Getting sick is vile, miserable, and a waste of time - so do something about it!
Options
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Exactly. I know multiple professors, including those with tenure, who are pressured into not taking time off because, not so shockingly, no one can fill in for them. Missing class means students don't learn as much and is also in a costing students money as they aren't getting what they paid for. Of course this takes on a much deeper meaning if they're tenure track.
This is also a major an issue in high stakes situations for the instructors' students. I TA for two ESL courses and for a lot of students, if they don't pass an English standardized test with a high enough score, they will lose funding to stay in the US. In some cases it also means they won't be able to get a degree at an institution where English is the medium of instruction.
I know of a college professor who died of cancer. He taught his last semester remotely from his hospital bed. Finished it, too.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Honestly there are professions where it isnt feasible for an employee to have a backup. Someone gave an example of a college professor who if they dont show up something like 200 people dont get the class they essentially paid $300 each for. They can't just replace them that day and that doesn't represent a "failure of management". Science is similar...you are specialized in your field and you can't just be replaced if you dont show.
I get you are talking from your own personal experience but honestly when you overgeneralize like you are doing...your going to be wrong. There are legitimate cases where the cost of coming in sick is less than the cost of not.
This is coming from someone who literally works in developing therapies for infectious diseases by the way so yeah I do care about illness and human suffering.
I worked at a university for two years (PhD studies) and professors are, and should be replaceable and definitely take sick days. I know there are 3-4 faculty members off on long term sick due to stress right now in that department (because my partner works there now) and their classes are being taught by others using their lecture materials and the occasional email. You can also just reschedule classes, send the class notes round to everyone, maybe see if they want an extra tutorial session when the staff member is back in. The world doesn't end and they are entitled to their leave.
I don't think there is any person in the world who is so valuable that people can't do without them for a day. The person who is going to cure cancer (or your chosen infectious disease) still deserves their days off when they're sick. You need workarounds and back up systems in place or management hasn't done their job properly. I know this isn't the case in a lot of places but rather than making my statement untrue I would say there are a lot of very badly managed companies around.
Okay so just to sum up here...you know faculty members taking multiple weeks off of work because of "stress" having other less experienced people take on their job (presumably then doing less of their own job) and that sounds good to you but if a person dares show up to work despite having a cold then that person is worthy of your hatred (your words).
See my issue here isnt that I think people dont deserve sick time...of course people deserve to be able to take sick time. My issue from the beginning was "hate" being applied to people who decide that their work is of sufficient value that they should come in despite being sick. You seem to assume that regardless of circumstances that is an act worthy of hatred. That is what I took issue with. trying to act like I dont think people deserve sick time is a deflection from what you actually said that I took issue with.
People who sneer at those who show up to do their job despite being sick arent being good people in that moment...that is not behavior I think we should promote.
Promoting sick leave for workers...sure, absolutely. Promoting vitriol at anyone who seems not to take advantage of that time....no.
I may have missed the vitriol...my takeaway was that the OP anyway was frustrated with people who come to work sick and thus make other people sick. I can understand his frustration, especially if those employees have sick time. Isn't the whole point of sick time so you stay home and not get others sick?
I'm an independent contractor and don't get sick leave, but then I also work from home so when I work sick I don't get others sick.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/01/direct-report-sick-leave-office-etiquette.html
...With cold and flu season in full swing, you might be surrounded by coughing, sniffly co-workers. Every year around this time my inbox at Ask a Manager fills up with complaints about colleagues who shouldn’t be at work, putting everyone else at risk of getting sick, too.
https://fairygodboss.com/career-topics/sick-leave
...Like with bereavement leave, there are no federal laws requiring or protecting paid sick leave, making America the only country amongst a lineup of 22 developed nations that doesn’t guarantee pay if an employee, or a close member of the employee’s family, gets an illness and needs to take a sick day.3 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Exactly. I know multiple professors, including those with tenure, who are pressured into not taking time off because, not so shockingly, no one can fill in for them. Missing class means students don't learn as much and is also in a costing students money as they aren't getting what they paid for. Of course this takes on a much deeper meaning if they're tenure track.
This is also a major an issue in high stakes situations for the instructors' students. I TA for two ESL courses and for a lot of students, if they don't pass an English standardized test with a high enough score, they will lose funding to stay in the US. In some cases it also means they won't be able to get a degree at an institution where English is the medium of instruction.
