What do you do when baby is sick and you have noone to help?

[BabyBrainMom]

My husband and I are working and had to take time off (2.5 days each) to care for our baby, as she had a cold and could not go to nusery. That happened two weeks after she started nursery and we are concerned as with this rate (and as we are told to expect more of this) we will have no holidays left.

What are our statutory rights as working parents when baby is ill. Find the work environment unsupportive :(

[ModeratelyObvious]

Hmm, I always read the day or two off to cover emergencies as either sufficient to cover the illness, or sufficient to book annual leave for one parent (or both if splitting care) or find alternative cover if it was clear the illness required it (chicken pox etc)

OP, if you and DH haven't already put in a flexible working request in the last 12 months, you could do one for eg an extra five days of unpaid leave each?

[Theincidental]

The law is a paradoxical loop on this subject.

Your child becomes ill.
You take unpaid emergency leave to deal with the emergency
You are not permitted to use the emergency period to look after your child, only to deal with the emergency
Your employer deems that one day is reasonable
Your child is still ill
You cannot find alternative childcare
You can't use this leave to look after your child

And back round again.

All I'm saying is that the law should reflect a parent's need to look after their child when ill and instead of the clause which gives an employer the option to refuse to allow you to look after your child, it should simply say that emergency leave is just that. And include the right to look after your child in that period.

I agree that one week or two maybe untenable for a business to allow an employee to be absent, but at present there are employers using this part of law to dismiss women from employment because they can't magic up a childcare provision for a sick child after 24 hours.

[PolyesterBride]

So what do parents do in the situation of something like chicken pox? If they have no family nearby and no non-working friends with nothing to do, it seems unavoidable for them to have several days off. I would do that and my employer could choose not to pay me, but I don't think I'd be sacked. I definitely wouldn't employ a stranger to take care of my sick child - would anyone really do that?

[Theincidental]

Polyester,

They might ask for annual leave, but an employer had no obligation to grant that either.

I really think it's a shit deal for parents, especially those with young children who catch every bug going.

The most vulnerable in this are lone parents because they can't even double their chances of emergency leave or annual leave requests.

And most lone parents are women, so it's a feminist issue as well.

[SirChenjin]

Just be careful that your employer allows working from home if you are caring for a sick child - I work for the NHS and if I take carers leave then the rules are that I have carers responsibilities and therefore should not, and must not, work from home. Unfortunately I have a manager who is a stickler for the rules, so while other managers may choose to be flexible with this, ours doesn't.

Trying to cover for sick children is an absolute PITA. In the past we've taken annual leave (and just accepted that we might not be able to have a holiday that year), DH has managed to work from home for a couple of days as his company is more sympathetic, and we have phoned in sick ourselves (I don't condone this, but we were absolutely desperate and not in a financial position to take unpaid leave)

[ModeratelyObvious]

Theincidental, if people are being dismissed after taking more than one day of emergency unpaid leave, that is crap and does seen unreasonable. Was that tested in a tribunal? Was it on the back of several occasions that had led to warnings, do you know?

[PolyesterBride]

Yes, I think it's shit too - and stupid. Having children is supported by employers and the government in various ways through maternity leave, childcare vouchers etc but then your child gets ill for a couple of weeks and suddenly it's all over? All kids get sick from time to time but most are ok most of the time. They need their parents when they're sick, not an emergency nanny. But it's only temporary and only when they're little. Employers should support this aspect of having children too. Otherwise who's going to work for them when their current workers retire? And don't they want to retain the staff they have now?

[ModeratelyObvious]

A lot of employers are reasonable above and beyond their legal minimum - for example, allowing short notice booking of annual leave.

[Theincidental]

No previous incidents or warnings. Tested at tribunal. I think Working Families were involved in the case and it came up via gingerbread awhile back too.

[Theincidental]

Couldn't agree more polyester. My current employers bend over backwards for employees with families because it helps with long term staff retention, engenders positive feelings about their employers and employment and means their employees care about their employer. It's only a small business, but I and other parents there could cry at their kindness sometimes. It also means that come a deaine I will happily work as much overtime, odd hours I can to get the deadline met.

