New time off for employees with children??
T
175 Posts
Are there some states that are required to give time off to parents for maybe school related reasons, teacher conference, school plays, etc.
I thought I read about this somewhere and I was worried that along with FMLA and a company's sick time policy that we as employer's would have to accomodate another means of being absent?
Thanks.
T
I thought I read about this somewhere and I was worried that along with FMLA and a company's sick time policy that we as employer's would have to accomodate another means of being absent?
Thanks.
T
Comments
San Francisco mandates 9 paid sick days per year to employees in that city.
What next?
Thanks.
-t
Parents need time to attend thier child's school activities. They also need time for vacation too, and should not have to use all thier vaction time to attend something at school. In my mind it is only helping to make for a happier workforce when we all acknowledge that it is a very hard balance people are trying to make now in being good workers and good parents. Why begrude them the time in their child's schools, when it has been proven over and over again parent involvement is key to a child's success? I believe they will appreciate the time they are given when it is granted without guilt. We have yet to have anyone who has used the full 40 hours in a year, but they love the time to be able to go on field trips or for conferences or special events that may be few hours. We also let them do make up time if they don't want to take the time without pay, or use vacation.
Just curious why you think it is bad and hope other states do not adopt similar policies.
I am a parent and of course an employee and employer too. It was my own choice to have children, and because of my choice I may end up NOT getting to take "real" vacations because my parental responsibilities come first. My choice should not be my employer's problem.
My oldest son has had a rough couple of years at school, and I've used up the bulk of my vacation pay on him, because of having to stay home with him while he's suspended, or leave to pick him up early from school. (We have a partial day pay policy for exempts) I missed enough time because of him that I certainly shouldn't expect to take even more time away from my job for a vacation. There's work to be done.
Sometimes a parent has to sacrifice the fun stuff for their parental responsibilities. I personally would have appreciated having a separate "bank" to pay for all that time I missed because of my son, but that isn't the point.
Sorry for the rambling. We don't have this requirement in AZ (yet?), and I hadn't stopped to think about the issue until now. I'm sure my opinion will evolve over time, but there it is for now.
You and I obviously have different views and that is fine. Not all of us are going to see it the same, but I do think we need to make sure we take the time to be there for our children and make their education important.
My child comes before my job, bottom line. I only have one chance to raise my child correctly, I have a lifetime to work. I use my vaction time for things that concern my child also. I think all parents do. I am not asking the employer to cover the cost of me haivng a child but I don't see it as one black and white choice, if you work forget having children unless you will use only vacation time to deal with them. I think the more an employer and employee can work together to meet the needs of balancing doing a good job at work and at homeit is best for both concerned.
If I have a need to take care of my child's education and my employer resents that or is going to hassle me, I am going to find employement elsewhere. Like I said none of our employees have ever used the full 40 hours and it makes them very happy to have this option, which helps in retention. We have very little turn over and our employees always thank us for our concerns in raising thier children.
As far as fair, is it fair an exempt can take the 2 hours to go to a school conference and still get paid for the whole day, while the non-exempt cannot? This way it is fair across the board, in my opinion. Regardless of your work ranking you are given the same amount of time for your child's school needs.
Although it may sound like arguing, I am not, simply trying to present my views and what works for us.
I do think employers should support working parents obligations as much as is reasonable for their business. I suppose that is where the problem lies: without regulation, it's up to every employer to interpret the definition of "reasonable." I do get frustrated with regulations handed down to "good" employers because there are "bad" employers who don't treat their employees fairly.
I do think it's fair that exempts can leave two hours early and get paid for a full day's salary. You know what happens when they work a 50 (or more) hour week. It balances out. If it's not balancing out, then their supervisor needs to consider that person's workload or their ability to manage their workload.
Having said all that, our population is mostly working mothers, and we constantly juggle their personal scheduling needs with our business needs. We are a childcare company and have to meet state mandated teacher/child ratios regardless of our staff's personal needs. There is no option of "make up time," the kids can't wait. We actually do a pretty good job of being flexible considering all that, but there are times we have to say "no" because SOMEBODY had got to supervise the children in our care.
I didn't think you were being argumentive for argument's sake. I just see this a bit differently than you do, and of course it sounds like we work in very different industries.
I do absolutely agree with you on how laws are handed down, more to regulate the bad employers but it often ties the hands, or hurts the good employers. This is no longer the old days where employers regularly exploited thier employees.
One note that may interest others is, many restaurants in San Francisco are planning to close during the busiest booking time of the year to protest the new laws. An excerpt from the article:
San Francisco restaurant owners are threatening to shutter their doors for a day to protest city mandates and costs that they say make it onerous to run a restaurant in San Francisco.
The costs include a voter-approved minimum wage in San Francisco that’s $1.14 over the state minimum hourly wage of $8. In November, voters also approved a measure — put on the ballot by members of the Board of Supervisors — requiring companies to provide one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours an employee works. There’s also a new city mandate effective January 2007 that requires businesses with 20 employees or more to pay up to $1.60 per employee hour toward worker health care.
Kevin Westlye, the executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, which represents about 800 of San Francisco’s approximately 2,000 full-service restaurants, said the costs are forcing restaurateurs out of The City and discouraging new dining establishments from opening.
Those states that specifically discuss time off for employees for the school activities of their children include California, Illinois, Louisiana (though this statute is permissive, not mandatory), Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Washington, D.C. also has a statute giving biological parents up to 24 hours of leave per year to attend school related activities.
Utah requires employers to give parents leave if their children are required to appear in court....
Holly Jones
Attorney Editor
M. Lee Smith Publishers, LLC