Mom almost loses her job for staying with son who was on life support

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

We are supposed to rage in hindsight at the evil sociopath manager.

Actually, we're supposed to enjoy the schadenfreude of the manager being the one that got fired while the employee gets exactly what she asked for.

[Ragedaug]

None of that has anything to do with this situation.

The woman isn't asking to be paid for taking the day off...she is simply informing her boss that she will be unable to work her next shift.

She has already said that. Now the question is, to what end? How many months/years should she be able to retain her position with her not showing up to work because her child is on life support?

Granted it's an outlier, but there have been people on life support for 30-40 years. So I'm mostly playing advocate for the other side of this, as most everyone is outraged she shouldn't be able to take all the days off while her son is on life support, but I'm not seeing any of the outrage having any boundaries to it.

I'm not defending the Manager here. Best case scenario the manager is a narcissistic doofus. Like I mentioned earlier, the manager should have pointed her to HR at the beginning of "I'm just not showing up to work". But that's all the outrage I can summon for the lady.

Are we outraged that she wasn't given a free week? or a free month? or a free year? multiple years? How long should she be able to take off while her child is on life support before we can stop being outraged that she isn't being given time off?

And I'm still curious if people feel she should be paid indefinitely or just be guaranteed her position when she decides to return.

[PaladinBash]

I'd take the hit if I had to to be near my kids but I'd also understand if someone else did. How long? It depends. A day? A week? A month? Fuck man it depends. I'd work it out with my boss or my workers if they had to do it.

[Ragedaug]

What if your child died while you are at work? How would you feel then?

Some of the responses from the people saying she should have gone to work are heartless and show very little compassion and I'll assume most of these "people" are not parents themselves or have never found themselves in a simular situation.

So you think watching the child die, as their heartbeat flat lines, while you sit there helpless to do anything would be the optimal way to go?

How many years on life support before we can expect her to rejoin the work force? Once the child on life support turns 18? or 26?

I have children. I would expect I would have a very difficult, if not impossible, time working at the onset of the situation, but I would imagine I couldn't just sit there in a hospital room 24x7 indefinitely until my child recovered without going a little crazy. At some point I would have to return to work.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

She has already said that. Now the question is, to what end? How many months/years should she be able to retain her position with her not showing up to work because her child is on life support?

Granted it's an outlier, but there have been people on life support for 30-40 years. So I'm mostly playing advocate for the other side of this, as most everyone is outraged she shouldn't be able to take all the days off while her son is on life support, but I'm not seeing any of the outrage having any boundaries to it.

I'm not defending the Manager here. Best case scenario the manager is a narcissistic doofus. Like I mentioned earlier, the manager should have pointed her to HR at the beginning of "I'm just not showing up to work". But that's all the outrage I can summon for the lady.

Are we outraged that she wasn't given a free week? or a free month? or a free year? multiple years? How long should she be able to take off while her child is on life support before we can stop being outraged that she isn't being given time off?

And I'm still curious if people feel she should be paid indefinitely or just be guaranteed her position when she decides to return.

You're playing out the hypothetical "What if the child is on life support for years?" game...but, as of right now, that isn't the case. Right now, the kid is on life support to keep him alive while the doctor's try to find the infection. We're not at the long term life support stage yet.

If it does turn out to be a long term situation then it will be up to the mother and the corporation to decide how they move forward..but as of right now...the corporation is willing to give the mother as much time as she needs.

[Ragedaug]

At first I refused to believe people could be so dense and be so heartless, but the more I visited this site, the more I realized it was true. Certain users here are really questionable people.

Some people are just different. Doesn't make them not people. Every second a person dies somewhere in the world. Literally every second. Death is a part of life, and the only thing that's guaranteed. So while I don't think I'm necessarily morbid, I like to think I'm a realist, and I have a difficult time feeling remorse for people who die that I don't know. Especially since, like I said, 150,000 people you don't know die every day.

Keep in mind, that doesn't excuse the manager. I can't get worked up for people I don't know, however I would definitely get emotional if someone I know had a child on life support.

But even knowing that, I can remain rational when it's not someone I know directly, because there are multiple sides to every situation. I can have feels for the lady with the child on life support, while also having feels for her co-workers that will have to work double shifts while she's out, or having feels for a non-doofus manager who is being hamstrung on budget trying to figure out how to keep their job while not being a heartless bastard to their employees.

- - - Updated - - -

You're playing out the hypothetical "What if the child is on life support for years?" game...but, as of right now, that isn't the case. Right now, the kid is on life support to keep him alive while the doctor's try to find the infection. We're not at the long term life support stage yet.

