Tough situation....

[DizBelle]

Oh my.

I'm not sure what you meant by this. Can you elaborate?

 

[QueenIsabella]

I'm not sure what you meant by this. Can you elaborate?

I suspect she thinks your comment was insensitive. Unexpected pregnancies happen. Most don't plan for the father to skip out on his responsibilities. Special needs children can "happen" to anyone, even under the best of circumstances. So, you stating that this woman chose to have a child, and therefore should just deal with it, makes you sound pretty clueless. I'm sure the mother didn't plan for her life to go in this specific direction.

 

[Turn the Page]

The statement about the child being fired by his doctors speaks volumes to me. As far as I know that generally only happens if the patient (in this case the mother as the patient is a minor child) repeatedly refuses to cooperate with the doctors' recommendations. If that is the case and, for example, she is refusing various treatment methods then I can see how the doctor and the school would both try to kick the child out.

Having a child with a disability is one thing. Having a child with a disability and refusing to follow a treatment plan is another. That is a choice the mother is making and if that is what is going on then no, I don't think the employer has an obligation to work with her.

 

[LilyWDW]

I suspect she thinks your comment was insensitive. Unexpected pregnancies happen. Most don't plan for the father to skip out on his responsibilities. Special needs children can "happen" to anyone, even under the best of circumstances. So, you stating that this woman chose to have a child, and therefore should just deal with it, makes you sound pretty clueless. I'm sure the mother didn't plan for her life to go in this specific direction.

However, they are all possibilities that one has to weigh when deciding to have a child and keeping it. It's simply a part of being a parent and something one has to deal with. So it's not insensitive as much as it is the truth and not sugar coated.

 

[ColoradoDisneyFreaks]

I suspect she thinks your comment was insensitive. Unexpected pregnancies happen. Most don't plan for the father to skip out on his responsibilities. Special needs children can "happen" to anyone, even under the best of circumstances. So, you stating that this woman chose to have a child, and therefore should just deal with it, makes you sound pretty clueless. I'm sure the mother didn't plan for her life to go in this specific direction.

It's not clueless, it's just saying that people are responsible for their own situations. That doesn't mean that we should be heartless, but based on the minimal information presented here, with the doctor firing the child as a patient, which I agree will usually only happen due to a parent refusing to follow recommended treatments, and being expelled from school, it sounds like this mom has made some choices that has led her to this situation and rather than her trying to make it better, she's made it worse. At some point, when people think the whole world is against them, everyone should stop and ask themselves if maybe it's just them?

 

[DisneyOma]

I always think situations involving fellow employee behavior are best left with HR. It's frequently the case that chatting co-workers don't have the full picture, both with what is happening and what the plan forward will be.
I suppose if a fellow employee is very bothered, they should make an appointment with HR and discuss their concerns about how the problems are involving them.

Some small companies (and schools, etc) don't have HR departments. These are the places that tend to have the above problems a lot, because there is no process to catch the issues early on. It can make the solving of the problem much, much harder for all involved.

I believe the child would have to be considered incapable of self care for the parent to get an FMLA accommodation to provide care.

That's pretty standard for all children, isn't it? Up to a certain age, anyways. Or anyone who is sick, right?

I suspect she thinks your comment was insensitive. Unexpected pregnancies happen. Most don't plan for the father to skip out on his responsibilities. Special needs children can "happen" to anyone, even under the best of circumstances. So, you stating that this woman chose to have a child, and therefore should just deal with it, makes you sound pretty clueless. I'm sure the mother didn't plan for her life to go in this specific direction.

Doesn't sound clueless to me - especially since it sounds like the behavior/issues have been going on a long time. Some people just figure out they can get away with stuff, so why try to fix the problem? If others keep covering for her, she'll keep leaving that work for others to do. No one counts on having any of the above happen, but people need to plan for it to happen. Spouses die, leave, accidents occur, etc. I've always told my own children, students, kids I meet in other situations - you've got to be able to take care of yourself before you decide to take care of someone else.

 

[focusondisney]

The statement about the child being fired by his doctors speaks volumes to me. As far as I know that generally only happens if the patient (in this case the mother as the patient is a minor child) repeatedly refuses to cooperate with the doctors' recommendations. If that is the case and, for example, she is refusing various treatment methods then I can see how the doctor and the school would both try to kick the child out.

