I am BLAZING mad!

[Clodagh]

i do find it surprising the number of people who feel an animal should possibly be left to slowly suffer without treatment for want of an hours ‘skiving’ .
I found a horse once who had been left to die of colic. Not intentionally but the owner was at work, felt he wasn’t quite right in the morning but as he tucked into his hay decided to leave him. I have never seen a sight so distressing. He was still alive, just, but had smashed his head up by banging it against the stable walls. He was prone and making the worst noise I have ever heard an animal utter.
It was years ago and it still upsets me. Yes he was only a horse but no job was worth that suffering.

 

[Clodagh]

I don’t expect our employees to have cover on standby for sick children - but for sniffles or childcare breaking down I do expect them to have found alternative arrangements after 3 days. And on top of that, they can swap rest days with colleagues, so potentially 5 days to source alternative arrangements.

Of course there are all sorts of domestic emergencies which necessitate taking time off to sort them out. Sensible employers understand this, but employees also need to understand and not abuse this. Sometimes my staff have to help themselves in order that I can help them.

I was referring the the OP’s specific situation.

 

[palo1]

I have had good bosses and bad in relation to needing to dash off for something personal. Where I have not been confident that a request for leave for urgent veterinary reasons would be met with sympathy I have just taken sick leave. Unless I can deal with a sick animal I would definitely be ill so...However, I have always been happy to take time unpaid and thankfully have always managed to contact those people who need to know and not left my work with someone else. I have worked late at night at home whilst checking on a horse/dog if need be. It is totally counter-productive of a manager not to support someone personally in an emergency. If there are regular absences due to poor planning etc that is different of course.

 

[Red-1]

If you are on DIY, would you not have cover for when you’re away / ill / have a sick child / car blows up / family member falls ill?

I’ve always used that cover - usually a freelancer but sometimes a trusted friend who I would do the same for.

If I go on holiday, Mr Red usually covers me. If we were both away, my horse goes to a pro yard but it is a distance away and they would not be able to drop everything and steam over here. They have a pro yard to run. Mine are at home and have been done at 4am or at midnight on unfortunate days. Never has one had to suffer a 'duvet day' they may be late or early but they ahve always had great care.

Yes, I have friends who could drop a net in, fetch in or whatever, but no, I don't commonly have freelancers coming on a regular basis to muck out or poo pick or ride or anything - because I do it myself. I would not ask a friend to watch my dying horse so that I could go to work.

I used to have a job where I sometimes could not leave because of life and limb type situations and back then I had more people who could cover my animals. That was back in the day I earned a career wage though. Once I was on an hourly rate type of job, that is slightly different. However, I stand by what I said that if a person could not be covered if they were suddenly indisposed, the business needs to make more plans, whatever the role. Not planning leads to the situation I was once in where I was attacked and had my elbow broken, but I wasn't given leave to go to hospital for treatment as I could not be spared. I had to bandaged up, dose up and carry on. Failing to plan is planning to fail. I sure reaped the pain of them not planning that day.

 

[LadyGascoyne]

Would you say the same to a parent and ask them shouldn't they have a back up plan when childcare lets them down or their child is sick?

I would also turn it back to the employers and say should you have cover for emergencies if an essential member of staff has a problem.

When I was working in a job that did require me to be there at a certain time I had a plumbing emergency. I couldn't leave the house all day till it was sorted. They had to work something out.

I've also sat in reception at horsepital having borrowed their WiFi password and worked between procedures when I wasn't needed so I didn't let anyone down.

Sometimes things happen outside your control be it animal, child or domestic and I genuinely feel they should be treated equally.
.

A serious emergency for a child is covered by leave policies, animals are not. It’s not remotely the same thing.

If someone had routine childcare issues, I would be speaking to them about needing to ensure care is in place.

I’m not sure it’s practical to always have potential cover on standby? Sometimes shit just happens and the workplace has to deal. No matter how important you are in your job if you died on your way to work they’d cope, wouldn’t they?

We would cope if I couldn’t be there, but if there are alternatives then I wouldn’t expect my staff to have to.

i do find it surprising the number of people who feel an animal should possibly be left to slowly suffer without treatment for want of an hours ‘skiving’

I don’t think anyone is saying that? I think we are saying that having alternative solutions in place to ensure that the horse always has its needs met is important if you have the kind of job that can’t be left.

 

[nagblagger]

Clodagh
I would never skive from work as, like i said earlier i have a work ethic, however i would leave work when it safe to do so 'open and honestly'! Therefore my employers respect that when i have an emergency, whether human or animal, it is genuine and therefore try to assist as much as possible, as do my work colleagues.
I would never leave an animal to suffer as my relationship with my vets (and knackerman) are exceptional, whether i am there or not.

 

[fidleyspromise]

If you are on DIY, would you not have cover for when you’re away / ill / have a sick child / car blows up / family member falls ill?

I’ve always used that cover - usually a freelancer but sometimes a trusted friend who I would do the same for.

I am DIY/grass livery on a yard run by non horse person.
My best friend is on same yard. If I'm ill my partner looks after horses, if we're away friend does. I do the same for her.

If there was an emergency my friend and partner would be at work so it would be me. If I had to phone on to care for my horse I would and as the big bosses have horses I'd hope they'd understand. I also would try to take care of the emergency as quickly as possible so as not to leave my colleagues short. (If it were to be several days then I'd be able to call in a few people but not as an I need so eone this very instant).

