"it is unacceptable for men or women to call in because a child is sick in my view."

[hunkermunker]

Xenia says "it is unacceptable for men or women to call in because a child is sick in my view."

I am interested to know what other people do in this situation.

why is it horrible? there has been a good exchange of views and considerable discussion of a topic that xenia herself raised (on another thread). no one has attacked xenia in any personal way. no one has been abusive. what's the problem?

That is smacks of people ganging up and it makes me feel uncomfortable, is that ok with you?

Itg's a thread of 309 messages or so and all of them are all other mumsnetters on one side and xenia in the other and it feels like bullying to me. If it was a conversation about childcare and calling in sick why was xenias name bought up at all and she quoted?
Just my opinion but I don't like it.

a number of posters have agreed with xenia's original post and have supported her views or some of her views on this issue. if someone posts in the "shhot from the hip" style you describe (whoever they are) they are likely to be taken up on it on a site like this and their views debated. sorry if you think its "horrible". you are of course entitled to your pov.

I understand that controlfreaky but issue is with how the whole thread has been started - "Xenia says this", "Xenia says that". I know Xenia has strong opinions and people will disagree and I think she is more than capable of sticking up for herself and apart from one or two posts the thread has been a discussion. Like I say it's the way it's been started I feel uncomfortable with. Why couldn't it have started, "what's you view on calling in sick when your child is off school?', why does have to be Xenia reckons that blah blah????

Wow. I am very lucky to have such a brilliant manager. If I need to go, then I am gone with her pushing me out of the door. I repay this by trying to work my hours around time off I need. For example, DP took the day off with DS when he was poorly last year. When it became apparent he would still not be well the next day I arranged to swap my shifts round so I didn't inconvinience anyone too much.

I know I am lucky to be able to do this. TBH though something really does have to give with work or children. I think in many cases it seems to be the children. Money can't buy you everything.

I actually agree with Xenia to a large extent. I do think a lot of children are mollycoddled and am quite happy to argue with DH about who looks after them when they are poorly assuming it is fairly minor. However I would never have not been there for any of DS's four operations to date. And when he had his adenoidectomy and second set of grommets it was quite inconvenient because I had a very small, and totally breastfed DD. So I took DD and DH as well. I fed DD while DS was in theatre then DH looked after her while DS was coming around. There was a hairy moment when DH had gone to get the car, DS was needing his canula out of his hand and DD was screaming. Fortunately one of the other mothers stepped in and picked DD up for me.

My mother worked so we were only kept off school if we were properly ill, not with coughs and colds. I think childminders might have been involved with minor illnesses where we did need to be off. But there was NOTHING like having my own mummy there when I was really, really ill. Remember waking up from Asian flu - had been out of it for a few days - and it being so wonderful that she was there that I burst into tears (and promptly fell over because my legs were all wobbly).

Mind you, she went on to have a nervous breakdown caused by overwork so I am learning how not to do it from her example.

Just my two pence worth but calling in with a 'sickie' isn't a great idea. Yes everyone seems to do it, but just cos its widespread doens't mena its right.

However I get that not everyone has decent employers and so has other options. When Ds is ill we work out between us who has the most important work / other commitments.

Then one of us
a) cancels all meetings and 'works from home' granted we only get about 2-3 hrs work done while DS sleeps but we are both conscientous and make the rest of the time up in the evening or the following weekend.
b) takes a day off on holiday pay
c) rearranges working hours if there is any flexibility in our job - ie i used to work 30 hrs flexibly so i coudl take a day 'off' and make up the hours another day. actually i used to reguarly work 32-28 hrs on a good week to have some 'time in hand' for if DS was ill, or we'd had a run off horrendous nights with him and i needed him in childcare and me at home to catch up on sleep.
d) take unpaid carers leave - more difficult as no policy on this except the parental leave option which only entitles you to blocks of a full week for DH.
e) absolute last case scenario would be to call in sick. in which case we'd try and do a bit of work anyway at home.

I guess the type of job you have makes a difference too. Unless he is dying there's no point Dh taking a sickie cos there isn't anyone to pick up the work so all that happens is when he goes back all the work he should have done during that time is still there, plus new work.

Similarly in my work area, if I took time off I was the one to suffer because the consequences of work not being done were mine to deal with.

Its difficult, in some ways I envy the junior receptionist who can take a sick day cos their job is solely to deal with phone calls etc so if they aren't in on that day very little (if any) work will get held over to the next day. On the other hand they are much less likely to have flexible working options.

Just an observation

My parents were never off sick, ever

I am a right sicknote

it doesn't follow

I don't feel bullied although the original quote on the thread wa sa bit out of context. I meant if you're paid £1m a year you fix your own back up cover for your sick child although the irony is that the more senior and better paid you are the more you call the shots at everything. in fact you could say there's a duty on mothers to get into really well paid jobs so that they have the power and money to be with their children when they are sick and you're not helping your child by sticking in pathetic low paid jobs where you have no control over your working hours and have to beg cap in hand for time off!

Lots of interesting things on this thread. I htink my oldest children are hard working, self sufficient and competent for life because of elements of benign neglect, having to find their ways around London at night because parents are busy, rescuing horses off motorways in their mid teens because parents were busy and also improtantly because they are one of five so not the little "chinese emperor" (only child) who the world revolves around. Of course you want them to feel loved but I have no hesitation in if I am going out for a night saying I'm going because I'll enjoy it and I'll rather be out that night than putting tehm to bed (that night and I always would also say that I enjoy the other nights when I do put them to bed). You can't have them thinking the world revolves around them or when they get out there in the big wide world they are in for a huge shock.