Having a child with a disability is one thing. Having a child with a disability and refusing to follow a treatment plan is another. That is a choice the mother is making and if that is what is going on then no, I don't think the employer has an obligation to work with her.

Agree with all this! That bit of info seems to suggest this mother's decisions for her child may be making things more complicated. In that case, she needs to figure out how to make those decisions work in her life & not expect everyone else to accomodate her family. JMHO.

And for those suggesting the mother get FMLA, remember that FMLA is only for 12 weeks on a rolling yearly basis. This includes any dbl time too. That means during any 52 week period, you only get 12 weeks total for disabitily & family leave time. That is what the federal law guarantees, certainly employers can give more time if they choose. I have had coworkers who were shocked to find out that their FMLA time was limited. They thought if they had FMLA for child's disability, a parents illness & their own health issues, they'd get 12 weeks for each of those things. Nope. It's 12 weeks total per employee. It sounds like this mom will blow thru 12 weeks time pretty quickly, if she hasn't already.

 

[QueenIsabella]

The statement about the child being fired by his doctors speaks volumes to me. As far as I know that generally only happens if the patient (in this case the mother as the patient is a minor child) repeatedly refuses to cooperate with the doctors' recommendations. If that is the case and, for example, she is refusing various treatment methods then I can see how the doctor and the school would both try to kick the child out.

Having a child with a disability is one thing. Having a child with a disability and refusing to follow a treatment plan is another. That is a choice the mother is making and if that is what is going on then no, I don't think the employer has an obligation to work with her.

I agree with this. However, in this specific case, we only have the OP's information, which she admits is third or fourth-hand. I found her comment that this mother chose to have a child, so she should "just deal" to be very flippant. We don't know the nature of the child's disability (-ies), we don't know how the mother copes (maybe she's exacerbating things), we don't know what treatments have been tried. We don't even know the circumstances behind "being fired by the doctor", or if that's truly the case. For all we know, the doctor refused to treat the child because the mom won't vaccinate--this happens.

 

[DizBelle]

I agree with this. However, in this specific case, we only have the OP's information, which she admits is third or fourth-hand. I found her comment that this mother chose to have a child, so she should "just deal" to be very flippant. We don't know the nature of the child's disability (-ies), we don't know how the mother copes (maybe she's exacerbating things), we don't know what treatments have been tried. We don't even know the circumstances behind "being fired by the doctor", or if that's truly the case. For all we know, the doctor refused to treat the child because the mom won't vaccinate--this happens.

I take it you are in the camp that her co-workers should just fill in the gaps. She gets full pay for doing only part of her job and her co-workers get full pay for doing their job plus the part of her job that she didn't do.

I'm not sure how long I would be willing to do that. I certainly wouldn't like someone else getting paid for the work that I'm doing. This supposedly has been going on for more than a year and is showing no signs of changing any time soon.

I do feel for her but I don't think her continuing to take advantage of her co-workers is the way this should be handled. Maybe you would be OK with this but not many would. At least not for very long.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

*This is at best tertiary information but even if it is not accurate, it should provide for an interesting and enlightening discussion.

I don't know all the details but this is an office environment in a support role. You kind of have to be there to provide support.

I'm not entire sure what the child's issues are but I'm hearing "extreme ADHD" to the extent he's gotten kicked out of school and such and apparently "fired" by his doctors.

This sounds very interesting.

Generally you are only fired by your doctor when you aren't following his/her advice. Which makes me wonder if some of the problems with her child are of her own making.

And how does a child get kicked out of school? Public schools are mandated to educate all students. Did she, by chance, pull him from school? And now can't find someone that will take him?

I'm sure that most everyone wants to be understanding, but she has to realize that it is a place of business and she is being paid to do a job.

 

[jt'smom]

I take it you are in the camp that her co-workers should just fill in the gaps. She gets full pay for doing only part of her job and her co-workers get full pay for doing their job plus the part of her job that she didn't do.

