Being charged when baby ill

[ditsymum]

I had to take my DS from his nursery on Monday as he had very runny nappies and could not return him for at least 48 hours, there request - gastric related.
I work part time Mon to Wed and have had to pay for him even though he was not there. Feel a bit annoyed I understand he had to be kept at home to stop infecting others but it is not my fault and I should not have to pay feel a bit annoyed but will not make a fuss. Just started a new job and had to increase his days as well.

[musica]

It sucks doesn't it! I think the reason (the one the nursery I use says) is they still have to pay the same number of staff, as if you want permanent staff, you can't just tell them not to come in if some of the children were ill. And I guess it's better to have permanent staff than a string of temporary staff. I can see it would be unfair on the carers if they got a phone call on Monday morning to say there was no work for 3 days, and they wouldn't be paid.

[iota]

Ditsymum - my nursery charge a fee for the number of sessions that you want per week - you have to pay for the whole time regardless of sickness or holidays.
I believe that this is common practice - after all they do have to employ the staff, run the facilities etc.

[pollingfold]

Know how you feel Ditsymum, but they are a business and its not their fault either that your DS has got a bug. Although highly likely he caught it their.

Remember that a nursery is a business, not a charity. You get paid holiday and sickness from your job, but thats not your works fault.

Sorry not to be more helpful, but unless you find a nursery that you only pay by the hour then this will always be the case. I pay monthly, but go on holiday 4 weeks a years, but still have to pay for that time which is equal to £1000 for nothing.

[FairyMum]

It's the same everywhere and I think it's only fair. You pay for the place. It's noone's fault if your child is sick, not theirs either so why should they loose money? The main problem is that childcare is so expensive in general I think.....

[pollingfold]

Oops meant there not their - my grammar and spelling are dreadful today.

[Slinky]

Same everywhere I think - they still have to pay the staff even though your child is not in.

My DD2 was off for 6 working days last week - obviously still pay for her.

[ditsymum]

yes I understand just a bit annoying. They are usually fab and very obliging to take him on some days he is not normally there as I have no one to take care of him if I have an interview etc.

He is changing in Oct to a different one hope they are just as good a bit cheaper and subsidised by my employer

Yes he did get the bug from there and has had a whooping cough scare as well

[bundle]

ditsymum, I help to run my dds' nursery and to be honest if we refunded every time someone was sick, we'd be broke & have to close down (we are a community nursery) and our staff would all be redundant. I agree, childcare seems expensive, but you wouldn't want it to be cheaper if that meant crap staff..
on the other hand, the whole issue of subsidy by employers/govt is a different kettle of fish

[Mog]

We had a spell of dd having one minor ailment after another last year and it is annoying, if understandable, if the nursery charge. My dd's nursery will sometimes try and give a few extra days if they have spare places, you could try asking for this and go into work on those days to make up the time. Or just go shopping!!!

[Galaxy]

message withdrawn

[Hulababy]

We pay for days off due to illness too so I think it is standard practise. They still have their overheads to pay regardless so can understand it - same number of staff, same everything.

[fisil]

Think it is totally understandable. I was not happy when first looking for nurseries and being told we had to pay all year round, including my six week summer holiday. However, I now love the freedom that paying for a place every single day gives me.

I've never done this, but dp has taken ds in at lunchtime on days when we have kept him off and then he has perked up during the morning. I like that luxury. I like knowing that they are there for him. And also, think about the extra attention he gets on days when other children are off sick!

[Issymum]

DD1 had 6 weeks with a nursery/childminder. It was a debacle for all sorts of reasons, but I do remember one of the main problems was that she spent a good chunk of that 6 weeks at home with a 'runny nappy'. We knew that she always got a 'runny nappy' when she had a cold and it was completely unconnected with a gastric infection, but there was no way we could persuade the nursery of that. And yes, for all the reasons given below, we paid for all those days she was at home.

[Hulababy]

fisil - I have the school holiday thing too and in effect have 13 weeks of nursery to pay for even though I am at home. But I knew this when we started. As the current nursery is near work not home I actually don't use it that much in holiday time - maybe once a week in six week holidays (except for 2 weeks holiday away), and maybe once or twice in the 2 week holidays, rarely in one week half terms. However the new nursery we are moving DD to in September is only a 15 minute walk from home so I am looking forward to having some time to myself in the holidays

[eidsvold]

my dd misses nursery for medical appointments - a lot of time off during term and mid term breaks and had over 10 days off recently thanks to chicken pox ( definitely caught at nursery) no matter what we still have to pay for those days as we pay for her place ..... it is tough and expensive but that is the way it goes.

[Jimjams]

providingwe ring in before 8.30am we only have to pay half price for sickness.

[willow2]

Think this is the norm - certainly is around here. Suppose they still have to pay the staff, regardless. What I object to though is, if you take your child out of nursery for, say, a holiday and the nursery then manage to fill the space by offering extra sessions to other children!

[jampot]

sorry about this but when I read the title of this thread I immediately thought someone had been charged with a criminal offence whilst their child was poorly and I wondered what the significance was.