Schools closed until February? (part 3)

awec

Boggles wrote: »

I'm not a teacher. But I don't think being one on this floated idea makes you devoid of an opinion.

I have yet to here one reason why this would be nothing but a good idea which would benefit the entire country and by extension the economy.

If people could peel away from the teacher bashing, engage the brain slightly they'd would see it too.

---

I see the new HSPC "stats" are out.




Interesting.

Because it means parents have to take another 2 days off, and this has a knock on effect. The idea that 2 extra days off is entirely positive is total nonsense. The idea that it'd be beneficial to the economy is a concept that exists only in your head.

There may be an argument for moving the holidays forward 2 days, and they go back 2 days earlier on the other end, but this is still very problematic as parents cannot just shift around holidays across years on a whim.

Boggles

thomasdylan wrote: »

As has been said multiple times, there are loads of essential workers, a lot of whom will work shift on 24/7 rotas who have arranged shifts around the established holidays. Finding out a month before that this has been changed is going to be really difficult for them. There are already staff shortages in a lot of hospitals in the East of Ireland.

Meh. I not buying this will be such a huge problem as it's been painted.

It's a day and a half, depending on the age of the kids, could be as little as 7-8 hours over 2 days.

How much notice did they get when schools closed in March?

I think the vast majority of people would cope just fine and for the economy we may even knock the Jan sales out of it.

lawrencesummers

Why don’t the unions look for the early finish and then start back in January two days earlier.

I’m sure a lot of parents would prefer to have finished before Christmas and then go back on the 4th of January instead of the 6th.

The majority of workplaces would be open on the 4th anyway.

teachinggal123

Matt Cooper talking about this soon ...

Boggles

awec wrote: »

Because it means parents have to take another 2 days off, and this has a knock on effect. The idea that 2 extra days off is entirely positive is total nonsense. The idea that it'd be beneficial to the economy is a concept that exists only in your head.

Potentially limiting the spread of the virus?

I can assure it exists beyond my head, it is surprising that you are someway confused by it though.

But again, give me your alternative opinion, how would limiting the spread of the virus not be beneficial to society and by the extension the economy.

Before you start, that is neither solely my opinion or a reality that exists purely in my head.

So go, in your good time.

awec

Boggles wrote: »

Meh. I not buying this will be such a huge problem as it's been painted.

It's a day and a half, depending on the age of the kids, could be as little as 7-8 hours over 2 days.

How much notice did they get when schools closed in March?

I think the vast majority of people would cope just fine and for the economy we may even knock the Jan sales out of it.

How many kids do you have Boggles?

Boggles

awec wrote: »

How many kids do you have Boggles?

Relevance?

tom1ie

Boggles wrote: »

Meh. I not buying this will be such a huge problem as it's been painted.

It's a day and a half, depending on the age of the kids, could be as little as 7-8 hours over 2 days.

How much notice did they get when schools closed in March?

I think the vast majority of people would cope just fine and for the economy we may even knock the Jan sales out of it.

Pretty much everything (bar front line work) closed in March though.
Your not comparing like with like.

awec

Boggles wrote: »

Relevance?

Pretty relevant, you are posting like someone who hasn't a notion.

iamwhoiam

meeeeh wrote: »

Dump kids on grandparents or work from home. I work for myself so it's usually not an issue but most people would probably consider it an extra bit of hassle for no particular reason.

I have a question of my own. Who here is seeing vulnerable relatives or friends for Christmas and intends to self isolate for previous 14 days including avoiding shops and similar?

Why do people say things like “ dump kids on grandparents “ My siblings and my friends and myself are grand parents and would all be insulted at that expression. We help out gladly and enjoy our grandchildren and have mutual agreements with our families . Why judge us all when you don’t know the family dynamics ?

Boggles

tom1ie wrote: »

Pretty much everything (bar front line work) closed in March though.
Your not comparing like with like.

We are talking about the kids of front line workers.

jrosen

SusanC10 wrote: »

Genuine question - how do working Parents manage if their child is ill ? Particularly in the current climate. Or if their child is a close contact of a confirmed case ? And these Kids need to stay at home. For several days.

