An equitable solution to a problem at work regarding sick leave and staffing?
Please bear with me as I'm not terribly sure if this is the right place for this, if I'm phrasing it right, or if I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I work at a childcare center - a private school marketed as "the best in the area". By most metrics, we are exactly that. I've worked here for nearly 15 years in a variety of roles, namely as a prek teacher for over half of that time. I have a good relationship with my directors and the schools owners, despite some issues in the past (I'm eager to champion more rights and privileges for employees).
This week was the sickest I have been in years, and it was the same for several other staffers as well. We couldn't call in, however, because none of us had fevers, vomiting, or diarrhea (the "big three" for what's acceptable to call in for). We all had flu-like symptoms, though those of us who went to the doctor tested negative for anything. Dozens of students had been getting ill with STREP, Influenza A/B, and Fifths in the weeks prior. It just took its time in reaching the staff!
I co-teach in my class and my co-teacher and I both lost our voices for days. Others had full-body aches, tremendous coughing fits, extreme lethargy... It was terrible. However, almost none of us got the time off that we needed to recover. Why? Staffing. The owners/directors don't want to close a room due to illness, even if both teachers in the room are horrendously sick. I spent days with the kids, barely able to talk or move, just trying to get through the day. My coworkers were the same.
Does that seem right?
The directors/owners essentially picked those who were deemed "sickest" to take a day off. While in the moment I understand that decision, it doesn't seem like a terribly good way to handle it either. I want to bring up my grievances about this with the owners (I already have with the directors, they don't disagree with me but "that's just the way it is") but I also know that showing up with a problem and no solution won't go over well. I also know they don't want to close a classroom at all costs, which is my preferred solution. The last time one was closed was when 5/6 teachers in another room had COVID simultaneously and we were mandated to close the room.
Anyone have any thoughts? Even if it's to show me a side I may not be considering here? Thank you for your insight.
So what you're saying is that the heads of the school knowingly and intentionally exposed whole classes of students to sick teachers in the name of higher profits? I don't know where you are, but in many states that's an actual crime. Another thing that's state specific is whether you can have your sick time request rejected. Regardless of whether you had paid sick time accrued, in more enlightened states you couldn't be forced to work when sick or punished for having been sick.
Practically, this seems like a perfect opportunity for, if not unionization, at least collective action. Don't talk to management about this first, talk to the other staffers who suffered through this. Collectively decide what you feel like the appropriate response from management should have been, and only then go and talk to the owners, secure in the fact that if the owners don't want to play you have the majority of the people who actually do the work agreeing with your proposal. The owners can't ever be assumed to do the right thing if the right thing would cost them money, and so you need a counterbalancing force to move them. That force is the threat of losing more money from striking workers than they would from closing a class when too many workers are sick.
Personally, I think that closing a classroom is the only reasonable step when too many people are sick, but it's not the internet you need to convince, it's your co-workers and then your bosses.
Ha! I tried collective action a few years ago to get higher wages and more time off but nobody was willing to go further than "well let's talk about it". Several folks didn't even want to sign the letter I penned, which was simply a request not a demand, because of fear of retaliation or fear of being out of work due to a strike (which again, was nowhere threatened in my request).
People are so scared shitless that they'll pass over a good opportunity.
One thing to know is that the current NLRB is extremely pro-union. You will have much more of an advantage starting the union process than trying to do an ad hoc collective action. The NLRB is extremely political so the current administration impacts union policy very quickly. The current expectations:
This means you don't have really have to worry about retaliation etc.
(This is based off my business's current union strategy. We generally have positive union relationships but get updated regularly on state of play.)
This may be a new day, when they see what will be demanded of them. Many people are more motivated by negative experiences than the potential for a better experience one day. Are they so scared for their job that they'll instead work when incredibly sick rather than push back at all?
Oh there's definitely some who are more radicalized, but we've also had such a high turnover since then that I've lost many of the connections with people I used to have. I was able to mobilize a majority of the school to at least support an idea two years ago. Now, many of my strongest supporters have moved on.
I'm leaving in a year so even I'm running out of steam.
Plus, if students were able to do courses online during the whole of the pandemic, why can't there be a backup lesson online for times like these?
I agree for other levels of education, but the OP described it as a childcare center, which generally implies that the kids are younger than could be expected to benefit from online courses. It's more like a free roam kid ranch than a sit-down school environment, yeah?
Oh, right. I was multitasking and missed/forgot that part.
We tried doing some online stuff during covid with the prek group. It did not go well.
It's not right, and everyone knows it. Even the owners, except they're allowing their greed to carry the decision.
What happens if you're sick, and interact with others? You get them sick. Working while sick saps energy, hurts you, causes pain and discomfort, and very likely increases the time you'll suffer while sick since you heal slower.