I've tried freelancers in the past and found they didn't give my standard of care - hooves not picked out despite that being a daily job. A small thing but meant my instructions were being ignored wilfully or forgotten (there was a sheet with daily jobs on). Mucking out tools not put back and occasionally not all poo picked up so I wouldn't feel happy leaving them to deal with an emergency.

 

[SO1]

I am glad your pony is ok.

Our dependants leave policy deliberately says pets are not included. It also says for parents that it is for emergencies only and they are expected to have back up for childcare if their normal carer lets them down. I think they can have a certain number of unpaid emergency days with no questions asked possibly 8 a year. Emergency days are situations where AL would not have normally been granted for business reasons or if people have run out of annual leave or do not want to take leave.

When Homey started having colic attacks it was incredibly stressful not only because I was worried about him but because I was asking to take leave at short notice. Thankfully none of them occurred on a day when I had a meeting so I could take leave without inconveniencing people. However it was at this point I started wondering if horse keeping is compatible with work. In the end the source of Homey's colics was found and it was terminal so I had to let him go.

The difference with colic to other emergency vet call outs is that it can go badly very quickly and end in PTS so although I am on a part livery yard which does include cover for vet appointments they wanted me there in case I needed to make the call and have him PTS as did the vet. Also when he was in hospital for a week there was a chance he might not have made it so I wanted to make sure I spent time with him. So I had two weeks where I was taking a lot of short notice AL.

I actually thought I would not consider getting another horse due to work as it would not be fair on a workplace if I kept having to ask for emergency leave at short notice due to vet appointments. I was on part livery and did everything I could to make sure that having a horse does not impact on my work. My contract does say occasionally we might have to work extra hours so being on part livery does enable me to do that.

My workplace know I am looking for a new horse and I have made sure I start on a good footing and don't ask for short notice AL for viewings. They also know I am on part livery which takes care of all vet appointments and any other appointments and I will not miss a meeting unless the emergency is so bad that the situation could be PTS immediately.

I would argue having children is a lifestyle choice in the same way as having pets. There is a lot discrimination around women in the workplace due to the perception that if they have children they will be unreliable. If you have dependants be that children, elderly parents, or pets then it is likely at some point even with the best alternative care in place a situation may happen that will make you unreliable as you need to be with the dependent. As they say no man is an island and there will be very few people who have no dependants or loved ones that could get into life threatening situations where you would want or in some cases have to be there.

I recently went on a stress management course and they said the problem with a lot of workplaces is they cannot differentiate between urgent and important. Everything we do at work is important as there is no point in doing it if we didn't but not that much is urgent, so missing a meeting might only be urgent if there was a financial or legal reason.

Cover can be really difficult in small organisations I had 3 people off for compassionate reasons for three weeks at the same time due to bereavements and a sick family member who lived outside the UK. This then clashed with a pre booked holiday another staff member had booked before the bereavements/sick relative happened. My boss also had booked three weeks leave which meant I was covering for 4 people and the person who could have supported me my boss was not there either. This meant 1/3 of our work was off at the same time. I think a lot of organisations have the bare minimum when it comes to staffing to keep costs low.

In the OP situation I would not presume moving to another role will make things easier as there is no guarantee they would be a pet friendly organisation. It has takes decades for organisations to become family friendly.

 

[criso]

A serious emergency for a child is covered by leave policies, animals are not. It’s not remotely the same thing.

If someone had routine childcare issues, I would be speaking to them about needing to ensure care is in place.

That is my point, a basic inequality in law and employers do the minimum. All domestic emergencies should be equal. That is why i would like to see it replaced by general domestic emergency leave.
As for people making arrangements for dependents, I've never worked anywhere, where people with children and other dependents are not regularly having to leave early, come in late, take days off usually on a weekly basis.

I had one job where i accrued toil over a couple of years after working extra hours mainly to covsr a colleague whose wife had health issues. When i moved on, i only had to work one of the 3 months' notice as they owed me 2 months.
So if once in 5 years, i leave a couple of bours early to go to horsepital having come in early and worked tbrough lunch to make sure i was ahead, it would be nice not to get snide remarks. This from a manager who has already bern absent several times that month for child issues which were not life and death. My visit potentially was though luckily turned out not to be.

 

[LadyGascoyne]

If I go on holiday, Mr Red usually covers me. If we were both away, my horse goes to a pro yard but it is a distance away and they would not be able to drop everything and steam over here. They have a pro yard to run. Mine are at home and have been done at 4am or at midnight on unfortunate days. Never has one had to suffer a 'duvet day' they may be late or early but they ahve always had great care.

Yes, I have friends who could drop a net in, fetch in or whatever, but no, I don't commonly have freelancers coming on a regular basis to muck out or poo pick or ride or anything - because I do it myself. I would not ask a friend to watch my dying horse so that I could go to work.

I used to have a job where I sometimes could not leave because of life and limb type situations and back then I had more people who could cover my animals. That was back in the day I earned a career wage though. Once I was on an hourly rate type of job, that is slightly different. However, I stand by what I said that if a person could not be covered if they were suddenly indisposed, the business needs to make more plans, whatever the role. Not planning leads to the situation I was once in where I was attacked and had my elbow broken, but I wasn't given leave to go to hospital for treatment as I could not be spared. I had to bandaged up, dose up and carry on. Failing to plan is planning to fail. I sure reaped the pain of them not planning that day.