I'm not sure how long I would be willing to do that. I certainly wouldn't like someone else getting paid for the work that I'm doing. This supposedly has been going on for more than a year and is showing no signs of changing any time soon.

I do feel for her but I don't think her continuing to take advantage of her co-workers is the way this should be handled. Maybe you would be OK with this but not many would. At least not for very long.

This is a perfect example of there being NO good answer. It's like a catch-22 on all sides. A single parent of a special needs child is pretty much just screwed in all directions. Especially one whose spouse/father of child has opted out and provides no support financially or otherwise. You can't blame the single parent and just say, "well, she had the audacity to get knocked up and just has to suffer the consequences!", because even if it was case of some irresponsible, let's-just-get-pregnant-to-hell-with-it, person who didn't have a forward-thinking brain, you still have a child with special needs who does not have the capacity to "just deal with it" because their parents are douchebags. And when it's the case of a single parent who is responsible and doing the best they can to work to provide financially and not utilize the social safety net, then they will get crap for needing flexibility and accommodations from their employer to make it work. Which then other employees, feel put upon because it's "not fair" to have to pick up the slack, or work the same job where they don't get any special accommodations or privileges because they don't need them for their own personal situation. No good answer here.

I think it's a situation, where we as a society, have to decide how to make it work for people who have less than ideal situations based on children with special needs, long term illnesses, high need disabilities and so forth. Are we going to support having people get government financial support because the private sector can't, or refuses, to make whatever accommodations are needed to make the affected person able to successfully support themselves and their child? Are we going to clamp down and go with the, "it's not my problem" mentality and let the luck of the draw sort it out, and if you end up in a bad situation with any of the above issues, well, then you just descend into poverty, live on the street and beg for alms? Is is possible for us as a society to put aside feelings of irritation and feeling like it's unjust that some people will have different treatment at work because of their personal situations? I don't know what the answer is. I don't think there is one. Like I said, it's a catch-22. Because until we all are exactly alike, and live in some weird utopian world, some "good" people are going to have bad situations where they need different work supports, some "bad/irresponsible" people are going to have bad situations where they need different work support, and some people are going to take advantage no matter what.

 

[Liberty Belle]

It's not clueless, it's just saying that people are responsible for their own situations. That doesn't mean that we should be heartless, but based on the minimal information presented here, with the doctor firing the child as a patient, which I agree will usually only happen due to a parent refusing to follow recommended treatments, and being expelled from school, it sounds like this mom has made some choices that has led her to this situation and rather than her trying to make it better, she's made it worse. At some point, when people think the whole world is against them, everyone should stop and ask themselves if maybe it's just them?

However, they are all possibilities that one has to weigh when deciding to have a child and keeping it. It's simply a part of being a parent and something one has to deal with. So it's not insensitive as much as it is the truth and not sugar coated.

Yes, but...it would be like a friend of mine telling other friends about my husband's (hypothetical) struggles with cancer and then saying, "well, I feel sorry for her, but she did decide to fall and in love and get married."

 

[QueenIsabella]

I take it you are in the camp that her co-workers should just fill in the gaps. She gets full pay for doing only part of her job and her co-workers get full pay for doing their job plus the part of her job that she didn't do.

I'm not sure how long I would be willing to do that. I certainly wouldn't like someone else getting paid for the work that I'm doing. This supposedly has been going on for more than a year and is showing no signs of changing any time soon.

I do feel for her but I don't think her continuing to take advantage of her co-workers is the way this should be handled. Maybe you would be OK with this but not many would. At least not for very long.

You're making an assumption. I don't know about the specific circumstances to say how I'd feel. And neither do you, apparently--we have no details on what job functions this person has, how flexible she can be with her work, or how her coworkers feel about the situation. I have been in a sort-of similar situation, where a co-worker's wife was dying of cancer and they had young children. Nobody batted an eye when he took off time, or criticized when his wife had the audacity to linger on.