I accept that as a SAHM, I don't have to worry about this aspect but I wasn't always a SAHM. And I worked when our kids were very young and were ill far more frequently than in recent years.
No family near us.

Most people I know have extra Annual Leave this year. Untaken due to the Pandemic. Most of our friends are rolling leave into the next leave year and still needing to use up days.

I would imagine they are using their annual leave, parental leave and working from home where they can. You have to remember parents have been home since mid march balancing work and kids.

Most people I know where actually encouraged (forced) to take their annual leave during the summer months. I know my husband has a mandatory 2 week for anti fraud. He has no say in that matter he is contractually obligated to take that time. Then there was the mid term break, plus anyone who was laid off like myself does not accrue annual leave while on temp lay off. Some of my colleagues took holidays when we returned to work and now as we have closed again will actually owe back holidays.
As for rolling holidays into next year, we are typically not allowed. I usually manage to blag 2 days which covers the January dates the kids are still off school. My husband cant carry more than 3 days which is the case for alot of my friends also. So it was a case of use the hols or loose them.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Boggles wrote: »

Potentially limiting the spread of the virus?

I can assure it exists beyond my head, it is surprising that you are someway confused by it though.

But again, give me your alternative opinion, how would limiting the spread of the virus not be beneficial to society and by the extension the economy.

Before you start, that is neither solely my opinion or a reality that exists purely in my head.

So go, in your good time.

True, but that needs to be balanced with the drop in output and productivity by many taking leave to cover the extra days off. Some here suggested parents should take parental leave, that is leave about and beyond annual leave. Therefore these parents will be working less this year and generating less economic output.

It's quite difficult I would say to put a figure on the economic impact, either positively or negatively, by this proposal. Although I'm not an economist either.

Boggles

awec wrote: »

Pretty relevant, you are posting like someone who hasn't a notion.

A notion about what exactly?

thomasdylan

Boggles wrote: »

Meh. I not buying this will be such a huge problem as it's been painted.

It's a day and a half, depending on the age of the kids, could be as little as 7-8 hours over 2 days.

How much notice did they get when schools closed in March?

I think the vast majority of people would cope just fine and for the economy we may even knock the Jan sales out of it.

March was very different. Less presentations to hospitals, less staff out with it. March was far far quieter than it is currently.

Staffing issues are hospital dependant but in the East of the country there is derogation happening because without it shifts would not be covered.

Boggles

Armani Gray Redcoat wrote: »

True, but that needs to be balanced with the drop in output and productivity by many taking leave to cover the extra days off. Some here suggested parents should take parental leave, that is leave about and beyond annual leave. Therefore these parents will be working less this year and generating less economic output.

It's quite difficult I would say to put a figure on the economic impact, either positively or negatively, by this proposal. Although I'm not an economist either.

I think it is so small, the economic measurement would be next to impossible.

It's essentially a few hours, how many people are all ready working from home as is?

tom1ie

Boggles wrote: »

We are talking about the kids of front line workers.

Ok so people that are working from home won’t be able to work from home if their young children are also at home.
That’s the reality.
However if schools closed for an extended period of time, parents wouldn’t be expected to have the same work output as they are teaching/minding their kids at the same time, something similar to March.

Thats me

awec wrote: »

Because it means parents have to take another 2 days off, and this has a knock on effect.

I remember not so long ago official position was schools not closed for the period of L5 because education is "essential" :rolleyes:

Now it appears nobody have any doubt schools were not closed just because some children requiring child minder while their parents doing essential jobs.

Ideal example of how these simple lies lead to ineffective solution.

If the problem be formulated from scratch - i believe solution would be different than push all pupil into schools. As I see it could be some daytime clubs organised for children of essential workers where only children of really essential workers allowed. This would lead to less populated rooms, flexibility in freshening air, and also would tie these workers who are not essential to their homes leading to better effect of the lockdown.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Boggles wrote: »

I think it is so small, the economic measurement would be next to impossible.

