"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.

Oh god, do I really want to read this thread?

Ok, I've read it and lol at Cappucino "the gas man doesn't need you to hold a bowl under his face"

I'm with Capp, Caligula, Freckle et al. Every time I read one of these threads I think god I'm not on a £1m a year if that's the deal.

But if you like the work like grumpy's husband is there a problem at all? Some mothers are one dimensional (try sitting next to some to chat and they only talk about baby sick etc --- not all by any means) and some workers like me I thkn are not one dimensional. I know people on these incomes, may be not quite up to £1m but they do have hobbies, you know, interests. It's not true to say you're either in this type of job and no hobbies or other jobs and you have more hobbies. 5 minutes ago someone just sent me pictures of his boat. Someone I spoke to last night has been sending aerial shots from a plane... laughing as I type at all these men ... although I think shots by their car are just about the worst you can get. And here am I standing by my needing to prove something penis substitute and isn't it big....

I used to be a Reception teacher and although I loved the job, it was really hard going with 2 kids under 3 years old. And if I'm honest, I would much rather have been a SAHM but we couldn't afford it. My salary was pretty low and the only childcare I could afford was a childminder ie no nanny . If my kids were sick (which was fortunately rare) I would have to rely on the good nature of my lovely childminder if they were not horribly infectious or ring in sick to school. Despite being an almost entirely female environment and most of the women having children of their own, they were, on the whole, horribly unsympathetic. And lots of the parents were even worse. How dare my child be sick and subject their child to the horrors of a suppy teacher.

I'm so glad I'm at home now as the thought of negotiating a job and 3 children fills me with horror?

I'd just like to say in reference to my first post further down the thread that when I was ill and dh had to look after me he didn't phone in and say he was sick. He phoned in and told them that he was unable to work because he had to look after us all.

luckily, yet again, the kind of job he's in they just made that day his day off that week and he worked another day instead.

Batters, I am a FAST reader so I don't reckon it was quite that long! Here goes:

some said No! God, you wouldn't call in for a budgie would you, or the gas man, why would you for a mere child?

And others said
But a child needs you sometimes and the gas man doesn't need you in the same way

Xenia said ah but if you earn £1m a year then they own your soul and your children.
Some agreed

Yep, I think that's it. Caligula and Capp and Freckle were the work/life balance and we've got the working balance all wrong and it's work that needs to change not people and I was with them.

Anyone who wants to add to or correct that, feel free!

I got a little bit up this thread and have given up. My view is that it is unacceptable for men or women to have children without being prepared at some point to put their needs first, and if it does mean having to take a day off at so point so be it.

Sorry if this has been covered, but has someone who actually knows the lady who owns the website that is easy to find googling with information from here, spoken to her to check she is aware that she is posting on MN - ie. rather than assuming it is her ? I would hate to think that it was the case that her name and circumstances were being used without her awareness as was the situation previously.

Employers who complain about employee's children being sick should remember that these children are their future employees and customers. City firms trade shares in firms like Proctor & Gamble, or Tescos, or thousands of others which make big money from parents. They have a business, social and moral duty to suppor the parents who are making money for them. Anyone who moans about it is an idiot.

anyone who thinks that the convenience of an employer should take priority over the needs of a sick child to be cared for is seriously fucked in the head.
imho.

I can (just) about accept that they would own me body and soul if I was earning 1m+ but when did my child sign up for that deal?

some people are properly indispensible e.g. a QC ont he seventeenth day of a trial or a brain surgeon booked in to do a particular operation.
the rest of us can delegate. and that includes people who earn a lot from moving money around. I am sorry if I fail to be dazzled by £££££££. No-one could pay me enough money to put the needs of children to be cared for to one side.

Now come on. No one said working parents don't ensure their sick children are properly looked after. Some stay at home parents think only a parent can do that but that is psychological and medical nonsense. Obviously some sickness all of us would leave whatever the circumstances, even the QC in the big trial - they halt trials for a mother's funeral or whatever but it does depend on the work and the job. The day my mother died I was speaking in Scotland. A lot of people had paid a lot of money to hear me and I was getting paid quite a lot and I was half way through a day. My sister called me at lunch time and thought i'd get the next flight home. Instead I carried on the rest of the afternoon. Obviously some people would be bursting into tears and I wasn't and she'd been dying for a while and also I might not have got an earlier flight, I know she'd have wanted me to carry on etc. If instead the call had been your child is dying of course I'd have got the quickest means back to the children so I suppose it depends on the sickness.