Everyone knows all this. It's just capitalism encourages people to ignore it in favor of money. For owners and companies, it's "not shutting down" in some form. They want the money to keep rolling, the work to keep happening so it brings that money into their coffers. For self-employed people, same.
For workers, they fear the consequences of a greedy owner/boss/etc who will punish them for daring to prioritize not just their own health (recovering from the illness), but the health of others (who risk getting sick when someone who is interacts with them.)
Owners just don't care. That's the bottom line. They're not the one getting sick. And usually, an owner or boss has control over their own schedule and position so they don't have to actually interact all that much with a sick employee. So they don't personally risk very much when they demand "no, come in; keep working."
Most people are very bad at consequences, at forecasting, at examining ramifications that aren't instantly direct. So when an owner/boss demands a sick employee come into work, some people genuinely are incapable of understanding that "sick person interacting with other people risks the sickness spreading."
Now, an owner/boss might not care that people on the bus or at the grocery store you interact with will catch your sickness. But they should care if their other employees get sick. Except, again, they don't because they just require/force everyone to continue working regardless.
Even though the owner damn well will often stay home and recover when they get sick. They're in charge, and at that point they're considering their own pain and discomfort, their own health. Of course, when they feel horrible and have trouble functioning, they tend to their health. But you, as a worker, you should just snap to and obey as far as they're concerned.
It's the same reason the parents send sick kids in. Not parents who don't realize their child has gotten sick, or parents of children who are sick but who aren't showing yet. But parents who know their kid woke up this morning obviously sick, and send them into the school/daycare anyway. Why? Same reasons as above; they fear punishments and loss of money for doing what used to be considered the right thing and taking care of their sick kid. And further, doing so at home so the child doesn't spread the illness amongst other kids.
So a kid wakes up with flu or fever or whatever, and is bundled off to school because that's what happens these days. Soon enough, as you noted, all the kids have it. Which is utterly unnecessary except everyone involved except the damned owner, and some bosses, is under pressure to just ignore basic biology and "gut it out."
Flu can kill. Fever can kill. Some illness may look "benign" or "normal", but could be something serious like pneumonia and such. But the expectation is to ignore biology and come in anyway, spreading the disease.
So no, it's not right. Yes, your owners are assholes. What can you do? Only the same as everyone else; decide how much risk you want.
Honestly, as a teacher, and having heard in increasing amounts in recent years how hard it is to find and keep teachers, there's an argument to be made for you telling the owners (politely) you're staying home because you're too sick to work. You don't even have to get into how you'd be passing that sickness on to your students and coworkers, even though that is what happens and everyone knows it; just that "look, I'm just sick, so I'm not coming in."
Yes your owners will be upset. Because they're prioritizing their income over the wellfare of everyone else involved. Including you. After all, you're "just a worker." What do they care about you?
Until you leave. Then they care. Because abusing you is fun and games until they realize they don't have a replacement, or can't hire one at your wage level. Then, suddenly, they're upset they didn't treat you a little better. At least just enough so you didn't leave their employ. At that point, they do care.
But, again, no one can decide for anyone else what that person's tolerence for risk is. Here, the risk of getting and staying sick, the risk of working through the pain and discomfort of being sick, and the risk of your owner actually being a big enough asshole (with other options to replace you) to decide to fire you.
Why would an owner/boss fire a sick employee who calls out? As a warning to other employees. So they all whisper to one another. "Sara was sick, and they shitcanned her. I need my job, I'm barely scraping by. Fuck it, I'll come in even if my husband has to drag me in on a cart."
That's what they want when they do stuff like demand you work sick, demand you come in. All so their income doesn't suffer even a slight interruption. It's evil, except so many people do it a lot of folks consider it almost normal.
Something can be normal, and wrong, all at the same time.
This is obviously wrong, but when you aren't unionized, and you live in a place with weak worker's rights laws this is how it goes.
When I had a union job, one of the older guys told me, "If you're sick stay home. It's management's job to deal with staffing issues, not yours."
I believe if you are in the US, your employer can't tell you to not use sick time if you have the sick time accrued. The only issue is whether they will retaliate against you for using it. You are obviously have valuable skills if you have worked there for 15 years. I would just call out next time and use your sick hours. If they fire you, you have the skills to get hired somewhere else.
Thanks - I'm dependant on my job for a few more months due to a scholarship and school opportunity I'm pursuing, so I have to tread a bit carefully until then.
Once I finish my schooling I have a year to find a new job with a public school district and then I'll be unionized at least.
Given how rabid parents can be, I wonder what sending your students home with a note about this would do. Schools tend to bow down to the parents quite often ime.
I could see this going the opposite way though. So many parents seem to rely on schools to "babysit" their kids, that many would probably be upset if the school closed due to teacher illness. The "my child is your problem while they're in school" parents are a numerous and boisterous bunch.