But good will is all it is. In other companies they don't have to be reasonable and many aren't.

[ModeratelyObvious]

I am really surprised by that.

[Theincidental]

Moderately,

I wish I was surprised, but I found out when researching my own situation. Til that point I had no idea that emergency parental leave couldn't be used to look after your own child. I wonder how many women don't take it as far as tribunal and just walk away.

I fear it's far too many.

[Theincidental]

I should say I wish i'd had the courage to file tribunal, but like many people faced with that conundrum, it feels safer to just quietly leave.

[PreciousPuddleduck]

We have little family support either.
Some people just go sick as it makes life simpler....
It gets easier as they get older [hugs]

[PreciousPuddleduck]

This is why it's a good idea to pay for DC to have the chicken pox vaccine. MUCH less hassle.

[PreciousPuddleduck]

Bump

[flowery]

"You are not permitted to use the emergency period to look after your child, only to deal with the emergency"

I have no idea where you get that from! Of course you can look after your child during emergency leave. Just that after a few days it is no longer an emergency, it's a difficult personal situation.

I find it very difficult to believe that a tribunal decided it was fair to dismiss someone for not turning up on day two of a child's illness to be honest. None of the guidance on the subject reflects that at all. If it was part of your own research presumably you have the name of the case? I would be interested to know which one it was so I can read about it.

[jasminerose]

I wouldnt take leave off for a cold. If they dont have sickness, diarhoea or literally 2 steps from death then they go to school or nursery.

[flowery]

Working Families own guidance doesn't reflect that at all and actually specifically mentions a case where a woman had two weeks notice that her childminder wouldn't be able to look after her child and should have been given emergency leave because she had tried and not managed to find an alternative here

[jasminerose]

I see that you say she couldnt eat or drink. Was that for whole week? If not I would of taken one day off gave her calpol and sent her back. They only send home if sickness and diarhoea so it is probably because she was new that they rang you. Parents have to work and most nurseries understand this.

[ChipAndSpud]

I had to take some time off work when DS first started nursery in January at a year old, he just caught everything going and was teething as well. For all it's faults, my company is good about things like this and my team leader said it's to be expected when a child first starts nursery! She let me take the time off as holiday. After the first two months DS stopped getting ill and apart form chicken pox he hasn't had any more illnesses or time off nursery since the beginning of the year.

Hopefully your dc will settle in soon, but the beginning is hard because they do catch so many colds etc. but it does get easier and everyone says it's good for their immune systems (I'm waiting to be convinced on the immune system thing though tbh!).

[78bunion]

We had a nanny instead to solve that issue (3 under 5s) so it did not arise and she was never off sick.

Also you can pay an agency to send an agency nanny to your home when the child is sick.
Some City employers employ floating nannies for when this happens so workers can still get to work but that will depend on your seniority.

[Theincidental]

Flowery,

I don't know what more I can say to demonstrate that what I am saying is true.

But, it has arisen and does arise.

[78bunion]

I think you (or even better your spouse) get emergency leave to arrange the emergency cover - to call the nanny agency, get someone in for later that day or the next day. It may cost you but if it saves you a career, your reputation and 40 years of earnings then it's cheap at the price.

[prh47bridge]

The law specifically says that you can have emergency leave to provide assistance when a dependant falls ill. You are therefore entitled to time off specifically to look after your sick child. And just for clarity, the law sets out the reasons you can have emergency leave but does not restrict what you do while you are on emergency leave.

There is no "clause which gives an employer the option to refuse to allow you to look after your child". You are entitled to a reasonable amount of time off to deal with the emergency.

Ultimately it is up to the courts (or, more specifically, employment tribunals) to decide what is reasonable, not your employer. If an employer unreasonably refuses emergency leave the employee can take them to tribunal and claim compensation. If an employer dismissed someone for taking two days off to look after a sick child I would be amazed if that was upheld by tribunal.

Yes, there are employers who are not reasonable. And there are employers who blatantly break employment law. Changing the law is unlikely to have any effect on such employers. The way to bring these employers into line is for employees to take action against them.