It's essentially a few hours, how many people are all ready working from home as is?

So this proposal wouldn't benefit the economy then or at least the benefit would be so small as to be impossible to measure. That does contradict your earlier statement a bit though to be fair. I think the one thing for certain is that it would be difficult to definitely state the impact.

Boggles

tom1ie wrote: »

Ok so people that are working from home won’t be able to work from home if their young children are also at home.
That’s the reality.

Nope. Plenty have battled through. Not easy, but not impossible.

It's for essentially a few hours.

The resistance is hilarious.

awec

Boggles wrote: »

I think it is so small, the economic measurement would be next to impossible.

It's essentially a few hours, how many people are all ready working from home as is?

You know that the difference between working from home, and working from home with kids at home is enormous?

Particularly for parents of younger children, working from home while simultaneously minding children is just not possible. If your kids are off, you need to take the day off.

Employers sucked it up earlier in the year because they had no option, it was either accept it or close down. There will be no appetite for employers to suck up 2 days of lost productivity now to give teachers an extra 2 days off.

As I said, you haven't a notion.

Thats me

awec wrote: »

You know that the difference between working from home, and working from home with kids at home is enormous?

How many WFH parents died during midterm? :rolleyes:

Boggles

awec wrote: »

working from home while simultaneously minding children is just not possible.

Really?

I can tell you right now it is possible, hard at times but it's possible. Might have been impossible for you, but I can tell you now most soldiered on.

Again it's for a few hours.

The resistance to this simple measure that could actually save lives is truly bizarre.

awec

Thats me wrote: »

I remember not so long ago official position was schools not closed for the period of L5 because education is "essential" :rolleyes:

Now it appears nobody have any doubt schools were not closed just because some children requiring child minder while their parents doing essential jobs.

Ideal example of how these simple lies lead to ineffective solution.

If the problem be formulated from scratch - i believe solution would be different than push all pupil into schools. As I see it could be some daytime clubs organised for children of essential workers where only children of really essential workers allowed. This would lead to less populated rooms, flexibility in freshening air, and also would tie these workers who are not essential to their homes leading to better effect of the lockdown.

While education is indeed essential, schools are also open because schools being closed has an enormous detrimental effect on the overall economy.

This should not be a surprise to anyone.

awec

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

I can tell you right now it is possible, hard at times but it's possible. Might have been impossible for you, but I can tell you now most soldiered on.

Again it's for a few hours.

The resistance to this simple measure that could actually save lives is truly bizarre.

This is coming from your extensive experience of working at home with children, right?

"This simple measure". As I said, you haven't a notion.

Boggles

Armani Gray Redcoat wrote: »

So this proposal wouldn't benefit the economy then or at least the benefit would be so small as to be impossible to measure. That does contradict your earlier statement a bit though to be fair. I think the one thing for certain is that it would be difficult to definitely state the impact.

The cost of the economy for people have to find alternative arrangements for a few hours for kids is not something easily measured.

The benefit to the economy for a few extra weeks would be in the 100s of million s if not more.

Blondini

awec wrote: »

You know that the difference between working from home, and working from home with kids at home is enormous?

Particularly for parents of younger children, working from home while simultaneously minding children is just not possible. If your kids are off, you need to take the day off.

Really? I know lots of people who managed it just fine.

Some people are just better parents and multi-taskers I suppose.

Theboinkmaster

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

I can tell you right now it is possible, hard at times but it's possible. Might have been impossible for you, but I can tell you now most soldiered on.

Again it's for a few hours.

The resistance to this simple measure that could actually save lives is truly bizarre.

No I agree, working from home properly with young children is not possible.

Anyone who says different must just stick them on the ipad for 8 hours.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Boggles wrote: »

The benefit to the economy for a few extra weeks would be in the 100s of million s if not more.

The benefit of shutting down schools?

Jinglejangle69

Blondini wrote: »

Really? I know lots of people who managed it just fine.

Some people are just better parents and multi-taskers I suppose.

Condescending.

Seriously as a teacher you're doing yourself no favours.