I know of a college professor who died of cancer. He taught his last semester remotely from his hospital bed. Finished it, too.
Many of the professors I have had would have been utterly irreplaceable. What a gift of love and knowledge to give to his students, and such bravery in the face of death.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Honestly there are professions where it isnt feasible for an employee to have a backup. Someone gave an example of a college professor who if they dont show up something like 200 people dont get the class they essentially paid $300 each for. They can't just replace them that day and that doesn't represent a "failure of management". Science is similar...you are specialized in your field and you can't just be replaced if you dont show.
I get you are talking from your own personal experience but honestly when you overgeneralize like you are doing...your going to be wrong. There are legitimate cases where the cost of coming in sick is less than the cost of not.
This is coming from someone who literally works in developing therapies for infectious diseases by the way so yeah I do care about illness and human suffering.
I worked at a university for two years (PhD studies) and professors are, and should be replaceable and definitely take sick days. I know there are 3-4 faculty members off on long term sick due to stress right now in that department (because my partner works there now) and their classes are being taught by others using their lecture materials and the occasional email. You can also just reschedule classes, send the class notes round to everyone, maybe see if they want an extra tutorial session when the staff member is back in. The world doesn't end and they are entitled to their leave.
I don't think there is any person in the world who is so valuable that people can't do without them for a day. The person who is going to cure cancer (or your chosen infectious disease) still deserves their days off when they're sick. You need workarounds and back up systems in place or management hasn't done their job properly. I know this isn't the case in a lot of places but rather than making my statement untrue I would say there are a lot of very badly managed companies around.
Okay so just to sum up here...you know faculty members taking multiple weeks off of work because of "stress" having other less experienced people take on their job (presumably then doing less of their own job) and that sounds good to you but if a person dares show up to work despite having a cold then that person is worthy of your hatred (your words).
See my issue here isnt that I think people dont deserve sick time...of course people deserve to be able to take sick time. My issue from the beginning was "hate" being applied to people who decide that their work is of sufficient value that they should come in despite being sick. You seem to assume that regardless of circumstances that is an act worthy of hatred. That is what I took issue with. trying to act like I dont think people deserve sick time is a deflection from what you actually said that I took issue with.
People who sneer at those who show up to do their job despite being sick arent being good people in that moment...that is not behavior I think we should promote.
Promoting sick leave for workers...sure, absolutely. Promoting vitriol at anyone who seems not to take advantage of that time....no.
It's rare that I disagree with you, but I do in this case. Someone showing up sick to do a job might kill me, actually dead. I get to hate people who are doing things to kill me. And I am not a rare instance, a whole lot of people every year die, dead dead, because someone showed up to work. Your work is mostly not worth killing someone to avoid skipping a few days. Maybe it is, depending, but really mostly not. Because people who are dead stay dead. They don't stop being dead when you get over your flu.7 -
French_Peasant wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Exactly. I know multiple professors, including those with tenure, who are pressured into not taking time off because, not so shockingly, no one can fill in for them. Missing class means students don't learn as much and is also in a costing students money as they aren't getting what they paid for. Of course this takes on a much deeper meaning if they're tenure track.
This is also a major an issue in high stakes situations for the instructors' students. I TA for two ESL courses and for a lot of students, if they don't pass an English standardized test with a high enough score, they will lose funding to stay in the US. In some cases it also means they won't be able to get a degree at an institution where English is the medium of instruction.
I know of a college professor who died of cancer. He taught his last semester remotely from his hospital bed. Finished it, too.
Many of the professors I have had would have been utterly irreplaceable. What a gift of love and knowledge to give to his students, and such bravery in the face of death.
I also know he was one of those 1976 Boat People. His sister told me about it. What we call trouble, isn't.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Honestly there are professions where it isnt feasible for an employee to have a backup. Someone gave an example of a college professor who if they dont show up something like 200 people dont get the class they essentially paid $300 each for. They can't just replace them that day and that doesn't represent a "failure of management". Science is similar...you are specialized in your field and you can't just be replaced if you dont show.
I get you are talking from your own personal experience but honestly when you overgeneralize like you are doing...your going to be wrong. There are legitimate cases where the cost of coming in sick is less than the cost of not.
This is coming from someone who literally works in developing therapies for infectious diseases by the way so yeah I do care about illness and human suffering.