If it does turn out to be a long term situation then it will be up to the mother and the corporation to decide how they move forward..but as of right now...the corporation is willing to give the mother as much time as she needs.

OK, so it sounds like you don't have an answer to how long she should be given time off for a child on life support.

[Phlegethon]

nothing needs to be done, this text was him "quitting" he lost his job hahaha.

No... Not "him", not "he"...

She, a woman.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

OK, so it sounds like you don't have an answer to how long she should be given time off for a child on life support.

OK, so it sounds like you still don't understand the situation.

The kid has an infection somewhere. The doctors put the kid on life support while they find exactly where the infection is. This is not, as things stand now, a long term life support situation. It's a temporary measure to keep the child alive while they find and treat the infection. We're not talking about months or years at this point...we're talking about days. Specifically, we're talking about a manager that was unwilling to give those days and has since been fired for that stance.

As I said, if it turns out to be a long term situation...the corporation and the mother will have to figure out how to proceed at that point...but as of right now, the corporation is willing to give her as much time as she needs.

[Crillam]

Well he got fired because of this.
Good that there still are good people on this earth.

[Ragedaug]

Yeah I feel where you are coming from and it is a very sad sight to witness, I wonder how these people would react in a simular situation to this womans.

I would tell my boss I need time off and I don't know when I would be able to return at this point. I would let my boss know I'm reaching out to corporate HR to find out what the company's policy is for Family / Medical Leave.

I would imagine I would not be able to focus on work for the first week or two, however I might retreat back to work if the life support was continuing so that I could distract myself and not go crazy focusing on the possibility of my child dying.

- - - Updated - - -

As I said, if it turns out to be a long term situation...the corporation and the mother will have to figure out how to proceed at that point...but as of right now, the corporation is willing to give her as much time as she needs.

It's obvious that the employee and the employer would work something out. My question is "how would you work that out?" What do you feel are the limits to family leave in this type of situation? And if you say it's a range depending on the person or situation, then what is the range?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It's obvious that the employee and the employer would work something out. My question is "how would you work that out?" What do you feel are the limits to family leave in this type of situation? And if you say it's a range depending on the person or situation, then what is the range?

Again, you're talking about the long-term hypothetical situation here. We're not at that point.

There's a large difference between "My kid is on life-support while in a coma that he may never awaken from" and "My kid is on life support while the doctors work on treating his infection".

If the latter becomes the former then at that point it's time to figure out what the long term plan is. But that isn't the situation here yet.

[Ragedaug]

At least you would be with your child and not leave them alone as they pass.

To be honest, I have a very difficult time imagining exactly how I would feel in that situation. Like I said in my response to you just a couple minutes back, I would imagine I would be at the bedside for the first couple weeks. As much as I was able. But I don't think I could sit there indefinitely waiting for them to die. I also don't know how much I could bear sitting there helplessly, watching them flat line. Thinking about it makes me feel like my heart is being ripped out of my chest. So while I would imagine I would be there at their side as much as possible, I don't know that it would be better sitting there watching their life depart their body versus hearing the news from the doctor or a loved one. /shrug

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you're talking about the long-term hypothetical situation here. We're not at that point.

There's a large difference between "My kid is on life-support while in a coma that he may never awaken from" and "My kid is on life support while the doctors work on treating his infection".

If the latter becomes the former then at that point it's time to figure out what the long term plan is. But that isn't the situation here yet.

Yeah, I know that we're not at that point yet. I am not sure what I said to make it seem like I didn't know, but I do know that. I know it's not long term at this point so you are clear that I know that.

So yes, my question is hypothetical. At what point can we not be outraged at an employer to say "that's too many days away". I get it if you don't have an answer. It's a tough question. I don't have a good answer either, that's why I asked it.

- - - Updated - - -

The boss getting fired as a result of some social media outrage leaves a sour aftertaste in my mouth. He very probably thought he was acting in the company's best interest - something management also has to take into consideration. And I have to admit that her texts DID sound somewhat presumptuous, making it a bit harder to work with her in this. This, again, feels a bit like judgement through "public feelies", which doesn't sit right with me at all. From what was shown here, I'd probably have ordered the boss to tone it down, try to make it possible to have her gone for a week tops, and offer the boss also assistance from management - maybe they have someone they can send over temporarily to cover, or grant money for a temporary jump-in. That was a good opportunity to make him a better boss, not unemployed. You'd have to do worse to justify an outright immediate firing in my eyes.

This whole thing was handled in pretty much the worst ways by all parties involved.

Based on how I perceived the bosses' tone, my first inclination was that this employee happens to find herself in "emergency" situations often, and possibly has overstated medical conditions previously. My second thought was that the boss is a doofus for saying as much as she said out loud not to mention putting them in writing. Beyond that when you dig a little deeper, it looks like the emergency conditions were legit, so even if there was some "wolf crying" previously, this is a perfect example of why you don't assume as a boss, and treat every situation as unique situation until you have the full story.