This is a perfect example of there being NO good answer. It's like a catch-22 on all sides. A single parent of a special needs child is pretty much just screwed in all directions. Especially one whose spouse/father of child has opted out and provides no support financially or otherwise. You can't blame the single parent and just say, "well, she had the audacity to get knocked up and just has to suffer the consequences!", because even if it was case of some irresponsible, let's-just-get-pregnant-to-hell-with-it, person who didn't have a forward-thinking brain, you still have a child with special needs who does not have the capacity to "just deal with it" because their parents are douchebags. And when it's the case of a single parent who is responsible and doing the best they can to work to provide financially and not utilize the social safety net, then they will get crap for needing flexibility and accommodations from their employer to make it work. Which then other employees, feel put upon because it's "not fair" to have to pick up the slack, or work the same job where they don't get any special accommodations or privileges because they don't need them for their own personal situation. No good answer here.

I think it's a situation, where we as a society, have to decide how to make it work for people who have less than ideal situations based on children with special needs, long term illnesses, high need disabilities and so forth. Are we going to support having people get government financial support because the private sector can't, or refuses, to make whatever accommodations are needed to make the affected person able to successfully support themselves and their child? Are we going to clamp down and go with the, "it's not my problem" mentality and let the luck of the draw sort it out, and if you end up in a bad situation with any of the above issues, well, then you just descend into poverty, live on the street and beg for alms? Is is possible for us as a society to put aside feelings of irritation and feeling like it's unjust that some people will have different treatment at work because of their personal situations? I don't know what the answer is. I don't think there is one. Like I said, it's a catch-22. Because until we all are exactly alike, and live in some weird utopian world, some "good" people are going to have bad situations where they need different work supports, some "bad/irresponsible" people are going to have bad situations where they need different work support, and some people are going to take advantage no matter what.

This. I suspect if this mother had her child institutionalized at government expense, the OP would find fault with that, too.

 

[morgan98]

This is a perfect example of there being NO good answer. It's like a catch-22 on all sides. A single parent of a special needs child is pretty much just screwed in all directions. Especially one whose spouse/father of child has opted out and provides no support financially or otherwise. You can't blame the single parent and just say, "well, she had the audacity to get knocked up and just has to suffer the consequences!", because even if it was case of some irresponsible, let's-just-get-pregnant-to-hell-with-it, person who didn't have a forward-thinking brain, you still have a child with special needs who does not have the capacity to "just deal with it" because their parents are douchebags. And when it's the case of a single parent who is responsible and doing the best they can to work to provide financially and not utilize the social safety net, then they will get crap for needing flexibility and accommodations from their employer to make it work. Which then other employees, feel put upon because it's "not fair" to have to pick up the slack, or work the same job where they don't get any special accommodations or privileges because they don't need them for their own personal situation. No good answer here.

I think it's a situation, where we as a society, have to decide how to make it work for people who have less than ideal situations based on children with special needs, long term illnesses, high need disabilities and so forth. Are we going to support having people get government financial support because the private sector can't, or refuses, to make whatever accommodations are needed to make the affected person able to successfully support themselves and their child? Are we going to clamp down and go with the, "it's not my problem" mentality and let the luck of the draw sort it out, and if you end up in a bad situation with any of the above issues, well, then you just descend into poverty, live on the street and beg for alms? Is is possible for us as a society to put aside feelings of irritation and feeling like it's unjust that some people will have different treatment at work because of their personal situations? I don't know what the answer is. I don't think there is one. Like I said, it's a catch-22. Because until we all are exactly alike, and live in some weird utopian world, some "good" people are going to have bad situations where they need different work supports, some "bad/irresponsible" people are going to have bad situations where they need different work support, and some people are going to take advantage no matter what.

While all of this is true, there are a lot of situations which can require people to have special circumstances, not just children. Different people also have different decision making capabilities and some people are better at dealing with adversity than others. Employers are paying people to do a specific job for them relating to their business. If the person they hired for a job cannot perform the job duties, the employer should not have to pay them as though they are, at least in my opinion.

I have been in the work force now for almost 25 years in a very demanding field. It is not a matter of the employer can't or won't accommodate. It is generally that the employer tries to accommodate, but things continue to spiral out of control. Having an issue like this for a short term, defined period may be able to be accommodated. To think this should go on for an undefined period at full pay in really not practical or sustainable for either the employer or employee.

Perhaps the person described in the OP needs to go on a reduced work plan and take a pay cut. I know this will probably cause financial difficulty, but again an employer should not be required to pay someone full time for not doing the job they were hired to do for an indefinite period of time. Anyway, there are some job protections to help in shorter term situations, such as FMLA.