I worked at a university for two years (PhD studies) and professors are, and should be replaceable and definitely take sick days. I know there are 3-4 faculty members off on long term sick due to stress right now in that department (because my partner works there now) and their classes are being taught by others using their lecture materials and the occasional email. You can also just reschedule classes, send the class notes round to everyone, maybe see if they want an extra tutorial session when the staff member is back in. The world doesn't end and they are entitled to their leave.
I don't think there is any person in the world who is so valuable that people can't do without them for a day. The person who is going to cure cancer (or your chosen infectious disease) still deserves their days off when they're sick. You need workarounds and back up systems in place or management hasn't done their job properly. I know this isn't the case in a lot of places but rather than making my statement untrue I would say there are a lot of very badly managed companies around.
Okay so just to sum up here...you know faculty members taking multiple weeks off of work because of "stress" having other less experienced people take on their job (presumably then doing less of their own job) and that sounds good to you but if a person dares show up to work despite having a cold then that person is worthy of your hatred (your words).
See my issue here isnt that I think people dont deserve sick time...of course people deserve to be able to take sick time. My issue from the beginning was "hate" being applied to people who decide that their work is of sufficient value that they should come in despite being sick. You seem to assume that regardless of circumstances that is an act worthy of hatred. That is what I took issue with. trying to act like I dont think people deserve sick time is a deflection from what you actually said that I took issue with.
People who sneer at those who show up to do their job despite being sick arent being good people in that moment...that is not behavior I think we should promote.
Promoting sick leave for workers...sure, absolutely. Promoting vitriol at anyone who seems not to take advantage of that time....no.
I may have missed the vitriol...my takeaway was that the OP anyway was frustrated with people who come to work sick and thus make other people sick. I can understand his frustration, especially if those employees have sick time. Isn't the whole point of sick time so you stay home and not get others sick?
I'm an independent contractor and don't get sick leave, but then I also work from home so when I work sick I don't get others sick.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/01/direct-report-sick-leave-office-etiquette.html
...With cold and flu season in full swing, you might be surrounded by coughing, sniffly co-workers. Every year around this time my inbox at Ask a Manager fills up with complaints about colleagues who shouldn’t be at work, putting everyone else at risk of getting sick, too.
https://fairygodboss.com/career-topics/sick-leave
...Like with bereavement leave, there are no federal laws requiring or protecting paid sick leave, making America the only country amongst a lineup of 22 developed nations that doesn’t guarantee pay if an employee, or a close member of the employee’s family, gets an illness and needs to take a sick day.
This brings up the other issue that people don't realize/don't care. There's a lot of "it's just a cold/it's just a flu" that many (employers included) don't consider having a cold as 'sick enough'. Take some DayQuil and deal with it. And you also have people who don't look past their own noses, so to speak. The "it's my life/it's my kid I'll do what I want" crowd.2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Honestly there are professions where it isnt feasible for an employee to have a backup. Someone gave an example of a college professor who if they dont show up something like 200 people dont get the class they essentially paid $300 each for. They can't just replace them that day and that doesn't represent a "failure of management". Science is similar...you are specialized in your field and you can't just be replaced if you dont show.
I get you are talking from your own personal experience but honestly when you overgeneralize like you are doing...your going to be wrong. There are legitimate cases where the cost of coming in sick is less than the cost of not.
This is coming from someone who literally works in developing therapies for infectious diseases by the way so yeah I do care about illness and human suffering.
I worked at a university for two years (PhD studies) and professors are, and should be replaceable and definitely take sick days. I know there are 3-4 faculty members off on long term sick due to stress right now in that department (because my partner works there now) and their classes are being taught by others using their lecture materials and the occasional email. You can also just reschedule classes, send the class notes round to everyone, maybe see if they want an extra tutorial session when the staff member is back in. The world doesn't end and they are entitled to their leave.
I don't think there is any person in the world who is so valuable that people can't do without them for a day. The person who is going to cure cancer (or your chosen infectious disease) still deserves their days off when they're sick. You need workarounds and back up systems in place or management hasn't done their job properly. I know this isn't the case in a lot of places but rather than making my statement untrue I would say there are a lot of very badly managed companies around.
Okay so just to sum up here...you know faculty members taking multiple weeks off of work because of "stress" having other less experienced people take on their job (presumably then doing less of their own job) and that sounds good to you but if a person dares show up to work despite having a cold then that person is worthy of your hatred (your words).