That said, I agree with your final statement. Handled poorly by all parties.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yeah, I know that we're not at that point yet. I am not sure what I said to make it seem like I didn't know, but I do know that. I know it's not long term at this point so you are clear that I know that.

What makes it unclear is the fact that you are harping on about long term leave when it has nothing to do with the current situation.

So yes, my question is hypothetical. At what point can we not be outraged at an employer to say "that's too many days away". I get it if you don't have an answer. It's a tough question. I don't have a good answer either, that's why I asked it.

The answer isn't tough...it just isn't important in this situation.

In a long term situation the employee would probably just take family leave or something similar. The exact nature of that leave will be defined by company policy and/or local laws. If, at the end of that leave, they are still unwilling or unable to return to work...the employer will then be well within their rights to replace that employee.

And this is specifically about the manager that was unwilling to give even a single day...not about an employer's responsibility to provide indefinite leave. Nobody is "outraged" at the employer...the employer is handling the situation the way it should have been handled from the get go.

[Granyala]

What can we do to keep this kind of thing from happening? What needs to change?

One critical piece of information is missing here: a timeframe. How long has the kid been on LS and how long is it going to be?

You can take your remaining vacation days, you can rearrange schedules and you can get maybe a few courtesy days off.
Ultimately though: life continues, whether your child is on life support or not and you cannot expect an employer to continue to pay you for 3 months... A year... until your kid gets better.

I understand the desire to be there 24/7 but, frankly, it is not needed. The medical staff will take care of the kid and alert you to any changes you need to know about. You can visit your kid after work.

[Granyala]

At first I refused to believe people could be so dense and be so heartless, but the more I visited this site, the more I realized it was true. Certain users here are really questionable people.

Why? Because we are not emotionally compromised by an altered biochemistry on childbirth?

It may seem heartless to you but to me it is simple logic. In the beginning, sure, be there for your child. Take care of all the questions the medical staff may have. Absolutely. After a week or two, you have to realize that there is nothing you can do and have to move on at least in a limited way. Maybe reason with your boss to work part time, for a limited time, so you can be at the hospital more but to just go "nope, not coming to work till this is over!" in a friggin text message won't sit well with any chieftain. You need to work out a compromise both sides can live with.

I know for a fact, that this is what my mother would have done.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

One critical piece of information is missing here: a timeframe. How long has the kid been on LS and how long is it going to be?

You can take your remaining vacation days, you can rearrange schedules and you can get maybe a few courtesy days off.
Ultimately though: life continues, whether your child is on life support or not and you cannot expect an employer to continue to pay you for 3 months... A year... until your kid gets better.

I understand the desire to be there 24/7 but, frankly, it is not needed. The medical staff will take care of the kid and alert you to any changes you need to know about. You can visit your kid after work.

At this point it's only been a few days. The kid was rushed into the hospital on Thursday and the text exchange happened on Saturday.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? Because we are not emotionally compromised by an altered biochemistry on childbirth?

It may seem heartless to you but to me it is simple logic. In the beginning, sure, be there for your child. Take care of all the questions the medical staff may have. Absolutely. After a week or two, you have to realize that there is nothing you can do and have to move on at least in a limited way.

This didn't happen after a week or two. This happened in the first three days.

[Granyala]

At this point it's only been a few days. The kid was rushed into the hospital on Thursday and the text exchange happened on Saturday.

Okay, thanks. The links gave me a "nope, not in your region!!11" error.

I agree, after a mere 3 days, the reaction of the employer was uncalled for, esp considering that she has no job of importance.
Still think the mother could have done better than writing a text message though.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Having that in writing in pretty damning. Most places wouldn't do much if it was just out of the mouth because its harder to prove, hearsay arguments, blah blah but having it in writing and the ability to confirm it came from her phone at certain times. Just damning. I know for a fact I would never get into a text conversation like that for work (or life). If I was canning the person for not showing up I would just let the not showing up happen and get the ball rolling if I was on that level. But since I like most people that I work with (and wouldn't be a dick to them to the ones I don't) I would just get the FMLA paperwork to them.

[Puri]

What can we do to keep this kind of thing from happening? What needs to change?

What question is this? Change your laws.
Here you can take (unpaid) leave from work as long as a first degree relative needs care or is in any life threatening situation.

[Bakis]

What question is this? Change your laws.
Here you can take (unpaid) leave from work as long as a first degree relative needs care or is in any life threatening situation.

She already can.
US however is a shithole over all for employed people and worker rights.