For me it’s not about the business needing to plan, it’s about my personal commitment to the business. I feel a deep sense of responsibility for what I do, and it wouldn’t sit right with me to take time off for things I can put plans into place for. Being suddenly indisposed isn’t something I can prevent. But owning horses, you do know that veterinary emergencies are on the cards. Hence working to create a safety net for that so that I don’t end up in a situation where I feel I need to be in two places at once.

I am DIY/grass livery on a yard run by non horse person.
My best friend is on same yard. If I'm ill my partner looks after horses, if we're away friend does. I do the same for her.

If there was an emergency my friend and partner would be at work so it would be me. If I had to phone on to care for my horse I would and as the big bosses have horses I'd hope they'd understand. I also would try to take care of the emergency as quickly as possible so as not to leave my colleagues short. (If it were to be several days then I'd be able to call in a few people but not as an I need so eone this very instant).

I've tried freelancers in the past and found they didn't give my standard of care - hooves not picked out despite that being a daily job. A small thing but meant my instructions were being ignored wilfully or forgotten (there was a sheet with daily jobs on). Mucking out tools not put back and occasionally not all poo picked up so I wouldn't feel happy leaving them to deal with an emergency.

I have had a few not so great freelancers but I have two that know the horses inside out and would be able to act for me perfectly well. And two who I think are excellent professionals, they just don’t know my horses as well, so they would be tier two in an emergency.

That is my point, a basic inequality in law and employers do the minimum. All domestic emergencies should be equal. That is why i would like to see it replaced by general domestic emergency leave.
As for people making arrangements for dependents, I've never worked anywhere, where people with children and other dependents are not regularly having to leave early, come in late, take days off usually on a weekly basis.

I had one job where i accrued toil over a couple of years after working extra hours mainly to covsr a colleague whose wife had health issues. When i moved on, i only had to work one of the 3 months' notice as they owed me 2 months.
So if once in 5 years, i leave a couple of bours early to go to horsepital having come in early and worked tbrough lunch to make sure i was ahead, it would be nice not to get snide remarks. This from a manager who has already bern absent several times that month for child issues which were not life and death. My visit potentially was though luckily turned out not to be.

I’m sorry if it seems discriminatory but I just don’t see how all domestic emergencies can be considered equal. What qualifies as a ‘domestic emergency’? Who is going to monitor that? If someone has ten domestic emergencies in a week because their pet earthworms died (I genuinely do have a staff member with pet earthworms so it’s not a totally random example) is that legitimate? Paid for by the company? Unpaid leave? How does one judge? How much time is it reasonable to expend making that judgement? Am I going to get 20 requests a week for domestic emergency leave ranging from broken toaster to seriously unwell pet?

I do believe that immediate family, especially children, are in a different category to pets. As much as I adore my animals, I can see that they are not the same as human children.

I don’t have my own children myself (I have step children), and have experienced all the usual ‘injustices’ like parents leaving early from work or being excused from after hours duties. I have been on the receiving end of not being able to take leave during school holidays or over Christmas to prioritise parents. I have dealt with people who have taken successive maternity leave periods being considered to have worked the same amount of time in their role as me. I absolutely get it that some parents can sometimes use their status to their advantage.

But you do have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to leave and absence policies. There is a clear line for children and immediate family, and if I have to make an exception for horses, then does it follow that the unwell hamster/ goldfish / earthworm needs the same accommodation?

 

[DabDab]

Even when I managed factory shop floor teams and had to have a certain number of 'bums on seats' to keep the business area running there was never any kind of issue with emergency leave, for whatever reason. A)because to leave yourself so tight on staffing as to not be able to accommodate unforseen absence was considered bad management, and b)because a quick ring round could almost always turn up someone willing to cover at short notice, because they knew that one day it might be them that needs covering so they were all willing to help out.

I worked all day apart from 2 hours annual leave over lunch when my beloved horse was pts earlier this year. Literally had meetings either side. But that doesn't mean that I would expect someone else to do that, I just know myself and know how I deal, and that I would be able to put off falling apart until the evening.

Employees are humans, not machines, and they have lives that can sometimes be messy and unpredictable, and accounting for unforeseen absence is a normal business cost.

And if you are so utterly devoted to your job and flush with personal resources that you have organised just in case cover for all eventualities, then yay, go you. But you are very much in the minority, so if that is your requirement for employees too then you are going to be on pretty slim pickings in the labour market.

 

[criso]

immediate family, especially children, are in a different category to pets. As much as I adore my animals, I can see that they are not the same as human children

That's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not only do I see my horses as more important than other people's children; there is more infrastructure in place to deal with a child emergency.. If a child is in hospital, a parent is of no practical benefit, the child will be treated just as well but emotionally the parent is worried so want to be there. If my horse was in hospital in danger, I would need to be there, maybe I'd be saying goodbye in their last moments, I don't see how you can hire someone to do that.

It may not be logical but it is the reality that people are emotionally attached to their pets. If their pet dies, there may be a considerable amount of grief, they are not going to grieve over a colleagues child, they will feel sorry for the colleague but that's it. You can't just switch those emotions off so better to acknowledge they exist and come up with a policy.

As for other domestic emergency, something that needs your physical attendance and you don't have anyone else to do. Like a burst pipe or waiting in for openreach.

But it would be an allowance like leave. If person A wants to use it for earthworms and person B for children, that's their own business in the same way that what people choose to do with leave is up to them.

Though from a personal point of view, it's more about the principle as the reality has always been I've ended up not taking all my leave so I've always had plenty for horse stuff.