See my issue here isnt that I think people dont deserve sick time...of course people deserve to be able to take sick time. My issue from the beginning was "hate" being applied to people who decide that their work is of sufficient value that they should come in despite being sick. You seem to assume that regardless of circumstances that is an act worthy of hatred. That is what I took issue with. trying to act like I dont think people deserve sick time is a deflection from what you actually said that I took issue with.
People who sneer at those who show up to do their job despite being sick arent being good people in that moment...that is not behavior I think we should promote.
Promoting sick leave for workers...sure, absolutely. Promoting vitriol at anyone who seems not to take advantage of that time....no.
It's rare that I disagree with you, but I do in this case. Someone showing up sick to do a job might kill me, actually dead. I get to hate people who are doing things to kill me. And I am not a rare instance, a whole lot of people every year die, dead dead, because someone showed up to work. Your work is mostly not worth killing someone to avoid skipping a few days. Maybe it is, depending, but really mostly not. Because people who are dead stay dead. They don't stop being dead when you get over your flu.
We didn't specify the illness. Yes...if you have an illness that kills people you should probably be in a hospital not at work. Dont gonto work with the flu yeah I agree...but there is a pretty clear difference in severity between a cold and the flu. I was picturing the scenario where you have a cold...runny nose, sneezing, etc. Of course if you work at a hospital where there are a bunch of immunocompromised people then stay home even with a cold...its nuanced, which was my point really.
I am not the one generalizing..I am saying it is a nuanced issue...not everyone who goes to work sick is right to do so...but not everyone who goes to work sick is necessary wrong to do so either...there are just a lot of factors. So just making broad statements about it doesn't make sense to me.
I am certainly not trying to claim that anyone who is sick should go to work and if that is how it came across let me affirm that is not something I believe.
...as far as the number of times you have agreed or disagreed with me before dont worry I'm not keeping track
4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Honestly there are professions where it isnt feasible for an employee to have a backup. Someone gave an example of a college professor who if they dont show up something like 200 people dont get the class they essentially paid $300 each for. They can't just replace them that day and that doesn't represent a "failure of management". Science is similar...you are specialized in your field and you can't just be replaced if you dont show.
I get you are talking from your own personal experience but honestly when you overgeneralize like you are doing...your going to be wrong. There are legitimate cases where the cost of coming in sick is less than the cost of not.
This is coming from someone who literally works in developing therapies for infectious diseases by the way so yeah I do care about illness and human suffering.
I worked at a university for two years (PhD studies) and professors are, and should be replaceable and definitely take sick days. I know there are 3-4 faculty members off on long term sick due to stress right now in that department (because my partner works there now) and their classes are being taught by others using their lecture materials and the occasional email. You can also just reschedule classes, send the class notes round to everyone, maybe see if they want an extra tutorial session when the staff member is back in. The world doesn't end and they are entitled to their leave.
I don't think there is any person in the world who is so valuable that people can't do without them for a day. The person who is going to cure cancer (or your chosen infectious disease) still deserves their days off when they're sick. You need workarounds and back up systems in place or management hasn't done their job properly. I know this isn't the case in a lot of places but rather than making my statement untrue I would say there are a lot of very badly managed companies around.
That's really dependent on the department and the course being taught. If you have a small department then you, as the professor, might not actually be replaceable. While my Hebrew professor never did call in sick, I can assure you that there's no one else who would have been able to teach that class. The same would be true for Turkish, Persian, and probably Italian. It would also be true of German depending on the course.
In the Fall there were one or two professors in one of the departments at my university who were on sick leave for a month or so and their classes were covered, haphazardly, by other instructors. In situations, that term, when other instructors were sick it simply wasn't feasible to cover everyone's classes. When you factor in the number of classes taught, the need for office hours, etc. It's just not always possible.
There's a computer assisted language learning course that gets taught every year or two and I'm also pretty sure no one within the department it's taught in could teach that if the professor sick. There's a professor who is in a different department who would be able to step in, but university politics would make that very difficult. He would essentially be working without pay.
The ability of rescheduling classes assumes quite a lot (about the students and faculty) and I can't imagine that would be easily doable at my institution.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Honestly there are professions where it isnt feasible for an employee to have a backup. Someone gave an example of a college professor who if they dont show up something like 200 people dont get the class they essentially paid $300 each for. They can't just replace them that day and that doesn't represent a "failure of management". Science is similar...you are specialized in your field and you can't just be replaced if you dont show.
