What I _don't_ want to see is my child suffering for days on end because someone sent a sick child to school when they didn't belong there. My son suffered ongoing repercussions from this experience. He had such a fear of needle sticks that two years later, when he needed a few stitches after a fall, he had to be fully sedated and strapped down because he'd gotten so distressed when he heard the nurse say he needed stitches.
I don't know what the answer is, since we don't have some sort of provision to protect those who must take off work to care for a family member on a short-term basis. But I will not feel guilty for standing up for my own children's health and well-being.
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net had some very interesting things to say about Re: OT,OT: gotta vent!:
And just HOW does a single parent who HAS to be with an ill child get out to apply for all this assistance that has processing time and bureaucratic complexities to jump through, even assuming that parent knows this exists, anyway?
I just LOVE all the "I don't care if a single parent starves by getting fired from job after job and finally never getting hired anywhere, just don't you dare expose ME to a single germ" going on around here. So much for caring and compassion, hmmm?
None. If you went over your available sick time, there were ways of making up the time later so you didn't actually lose pay.
However, if the person with the compromised immune system had landed in the hospital because someone brought flu germs into the office, SHE would've been in a world of financial hurt, and that was the point the Big Guy was trying to make -- coming in sick isn't a decision that affects only you, it affects your co-workers.
How would you feel if, because you decided to go to work sick, one of your co-workers got evicted because YOU sent her to the hospital? Would you offer to pay the hospital bill you caused? Or would you sit there and whine at her that you couldn't afford to take a day off without pay, and she just has to pay the consequences for your selfish decision?
Fact is, there are a lot of people out there who've had transplants, or have immune system dysfunctions, and don't have it tattooed on our foreheads "Keep Germs Away". Health is a very private matter -- a lot of people, especially in an employment situation, are not going to advertise that they have a chronic illness, because they're afraid going public will get them on the next lay-off list. So, you haven't got a clue if the person at the next desk is going to die if you sneeze on him.
Frankly, I don't give a about my co-workers' finances; I care more about my health. They do not have the right to jeopardize my health and cost me several *weeks* pay, so that they don't have to lose a day's pay.
What really ticks me is restaurant workers who come in sick. They're handling my food, which is unsanitary. Their manager should order them to go home as soon as it becomes obvious that they're spreading germs to the customers. Some day, I'll run into one of them on a weekday, when I can get the Board of Health in while the employee is still there and obviously contagious.
They apply _before_ the child is sick. They make it their business to find out what assistance there is.
Right there with your compassion for _my_ child. I never said I didn't care. I admitted there is no easy answer. But do not presume to tell me that it is better that a child to suffer what my son did than that another parent have to reckon with their own responsibilities.
The answer is to take responsibility for your own actions. If you're sick, YOU should lose a day's pay, not make someone else suffer because YOU don't want to pay the consequences.
If you can't make ends meet on what you're earning and allow a little extra for emergencies, then do something about it. Hire yourself out as a housecleaner or gardener or babysitter for a couple weekends, or volunteer to work some overtime, and sock the money you earn for that into a bank account to cover the occasional unpaid day off work.
Even when I was earning $800/month, I had no qualms about taking one unpaid day off to get better rather than spending the next three or four days feeling miserable. Germs are the one thing that it's not proper etiquette to share.
Yeah, let's talk about the "caring and compassion" of not giving a damn whether you kill me with a stray germ, just as long as you don't have to lose a day's pay by keeping your germs at home where they belong.
I am still paying the consequences, nearly 20 years later, of some jerk giving me a virus because he/she/it went out in public while he/she/it was contagious. That self-centered person has cost me big bucks in wages and medical bills just so that he/she/it didn't have to lose a few bucks pay staying home when he/she/it was ill. He/she/it is damn lucky that I have no idea who it was, because I'd love to make them pay the bills for the havoc they caused, including supporting me for the rest of my life since I can't do that myself any more as a result of their germs which NEVER should have been out of their own house.
And there's the problem: people with no sense of parental responsibility having children. Not to mention people who can barely afford to support themselves having children that they cannot support.
We've been told that the world revolves around Me,Me,Me so long that we don't even consider any more what the consequences of our actions may be to someone else. It's OK for Karen E's kid to practically die, so long as *I'm* not inconvenienced by having to take care of my own sick kid.