 

[ycbm]

i do find it surprising the number of people who feel an animal should possibly be left to slowly suffer without treatment for want of an hours ‘skiving’ .

I don't think anyone has suggested that Clodagh. The suggestion is that if you have a job you can't leave that you need to be able to call on other people, that's all.

The problem in this case is that the OP justifiably thought she had a job she could leave but the boss thought otherwise.
.

 

[Lexi 123]

Not only do I see my horses as more important than other people's children; there is more infrastructure in place to deal with a child emergency.. If a child is in hospital, a parent is of no practical benefit, the child will be treated just as well but emotionally the parent is worried so want to be there. If my horse was in hospital in danger, I would need to be there, maybe I'd be saying goodbye in their last moments, I don't see how you can hire someone to do that.

Your horse might be important to you but to most people they’re just an animal and aren’t comparable to kids or family issues. If you get yourself fired you can’t claim unfair dismissal because horses aren’t considered family. Technically horse aren’t even considered pets legally their livestock as they can be used for meat. So even if there was pet laws for workplace horses wouldn’t be included. So unfortunately if you had a employer that not flexible then you do need to find a alternative.

 

[LadyGascoyne]

That's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not only do I see my horses as more important than other people's children; there is more infrastructure in place to deal with a child emergency.. If a child is in hospital, a parent is of no practical benefit, the child will be treated just as well but emotionally the parent is worried so want to be there. If my horse was in hospital in danger, I would need to be there, maybe I'd be saying goodbye in their last moments, I don't see how you can hire someone to do that.

It may not be logical but it is the reality that people are emotionally attached to their pets. If their pet dies, there may be a considerable amount of grief, they are not going to grieve over a colleagues child, they will feel sorry for the colleague but that's it. You can't just switch those emotions off so better to acknowledge they exist and come up with a policy.

As for other domestic emergency, something that needs your physical attendance and you don't have anyone else to do. Like a burst pipe or waiting in for openreach.

But it would be an allowance like leave. If person A wants to use it for earthworms and person B for children, that's their own business in the same way that what people choose to do with leave is up to them.

Though from a personal point of view, it's more about the principle as the reality has always been I've ended up not taking all my leave so I've always had plenty for horse stuff.

Yes, that’s where we differ. I don’t see my horses as more important as other people’s children.

I see them as very important to me but I feel that in an emergency situation, the most important thing is having their needs seen to, not whether the person physically present is me.

I also feel that a child in severe distress will want their parents, and a horse might be pleased to see me but wouldn’t instinctively wonder where I was.

Being there for the horse is more about me than the horse, but being there for a child goes two ways.

You’ll see that I have answered for myself from the perspective of what I would do, and what I am comfortable with in terms of my own performance at work. I know that won’t be for everyone, and lots of people do see work as very secondary in terms of commitment. But for me, I wouldn’t be comfortable having to drop everything at work to deal with domestic issues. So I need that infrastructure in place to handle home life when I am at work.

 

[Peglo]

Your horse might be important to you but to most people they’re just an animal and aren’t comparable to kids or family issues. If you get yourself fired you can’t claim unfair dismissal because horses aren’t considered family. Technically horse aren’t even considered pets legally their livestock as they can be used for meat. So even if there was pet laws for workplace horses wouldn’t be included. So unfortunately if you had a employer that not flexible then you do need to find a alternative.

I think the point is if your horse breaks it’s leg in the field and you can’t leave work to sort the situation then the horse is stuck in agony for hours until finishing time. If a child breaks their leg, regardless if your there or not the child will get help and treatment.

It’s more of an emergency to get the time off for the horse because the child will never be left to suffer. Both scenarios however should be allowed AL, unpaid or whatever the company decides.

Having children is a choice as is having horses. Although not in quite the same scale, as a parent or owner your responsible for the creature in your care. And in the above scenario I wouldn’t see being at work more important than saying goodbye to a horse I loved and putting them out of their misery. At least the parent would be taking their child home.

 

[ycbm]

With the child versus horse argument it matters, I think, a hell of a lot more to the child if the parent is there than it does to the horse of the owner is there.
.

 

[Fred66]

Everyone has slightly different emotional attachments to animals so it can be difficult for some to fully empathize with others when a pet has a medical emergency.

If you have pets and your job is one where you cannot easily be absent at a moment’s notice (eg surgeon) then yes you should definitely have a back up system in place, however very few of us have roles where this is the case. Most don’t have that level of back up and even if we do if we believe that the pets life is at risk then we would want to be there in person.

In this case then personally I would say that OP‘s work had planned poorly, if it is essential that 2 people are there and they have allowed themselves to get to critical staffing levels then they should look at the policy of allowing that.

OP sounds as though they are normally conscientious and not in the habit of taking random time off and whilst maybe a conversation at a later date about them trying to ensure they have cover for their pet emergencies might be in order than personally I think the manager’s response is not that of a supportive working environment.

Surely a “OP firstly I hope your pony is ok , but as you know we are on minimal staffing levels so if you are able to complete the critical tasks today that would be greatly appreciated. If you really do need to go before that can you let me know as I will have to try and get someone to come in to cover” would have been a more supportive position to take. Work life balance is important and businesses that don’t recognize that in this day and age are likely to fail.

 

[Red-1]

...................I do believe that immediate family, especially children, are in a different category to pets. As much as I adore my animals, I can see that they are not the same as human children................