I get you are talking from your own personal experience but honestly when you overgeneralize like you are doing...your going to be wrong. There are legitimate cases where the cost of coming in sick is less than the cost of not.
This is coming from someone who literally works in developing therapies for infectious diseases by the way so yeah I do care about illness and human suffering.
I worked at a university for two years (PhD studies) and professors are, and should be replaceable and definitely take sick days. I know there are 3-4 faculty members off on long term sick due to stress right now in that department (because my partner works there now) and their classes are being taught by others using their lecture materials and the occasional email. You can also just reschedule classes, send the class notes round to everyone, maybe see if they want an extra tutorial session when the staff member is back in. The world doesn't end and they are entitled to their leave.
I don't think there is any person in the world who is so valuable that people can't do without them for a day. The person who is going to cure cancer (or your chosen infectious disease) still deserves their days off when they're sick. You need workarounds and back up systems in place or management hasn't done their job properly. I know this isn't the case in a lot of places but rather than making my statement untrue I would say there are a lot of very badly managed companies around.
Okay so just to sum up here...you know faculty members taking multiple weeks off of work because of "stress" having other less experienced people take on their job (presumably then doing less of their own job) and that sounds good to you but if a person dares show up to work despite having a cold then that person is worthy of your hatred (your words).
See my issue here isnt that I think people dont deserve sick time...of course people deserve to be able to take sick time. My issue from the beginning was "hate" being applied to people who decide that their work is of sufficient value that they should come in despite being sick. You seem to assume that regardless of circumstances that is an act worthy of hatred. That is what I took issue with. trying to act like I dont think people deserve sick time is a deflection from what you actually said that I took issue with.
People who sneer at those who show up to do their job despite being sick arent being good people in that moment...that is not behavior I think we should promote.
Promoting sick leave for workers...sure, absolutely. Promoting vitriol at anyone who seems not to take advantage of that time....no.
I totally agree with all this, and there are definitely times I've been sick and simply could not possibly take time off. It was awful for me, it's very unlikely to have affected anyone else (other than those who would have been screwed over by me not showing up).
I'm rarely sick, ftr.0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Exactly. I know multiple professors, including those with tenure, who are pressured into not taking time off because, not so shockingly, no one can fill in for them. Missing class means students don't learn as much and is also in a costing students money as they aren't getting what they paid for. Of course this takes on a much deeper meaning if they're tenure track.
This is also a major an issue in high stakes situations for the instructors' students. I TA for two ESL courses and for a lot of students, if they don't pass an English standardized test with a high enough score, they will lose funding to stay in the US. In some cases it also means they won't be able to get a degree at an institution where English is the medium of instruction.
I know of a college professor who died of cancer. He taught his last semester remotely from his hospital bed. Finished it, too.
I have a good friend who will likely be doing something similar. I suspect she'll be researching, and potentially writing, until the very end. Given her field, she's not especially replaceable (though I'm a bit biased).6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Okay so just to sum up here...you know faculty members taking multiple weeks off of work because of "stress" having other less experienced people take on their job (presumably then doing less of their own job) and that sounds good to you but if a person dares show up to work despite having a cold then that person is worthy of your hatred (your words).
See my issue here isnt that I think people dont deserve sick time...of course people deserve to be able to take sick time. My issue from the beginning was "hate" being applied to people who decide that their work is of sufficient value that they should come in despite being sick. You seem to assume that regardless of circumstances that is an act worthy of hatred. That is what I took issue with. trying to act like I dont think people deserve sick time is a deflection from what you actually said that I took issue with.
People who sneer at those who show up to do their job despite being sick arent being good people in that moment...that is not behavior I think we should promote.
Promoting sick leave for workers...sure, absolutely. Promoting vitriol at anyone who seems not to take advantage of that time....no.
Massively mischaracterising what I said there. "I hate when people don't take the sick leave they're entitled to" is not "I hate people who come to work sick". When people don't take what they're entitled to it contributes to a culture where other people are then expected not to take it. It's an excuse for companies to then try and take away paid sick or try and discourage people taking sick leave so management don't have to put the work/ money in to ensure they have checks and balances for when sick leave does happen. Possibly spreading illness is another thing on top of that. The staff members I mentioned on leave? They're doing what they should be doing and so are the people stepping up to fill in the gaps. No resentment there, go away, get better, don't worry. That's how it should be.
