I don't agree with the policy but surely you use vacation time not sick leave when your children are sick? I do at least and assumed everybody else did too. (I'm in the UK though so appreciate sick leave may be a different concept in the US).
[1]: https://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatpers/foralder/!ut/p/z...
> I don't agree with the policy but surely you use vacation time not sick leave when your children are sick?
My reply to it is "No". I surely don't use vacation time instead of sick leave to care for sick family members. I can't really make this any clearer and as far as relevant to GP's point, it's an answer to their question. Even if we didn't have that system I wouldn't take out vacation days should this problem show up. It's not vacation.
Here's California Labor Code section 246.5(o):
Diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition of, or preventive care for, an employee or an employee’s family member.
(o) http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...
At one co this causes some friction. Company policy was 20 vacation days and 10 sick days. A young healthy type guy would use maybe 1 sick day and 20 vacation days, for 21 days off a year.
Anyone with kids know they get sick a LOT. So basically anyone with any amount of kids would use all 10 for their kids. So parents go 10 sick + 20 vacation = 30 days off a year.
I guess enough people complained that they just combined the two into a single "PTO" pool of 28 days. That way you can take the 28 days if you have kids or not. I guess the downside is people with kids got less vacation, but it seemed bit more "fair" overall.
You see, parents aren't just slacking off. They are doing the responsible thing - not making a bunch of other children sick while taking care of their own sick child, whom they are responsible for and cannot yet take care of themselves. I'd not trust a 7 year old to take the right dose of medicines on time, for example, nor can the 7 year old go off to the doctor on their own. As you can see in your example, the parents are going to be home with their children regardless, even if using vacation, PTO time, or aren't paid at all.
Luckily, I'm now in a country that allows for this sort of thing.
That is a very European attitude. The American attitude is more or less "You choose to have kids, why should everyone else help pay for it?"
Some laws still help, for example you get a small tax break for kids. But it is a struggle. In some towns, the schools are literally falling apart due to age and lack of repair. The school has to do a local vote for approval for funds. The towns with > 50% of the people old and without kids living at home? They tend to vote NO over and over, preferring to have more money for cable TV and not fund other people's kids. (Ignore the fact themselves and their own kids went to the same schools years before).
I personally don't view it that way (I say this as someone who doesn't have a child).
On the other hand, most of the time I can work from home while tending to a sick kid.
I don't actually have a problem with taking time off for family reasons, but it does sound more fair to just give people a bucket of days and let them figure it out.
Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't incentivize having children by making extra allowances for that, but let's not pretend it's anything but unfair.
But if we're talking fair, why should they get a day to take care of their child but I don't get one to take care of necessary legal paperwork?
You think you've made a point, but you really haven't. You don't have to take vacation time for that, you can always take unpaid leave - at least, everywhere I've ever worked. If you dispute using sick days for looking after children, perhaps you should examine your employment contract and perhaps consult an employment lawyer? There will be plenty of legal reasons why it's this way.
Feel free to apply to take a sick day while consulting the lawyer, too.
There's nothing wrong with that, but it's ridiculous to say it's fair when at a fundamental level, the exact point is that it's not.
If as a species we don't raise children how will we continue to have life? It's not optional if we wish to continue the species; ergo it's "essential to life".
It's like you and the sibling comment decided to ignore my second paragraph entirely.
It's unfair, not a bad idea or illegal. Sometimes, we want options not to be fair because we're trying to incentivize behavior.
Incentivizing the continuation of the species is generally regarded as a good idea, so we make extra allowances for people who do that, even though it isn't fair.
Compassion.
Compassion isn't fairness. Fairness isn't the only criterion we should make decisions on. However, I was responding to the comment about it being fair, which to be honest, none of the replies have addressed and instead gone on tangents about why it might be a good idea for other reasons.
But also, what, compassion for their child being sick but not me having to defend myself against, eg, an unfair ticket?
Seems a very narrow kind of compassion. Why doesn't compassion apply to the legal case?
"Defending yourself against an unfair ticket" is a very different case than "I need to see my accountant" though - had you used that example in the first place I suspect you might've got a different set of responses.
Yeah, boy, it sure is an "off" day when I have to stay home with my vomiting kid. Gosh, I sure am sticking it to all those suckers who only get to be away from the office for 21 days.
Sarcasm aside, it seems like explaining that sick time isn't "off" time might help.
https://www.gov.uk/time-off-for-dependants/your-rights
Apparently there is an 18week unpaid parental leave entitlement for the period up to a child's 18th birthday, never knew that.
> Sick leave may be authorized due to personal illness or injury; to care for an immediate family member who is ill or injured and requires the personal attention of the employee