Parental Leave for Children’s Educational Events
Apr 21st, 2010 by David Anderson
My Representative and friend Darryl Scott D-31 has introduced house bill 231 to require employers provide up to 16 hours of unpaid leave a year to attend children’s school conferences and extra curricular events. Now it should noted that I rarely agree with Rep. Scott’s politics. My initial instincts are to oppose this bill as a mandate on employers better worked out in the marketplace, but I know the reality is that some employers are for the lack of a better word, jerks. They are a small minority, but they exist. We do not make laws for those who follow common decency, but those who will not. After further consideration, I have decided that I like the basic law and believe it will strengthen society and families with little cost to employers, most of whom would do this anyway.
Here is the snyopsis of the law.
This act grants working parents with 16 hours of leave each year to attend school meetings essential to their child’s education, provided the meetings cannot be scheduled during non-work hours. An employer is not required to pay for any leave granted pursuant to this subsection.
My case for the law is three fold. First we have to stop sacrificing our children for the dollar. We eliminated blue laws for understandable reasons but the impact on the family has been very negative. If a family has both a mom and dad working retail, the family may not get together for weeks especially if you add two weekends a month in which some families have children with a noncustodial parent. I have seen employers threaten to fire parents if they needed to take a longer lunch to deal with a school issue. If we can’t get parents involved, we are going to lose our society. The convenience of a few can not over rule the needs of the many.
Second, this bill is not very intrusive. I am a little skeptical of language that says extra curricular activities, but if it is unpaid leave it does not cost the employer anything especially since it requires proper notice (48 hours). My only concern is that problems arise at a moments notice and many employers will let parents take care of their family, will the state lower the bar with this? I don’t know, but I have faith in employers to generally do the right thing. This bill is aimed at the malperformers. We already have legislation to give unpaid leave for jury duty, military activation, sickness and birth, and other activities for the good of society. Those have not been an undue burden. Neither will this as written. People do not take unpaid leave or dip into their vacation or personal time for no reason. If a parent is willing to miss 4 hours of pay to attend a state championship game, so be it. This bill will actually help communication in the work place. Some parents are pressured to claim sickness to be able to take care of their family. I would much rather have an honest dialogue.
Third, the state is discussing requiring parents who take advantage of taxpayer funded education to agree to do certain things to enhance their involvement in their children’s education. If they are going to require me to attend a conference, then I should have the same protection as if I were required to attend a court hearing. A family should not suffer the possible loss of their home for not making rent or utilities because they lost their income due to following a mandate. If we want parents to do the right thing, make sure you have our backs.
I do have some concerns about the legislation. Oddly enough it is that it is not broad enough.
Employee” means any person working for another for hire in this State, excluding independent contractors, domestic servants and seasonal farm help.
Why shouldn’t everyone be covered? Should a salesman lose his contract because he takes care of his family? Should a nanny because she has to take care of her own child? Are maids and nannies second class citizens? Seasonal farm workers children are an already at risk population, what sense does it make to exempt them? I am concerned these exemptions will hurt those who most need protection, poor and minorities. The law should be the same for everyone.
Other than that, I guess I will say carry on and pass this bill. It has been around for almost a year. We desperately need parents involved in their children’s life and education. If we can find ways to achieve that without putting an undue burden on others, I favor it.
I think this bill misses mark of keeping Delaware business-friendly. For years, and even decades, Delaware has prided itself of being a business friendly state.
Compulsory time off requirements puts employers at risk of continuity of business operations with complying with this law. Rather than an entitlement to time off, I would rather see a protection of employment, similar to when employees must take time off for jury duty.
The rights of the employer to staff their businesses and operations are eroded with this bad legislation. I get the point on encouraging parents to partake in the education of their children, but this is not the way to do it.
This is BALONEY David! “Require to provide”? I own a business. I own a family business. I am very compassionate to conference time, dance recitals etc.. In fact, I announce…let me know when you want off……HOWEVER, I have one employee I hired for a specific day of the week. Not 3 months into the job, it was “can I leave early for this baseball game….?” Soon it was “his home games”, then the final straw came when– “I thought you were coming in to cover me”, because ALL HIS GAMES….