.............But you do have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to leave and absence policies. There is a clear line for children and immediate family, and if I have to make an exception for horses, then does it follow that the unwell hamster/ goldfish / earthworm needs the same accommodation?

Genuinely, I'm not trying to pick a fight as I have always admired your posts and thought of you as a eloquent voice of reason. I am interested that we disagree so wildly.

Pets are not in the same category as children yes, I get that. The big differential is that people bunking off with kids have legal protection. However, for those who live their pets, they are the same in emotional importance. Mr Red says no more dogs as it is simply too upsetting when they die. It hurts too much. He has never got over the death of his Charlie Horse, who we electively PTS due to a painful condition that could not be controlled. It was bad enough for him (and me) the way it was, with as good a PTS as it could be, without him possibly being told to delegate that responsibility to someone else! He wanted to make sure the horse's passing was as good as it could be.

As the needle went in, Charlie looked scared. It seemed he knew what was going on. Mr Red calmed him. It is the only comfort Mr Red has, that he was able to stroke his neck and tell him that it was going to be OK, it was for the best. The horse calmed in an an instant, sunk to the floor and died a peaceful death, without fighting it as can sometimes happen.

For his mental welfare, that could not have been delegated.

I see you are well aware of your legal contractual responsibilities, being limited to close families. Am I to presume then that you too would have denied me the ability to take annual leave for my grandads funeral? To make my elderly mother travel alone on a long, tiring and unfamiliar journey. After all, you have to draw the line somewhere! It is beyond the clear line, set in law. It was short notice, funerals sometimes are. It was inconvenient. Someone else would have had to either work a day off or overtime. It was not covered in law.

Whatever your values are, they are not my values. I think there is great danger in setting the line where the clear line of the law is.

As far as my commitment to my employer, I had 25 years with just 5 absences.

1. Being beaten up at work, loss of feeling from T5 down, broken tooth and severe whiplash (changes to vertebrae) recovered (thank goodness) to a large degree but bad enough that I had to sell up horses and not ride for almost 5 years - 6 months off work in total.

2. Broken arm at work - 3 weeks off, 3 weeks office work before returning to full duties.

3. Broken upper jaw at work, cracked eye socket, broken front teeth, partially detached retina - 6 weeks off work and I asked them to pay for dentistry.

4. Migraine where I could not see, vision disturbance - 1 day off work as I couldn't drive there.

5. Lost my voice and was woozy - 1 day off work.

I don't think that's bad for 25 years! I covered loads of stuff for other people. I feel I am in credit there.

In my other more recent job, 9 years, I have had 1 day off with a migraine, again I could not see to drive in, but I did offer to go in during the afternoon instead! I also had 2 days where I had MRI scans, it was in a school and annual leave can't be taken at all in term time.

That is it, until Rigs had colic. I had to be there as I believe his outcome would have been different had I been absent. Besides, after watching him all night, I would not have been capable of work. It was a torrid week. There were a lot of colics and many horses hospitalised at the vets I used. I was told that most of them died, including those in hospital. Mine lived.


I worked the day my horse Jay Man was PTS. I arranged it for just after work. I was back the next day.

I worked the day mum died and the day after.

I worked when my dogs were PTS.

I worked when Mr Red was ill in hospital.

I worked when I broke my elbow (at work) other than an hour to go to X ray in hospital.

I actually worked for 3 days after breaking my arm because we were short. I couldn't lift it at all (broke the top clean off) but managed to do some things (including riding a horse).

I could NOT work when Rigs was potentially dying.

What I am trying to say is that you cannot know the life and mental welfare of other people. We all view life through the lens of our own experiences and yours will be different. I do not believe it is a good boss who gives the minimum of what govt says you must give.

I left the place where I was not able to attend my grandad's funeral. It stinks. My whole family did not believe I was turned down. Mum had an awful day and I feel guilty.

I have never asked for paid leave for anything. My current boss gave me the 2 days for the MRI, she would not hear of me going in the afternoon of the migraine and she chose to give me the 5 days of Rigs' illness. I was happy to be unpaid for it all. But, she paid and now, I am a free worker as a volunteer when needed. I retired but the last 2 people to do so still go in for free. Winner winner.

IMO, the law is there for bad bosses. To set minimum standards for this who would not have any. To provide a set guidance for weak managers who cannot gauge when people are taking the pee. To those who cannot challenge. I don't see you in that category, so am curious.

 

[ycbm]

As the needle went in, Charlie looked scared. It seemed he knew what was going on. Mr Red calmed him. It is the only comfort Mr Red has, that he was able to stroke his neck and tell him that it was going to be OK, it was for the best. The horse calmed in an an instant, sunk to the floor and died a peaceful death, without fighting it as can sometimes happen.

That cannot be delegated.

Red I fully accept that it was right for Mr Red and his horse, but for the sake of those who just can't be with their horses, for either physical or emotional reasons, that there are many cases where the presence of an owner would be upsetting, or neutral, to the horse, not calming.

I know you won't in any way have meant to make those people feel they personally should have been there, I just felt this needed saying. I've had two horses PTS where I was unable to contain my grief on the day, and being by their side would have caused more harm than good.

 

[scats]

I think there is a world of difference to taking time off or leaving work early because your horse has a cut that needs vet treatment or a horse with colic or needing to be put to sleep.
I’d argue that if there was someone around at the yard to hold horse for you while a cut was treated, then perhaps you don’t need to leave work, but I wouldn’t want to give anyone else the responsibility of dealing with a colicking horse, for instance.