Same with illness. You want someone who doesn't expect her husband or his wife to be nursing them night and day because they have supposed flu (i.e. a cold). You want them struggling into work because work matters rather than taking to their bed at the slightest sniffle.

Blimey Xenia, when I tell my children to go and play on the motorway, I'm usually joking!

I'm not.

"But those says employers should let people be off what about my point if the employer is you? Would you pay your nanny for say 30 days off sick at full pay and also pay a temporary nanny to come in? No. Some businesses also can't afford that. Obviosuly if it's SSP they get back from the state at very low rates that's different."

Yes, that's what it is to be a good employer and a good person. You are talking about a nanny - someone you know personally, someone who may be reglecting (in a non legal sense) to look after your children. Yes it might hit your profits in the short term but you won't be bankrupted because of it.

But it's a question of degree. I have paid nannies when off sick. Also covered two lots of their maternity leave (although some of those costs you get back) but you can't afford that forever and employers are not some huge cash cow with money to burn... unless it's the state of course and then they just keep putting up our taxes to ensure state employees can take huge loads of sick leave I suppose. And then eventually market forces mean people move abroad when tax gets too high etc.

Blueshoes "If you don't play by the unwritten rules, it is career suicide."

This is only a fact based on the current systems - there is absolutely no reason why those systems couldn't change.

But people are naive to think the rules won't change nor not realise what those rules are. it's not even how much time off you have - if you're the best in your job and bring in more work than anyone then you can be forgiven almost anything. I was with some computer programmers a while back. They can come in when they like, wear what they like, they even bring toy guns into work to zap each other with, watch porn or day or whatever and keep the hours they choose but if the work product is brilliant that's all that mattered.

Xenia, you must admit to not take a day off when your child is in the hospital because YOU want to is a bit unusual. Where I draw the line is when a doctor appointment or a hospital is involved. I would probably leave a child with chicken pox with the nanny, I would certainly leave a child with conjuntivitis with the nanny. After all there is nothing I could do for them anyway that the nanny can't do just as well. However, in the hospital??? Yeah, I want to be there. I suppose it would depend on what was going on at work. But, if it was just a normal day at work then I'd be there. If I had a promotion riding on my presence at work that day, then I might go to work... but I would still rather be at the hospital. (especially if it was NHS cause I don't trust them as far as I can throw them so I would want to be there to oversee her care)

Absolutely, you'd simply be a charity then. But you are more likely to get more out of your workers if you pay them well and if you are understanding of their needs. The reason free market economists don't like it is that it is a slow burn investment and isn't entirely quantifiable via numbers.

But the Jeff Skilling way isn't the only way - there are other economic models which don't rely on insane profits but sustainability. They just don't create 'super' rich as the wealth is distributed in a fairer way. Most of the greed is based on a misrepresentation of biology anyway, as with Skilling.

And there are countries with high taxes which also have very steady population levels.

That's why companies introduce family friendly policies. Workers choose jobs base don things like free BUPA cover, a gym, creche, right for time off to tend the sick horse, granny or child, sabatticals, nice office, annual leave entitlement etc, not just salary. Companies aren't giving parents more than the statutory paternity and maternity leave because they're nice. It's mostly because there's a business case for that.

Interesting uwila. I think with the tonsils her father was with her and I therefore didn't feel I wanted or needed to be there (as he was) whereas I did want to be there on say first morning at school. When I thought she'd suffered permanent brain damage I was worried sick and obviously wanted to be there. I just didn't regard tonsils as a very big operation and I suppose you just weigh up what you have on that day.

Oh right. Sorry, I thought you said that neither of you was there. I might take it in shifts too.

So what happened with the potential brain damage? That sounds horrible.

She was in on her own. I remember the nurses commenting she was there alone over night but she didn't mind and she just went to sleep at bed time and woke up in the morning and knew how to call for help if she wanted.

Last year? She had a car crash and didn't seem immediately ill. Then a week later fell of her horse and hit her head too so that or the crash had an effect and she couldn't speak for a while - couldn't transmit the thought of speech into words once she got home. She should thought she'd write down the words but she couldn't make her brain instruct her hand to write. Then it started coming back a bit but she couldn't remember things ilke her best friend's name so we went off to A&E and they were brilliant and saw her ahead of all these waiting toddlers etc but as it was an urgent brain thing she was triaged up the queue. Then it all came back in about 30 minutes. Such a relief. For a short time she and I thought she'd be trapped in her body unable to speak or write for the rest of her life.

Xenia.

For what it is worth, I don't agree with all of your views but I admire you for sticking with your views and not being afraid to air them.
I admire your patience. Lots of MNers have said things to you that would have had me ranting and raving, but you have dealt with it all professionally and very reasonably.

You come across as a very self assured woman, very confident in her views and yet willing to listen and debate with others who don't have the same views. I don't think I have once seen you lose your temper, despite the fact that many have lost theirs with you.

So as I said, whilst I may not agree with you on many things, your good grace has won me over and I just thought I would say something positive to you. You'd make a fine diplomat!