Yeah. Parents collectively care way more about the inconvenience of their daycare shutting down than about the well-being of the teachers. It’s important to remember that in a case like this, where two teachers stay home sick, now 10-20 students’ families are suddenly in the same spot, because they either also need to find alternative care or they need to stay home sick themselves.
The only mutually beneficial solution for the teachers and the parents is the school having a “second string” / large pool of subs to pull from who can be activated on a very short timeline, but all aspects of that cost a bunch of money, especially for an event that seldom happens (>40-50% teacher sickness at once).
I honestly don’t know what a good answer is to this problem that all three groups could agree to.
Is that not how supply (substitute in the US) teachers work? There's usually a list that schools have of local, qualified teachers who are available for short term, short notice work. Nurseries (pre-school) can do the same or these days either can go through agencies, same way you'd do for any other job when you need short-notice staff. Most people tend to be either semi-retired or in education or any number of other reasons people would only want part-time work. People aren't being paid to not work on the off chance someone is ill, they just get the work as and when it comes up.
My Mum was a supply teacher for many years before she went back to full time after having kids, and again before she fully retired - she was all over the place at some-to-none notice. Sometimes it was "can you come in next month for nine months to cover maternity leave?" and sometimes it was "can you be here in 20 minutes and just do the morning?". Everything from fancy public (private in the US) schools, state and everything inbetween. Sometimes within walking distance of our house, sometimes an hour's drive. A friend of mine did the same with pre-school childcare for a few years while they were doing their advanced pre-school qualifications. My kid's nursery often had agency staff in for a day or two to cover staff sickness, especially during covid.
That sort of thing must exist in the US, surely?
It does, but the pay is garbage-tier...you can often get more money flipping burgers with a lot less stress.
There's a giant shortage of substitutes as a result.
Give everybody ample PTO to cover situations like this?
If everyone had access to 40 days PTO to use on whim these problems are a lot less painful. If we passed a law along these lines which forces employers to provide it, it would be much easier to draft from a pool of parents to assist when there are insufficient teachers. I'd be thrilled to get a "'you're drafted to help keep schools open" text if I had legally-backed PTO to cover my ass.
Also, this really shouldn't be a problem for the vast majority of students over the age of 10. Heck, those kids can babysit the kids down to as young as 5 or so.
If one can't trust an average 10 year old to care for themselves at home alone for the day, there are bigger problems.
I agree with you on all counts, but
the OP is about pre-k, so we’re talking about 0-6 age range
Lately I’ve been trying to avoid saying “just do [thing that will never happen]”, because I’ve noticed it just makes me feel even more disenfranchised. If the answer is universal healthcare, EU-level workers rights, housing for everyone, etc… that’s not really an answer here, at least not in this decade.
Eh, if nobody talks about whats actually needed we'll never get there.
We call it 'deciding on true north' when having these discussions at work. Figure out what the ideal looks like then take any step in that direction and avoid walking away at any cost.
A good first step in the US would be literally any mandated sick and other PTO. And thats one that can be done at state/local level.
And yea, I just have helicopter parents on the brain, that's all.
I am clearly missing something, so please forgive me if this is a stupid question... but how? I am assuming you live in the US, correct? There is currently 3.9% unemployment rate in the US, which is pretty low. I live in a country where the unemployment rate is almost the same - currently around 3%. That is considered very low - when it is under around 5%, it is generally more difficult to find employees, not jobs, which gives leverage to employees. If your situation happened to me, I would simply quit and easily find a better job... or more likely, this situation would not have happened at all because the employer would know that they would be without employees the next week. Why does it not work like that in the US? Clearly, you are not the only one - I hear story after story of a toxic work environment in the US and yet, people are not leaving... why? The leverage I would expect to be working is not being used and I cannot figure out why. What am I missing?
I once asked a similar question somewhere else and it was pointed out to me that the unemployment rate in the US is measured differently than in the EU and the actual number of unemployed people might be a bit higher, but still, I do not remember this kind of stuff happening even when the unemployment rate in my country was around 8%. I could understand it in countries like Spain where it used to be above 20% - in this situation, the leverage is in the hands of employers. But the US is nowhere near that.
You cannot imagine how bizarre this sounds to me. Kind of like saying "we were in a car crash and some of us were hurt, but we could not call an ambulance, because wheels were still attached to the car"... huh? What the hell? BTW, in my country (and if I am not mistaken, in all EU countries), it is not up to the employer to decide if you are sick enough. If the doctor says you are sick - any kind of sick, not some weird subset of allowed kinds of sick - you are automatically registered as "protected" and your employer cannot force you to work, cannot fire you, and your sick leave is obviously paid.
Any chance there is someone from any developed country that is neither EU nor the US? I would be curious how this works in their country. I always thought that some sort of protection of workers is normal in any developed country and the US is just some weird exception - am I being naive?
The US stops counting you under the unemployment metrics if you are no longer searching for work, or if you're unemployed for an X amount of months.