The times I took off work were to have horses put to sleep and i personally always want to be there for that. I do think my horses have been more settled by the fact that I was there at the end.

In most jobs, the reality is that you can be easily replaced. And when you leave you will be replaced and soon forgotten, no matter how amazing you might think you are. I’ve always done my work to the best of my ability, but for me, my animals and family will always come first.
One of our staff in the college had to have her dog put to sleep last year and a few days later, she was still in pieces. I told her she could go home if she wanted and we would cover her work. I saw a human in pain and did what I hope most other people would do, put the human before the job.

 

[Red-1]

Red I fully accept that it was right for Mr Red and his horse, but for the sake of those who just can't be with their horses, for either physical or emotional reasons, that there are many cases where the presence of an owner would be upsetting, or neutral, to the horse, not calming.

I know you won't in any way have meant to make those people feel they personally should have been there, I just felt this needed saying. I've had two horses PTS where I was unable to contain my grief on the day, and being by their side would have caused more harm than good.

I'm sorry if I made you feel bad, as you guessed, it wasn't my intention.

Mr Red needed to be there, my comment was about what being able to do that meant to him, rather than whet it meant to the horse. He got comfort from being able to do that. Mr Red is a very controlled person, although he was not able to be there for when some of our dogs were PTS. I guess that rather goes to prove the point that everyone is different, again it was not meant to upset anyone or reflect on their circumstances. He needed to be there. It has helped him recover. It would not help other people or their horses in similar circumstances, everyone is different, my point exactly!

It was to prove a point that a piece of legislation set to provide a minimum standard, is not able to differentiate between what is important to people in their individual circumstances. Hence me being able to work when mum was dying, but not when Rigs potentially was. Mum meant more to ne than Rigs, it is not that, it is that different people have differing things that are an emergency needing some personal time.

ETA- I have slightly changed the wording to ensure it reads that it was necessary for his mental welfare to be there.

 

[LadyGascoyne]

Genuinely, I'm not trying to pick a fight as I have always admired your posts and thought of you as an eloquent voice of reason. I am interested that we disagree so wildly.

Firstly, don’t ever worry about disagreeing with me - different opinions are what I live for. You really won’t offend me.

He has never got over the death of his Charlie Horse, who we electively PTS due to a painful condition that could not be controlled. It was bad enough for him (and me) the way it was, with as good a PTS as it could be, without him possibly being told to delegate that responsibility to someone else! He wanted to make sure the horse's passing was as good as it could be.

As the needle went in, Charlie looked scared. It seemed he knew what was going on. Mr Red calmed him. It is the only comfort Mr Red has, that he was able to stroke his neck and tell him that it was going to be OK, it was for the best. The horse calmed in an an instant, sunk to the floor and died a peaceful death, without fighting it as can sometimes happen.

That cannot be delegated.

On this, wherever possible, I’m completely with you, I would be with my horses at the end. I would plan in advance and take annual leave over days where there wasn’t anything I couldn’t delegate.

In an emergency setting, I have delegated PTS before and would do again. When on livery, my YO has my written permission to make decisions where vets advice is that the situation is irrecoverable. I wouldn’t want a horse waiting because I’m in a meeting and don’t have any way of being contacted. I also know that if I am in the sad situation that nagblagger was in, I’d do exactly the same - the horse wouldn’t wait for me to drive.

So I know that my life means I cannot always be with a horse within 30/40 min of an accident or illness, and I make arrangements so that someone always is.

So I think I probably agree that being with your animals in the end is the right thing to do but disagree that it cannot be delegated in emergency circumstances.

I see you are well aware of your legal contractual responsibilities, being limited to close families. Am I to presume then that you too would have denied me the ability to take annual leave for my grandads funeral?

No, nowhere have I said that I would deny annual leave to anyone. Annual leave doesn’t need any kind of justification. I’ve granted last minute annual leave for much less serious reasons that a funeral, and where unpaid leave has been requested for a serious issue for someone who had run out of leave, I have given paid compassionate leave instead.

What I have said is that I, personally, don’t take time off for equine emergencies and prefer to have a network in place that would deal with the emergency so that I am not leaving in the middle of something critical.

That is not to say that I don’t ever take leave - I have just taken annual leave for a couple of days next week for personal reasons. I’ve moved things around so there isn’t anything mission-critical that I am missing, and I’m attending an in person meeting whilst technically on leave which is an HR meeting with a very upset person who is struggling with personal issues. I feel it’s my duty to be there regardless of what is happening in my personal life.

Whatever your values are, they are not my values. I think there is great danger in setting the line where the clear line of the law is.

The whole concept of the law is that it is a social contract that provides a transparent set of rules under which society exists, and where individuals can conduct themselves with clarity as to what the line is. So I’d say setting the line at the law is very important to internal governance and fairness, and policy should be absolutely clear and fair where it deviates from the baseline of the law. Being able to waive the line at the discretion of the manager is also fine but the fundamental expectations of the employees need to be the same, and any waiver should be seen as an exception- multiple differing expectations from different employees can cause significant confusion and feelings of unfairness.

What I am trying to say is that you cannot know the life and mental welfare of other people. We all view life through the lens of our own experiences and yours will be different. I do not believe it is a good boss who gives the minimum of what govt says you must give.

I have never said that I think we should give the minimum - I’m not sure where that is coming from?

I have several staff members with personal issues - generally poorly children so it will be unpopular here!- who have run out of annual leave and we’ve offered paid compassionate leave instead, in one case for an extended period of time.