 

[Darcy03231]

This is a perfect example of there being NO good answer. It's like a catch-22 on all sides. A single parent of a special needs child is pretty much just screwed in all directions. Especially one whose spouse/father of child has opted out and provides no support financially or otherwise. You can't blame the single parent and just say, "well, she had the audacity to get knocked up and just has to suffer the consequences!", because even if it was case of some irresponsible, let's-just-get-pregnant-to-hell-with-it, person who didn't have a forward-thinking brain, you still have a child with special needs who does not have the capacity to "just deal with it" because their parents are douchebags. And when it's the case of a single parent who is responsible and doing the best they can to work to provide financially and not utilize the social safety net, then they will get crap for needing flexibility and accommodations from their employer to make it work. Which then other employees, feel put upon because it's "not fair" to have to pick up the slack, or work the same job where they don't get any special accommodations or privileges because they don't need them for their own personal situation. No good answer here.

I think it's a situation, where we as a society, have to decide how to make it work for people who have less than ideal situations based on children with special needs, long term illnesses, high need disabilities and so forth. Are we going to support having people get government financial support because the private sector can't, or refuses, to make whatever accommodations are needed to make the affected person able to successfully support themselves and their child? Are we going to clamp down and go with the, "it's not my problem" mentality and let the luck of the draw sort it out, and if you end up in a bad situation with any of the above issues, well, then you just descend into poverty, live on the street and beg for alms? Is is possible for us as a society to put aside feelings of irritation and feeling like it's unjust that some people will have different treatment at work because of their personal situations? I don't know what the answer is. I don't think there is one. Like I said, it's a catch-22. Because until we all are exactly alike, and live in some weird utopian world, some "good" people are going to have bad situations where they need different work supports, some "bad/irresponsible" people are going to have bad situations where they need different work support, and some people are going to take advantage no matter what.

I don't see this situation as co-workers being upset because someone is getting different treatment because of a personal situation. It's co-workers being upset because they're having to continually pick up the slack. Personally, I could care less if someone has a different accommodation at work because of a personal situation. However, when a co-worker's personal situation starts to impact my health, family and personal life, then it becomes my personal issue. From what little information the OP has posted, this is where I think the co-workers are at.

 

[jt'smom]

While all of this is true, there are a lot of situations which can require people to have special circumstances, not just children. Different people also have different decision making capabilities and some people are better at dealing with adversity than others. Employers are paying people to do a specific job for them relating to their business. If the person they hired for a job cannot perform the job duties, the employer should not have to pay them as though they are, at least in my opinion.

I have been in the work force now for almost 25 years in a very demanding field. It is not a matter of the employer can't or won't accommodate. It is generally that the employer tries to accommodate, but things continue to spiral out of control. Having an issue like this for a short term, defined period may be able to be accommodated. To think this should go on for an undefined period at full pay in really not practical or sustainable for either the employer or employee.

Perhaps the person described in the OP needs to go on a reduced work plan and take a pay cut. I know this will probably cause financial difficulty, but again an employer should not be required to pay someone full time for not doing the job they were hired to do for an indefinite period of time. Anyway, there are some job protections to help in shorter term situations, such as FMLA.

That is true, but sometimes no matter how superior your skills at handling adversity are, your problem can't be solved by those superior skills. That was my point. Catch-22. You advise that the person in this situation needs to go on a reduced work schedule, even if it hurts financially. But if she is the only financial support the family has, and she doesn't have enough money coming in to pay rent or buy food, then that money has to come from somewhere or you will have a mother and special needs child living on the street. Now, I think we both know that this mom would then qualify for benefits, and that's fine, but that's where the coworkers are going to be penalized anyway, because in the end, they'll be working and this mom won't be, but she will be drawing benefits paid for with their tax dollars. I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, but one way or another, we all end up being responsible for other people. It's too bad there isn't a better answer. But it does provide excellent debate material, lol.

