should i have gone to work?

sandiep

Whether you choose to go to work or not, that really is your personal issue. But regardless of that, you should fully expect to have your hours docked and not get paid.

The goverment has given employees parental leave for situations such as this, but employers can't be expected to make this time paid. A few years ago, you wouldn't even have had the statutory right to take time off work to resolve this, this would have been employers discretion.

Ms_Piggy_2

mrcow wrote: »

As you're not after an argument, I'll give you my opinion

Well I voted that you should have gone in.

You had alternative childcare in place and to avoid dropping your work colleagues in it at the last minute, you should have gone in.

It's what I would have done. If it's sorted at home (which is obviously your main priority) then you should fufill your obligations to your employer.

I personally wouldn't have let work down like that. And they know it. It's how give and take works. They know that I always do my best, and they reciprocate when it counts. If I hadn't gone in, they would have trusted me in that I had no alternative. To do what you've done today would be a betrayal of that trust.

Exactly! I totally agree.

jcr16

yes you should have

if i was sure my child had a sickness bug then of course i would of stayed at home. but just a coughing fit and been sick 3 days ago, then i would of phoned bil explained to him excatly what had happened and say how do you feel? they may of been happy for you child to stay with them or they may of said no way.

However i can't see your loose your job but of course u won't get paid.

emsywoo123

no shouldn't have.

fly_dragon_fly wrote: »

my partner then rang me and told me that his brother would have my son and i have to go to work.
.

This is the bit that really surprised me...................he is your partner and telling you you have to go to work?!?!
Not my business, but is your son your OH's as well, just that you say "my" son rather than "our"son.
You really do not have to answer that, just wondered if it made a difference.

Savvy_Sue

Unless your partner is your employer, how does your partner know how your employer will respond to you not being at work? (I still miss the confused smiley ...)

Is your partner a bit of a bully, who expects you to do as he says?

And isn't £15 for a 3 hour shift less than minimum wage? Or not at your age?

liney

yes you should have

If your son was sick from coughing, then he wasn't actually"ill". Your DH made arrangments for childcare, which is what Emergency Dependant Leave is actually for: to make arrangments for unexpected situations, so I suppose you should have actually gone to work.

Saying that, I probably would have stayed at home if it was only a 3 hour shift, but have gone in if it had been a full day.

jrjakn118

no shouldn't have.

Don't worry about the work too much. The most important at that time is to attend to your sick child who needs you at the moment. When your boss will sack you, I think you will another job. God will find a way, you know.

lola34

Its a personal choice and I think as a mother you know in your heart whether or not your child needs you? it also depends on the age of the child? young children can go downhill very quickly.
I've driven to work before turning around and coming back home before even getting there when one of my DS's was sick but luckily I have fantastic employers- they're not little for long.

Spendless

I think you should have gone in. Children are often sick if they cough too harshly- doesn't mean they have a sickness bug and you'd considered him/her well enough to send to school initially.

What you earn isn't relevant- you were going to earn that even if your child had been at school all day.

You had alternative childcare as your BIL offerred to help out.

Save the phone calls telling work your not coming in due to a sick child for the times you are really, really stuck (either illness or childcare-wise).

Otherwise I can see work getting cross (eventually).