No childcare, no work.

[ttcycle]

Though Chris my point is, it should never reach that level. Going through similar right now at work

 

[mangaman]

Contractually I would imagine there is often a clause that says the employer has to attend work (with agreed caveats like leave / sickness) to get paid.

I would have thought that if you fail to attend work because your children's school is shut, the company could legally say you haven't made yourself available and therefore it should count as leave, paid or otherwise.

Not sure as I am not a lawyer but I think you would have a hard time sueing an employer for not paying you for not working.

Obviously some employers are going to be good ones and allow flexibility.

(Mine isn't - it's got to be annual or unpaid leave if you don't come in because of snow)

 

[ttcycle]

mangaman, employers are within there rights to ask you to take annual leave,some will grant emergency leave but not all, if you have not leave left then it will most likely be unpaid leave. However what the above is in reference to is if the option of holiday has not been given and the employer just docks pay without an option given to staff.

Thankfully I don't have this problem at my work - just a whole host of other things!!

 

[vernon]

I have every sympathy with other people's difficulties, but it seems a double-whammy to have sorted out my own childcare and then go into work and suffer the consequences of someone else not sorting out theirs.
Probably a triple-whammy because those other people get a freebie day to play in the snow with their kids, something I would love the chance to do.

If your colleagues haven't sorted out child care it is perhaps because they couldn't.

My wife and I had many a battle about who was going to stay at home when our kids were ill as neither of us had extended family at hand to step into the breach.

You could of course get your company to invite parents to bring their offspring into the office with them.

I'm sure you'd prefer the kids to stay at home with their parents

 

[Campfire]

I used to work for NW AutoTrader and as many of the people working both days and nights (which I did) worked there to fit in with their kids, it was sometimes a nightmare when they didn't come in because of some sort of child problem or other. As all our work was very tightly deadlined due to publishing dates and fines to the company if we missed our 'slot' with the printer, it fell upon the rest of us to just cope.

We discussed it sometime and I think there is an obligation to an employer to give employees with children under a certain age certain allowances - can't think of the correct word! Some of them did take the p***, the same ones but some didn't - however we used to wonder if they never considered the work problem when they went and had kids!!

 

[ttcycle]

campfire - that's flexitime - ages of the children were raised quite recently - can't remember to what age now. Employers do need to give parents with young children the options to work flexible pattern for childcare reasons.

Still people want kids and it's sad that earning a crust should get in the way of that.

The issue of why people take the piss is interesting and complex- what are people's thoughts on that as I know what I think about it...

 

[HobbesChoice]

I have children myself, but do not use them as an excuse in the workplace.

Hi Alan, I'm not sure if I've offended you on what I wrote regarding people getting the wrong impression on how the person complaining feels about those people with children. If I did I'm very sorry. By that comment though I meant that sometimes (deliberately or otherwise) a complaint made to a person of authority will be twisted to make the person complaining sound unduly harsh, rather than the fact that they were making a point.

Personally, I like the idea that snow days given to those who can't sort childcare out are counteracted by giving extra flexi days to those who arrived and stayed (with or without children) as a thank you for struggling in. So you may miss playing in the snow with your children, but you'll get a lovely warm day in the park with them when you want it.

All we need now is an ideal world !!!

 

[wafflycat]

campfire - that's flexitime - ages of the children were raised quite recently - can't remember to what age now. Employers do need to give parents with young children the options to work flexible pattern for childcare reasons.

Still people want kids and it's sad that earning a crust should get in the way of that.

The issue of why people take the piss is interesting and complex- what are people's thoughts on that as I know what I think about it...

We need people to have kids - they are the ones who will be earning a living which pays the tax that pays for the public services and pensions we need when we are ancient and they are of working age. It's long been the case that it's the NI contributions of those of us working NOW that pay the pensions of those getting pensions now. That's why we have the pensions' timebomb.

(By the way ttcycle, I'm not having a dig at you and the comments you make in your posts, it's just that you raise points I find I can tag a generalised reply on to)

 

[ttcycle]

Ah I think you've misinterpreted what I've said Waffly -I think it is important to have kids and I don't think draconian workplace practice should get in the way of that. Often they do- a dear friend of mine has to bend over backwards so that she can get her son to pre-school.

 

[wafflycat]

Personally, I like the idea that snow days given to those who can't sort childcare out are counteracted by giving extra flexi days to those who arrived and stayed (with or without children) as a thank you for struggling in. So you may miss playing in the snow with your children, but you'll get a lovely warm day in the park with them when you want it.

Many years ago, back in the 1980s, MrWC & I worked for a company that was very like that. The nature of the work was that there was no overtime, and you were expected to put in the hours required to complete any given project, early mornings, evenings, weekends... But, the employer was quite generous in handing out paid time-off in lieu when personal circumstances required it. So, for example, when I had just given birth to WCMnr and had almost crashed & burned, and was very, very ill, MrWC was allowed to leave work early/take days off to ensure he could spend time with me in hospital and once I was out of hospital, he was allowed a decent amount of time off (still paid) to look after me. A good employer. But there's a lot, an awful lot who aren't that generous either because they can't be arsed (a bad employer) or the profitability (lack of) of the company means they can't be as generous.

 

[wafflycat]

Ah I think you've misinterpreted what I've said Waffly -I think it is important to have kids and I don't think draconian workplace practice should get in the way of that. Often they do- a dear friend of mine has to bend over backwards so that she can get her son to pre-school.

No, as I said in my post:-

"(By the way ttcycle, I'm not having a dig at you and the comments you make in your posts, it's just that you raise points I find I can tag a generalised reply on to)"

 

[ttcycle]

yeah waffly it sounds like your employer was decent with allowing flexibility when you had children. It's a shame the majority of companies aren't like that and many do have bad HR practices. This restrictiveness can sometimes lead to people taking the piss as they feel demotivated and demoralised and are out to get more from their employer.

 

[Campfire]

I must have been very lucky when I had my son as I never needed to have time off with him and I worked full time in a responsible job. However, I was very lucky in that I had two (not at same time) very good friends who I paid for childcare, thankfully before those days when they had to be registered and my ex husband worked for himself, should things ever fail.

 

[HobbesChoice]

I think fairness was when the "Personnel" department were there to look after the personnel of the company and help keep things ticking over for everyone.

Now though, "HR" seem to be there to help with the recruitment process and keep the company out of court. Staff are no longer much of a consideration anymore, not where I work, anyway!

 

[wafflycat]

I think fairness was when the "Personnel" department were there to look after the personnel of the company and help keep things ticking over for everyone.

Now though, "HR" seem to be there to help with the recruitment process and keep the company out of court. Staff are no longer much of a consideration anymore, not where I work, anyway!

I think you have more than a grain of truth there: the change from 'personnel' to 'HR'