Also "needs of the child" to be cared for - by fathers (and some mothers) working believe it or not we are actually seeing to the needs of our children sometimes in the best way for them. Nicola Horlick was mentioned on another thread. When her daughter was in hospital she visited lots of course as we would do but I don't think she gave up her job. She like most working parents have obligations to other children. I think at one point she hired someone just for that daughter who sat in the hospital. I think that was proper care - this was when there was extended periods in hospital.

Yes, agree - big companies need to attract good workers and one way to do that is look after them, be compassionate etc which they do by and large. If someone is a good worker and loyal and they have a domestic emergency then you usually let them deal with it. As said above though some jobs it's not so easy. Today my son has his first home rugby match and wants me to go. I'm going because I can rearrange the work easily. If instead I'd had a meeting booked I wouldn't have. I think parents make those kinds of decisions all the time. It's not a question of putting your child second to work - it's a matter of looking at how important is that work thing and what effect would not doing it have on the client/deal/court case or whatever compared with how important is it I mop his brow because he has a slight head cold or sit with the very sick child in hospital.

Hear hear Harpsi!

Or should that be here here

would your children not prefer you to look after them if they were ill, xenia? especially if they were in hospital.

But for most people it's not about the principle of getting someone else to look after the child, but about the impossibility of getting childcare at short notice.

I haven't read the whole of this thread but i just wanted to say that dp's employers are very kind and understanding when it comes to the kids and not only give him payed time off when they are seriously ill (in hospital) which they have been once or twice, but they also give him time off for school plays at xmas ect.

I think if your an employer and your taking on a person with kids you have to expect them to need time off very occasionally to be there for them.

Hmm, did anyone ask the child how she felt about her mother paying someone to sit with her when she was seriously sick in hospital?

It isn't a question of having someone there. It is a question of having a parent there. When they are ill, children just want their mum (or dad possibly, but it's usually mum). And that, to me, is what being a mum is all about. Being there for your children when they need you. Not earning enough money to pay someone else to do that.

"I think at one point she hired someone just for that daughter who sat in the hospital. I think that was proper care - this was when there was extended periods in hospital"

Proper care! for a stranger to sit with a your sick child Suely better a stranger be looking after your well children.

I would hate my son to grow up with memories of someone else looking after him when he was sick.

I should not have mentioned anyone in particular but I see nothing wrong with that. If you work full time then you have your wife or nanny looking after the children day in day out and that is not bad care. It's proper nice caring care and there's nothing wrong with it at all. I know some stay at home parents think it's morally wrong etc but leave that aside. Obviously sometimes the children are sick and the mother is with them but the father is out working or the granny is there or their loved nanny etc. There is no problem with that at all in my mind.

It is not true that you hire strangers though. You find someone who can sit and chat and they get to know that person very well indeed. Obviously at critical moments you do stop work, whatever that work is and you give your love and attention to the child but that is not possbile on a continuous basis. What about this one then - my father isn't well and has dementia. He has day and night carers. Do you think I should be up there (it's a distance away) with him 24/7?

Can I ask?

Xenia is saying it should not JUST be the mother that takes time off for sick children - this responsibility should fall on the father too? If so then absolutely.

If she is saying we should all employ nannies - JUST IN CASE then that is crap.

AND when mine were little I left them with the nanny if they were ill - chicken pox etc. We gtrust them when they are well so why not when they are ill? damn sight better than GrNDMA

Don't misconstrue me. I said people on £1m a year ought go fix back up care and back up of back up. If you're on a low wage of course you can't do that. My sister found in her area a nanny agency that will send someone out at very short notice who covered when her son was sick (a vomiting bug, no not death etc) recently so she could continue her work commitments. (Like me if she doesn't work she doesn't get paid so we're not exactly in the position of having a benevolent employer anyway)

So are you saying that it is not as important for an employee on a low wage to be reliable as it is for an employee on a stratospheric wage?

Adult with dementia is not comparable to sick child in hospital - sorry but it's not.

I agree that mothers/fathers should take equal time off to be with sick children whenever possible.

Working backwards through this thread. Can you tell?