And I'll bet that the parent in question didn't chip in toward the hospital bills, and if you'd sued to get them to cover the bills they caused, would have portrayed *you* as a greedy money-grubber for daring to think that they're somehow responsible for what happened to your kid.
FWIW, *other* countries have special government-funded day care centers where you can leave your sick child with nurses in residence if you absolutely cannot miss work for some reason. For a while, there was a sick-child day care here, but went out of business because the cost to leave your kid there was more than most mothers earn in a day.
I'm dealing with this right now, but not in the context of sickness.
Three weeks ago, my child was bitten at school by a KNOWN biter (I didn't know about this before she got bit) and the parent didn't see that this was a problem or a pattern even after he admitted that the child had bitten another of his children. The excuse? "He's just 2 years old. It's natural." Her hand was swollen and tender for 3 days.
This past Sunday, my child was slugged twice in the face (black eye) by a KNOWN hitter (again, didn't know about this because). When I confronted the mother, she chuckled and said, "Well, he's just 2 and he has 3 brothers. It's natural."
I'm quite a bit older than both of these parents (I'm 37 with a
2-year-old and one on the way), and my jaw is on the floor. I find this entire attitude of "no biggie" totally flabbergasting.
The point is that some folks don't have jobs where taking an unpaid day is an option. For some folks, they show up or they don't have a job to come back to. Obviously, they'd prefer a job with better benefits, but sometimes those are hard to come by. What is needed is more availability of resources for those in such positions, like drop-in daycare for sick kids. Some areas have those available, but unfortunately, not many.
I'd be talking to the daycare people big time! Yes bitters and hitters do exist, always have and always will but if the care takers aren't keeping an extra eye on the known offenders, I'd be looking for another daycare.
Believe me, I have! Everybody thinks I'm nuts and/or overreacting. I passed caring what people think of me long ago, but these folks are still at the age (late 20s) where they feel they have to go along to get along.
Hmmph. My mother TRIED to rear me a good Southern lady, but apparently didn't take. Even SHE thinks I should be quite not so...er, vocal...about it all.
Absolutely. The appropriate response for a 2yo who bites or hits is for one of the staff to shadow the child (not necessarily exclusively--he or she should just always be in arm's reach of a staff member). The staff member should be able to head off most problems and should have techniques both for predicting an incident and defusing it (helping the child use words, redirecting, etc.) and for dealing with incidents that couldn't be prevented. It doesn't mean that nothing will ever slip by them, but it should prevent most incidents and, most importantly, the child should be learning new ways to cope and should gradually move out of this phase. That said, biting and hitting *ARE* normal at this age. That doesn't mean you (or the staff) can ignore it. The child must be taught. But it happens to perfectly normal children with perfectly normal and decent parents--and lots of parents who railed against biters and hitters with their first kid later find themselves the parent of the hitter or biter and eating a lot of crow!
If you have talked to the staff and they do not have an effective plan for dealing with known biters or hitters, and are not interested in developing one, then you can probably complain to whatever their accrediting agency is. Here are the NAEYC accreditation standards for dealing with challenging behaviors:
Addressing Challenging Behaviors
1.33 T-P-K For children with persistent, serious, challenging behavior, teachers, families, and other professionals work as a team to develop and implement an individualized plan that supports the child's inclusion and success.
1.34 T-P-K Teachers observe children who have challenging behavior. They identify events, activities, interactions, and other contextual factors that predict challenging behavior and may contribute to the child?s use of challenging behavior.
1.35 T-P-K Teachers identify the purpose of the child?s behavior and how the child?s needs are met through their use of challenging behavior. They then teach social, communication, and emotional regulation skills the child can use in place of challenging behaviors.
1.36 T-P-K Teachers focus on teaching the child new skills and providing supports for the child?s appropriate behaviors rather than focusing solely on reducing the challenging behavior.
1.37 T-P-K Teachers use environmental modifications, activity modifications, adult or peer support, and other teaching strategies to support the child?s appropriate behavior and prevent the child?s use of challenging behavior.
1.38 T-P-K Teachers respond to a child?s challenging behavior in a manner that:
- provides for the safety of the child and the safety of others in the classroom.
- is calm and respectful to the child.
- provides the child with information on acceptable behavior.
Many viruses are contagious before they give the carrier any symptoms, so this really doesn't wash. Not to mention the fact that being exposed to germs is what helps our immune systems develop in a healthy fashion.
InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.