Each one of these requests were for 90 minutes prior to closing. A VERY busy time frame in our office. If you take 16 hrs. and divide by 90 minutes–about 10 “legislated” excused absences—and I have “how many” employees–a real disruption takes place in a workplace. Now granted, I want my employees to go to conferences, and attend banquets, and see the awards ceremony….but by gosh, I
will do that out of compassion, and benevolence for the situation, AND NOT because of some legislation–otherwise, I also get stuck w/ that parent who says they work, but ask off for the whole team schedule, that nickles and dimes the time away to the havoc of coworkers, and business operations. And to that end–how is that fair, to my employee who has no children–but would like time for…..
Really David, this is what “personal days, and vacation days” are for–anything beyond that is compassion, or “good boss”. And some things you have to just leave at “jerk” status–until either the boss wakes up to the benefit–or the employee wakes up to the boss.
The legislation takes care of that with 4 hour blocks so that is just 4 times a year at the most. It does not cover dance recitals or other events unless they are school related and essential.
As I said, most employers already do this. I have seen some employers refuse any accommodation to things like IEP meetings and school grade conferences required for report cards to single parents who were good employees when all the person needed was an hour for lunch and gave plenty of notice the week before. That is being a jerk.
Your situation is understandable. I would tell the person to plan better. The law seems to be tight enough that with 48 hours notice and limits on time that it can work. The downside to it that I left out is that it applies to every child. If someone has 5 children instead of them scheduling everything as tightly as possible, they could abuse the process. Unfortunately, some employees are jerks too. I had to manage a couple usually I got them out the door by strictly enforcing the rules–if they play that game, I can play it better. One did the absolute minimum and I was pretty much stuck with her. She would come late and leave early, smoke when ever she could, and chat so much while working that she was slow. When she finally left for another job because we insisted that she put in a full 40 hour work week to get benefits, we didn’t cry. We all liked her personally, she was a fun person to have around but a lousy employee. I just wondered what job she got that she had it better. I might want to apply.
The fact is that understanding who you are dealing with is part of successful management. This bill does not change character. It does protect people who need it.
That is why I am leary of any mandates, but this one is balanced enough. Give it a couple of amendments.
Jason, please explain the difference? I actually like this law better than a blanket protection because it does not give a blank check which can be abused. A blanket protection would give rise to the problem that Joanne fears.
I would also point out to Joanne that all employers do not give sick, vaction, and personal days. In my experience, most employers are like you. I have also seen some who are not.
Unscheduled time off or a flexible schedule are a benefit some employers offer, like a 401k or holiday bonus. If your employer doesnt offer it, you can get another job, or more properly, find out beforehand and decline the job offer. If I hire you to work 9-5 Monday thru Friday, I expect you to be able to work every hour 9-5 everyday Monday thru Friday. If you won’t, then I can find a new employee, or make allowances because really, finding new employees can be more hassle than it’s worth. The point is, all this is voluntary and based on personal choices. As an employer, I promise you I dont give a crap about your kid’s school stuff. But, if you are a good employees and i want to retain you, I will do what I can to keep YOU happy because I know YOU care about it. If i say you cant have off, then the ball is in your court. You are free to quit and go to your kid’s thing at school. You can then tell everyone you know about how no one should work for me because i am not family friendly and dont care about my employees’ family obligations. But, I knew all this was a possibility when i told you you couldn’t go; I already made the calculation and am prepared to live with the consequences. Maybe there will be fewer people willing to work for me, knowing my policy, so I’ll have to pay more than someone who does allow employees to shirk work to go to school related activities. Again, that’s MY problem and one that i knowingly created for MYSELF. Where is there room for the government to get involved?
David, take your own advice and keep your goverment out of my business.
Good discussion, Phil illustrates why the law is needed. Some people don’t give a flying “crap” about families. The state could require that someone be available off hours and compensate them to discuss these issue, but since that won’t happen. I think that some issues such as an IEP and Parent Teacher conferences do need to be protected. I am not big on including extra stuff. A kid won’t be scarred for life if you do not chaferone her field trip or if you are late to his match. If a kid is failing and needs an IEP, that is a very different story. I could end up paying for 40 or 50 years because someone did not spare a few hours that didn’t even cost them anything. Have them make it up if you need the work done.
Phil knows of course there is a recession and unemployment is nearly 10% so he can play hardball. I don’t feel like giving you an hour unpaid so deal with it. Visit your kid’s teacher at her home in MD.