The question here wasn’t about giving minimum leave entitlements, but about what should be expected of an employer, and whether it is reasonable to expect that one can leave work without notice or cover for a horse emergency, and not have the employer be upset about it.

But more than that, the discussion we were having was about expectations for yourself, not others. It was about someone being angry that their employer was upset about them leaving, not that they were prevented from leaving.

My personal values are that I wouldn’t leave for a horse emergency, if I was needed at work. If I wasn’t needed, I’d go and that’s fine. Knowing that there are circumstances where I won’t leave, I have build a framework to handle things if I’m not there.

IMO, the law is there for bad bosses. To set minimum standards for this who would not have any. To provide a set guidance for weak managers who cannot gauge when people are taking the pee. To those who cannot challenge. I don't see you in that category, so am curious.

As an ex-lawyer, I’d have to disagree with the law being for bad bosses - the law isn’t only a punitive thing, it is about delivering clarity, and consistency and fairness.

I consider that direct managers in small companies might be absolutely fine to set independent standards for their handful of staff that they know well. But then expand that to having fifty or even hundreds of those teams, all setting their own rules. Some teams might feel other teams are getting and advantage, some may feel hard done by one manager letting their teams take leave for pets and another not. And the definition of who is ‘taking the pee’ is down to an individual. How many times have we heard on HHO that managers and staff have fallen out, and managers are behaving badly? What about protecting staff from situations where their direct manager holds different values to them?

So I would set the standard, close to the law for consistency. I would allow case by case discretion to go above that but I wouldn’t seek to create a policy for domestic emergency leave where what qualifies as an emergency (or what is considered domestic, as another poster pointed out with regards to stock v pets) isn’t something that could be defined clearly and applied with certainty. I think the concept lends itself to abuse and for staff to feel that their own definition of emergency isn’t being respected because someone above them has to make that and not all calls will be favourable. I think this deducting from annual leave or taking unpaid leave is fair in those circumstances. And that if an employee walks out in the middle of their responsibilities, or where the company isn’t given the opportunity to plan, then whilst the employee is clearly at liberty to do so, it doesn’t follow that the company doesn’t have the right to be unhappy about it.

 

[conniegirl]

Its very clear in here which employers are living in the 80’s era of living to work.

Times have moved on and companies who rigidly hold to previous eras ethics are going to struggle to recruit.

I certainly would not work for anyone who said i could not leave for an emergency vet visit. I could walk out of my job and find a new one in a few days, its an employees market at the moment.

My current employers (and my previous one) are fantastic about any sort of personal leave. From emergency vet calls, to childcare issues, to deaths in the family that are not immediate family.

For me it’s not about the business needing to plan, it’s about my personal commitment to the business. I feel a deep sense of responsibility for what I do, and it wouldn’t sit right with me to take time off for things I can put plans into place for

Its a shame you feel more personal commitment to a money making inanimate entity than you do to a living breathing animal.

 

[Christmascinnamoncookie]

Glad the pony is doing better!

When I arranged for Beau to be pts, they wouldn’t pay me. I was in a haze of upset so didn’t query it and to be fair, it was a Trust decision, not the school’s or the head’s, but I think the head ought to have been a bit more involved in the decision.

 

[southerncomfort]

I actually think this is a really interesting discussion, and it's clear that a lot of companies do not have clear policies in place.

I asked Mr SC what he'd have done as a boss regarding the scenario in the first post, and he said one off emergencies are fine. As long as it doesn't become a frequent occurrence they could cope.

He says that they recently expanded HR policies to include scenarios like this, and managers can now authorise short notice emergency leave at their discretion.

He made the point that a member of staff worried sick about a pet is not going to be productive anyway, and has actually sent one member of staff home after her pet was PTS as the poor girl was so upset.

 

[nagblagger]

Wow conniegirl that is harsh and uncalled for! Never has LG said she has more commitment to a money making entity. She has a very responsible job and can't just walk out. She has plans in place for her horses. I work for the NHS, can you imagine if I got a phonecall and told the junior staff I was just walking out without getting cover and as all are aware, the NHS is in crisis with recruitment and most shifts are short staffed. Some of us have consciences to colleagues and patients well being.! Do you understand the stress emotion of trying to be professional at work, while sorting your personal life out knowing you can't get there in time! I hope you don't need our emergency services because we rely on staff loyalty and caring - that's why the do it.

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

I'm sorry if I made you feel bad, as you guessed, it wasn't my intention.

Mr Red needed to be there, my comment was about what being able to do that meant to him, rather than whet it meant to the horse. He got comfort from being able to do that. Mr Red is a very controlled person, although he was not able to be there for when some of our dogs were PTS. I guess that rather goes to prove the point that everyone is different, again it was not meant to upset anyone or reflect on their circumstances. He needed to be there. It has helped him recover. It would not help other people or their horses in similar circumstances, everyone is different, my point exactly!

It was to prove a point that a piece of legislation set to provide a minimum standard, is not able to differentiate between what is important to people in their individual circumstances. Hence me being able to work when mum was dying, but not when Rigs potentially was. Mum meant more to ne than Rigs, it is not that, it is that different people have differing things that are an emergency needing some personal time.

In my last job, I was part of a team working with the LA HR dept to review leave of absence policies for education staff. It was proposed by the HR team that the wording which allowed LOA for attendance at funerals of close relatives only should be changed, because who is to say who is a close relative. Some people might be closer to a grandparent than their parent. The responsibility was given to managers to actually manage their staff.

