"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.

dh is currently doing annual reviews, and anyone with more than 7 days self certified illness in the past year, is having a 'discussion' about this. where i work an employee can have up to 115 days of illness in 12 months before their pay is affected! (we only work 195 days a year!)
can't believe how different it is, and don't think my work is right!
.

Partly of course it depends upon their performance when they actually do turn up.

Another factor is whether they are part of a "pool" of people who can easily be swapped around or whether their absence causes real problems.
Frankly the is also the fuzzy but important term about whether they are taking the piss.

I've found that the hardest line on these things is not from line managers but co-workers who resent having to cope with someone not pulling their weight.

Given the law on such things, I would of course not make the decision on whether they were "employable", but instead get HR to "counsel" them. This typically involves targets for attendance, and allowing them to speak to someone not directly involved. Sadly it must also include record keeping to protect the firm. They will want to both ring and be rung by the employee when off sick.

I have had in the past offered that the firm will pay for some sort of treatment, and once that included my cleaning lady of long service.
Before the new set of laws, I have occasionally told people "look just piss off and come back when your head is on right". Which got recorded as unpaid leave...

But as you say, that's a variable, I've worked in firms, where they'd be looking to sack them after a few days sick.

Some sick leave is a proxy for general disaffection with the job, and of course as we've seen earlier people use their own sickness as a cover when they think it more acceptable than the real reason, and that is not just kids.
I'd start asking for doctor's notes and other proof that the illness was real.

It's worth remembering that most firms have some form of insurance for long term sickness.

If there is some flexibility possible, then provided their lies haven't been too offensive, then that might work.

Ultimately though, it's not the employer's job to sort out the lives of his employees. You are paid to turn up and at least try and do something useful, if you can't do that then the days are numbered.

One side effect of the current set of laws as I understand them (as a non-lawyer) is that you can't do deals with employees.

What I'd prefer to do is offer something like "over the next year, you can take 30 days off, and we reduce your pay by x%"
I'm pretty sure I could be sued for doing that now, even though it would in my opinion be a humane solution.

Can you ask for a doctor's note in the UK if the person is only absent for one day, though? Here, you only have to provide a note if absent for 3 days or more. Therefore someone is entitled to "ring in sick" on numerous occasions if the absence is only for 1-2 days.

Quite an effective thing is not to pay when off sick. That soon makes them think twice about skiving off. You can not pay in the UK for 3 days and then from day 3 they go down to statutory sick pay. Works very well for a lot of employers in ensuring people dont' take a lot of time off sick and is perfectly legal!

there are also down sides to not paying when off sick - for example, you are giving the employee an option on unpaid leave which might not be convenient to you - if they know they won't be paid and have budgeted for that then they can take additional time off that can be detrimental but not feel any obligation to either catch up or help out those who covered for them. and in the case of employees who are genuinely ill it can seem a little harsh - they probably aren't enjoying being ill and haven't chosen to be. i'm sure it does encourage attendance, but it's not a complete answer to the question

Haven't read all the thread, but with us a sick note is needed from day 1. My parents used to have to take anual leave if any of us were ill.
I must say that as a parent I WANT to be home with my dc's if they are ill. I mean when I think back to when I was little the people I wanted the most when I was ill were my mum or dad. Also I want to look back to my life when the dc's leave home and not feel like I haven't been around or not given them all I could. I think sickness really is a time when your dc's need you most and its a simple thing to give them and more important than my job.

If they are off sick unpaid for too long you have a legal right to sack them and in some sectors there are plenty more people wanting those jobs! Works well but depends on your sector. In some areas you spend a fortune training people up and if they're good you're keen to keep them and then it's an entirely different set of issues and you're wanting to win the family friendly firm of the year stuff.

I think what we need to do is put our heads together and find a way to spin "being with my sick child is more important than my job".

It may be true, but isn't going to help the discussion with your boss much.
Any ideas ?

actually dominiconnor i think you need to find a way to position "my being with my sick child is more important to you than my being at my job today" - this would remove any objections an employer could come up with

Yes, I think I will have another child, especially as my sister has just been diagnosed with early menopause ? something we never knew was likely in our family.

