own reputation. If you are known as work-shy and frequently taking the extra-long lunch breaks etc.... Well they might be less bendy. Whereas I thankfully had a lopsided halo... I also was totally honest with them. I would take in the hospital letters without them asking. To my childless line manager who is in 50's and not going to have babies - I am a logistical bloody nightmare. I know she hates it cos it is very disruptive but she also knows I'd rather be doing my job than sat in a awaiting room with my Kleenex.

P.S my 2 yr old is running and deafening us with his constant shouting. It's brill.

Bloody hell, the entitlement culture of public sector workers!!

"Being at work is not an absolute requirement for being paid." Words fail me.

trixy - FFS, let's not turn this into public sector bashing, ok?

What I meant is that you get annual leave built into your paid time - days you are paid for even though you're not there. And 5 days' dependency leave could work the same way - built into your paid days budget. I did express it badly.

I've never worked in the private sector as anything other than a temp with no paid leave of any kind. I'm shocked at how callous this seems. Sorry if I was naive.

Obviously employees shouldn't take the piss, but if you've never taken a sick day in your life because you have the constitution of an ox, but your colleague is off with man-flu several times a year, why is it so wrong to use your sick leave to care for family instead? After all, you're subsidising his time off in the same way that posters here have said that dependency leave is subsidised by childless colleagues.

Perhaps a better idea is a capped non-annual-leave allowance you can use for yourself as sick leave or family emergencies.

"Being at work is not an absolute requirement for being paid." That is hilarious!

Sure, sure, keep deliberately misunderstanding me and spread the hilarity. I have explained what I meant.