 

[Red-1]

Firstly, don’t ever worry about disagreeing with me - different opinions are what I live for. You really won’t offend me.



On this, wherever possible, I’m completely with you, I would be with my horses at the end. I would plan in advance and take annual leave over days where there wasn’t anything I couldn’t delegate.

In an emergency setting, I have delegated PTS before and would do again. When on livery, my YO has my written permission to make decisions where vets advice is that the situation is irrecoverable. I wouldn’t want a horse waiting because I’m in a meeting and don’t have any way of being contacted. I also know that if I am in the sad situation that nagblagger was in, I’d do exactly the same - the horse wouldn’t wait for me to drive.

So I know that my life means I cannot always be with a horse within 30/40 min of an accident or illness, and I make arrangements so that someone always is.

So I think I probably agree that being with your animals in the end is the right thing to do but disagree that it cannot be delegated in emergency circumstances.



No, nowhere have I said that I would deny annual leave to anyone. Annual leave doesn’t need any kind of justification. I’ve granted last minute annual leave for much less serious reasons that a funeral, and where unpaid leave has been requested for a serious issue for someone who had run out of leave, I have given paid compassionate leave instead.

What I have said is that I, personally, don’t take time off for equine emergencies and prefer to have a network in place that would deal with the emergency so that I am not leaving in the middle of something critical.

That is not to say that I don’t ever take leave - I have just taken annual leave for a couple of days next week for personal reasons. I’ve moved things around so there isn’t anything mission-critical that I am missing, and I’m attending an in person meeting whilst technically on leave which is an HR meeting with a very upset person who is struggling with personal issues. I feel it’s my duty to be there regardless of what is happening in my personal life.



The whole concept of the law is that it is a social contract that provides a transparent set of rules under which society exists, and where individuals can conduct themselves with clarity as to what the line is. So I’d say setting the line at the law is very important to internal governance and fairness, and policy should be absolutely clear and fair where it deviates from the baseline of the law. Being able to waive the line at the discretion of the manager is also fine but the fundamental expectations of the employees need to be the same, and any waiver should be seen as an exception- multiple differing expectations from different employees can cause significant confusion and feelings of unfairness.



I have never said that I think we should give the minimum - I’m not sure where that is coming from?

I have several staff members with personal issues - generally poorly children so it will be unpopular here!- who have run out of annual leave and we’ve offered paid compassionate leave instead, in one case for an extended period of time.

The question here wasn’t about giving minimum leave entitlements, but about what should be expected of an employer, and whether it is reasonable to expect that one can leave work without notice or cover for a horse emergency, and not have the employer be upset about it.

But more than that, the discussion we were having was about expectations for yourself, not others. It was about someone being angry that their employer was upset about them leaving, not that they were prevented from leaving.

My personal values are that I wouldn’t leave for a horse emergency, if I was needed at work. If I wasn’t needed, I’d go and that’s fine. Knowing that there are circumstances where I won’t leave, I have build a framework to handle things if I’m not there.



As an ex-lawyer, I’d have to disagree with the law being for bad bosses - the law isn’t only a punitive thing, it is about delivering clarity, and consistency and fairness.

I consider that direct managers in small companies might be absolutely fine to set independent standards for their handful of staff that they know well. But then expand that to having fifty or even hundreds of those teams, all setting their own rules. Some teams might feel other teams are getting and advantage, some may feel hard done by one manager letting their teams take leave for pets and another not. And the definition of who is ‘taking the pee’ is down to an individual. How many times have we heard on HHO that managers and staff have fallen out, and managers are behaving badly? What about protecting staff from situations where their direct manager holds different values to them?

So I would set the standard, close to the law for consistency. I would allow case by case discretion to go above that but I wouldn’t seek to create a policy for domestic emergency leave where what qualifies as an emergency (or what is considered domestic, as another poster pointed out with regards to stock v pets) isn’t something that could be defined clearly and applied with certainty. I think the concept lends itself to abuse and for staff to feel that their own definition of emergency isn’t being respected because someone above them has to make that and not all calls will be favourable. I think this deducting from annual leave or taking unpaid leave is fair in those circumstances. And that if an employee walks out in the middle of their responsibilities, or where the company isn’t given the opportunity to plan, then whilst the employee is clearly at liberty to do so, it doesn’t follow that the company doesn’t have the right to be unhappy about it.

Thank goodness, the Lady Gascoyne I recognise is here!

I agree that minimum standards need setting and that discretion is able to be given, but that takes a good manager to manage that situation.

I was in disorientation, now I am back!

 

[criso]

He made the point that a member of staff worried sick about a pet is not going to be productive anyway, and has actually sent one member of staff home after her pet was PTS as the poor girl was so upset

The one time I was useless was when my horse was being operated on. It wasn't life and death but general anaesthetic is so risky, I was worried. I was working from home and couldn't even stay sat down. Horse was ok and work was ok as I got it done after but if I'd had a responsible job that required me to be there, it wouldn't have been safe

I think the other thing is you need cooperation and goodwill from everyone. If someone is taking a lot of time off for family emergencies, then other members of staff will have to cover. They are less likely to go the extra mile in these situations if their own emergencies are dismissed.

With the child versus horse argument it matters, I think, a hell of a lot more to the child if the parent is there than it does to the horse of the owner is there.
.

I had one horse had that hated the hospital so much it didn't eat till I got there. Plus with the argument then the parents don't need to be there if the child is unconscious.