Nothing I said was "vitriolic" in any way. I do hate when people think or feel (or are made to think and feel) that their productivity should come before their health and wellbeing. Or when they are forced to put productivity in front of their health because their job doesn't give them what they should be entitled to. That is hateful but none of that is directed at any individual, it's the culture.6 -
Crafty_camper123 wrote: »^^ This is so true. I can't tell you how many times ( US here ) I have heard of the schools complaining about students missing class. Even if they were legitimate illnesses with doctor's notes! (Not just colds).
My SIL has had trouble with my niece having to have time off school. Including when she's been hospitalised. She had surgery, and my SIL still had trouble with the local authority.
They also demand all hospital appointments are outside of school hours. Because hospitals can always make appointments to suit the schools, not like they're juggling a lot of patients or anything. They said the surgery should've been postponed for a school holiday.
One of the paediatric specialists she was seeing only had appointments between something like 10am and 2pm a couple of times a week.
It's ridiculous when they think school is more important than a child's health!3 -
OneRatGirl wrote: »Crafty_camper123 wrote: »^^ This is so true. I can't tell you how many times ( US here ) I have heard of the schools complaining about students missing class. Even if they were legitimate illnesses with doctor's notes! (Not just colds).
My SIL has had trouble with my niece having to have time off school. Including when she's been hospitalised. She had surgery, and my SIL still had trouble with the local authority.
They also demand all hospital appointments are outside of school hours. Because hospitals can always make appointments to suit the schools, not like they're juggling a lot of patients or anything. They said the surgery should've been postponed for a school holiday.
One of the paediatric specialists she was seeing only had appointments between something like 10am and 2pm a couple of times a week.
It's ridiculous when they think school is more important than a child's health!
To be fair (speaking as a primary school teacher) - the requirements about school attendance are generally statutory requirements rather than the school being *kitten*. We are also required to comment in school reports on attendance for less than 70% - regardless of the reason. Also, student progress contributes to teacher performance reviews, so I guess some people might wrongly become a bit antsy about students being absent a lot. I'm NOT saying this is right, and surely anyone with a grain of common sense should be able to see the difference between frequent unexplained absences and surgery - but it's not just because we think school is more important than a child's health
Actually we often have to send reminders to parents that there is little benefit in sending their kids to school when sick, because they don't learn effectively anyway and viruses spread like wildfire among a class of students. Unfortunately that doesn't always work, for all the reasons people have discussed, and yeah not everyone has the luxury of taking sick days to care for their kids.
Being surrounded by germy children all the time, of course teachers (and nurses, doctors, etc etc) get sick too. I generally have a pretty robust immune system, eat healthily, drink loads of water and everything else I should do, but I still come down with bad cold 2 or 3 times a year. My friend who works with the same kids gets any stomach flu that goes around. Another colleague never gets anything. Luck of the draw. What makes it difficult is that there really is a culture of congratulating staff for turning up and battling through the school day like a martyr. Even though I'm in Europe where sick days are a right and I can legally take 2 sick days before requiring a doctor's note, circumstances make it difficult. My school outright praises staff who turn up and teach when sick. There are usually no substitute teachers, so if I am off for a day my poor teaching assistant usually gets stuck dealing with my class all day. This isn't fair on him and also means that my students spend a day doing filler work. So of course I try not to call in sick, even though I know damn well I'm not making the best choice for mine (or others') health. It's a tricky issue!0 -
@hungrywombat It's really the LEA who are the problem, and who need to rethink the policies, yes the school are just following the rules they have to, I don't blame the teachers or the school.
The school have a sensible policy that if they vomit they can't go to school for I think 48 hours, but then the LEA will moan about the time off if it drops below 90%. They told the school/parents that a kid with severe bronchitis should be at school if they're already on antibiotics. If they're not contagious, that may be reasonable to expect a teenager to learn to push through after the first few days, but I think it's unfair on a 6 year old.
I know it is tricky with kids with chronic health issues, but they seem to be unable to differentiate between kids who are off a lot with doctor and consultant explanations, and parents who keep their kid home every week for a stomach ache. Although that also ignores mental health, i have a parent friend having trouble with that side.
I think education is extremely important, the government just needs to come up with a better system I think.2 -
OneRatGirl wrote: »@hungrywombat It's really the LEA who are the problem, and who need to rethink the policies, yes the school are just following the rules they have to, I don't blame the teachers or the school.
