The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
JacobM
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Employees who use childcare issues to excuse their absence from work should not get paid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,549 times Debate No: 13882
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

As you may have seen on the news, much of northern Europe is lying under a thick blanket of snow and many schools are closed as a consequence. [1] This means large numbers of employees with children have taken the opportunity to bunk off work, fobbing their employers off with the pathetic excuse that they have to stay at home to look after their kids.

Their absence puts huge additional strain on their more conscientious and less selfish colleagues, who would love to stay at home and have snowball fights and go sledging, but realise that they have a responsibility to their employers to keep their businesses running come what may.

This week most UK airports were closed or were subject to severe delays, but regardless of that, on Wednesday night I made use of all forms of transport to get back to London from a trade fair I was attending in Barcelona, finally arriving in the office twelve hours after setting off and having had no sleep - but I had no complaints about that – however, I did bitterly resent that I then had to put in a fourteen-hour day because some of my co-workers with "childcare issues" thought that I should do their jobs for them while they played in the snow with their kids.

And what really adds insult to injury is the fact that these skulking loafers will get paid the same at the end of the month as the employees who did their jobs for them while they were having fun at home.

Now, that's not right is it? What would your employer say if you called up and said: "Hello Mister Big Boss Man, sir, I'm calling to let you know that l won't be coming into the office today as it's snowing and, to be honest, I'd rather build snowmen and drink mulled wine than come into work and do my job – and don't even think about docking my pay because if you do I'll have you up court so fast your feet won't even touch the ground." Do you think you'd have a job to come back to if you did that?

Probably not, but if you are a parent you are legally entitled to take dependency leave if your child needs looking after at home [2] and there's nothing firms can do to about it – they have to take the hit and rely on the goodwill of the remainder of their workforce to put in the extra hours to cover their absent colleagues.

Of course, mums and dads could easily make alternative arrangements for school closures: they could leave their kids with the other parent, friends, relatives, neighbours, older children or they could bring them to work with them and tie them up outside; whatever: but if they if they decide to skive off instead they should not expect to be paid for staying at home with their families while their workmates do their jobs for them – the bunch of indolent, work-shy slackers.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.lawandparents.co.uk...
JacobM

Con

interesting

expalian
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

My argument is that having children is a choice and parents must accept that having children will bring costs. In families where both parents work full-time, one of those costs is the salary of a nanny or au pair girl who can look after their children if their school is closed.

However, some greedy, selfish parents shirk their responsibilities and save the cost of a nanny and have to take days off work themselves to look after their children when their school is closed, thus obliging their colleagues to cover for them – and they still expect to be paid!

That's just not fair and that's why I urge you to vote Pro.

Thank you.
JacobM

Con

Have a heart.

What if the kid is sick?
What if the kid broke his leg?
What if the kid has a disease?
What if the kid is about to die?

so that is my case
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mageist24 6 years ago
mageist24
Matt

I do not think that voting for conservatives for removing employee ailments is much of a compensation for the moral crookedness of the right. I wish that people could just look at the grand scheme of things. Women who give birth to children are given paid leave when they are close to going into labor and after the child is born. Would you still tack the assumption that women are selfishly caring for the child and nursing him/her into life and should not get paid and should not even have their job whence they return? You mentioned one flaw. One. There are many other considerations to be aware of before being so forward with assumptions and blindly generalizing these people who take days off to look after children as lazy and selfish.
Posted by Superboy777 6 years ago
Superboy777
lol
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
Brian... just vote Conservative..

They'll get around to fixin such bits of labor's silliness eventually.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
brian_egglestonJacobMTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
brian_egglestonJacobMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
brian_egglestonJacobMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70