 

[morgan98]

That is true, but sometimes no matter how superior your skills at handling adversity are, your problem can't be solved by those superior skills. That was my point. Catch-22. You advise that the person in this situation needs to go on a reduced work schedule, even if it hurts financially. But if she is the only financial support the family has, and she doesn't have enough money coming in to pay rent or buy food, then that money has to come from somewhere or you will have a mother and special needs child living on the street. Now, I think we both know that this mom would then qualify for benefits, and that's fine, but that's where the coworkers are going to be penalized anyway, because in the end, they'll be working and this mom won't be, but she will be drawing benefits paid for with their tax dollars. I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, but one way or another, we all end up being responsible for other people. It's too bad there isn't a better answer. But it does provide excellent debate material, lol.

I agree with you about the catch 22. I pay plenty of federal income tax, so I guess if they need aid that is fine, if all other options have been exhausted. That is what it is for. I am not sure it is fair to make this person, who cannot perform the job, a "charity case" at a company and her co-workers. Are we going to assign these "cases" to every worker and every company to ease the burden?

I do not think a reasonable accommodation is to pay someone for full time work if they cannot work full time. I have seen this happen and in certain short term situations, I agree that it is for the best. As a longer term solution, I don't think so.

 

[Darcy03231]

That is true, but sometimes no matter how superior your skills at handling adversity are, your problem can't be solved by those superior skills. That was my point. Catch-22. You advise that the person in this situation needs to go on a reduced work schedule, even if it hurts financially. But if she is the only financial support the family has, and she doesn't have enough money coming in to pay rent or buy food, then that money has to come from somewhere or you will have a mother and special needs child living on the street. Now, I think we both know that this mom would then qualify for benefits, and that's fine, but that's where the coworkers are going to be penalized anyway, because in the end, they'll be working and this mom won't be, but she will be drawing benefits paid for with their tax dollars. I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, but one way or another, we all end up being responsible for other people. It's too bad there isn't a better answer. But it does provide excellent debate material, lol.

However, the employee has a responsibility to do the job she was hired for. If she can't, then it's on her to find something that fits her and her child's needs. It shouldn't be up to the other employees (or in my case employee) to have to continually cover and pick up the slack for someone because she can't do her job. Honestly, I'd rather use my tax dollars for her to receive benefits than have to work nights and weekends to get both her and my work done. It's one thing if its a short-term issue, but this doesn't sound like a "Hey, are you ok with putting in a few more hours for a couple of weeks while Employee A deals with a personal issue?" case.

 

[jt'smom]

I agree with you about the catch 22. I pay plenty of federal income tax, so I guess if they need aid that is fine, if all other options have been exhausted. That is what it is for. I am not sure it is fair to make this person, who cannot perform the job, a "charity case" at a company and her co-workers. Are we going to assign these "cases" to every worker and every company to ease the burden?

I do not think a reasonable accommodation is to pay someone for full time work if they cannot work full time. I have seen this happen and in certain short term situations, I agree that it is for the best. As a longer term solution, I don't think so.

However, the employee has a responsibility to do the job she was hired for. If she can't, then it's on her to find something that fits her and her child's needs. It shouldn't be up to the other employees (or in my case employee) to have to continually cover and pick up the slack for someone because she can't do her job. Honestly, I'd rather use my tax dollars for her to receive benefits than have to work nights and weekends to get both her and my work done. It's one thing if its a short-term issue, but this doesn't sound like a "Hey, are you ok with putting in a few more hours for a couple of weeks while Employee A deals with a personal issue?" case.

You're both right. I'm not trying to be argumentative or idealistic. I think I just woke up in one of those moods today where I find the world's problems vexing, lol. I need to quit thinking and go play Candy Crush!

 

[Darcy03231]

You're both right. I'm not trying to be argumentative or idealistic. I think I just woke up in one of those moods today where I find the world's problems vexing, lol. I need to quit thinking and go play Candy Crush!

I didn't think you were being argumentative, but maybe a bit idealistic (lol, but I also think the world would be a terrible place if we didn't have idealistic people with a passion to help others). If you've never been in the situation I think most everyone's first reaction is to be sympathetic toward a single mom with a disabled child and think "how can we help?". Even though my situation ended in a terrible mess, I still feel badly for my ex-coworker. She was definitely in a no-win situation.