David, there was a video making the rounds on the internet recently of a Democrat politician admiting that if we the people didn’t tie their hands they, in Washington would continue to steal from us. When I read your number one reason for being willing to support this bill, for some reason I was reminded of that video.
“First we have to stop sacrificing our children for the dollar.”
The fact is WE are sacrificing our children for the dollar. Now we are asking our government, who admittedly needs its own hands tied, to tie our hands. The implication is that the same thing that is true of our elected progressives, I mean officials, is true of us. Now we are at the true root of our nation’s problems. As a society overall, we have often chosen our priorities poorly and now we want and trust the government, which is made up of poor choosers just like us, to compel us to choose better.
Interesting point. The fact is that we used to have laws generations ago which encouraged this. We had family wages which allowed one parent to stay home and be at these conferences. We had blue laws which provided family time. We had an entire society ethic which valued the family and provided social pressure to ensure that most people did the right thing. An employer who fired people for making sure their handicap child had an education would not be invited to the next golf outing.
We lost that. How do we get it back?
I don’t know that we do in the short run. A people that will not govern themselves will be governed by another.
If this becomes law, I’ll be sure to hire no one with children and get rid of people who have them. This is still an “at will” state isnt it? Why do you think it’s a good idea to legislate responsible parenting? If you were a truly responsible parent wouldn’t you have chosen a job that allows for you to be available whenever your child’s educational needs required? When I hire people, the terms are laid out and agreed to. I don’t have any slaves, everyone CHOSE to be an employee knowing full well what the requirements were. If you break our contract, then I guess you’re going to have plenty of time to hang out at your kid’s school.
I am with Joanne on this one. The idea that most employers are ogres who will keep someone from a necessary meeting is bunk. The reality is most employers do this all the time for an employee and at times they allow them to get paid for the time.
This is more nanny state crap from the king of barring the use of cell phones in cars. Darryl Scott wants to run your life. I say no.
This was an issue at the last City of Dover debate, and all of the candidates seemed to agree that mandating was an overreach, and painted employers in an unfair light.
Also as an fyi this bill is being discussed right now in the House Education committee. There are three other bills on the agenda with it. http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS145.NSF/vwMain/419FBA16DDDFE6C8852577060070156D?Opendocument
Some of my friends are viewing the proceedings and at least one has been asked to share testimony. Perhaps we will get a summary from one of them once the meeting is over.
I think Phil proves the case. The vast majority of employers will never be affected. If you want to mandate attendance, then you can’t jeopardize my employment. That makes this a bill to pass first. Phil, I am sure knows familial status is a protected class. You are not even supposed to ask.
Great discussion.
Mandates upon mandates. This is starting to remind me of a certain health care bill. At least the state had the good graces to break their legislation in to parts so that it is easier to read. The only thing to recommend this bill to me is that it helps protect parents from the side effects of the government’s mandate upon them, in a bill that hasn’t even passed yet. Rather than fixing the side effects themselves the government mandates employers to lessen the burden it’s mandate paces on employees. Opps, we made a problem, lets fix it.
My big beef with this whole situation is that it is headed in the opposite direction of what it should be. Government can not take primary responsiblity for children, however due to the programs and entitlements it has instituted our government has ended up in that role by default for far to many children. Rather than relenquish that responsibility and telling parents that it is no longer in charge nor can it realistically be in charge of their children’s upbringing, government is mandating that parents be in charge, and that employers help them. The government now has responsibility for raising children but for directing parents and employers how to do it and what their role will be. The role of government is ballooning, not getting smaller. This means it will cost us more. Any change for the better in the raising of children will still be due to our own initiative, not the government.
Good job on your family values, David. 4x a year is not a huge weight for an employer to bear. And Joanne, your example does not apply here. A simple no would likely have nipped the baseball game thing in the bud.
IEP meetings are a great example. They are notoriously difficult to schedule after hours, as they generally require 4 or 5 people to attend. Keeping those 5 people after hours will cost the school district some coin that I am sure none of our heartless conservatives in this thread want to pay.
Scary, LG agrees with me and Tim, Joanne, Nicole, and Tennessee don’t. I had better reconsider.
Seriously, thanks for dropping by, you made good points as usual and even better when you agree with me.
Family first.
I was afraid that I would break the spell if I agreed with you, but it looked like you were outnumbered, so I jumped in.