So the actual rate is higher. Probably much higher since a lot of people are giving up.
Thank you. This explains a lot. Are there any reliable estimates of what the actual unemployment rate is? What number would seem believable to you? I spent some time working in Spain (only a couple of months) right around the time when the unemployment rate was around 18% and going up and I heard some stories. Also about the black economy - is that also happening in the US?
I'm sorry, I'm not the one able or capable to answer these questions as I'm not US American myself. I just knew the thing about people not searching for work not counting against unemployment.
I hope this clarifies some of the "why?" questions about Americans stuck in awful jobs...
OP doesn't mention whether their private school provides anything like the benefits available to unionized public school teachers. They also mention that they generally like the work and their co-workers. It's more than just a kind of sunk-cost fallacy about years of service with a single employer. The U.S. has a deep cultural tradition of people defining themselves by their work and their loyalties to both company and teammates.
There are sharp distinctions in the quality of jobs available in the U.S. The majority of labor demand is in low-paid, non-unionised service positions - janitorial, sanitation, and housekeeping work, agriculture, light manufacturing, restaurant service, childcare, retail... Since the U.S. generally has loose, employer-friendly laws, it's entirely possible that most of the available jobs in a given locale have no health insurance, vacation/sick leave or any other benefits, and no fixed hours. People here usually cling very hard to jobs that provide those affordances because there are few or no social benefits. [Edit: I looked at a translation of the Czech article, and again, imagine those jobs with no fixed hours, no limits on overtime, and no social benefits. This can apply to jobs that require skill and experience as well, like shipping and trucking.]
Even for the most skilled, in-demand jobs, there's still arbitrage against mobility, housing costs, and local amenities. It's economically and emotionally expensive to leave your support network of family and friends behind. If you've got kids or other care needs, leaving family puts you at the mercy of costly, scarce private care services. School quality varies wildly by place. Plus, the U.S. is so geographically vast that you might not have the time or money to see your loved ones in person again for years.
That explains a lot, thank you for taking the time to write it. BTW, I was always kind of envious of people born in big countries, but I guess being from a tiny country has its advantages too. If I moved from the border village to the capital, I could still easily visit my parents every weekend.
You might be interested in this:
https://a2larm.cz/2017/09/hrdinove-kapitalisticke-prace/
Hmm, that seems to be about people with basically zero qualifications, and that obviously comes with very little leverage. Sure, there are people like that in every society and we can discuss whether it is just and how to remedy it. However, it seems unrelated to the problem I do not understand here - why is it that in the US, even highly qualified people do not have that leverage?
And BTW, there is no doubt in my mind that there are jobs that are really hard and shitty - when I was at Uni, I tried various "brigády" and working assembly line is certainly no picnic; however, I never saw bosses forcing anyone work sick, work unpaid over-times or any of those really toxic things, that seem common in the US, even in jobs that require university degree. I am assuming you are Czech - here in Czechia, have you ever seen a tech-dude with a computer science degree working sick because he is afraid he would otherwise get fired and would not be able to find a job? In my experience, you would be more likely to have seen a unicorn.
Not really, no. I know a software company that pays junior programmers 6 EUR (150 CZK) per hour, though. Does that count?
I doubt that many US programmers are forced to work sick. So the real question here is, how come people in US don't consider teachers, nurses and other similar care-taking staff important enough to grant them a living wage and basic affordances. And that's probably something only someone from US can answer for us.
Often it's because these are tasks that require some staff present. If enough staff call in (Eg a mass sickness event) then there's a real problem. There isn't really a ready supply of substitutes either, since the pay and hours are garbage.
So we have a catch 22. The staff needs to rest but then patients/students/etc suffer, and that has ripple effects in society.
Most schools and kindergartens here are public. When they do not manage to stay open due to staffing issues or pandemy, they just close the door. Society is forced to accept that as a kind of "higher power intervening" event and not blame the parents for not getting a better school.
What I don't understand is how come wages in US are low when the demand is high.
Out of curiosity, do you want to share which company? Any chance it happens to be in Ostrava? I remember talking to a friendly cleaning lady in my previous job and even she made more than that. My brother works as a project manager and I am constantly hearing stories how hard it is to find decent people under 100k/month (in Prague). Even juniors with zero experience want at least 50k.
Curiously it's 30 minutes from Prague via train. I don't wish to name it specifically, it's something for the (ex-)exployees to do. I have it only second hand. They now work with me, but still have contacts at the other company.
So you led me down a rabbithole, leading me to the artile about the Canderall factory being a superiour experience to the rest, and it touches on a critical problem:
Of course not. It's even easier to ignore the pleas of workers from the other side of the world.
If that's not Euro, but CZK, that's about $700. If that's an annual wage, that's digusting that management won't pay more.
I imagine that's monthly and CZK