Cousin Chip , I couldn?t afford to leave him if I didn?t do the PhD. I?d have to wait until DS was in school. I?m reminded of Jayne Eyre when she?s asked is she wants to leave Gateshead and she says not if it would mean being poor. We aren?t well off but we are above the poverty line. If I left DP we?d plummet. I?m hoping we will sort our problems out, he has come a long way already ? last year was hell but the way I feel about him has changed subtly, he?s not the man I thought he was ? maybe that will change in time, I dunno. Money is an issue, more of an issue than romance that?s for sure.

I like it MrsWobble

If girls get good careers and men share domestic responsibilities then women don't need to rely on men for money but you do then of course have to see your career as important and be worried about losing your job if you take too much time off I suppose. So may be having a secondary job for pin money means you can be there when the child is sick but you're financially dependent on a man. Although a lot of women seem to enjoy that dependence.

I cant afford my children to be off sick. I work in a school and feel guilty if i have to be off any other time. I even refused my promotion because it ment more hours at work and having to start at 7. My childminder wont start at 6 and she wont have the children when there ill. I cant afford a nanny and i have no family to fall back on or partner. I do believe our children need us when there ill.

i dont really have a career and i certainly dont rely on a man for money - im a single parent, since having my daughter there have been times when i have been totally skint but i wouldnt change our situation as i am happy knowing that i can be there when she needs me, what i have been through this year with her has taught me she is the most important thing in my world

I'm in precisely that position Xenia - I now have a part-time job that pays half per hour than I used to earn. I had a job that paid more than my dh but it had to go when shortly after I had dd. And the main reason that I gave up work and not him was the attitude of my company to me taking time off.

I don't enjoy being dependant but I have no choice. dd had 75% attendance at school last year so is off sick one day a week on average, although it generally is a couple of weeks well and a week sick.

Well a lot don't enjoy it Xenia, lets not go down that road again.

If companies discriminate against their emplyers being carers sometimes, especially in events of long term sickness, then doesn't this then put the onus on tax? I people are sacked and on benefits - carers are notoriously expolited in ourt society but still are give some benefits..how can we work that one out?

DominiConnor didn't you post somewhere about more investment in training and education for mothers who have stayed at home for a year or two? That seemed like a very progressive idea.

So sagger if you earned more than your husband how could it make sense that you went part time not him? I just don't understand those types of decisions.

But I do sympathise with those whose children are sick a lot. Mine have never often been properly ill.

It is a point of our daughtesr of course that they're aware that if they earn a lot they can employ people to help make their lives easier when they're older and have more choices in life. Whereas if they mess around at school and leave with poor GCSEs they will not find they have quite so many life choices.

MT if some employers take a tough line on sicknes, like say a working mother who can't afford to pay a sick nanny and a temporary one or those small employers many of whom are mothers who are in 2 - 4 person firms and just can't afford workers off sick etc, does that then burden the state? May be but employers in that position don't have the luxury of choice in protecting the tax payer. Big employers who can recruit keen Poles and Romanians also don't need to be protective of unhealthy staff either. Where there are staff shortages though you bend over backwards to keep people as you do when someone is excellent. Doesn't matter if someone only works half the time as everyone else if they generate double the profits. Your best job security is to be the best person in the place.

A sick child is a thousand times more important than ANY job IMHO. And if an employer doesn't share that opinion it's a bloody disgrace.

i want to be the best mother to my child not the best worker in the place. when i chose to be a parent i accepted that i would have to sacrifice material stuff but money and well paid jobs arent important to me as much as my daughter is

Yes, if a child is really sick all parents of any sex will rush to that child. No question.
Sometimes we can be the best mothers to our children by putting ourselves in the right position financially to support them. Interesting balance to get right.

Well some suggest it's the system that's flawed, Xenia. There is no reason in the world why competition can't be based on community and co-operation. The same the same neurological feedback processes are at work. Competition doesn?t necessarily need to 'cost' so much in human terms. I?m paraphrasing Steven Pinker there; or paraphrasing him paraphrasing someone else..can?t find the book at the mo..

My Nephew was taken ill this afternoon with Pneumonia! He is in hospital until at least saturday. His mum was with him, and his dad left work immediatly to be with him, and is staying with him overnight! Fantastic!

"So sagger if you earned more than your husband how could it make sense that you went part time not him? I just don't understand those types of decisions." It's pretty simple really - money isn't everything.