The school have a sensible policy that if they vomit they can't go to school for I think 48 hours, but then the LEA will moan about the time off if it drops below 90%. They told the school/parents that a kid with severe bronchitis should be at school if they're already on antibiotics. If they're not contagious, that may be reasonable to expect a teenager to learn to push through after the first few days, but I think it's unfair on a 6 year old.
I know it is tricky with kids with chronic health issues, but they seem to be unable to differentiate between kids who are off a lot with doctor and consultant explanations, and parents who keep their kid home every week for a stomach ache. Although that also ignores mental health, i have a parent friend having trouble with that side.
I think education is extremely important, the government just needs to come up with a better system I think.
In case anyone else was wondering, LEA stands for Local Education Agency.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »OneRatGirl wrote: »@hungrywombat It's really the LEA who are the problem, and who need to rethink the policies, yes the school are just following the rules they have to, I don't blame the teachers or the school.
The school have a sensible policy that if they vomit they can't go to school for I think 48 hours, but then the LEA will moan about the time off if it drops below 90%. They told the school/parents that a kid with severe bronchitis should be at school if they're already on antibiotics. If they're not contagious, that may be reasonable to expect a teenager to learn to push through after the first few days, but I think it's unfair on a 6 year old.
I know it is tricky with kids with chronic health issues, but they seem to be unable to differentiate between kids who are off a lot with doctor and consultant explanations, and parents who keep their kid home every week for a stomach ache. Although that also ignores mental health, i have a parent friend having trouble with that side.
I think education is extremely important, the government just needs to come up with a better system I think.
In case anyone else was wondering, LEA stands for Local Education Agency.
Agree completely! Decisions made by managers or politicians who have no background in education. I think someone else mentioned as well that kids are now exposed to this "soldier on" expectation from such an early age - it can't help to form their opinions, which just makes it that much harder to change the culture.1 -
hungrywombat wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »OneRatGirl wrote: »@hungrywombat It's really the LEA who are the problem, and who need to rethink the policies, yes the school are just following the rules they have to, I don't blame the teachers or the school.
The school have a sensible policy that if they vomit they can't go to school for I think 48 hours, but then the LEA will moan about the time off if it drops below 90%. They told the school/parents that a kid with severe bronchitis should be at school if they're already on antibiotics. If they're not contagious, that may be reasonable to expect a teenager to learn to push through after the first few days, but I think it's unfair on a 6 year old.
I know it is tricky with kids with chronic health issues, but they seem to be unable to differentiate between kids who are off a lot with doctor and consultant explanations, and parents who keep their kid home every week for a stomach ache. Although that also ignores mental health, i have a parent friend having trouble with that side.
I think education is extremely important, the government just needs to come up with a better system I think.
In case anyone else was wondering, LEA stands for Local Education Agency.
Agree completely! Decisions made by managers or politicians who have no background in education. I think someone else mentioned as well that kids are now exposed to this "soldier on" expectation from such an early age - it can't help to form their opinions, which just makes it that much harder to change the culture.
I went to elementary school in the 70s in the US. It seemed like I was constantly taking that yucky liquid antibiotic for recurrent strep infections, and I caught all the run-of-the-mill stuff too. I remember being called into the office once (me, not my parents, and was maybe 10 or 11 at the time) and warned that missing so much school would put my future in jeopardy and no one would ever hire me. I was already an uber-responsible child and this terrified me, though I had no control over it. Didn't happen, BTW. I became a valedictorian and have never had a problem holding a job. 3 -
^That made me think of another story on the topic.
Right after I graduated high school, I was working at a grocery store. I was sick and had to call in one day- it was a job handling people's food after all. That night, a couple I knew asked me to babysit. I told them I was sick (though improving), but they were in a pinch and the kids were already going to be in bed and all I had to do was lay on the couch & watch t.v.. $10 wasn't nothing at the time. The next time I went in to work, a supervisor pulled me aside and asked why I'd been too sick to work but apparently not too sick to "go out" that night. (I guess he had called looking for me to cover a different shift.) I was furious! I was not some irresponsible kid that wanted to hang out with her friends... I was actually supporting my mom & I at the time!
I understand what it means to have financial hardship, but I get really upset when a cashier at the grocery store is coughing into their hands and touching literally every item I am taking home to my family.
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 929 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions