working mums what do you do when they're poorly?

[rebelmum1]

I'm finding it really difficult, I have had to take lots of unscheduled time off work as holiday. I end up sending dd back to nursery when not 100% I have really dropped my colleagues in it on occasions this year but there are so many contagious things they get and you just can't take them in to nursery when they are sick. My role as a parent is far more important than that of employee and I just want to be there for my child. It stinks. How do others cope?

A bit odd that i would broaden my aim to working women when I work myself. I was defending putting my dd before my work when she is ill, not earning as much as dp, and working part-time.

I too will work full-time again, but hopefully for myself. My dd is only just 2.

One good thing for me has come from this thread, new years resolution is to make sure that I can get work lap top operational from home, I'm a bit of a computer klutz and have been putting it off but I can see that it may well be needed.

Rokkiemum - its invaluable and am also lucky as also have a Blackberry. These days diversity in the workplace should be supported - and at least I have all the email trails to prove that I am still working as well as looking after a sick child - here we go again, multitasking, ooo get us!!

Oh mind you just remembered my boss who has no children has a big thing about not having children around when working from home ( much easier I would imagine if you haven't got any), I will just have to be a bit creative with the truth if that situation arises.

Yes I used to love my blackberry on work trips as well seeing as I was too terminally challenged to ever get my lap top working people were happy that I was finally able to communicate with them when not in the office.

Yes sounds the best idea, what the eye can't see..., shame you have to think like that but if it makes things easier for you then go for it.

I'm lucky to work for a small company staffed mainly by part-time people, all women, only two full time. I've been there only three months and I've been called from school to pick up DS1 twice! But luckily my employer and colleagues understand that children come first. Plus it's only 10 mins away from school and home so it's not that much of a problem, and I have a phone, computer and broadband at home so can qute easily work here while DS slumps in front of a video.

Xenia's comments are interesting, if a bit polarised by (presumably) her own experiences and/or prejudices. Most parents tend to work to a solution that suits them. I picked up DS yesterday when the school called, as I work closer to school than DS. The doc says he needs to stay home today, but I have to work, so DH has taken the day off. It may have been me if my work demands were different. But I have to spend the whole day schmoozing at the NEC today which makes the fact that I have been awake with insomnia since 2am even more frustrating...

Don't just assume that women are downtrodden and lumbered with all the responsibilities, Xenia, there are far more enlightened husbands and employers out there than you seem to think.

X-posts

Employers of parents with young children need to exercise an understanding. And up to when they are 6 years old you can take up to 6 months off work unpaid. But it's at the companies discretion as to how this is managed. Some like the leave to be planned, others will be flexible.

Speak to your manager - or if a complete to**er, like mine, speak to HR. Find out if you can work from home - do flexi time etc and perhaps you will manage to keep some of your holiday.

After all it has been proven that employees who actually take holiday for holiday reasons are more relaxed and productive, as opposed to those who use thier leave for emergencies and then get no quality time off with family etc.

Well done for recognising your DC comes first - you'd be surprised how many parents try to do it all, until it's pointed out that as an employee they are replaceable - but as a parent, they are not. (Yes speaking from experience as some one who deals with people from a 'sympathetic' HR perspective)

WS, that is exactly how most couples manage things where they both work. Some women resent it where they work but their partner expect them to be responsible for the chidlren too. I think it's important for women not to let that situatino occur and remedy it if if does rather than endure years of discontent over the issue. In some ways this is the key inequality, not inequality at work or under the law but in homes, women doing most of the housework and childcare yet working. The SAHM has a much fairer deal in those homes. One reason I always thought part time working was a raw deal for women.

As for working at home.. I've done that. When they were little their nanny was able to get them to accept I wasn't there and I tried not to be seen as if they saw me they wanted me. Then as someone said below U, I think when they can walk and talk they can make views known so I'd sometimes have them banging on the home office door. Our last nanny had a circle of friends and took them out a huge amount which her next employer didn't like but was perfect for us. Then I remember a period of getting up at 5am on Saturday to do 2 hours work before they woke... not that that was at all fun.

rm, I wasn't criticising. I am always interested in how couples decide who works and who takes more of a back seat and why so very many women end up with men who earn more and whether they deliberately target those men, whether it feeds the male ego better if the woman earns less or it's just somehow chance which leads to that and this is even if there are no children as if the female ideal is man they look up to who earns more and male ideal is woman they can feel superior to as they out earn her. If there is no substance in that then why do we still get so very many women marrying men who outearn them?

Was meant to be going into work today to make up for taking time off last week for my 13 month who was ill. Needless to say she is sick again so cant go in. Am wondering how often other peoples babies are ill? I have taken so much time off work as has my husband (and I'd like to say hes taken MORE time off work than me) and am sick with worry that its going to be like this until shes say 4 or 5. Do not know how we will cope. I have an understanding employer but feel for my colleagues who have to cover for my work and have already been passed over for promotion because of the time I've had off sick (I dont blame my boss as I to would worry if I was hiring me in regards to how often I'd actually be at work). My daughter goes to a nursery 3 days a week and just seems to pick up something new EVERY week. Would be so grateful for other mums comments/advice?

Iut's very hard because children differ. Mines were never very ill and if you've always just had your own children who aren't much ill then as a boss you probably don't understand the difference. We were trying to see what my sister was doing wrong that her's got sick so often, vomiting, almost every month some infection. Was hygiene at home, parental expectation, lack of immunity or what? My mother said we were never ill as children but after she died I got her baby diary typed out and it is full of us being ill, page after page, coughs, colds etc when we were under 5 so that was an interesting difference from what she'd said.

As we had a nanny at home looking after all our 3 under 5s who came to the house each day we didn't need time off work. For some people that will be cheaper than losing their job because of sickness and is certainly a lot cheaper than 3 nursery places. May be an au pair is an option for some people with 2 bed rooms and baby comes in with you works too - not sure how much they're paid but may be worth it.

daisym, how long has your dd been at nursery? Mine caught a lot of stuff in her first year, colds, you name it. And she passed a lot on to us! Have never had so many bugs in my life!! My friend's dd was the same. After that, though, she's not been ill much at all. In fact dh and I have both just had colds, and has she had it, nope. I bet when she goes to school she won't pick up as much as if she'd never been to nursery! If you can, hang in there. Your dd is still building up immunity, it will get better.

Thanks for your replies. My daughters been going to nursery for about 8 months now. At one point I was so worried about it all ie her being ill, taking time off work etc that we even tried to sell our house, the idea being that we would rent and live off the equity so I wouldnt have to go to work and she wouldnt have to go to nursery, but friends/family convinced me this isnt the ideal solution. Hopefully things will get better.

DD1 has chronic asthma, so I factor in two weeks of my annual leave to be taken at short notice when she is ill. DH does the same and we take it in turns. Thankfully, have never had to take unpaid leave.

I used to work with someone who would take time off at the drop of a hat ("Feeling a bit tired this morning, so won't bother coming in." "Car won't start" "Baby's teething and I didn't get much sleep. I may pop in this afternoon."). This meant, of course that her work got dumped on the rest of us. Her boss was too wet and useless to do anything about it, so she essentially got about 4 weeks extra paid leave on top of her annual leave. This caused huge resentment among the single people in the office, who thought she was using her children as an excuse, and with me, with a genuinely ill child, who was doing the decent thing and using up annual leave to be with DD1. This is why I think single people often resent working parents, because they have a bad experience of one or two.

xenia, you are very critical of women who choose to be with their children. I chose to take a year off work and then went back part-time which means that I earn less. I don't see this as a sacrifice because I treasure the precious moments with my child. I did not make a conscious decision to earn less than a man, but I did make a consious decision to spend the most crucial development time with my child as much as possible. What I don't undertstand is why you would have a child if your needs and career take priority. I also don't understand why looking after a child and spending the most treasured moments with your children is perceived as being surbodinate to men. Surely you cannot perceive wealth as a barometer of self-worth or intellect? That is an unenlightened and sad view. Surely you value other things in life other than money?

'Why do we still get so very many women marrying men who outearn them'?

I think your asking the wrong question here it's not a question of marrying for money. The question you should be asking is:
Why do women earn less than men?
This is complex and I can think of a few reasons to help you become more enlightened

1. Believe it or not some women are drawn to caring professions which are underpaid
2. Some women choose (not forced to) to take time out to be with their children, which means that they will take a cut in pay
3. Some women have low self-esteem - (perhaps their mothers worked as soon as they were born and ignored their needs which meant that they lacked confidence and self esteem)
4. Some women by nature lack the aggressive, egotistical, entrepreneurial, self-centred characteristics that are often required to be successful in cut throat business environments.
5. Some organisations despite the legislation perceive women differently and there are glass ceilings

Feminism has a lot to answer for where women de-value caring for their children. The abilty to cook is lost as we been determined not to undertake this role as this skill has been devalued. As both parents work and don't have time to cook the advent of ready meals kicks in to the detriment of everyone's health. It's only thanks to the (mostly) male celebrity chefs that cooking and health has been glamourised and men and women alike are happy to start cooking again. I think feminism is about choice but in pursuit of that choice we have removed one crucial one as now most families depend on two incomes, the choice to be a SAHP is a luxury that many families can't afford. I took a year off but it was unpaid and we really struggled, I was determined to ride it out and not go back to work but still freelanced to cover the shortfall.

I think your on the wrong course, the problem isn't that men expect women to take a backseat and do all the housework and that we're subordinate to do so. The problem is that while both parents work there is no one to look-after the home front and we rush from one place to another without having a chance to reflect. No one wants to do the house-work as we are all shattered, whether working full or part-time. I just don't think it's condusive when children are so young, demand so much energy and need you.

"3. Some women have low self-esteem - (perhaps their mothers worked as soon as they were born and ignored their needs which meant that they lacked confidence and self esteem)"

I don't think there is a correlation between how quickly women return to work and how confident the child becomes. Also, returning to work is not ignoring a baby's needs, but providing for them.

[quote=rebelmum1] = 3. Some women have low self-esteem - (perhaps their mothers worked as soon as they were born and ignored their needs which meant that they lacked confidence and self esteem)

sorry to butt in here, but that is absolute nonsense as an opinion and is in no way fact. I went back to work when my 3 children were born, because we were low paid civil servants and because i had to. i yoinked sick leave as long as possible to spend time with my babies when they were younger and then they went into nursery full time. When my partner left me i did not have the luxury option to cut my hours or stop work because i need to provide for my children. the implication that I am a bad mother because i had to return to work is insensitive at best.

some of us do not have the choice over who looks after the sick child. it is always me. i send them to school if they are feeling unwell and they know that the only chance of actually oinghome again is being sick. if they have been sick the night before school, or during the night then we have a sofa day. We have never had a family holiday because i can't afford them and i have to save my annual leave for sick children.

I am being deliberately provocative here and it is only a toungue in cheek suggestion. But you can't question that a child is better off being cared for by its mother, it's been researched and its been proved that the best carer for babies is the mother, failing that a 1-1 relationship is the next best thing, family member, nanny or childminer with nurseries rated a poorer option for the early days. This evidence was published in the news recently. Emotional development is just as important as physical need, of course it's different for everyone cause and a child might have an excellent one-to-one care and not suffer. Babies are extremely sensitive and still think they are attached to you.

How can you deny that a baby doesn't need to be with it's mother?

I disagree. As do many people. Your claims have been supported by some studies, and disproved by others.

In fact, I think my 3 year old is now bothered much more by my absence than she was as a baby. But, I explain to her that I am going to work so we can have some fun spending it on the weekend. (truth is I'm going to work so we can eat and pay rent, but she relates far more to new shoes) Besides, she needs to learn that she can't always have me there. I had my first parent-teacher night last week and the teavher said she was a perfectly happy well-adjusted, intelligent little girl. And, I bet she doesn't know how old she was when I went back to work.

I work too and I can see with my own eyes it's not great for my child.