Giving women time off for periods

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-03-2016 11:11AM

But if women took 1 or 2 days every month I'm pretty sure people would have a problem with that too.

thattequilagirl · 24-03-2016 11:15AM

Christy42 wrote: »

One thing I need explained. Why is this different to being unwell and taking sick days?

Why do we need women to announce to everyone that they are taking their special period days? Just tell the office they are out sick and treat it like you would the flu. The fact that it is a bit more regular than the flu should make no odds in my mind. Of course I haven't been through this and tested the sick leave system in this regard so I am posting this looking for a correction.

Well, at my work you get a maximum of three paid sick days a year without a doctor's note.

Now when I get a really bad period there would probably be two days of it where I don't feel well enough to work, and that might happen three or four times a year. Right now, I dose myself with pain killers and go in anyway. It would be nice to have the option which I'd probably only take up a couple of times a year, to stay at home. On these days when I go in, I'm not really productive anyway as I'm in a lot of pain.

Christy42 · 24-03-2016 11:37AM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Well, at my work you get a maximum of three paid sick days a year without a doctor's note.

Now when I get a really bad period there would probably be two days of it where I don't feel well enough to work, and that might happen three or four times a year. Right now, I dose myself with pain killers and go in anyway. It would be nice to have the option which I'd probably only take up a couple of times a year, to stay at home. On these days when I go in, I'm not really productive anyway as I'm in a lot of pain.

Ah right. My place just has a limited number of days without a sick note. Think it is two but would have to double check. Maybe an overhaul of that system is needed then. I dislike something written in law that says one gender gets x. Obviously that would be preferable to people going in feeling like crap and not doing any work anyway but I feel rewriting how sick days work should manage both. Laws should be written in a gender neutral way and be gender neutral in effect imo. Thus a guy who felt I'll once a month should have the time off even if everyone knows it won't happen.
I don't think flexitime would work in some jobs so it is hard to enforce that. Companies than can do it can organise it themselves. Just giving people who need it the day off seems like it is the best solution.

thattequilagirl · 24-03-2016 11:40AM

Christy42 wrote: »

Ah right. My place just has a limited number of days without a sick note. Think it is two but would have to double check. Maybe an overhaul of that system is needed then. I dislike something written in law that says one gender gets x. Obviously that would be preferable to people going in feeling like crap and not doing any work anyway but I feel rewriting how sick days work should manage both. Laws should be written in a gender neutral way and be gender neutral in effect imo. Thus a guy who felt I'll once a month should have the time off even if everyone knows it won't happen.
I don't think flexitime would work in some jobs so it is hard to enforce that. Companies than can do it can organise it themselves. Just giving people who need it the day off seems like it is the best solution.

You can write a gender neutral law about menstrual leave, until men start menstruating it probably won't make much difference what pronoun you use.

maudgonner · 24-03-2016 11:43AM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

You can write a gender neutral law about menstrual leave, until men start menstruating it probably won't make much difference what pronoun you use.

I think the point is that there shouldn't be a law about menstrual leave?

If adjustments need to be made to sick leave to make allowances for chronic illnesses then that's different. Chronic period pain should be treated like any other chronic condition. While an increased awareness that it can be very debilitating is a good thing, so can many other conditions.

thattequilagirl · 24-03-2016 11:46AM

maudgonner wrote: »

I think the point is that there shouldn't be a law about menstrual leave?

If adjustments need to be made to sick leave to make allowances for chronic illnesses then that's different. Chronic period pain should be treated like any other chronic condition. While an increased awareness that it can be very debilitating is a good thing, so can many other conditions.

Getting periods isn't a "condition". You're not sick when you've got it. In fact, regular periods are a sign a woman of childbearing age has a healthy reproductive system.

They can also be incredibly painful.

Christy42 · 24-03-2016 11:51AM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

You can write a gender neutral law about menstrual leave, until men start menstruating it probably won't make much difference what pronoun you use.

I am aware it will make 0 practical difference what pronoun you use. Purely a philosophical point on my part. It has also been pointed out it may then cover some chronic illnesses but I don't know enough about them to comment.

maudgonner · 24-03-2016 11:52AM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Getting periods isn't a "condition". You're not sick when you've got it. In fact, regular periods are a sign a woman of childbearing age has a healthy reproductive system.

They can also be incredibly painful.

Painful, debilitating periods, to the extent where you're unable to work is a condition. It's one that can sometimes be helped with medical intervention, and should certainly be investigated.

It's not an illness, but it is a condition.

Electric Sex Pants · 24-03-2016 11:57AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The men won't have to do extra work to cover, the women will make up the time they take off, if they take any at all. It's not compulsory.

And what happens when the work is time sensitive and has to be done on the day they are off? The idea that women work up the extra days is not what is suggested. its EXTRA leave based on period pain. What of the generations of women before who have all suffered and just got on with it??? Women have sick days if things are really bad but other than that just suck it up.

runawaybishop · 24-03-2016 11:57AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

But women who are going to abuse it, probably already do abuse it, there's probably nothing that would make an older male manager recoil in horror as somebody going in and telling him her uterus is spitting itself out in chunks.
I mean this isn't going to make anyone's periods worse, it's just acknowledging that maybe sometimes some women do need to take a sick day in regards to something they have no control over going on in their body.

Women who already abuse sick days now get 2 or whatever extra days per month to abuse it. You honestly think that if Mary in the office takes her 2 days off a month that Patricia won't? She;d be a fool not to.

This whole" the time will be made up" is nonsense. You cant make up time on time critical tasks.

thattequilagirl · 24-03-2016 12:00PM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Women who already abuse sick days now get 2 or whatever extra days per month to abuse it. You honestly think that if Mary in the office takes her 2 days off a month that Patricia won't? She;d be a fool not to.

This whole" the time will be made up" is nonsense. You cant make up time on time critical tasks.

Like Lexie said, anyone who's going to take the piss probably already does.

I know at my work there are lots of options for flexibility, from the occasional day of working from home to making up hours. Don't see why it can't be done.

maudgonner · 24-03-2016 12:00PM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Women who already abuse sick days now get 2 or whatever extra days per month to abuse it. You honestly think that if Mary in the office takes her 2 days off a month that Patricia won't? She;d be a fool not to.

This whole" the time will be made up" is nonsense. You cant make up time on time critical tasks.

Patricia actually might not take the time off, even if she needs to. Because people would assume that she was pulling the píss. So she'd come into work even if she wasn't able for it, because otherwise it would seem like she was taking advantage.

speedboatchase · 24-03-2016 12:03PM

I have no problem with companies instituting such a policy. However, if a policy like this was mandatory you would find small business owners intentionally (though never openly) choosing to overlook female candidates of childbearing age.

runawaybishop · 24-03-2016 12:04PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Like Lexie said, anyone who's going to take the piss probably already does.

I know at my work there are lots of options for flexibility, from the occasional day of working from home to making up hours. Don't see why it can't be done.

Lexie is wrong, so are you.

You want to give people that already take the piss even more time off to take the piss, and also encourage those to don't take the piss to start taking the piss?

Electric Sex Pants · 24-03-2016 12:06PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Patricia actually might not take the time off, even if she needs to. Because people would assume that she was pulling the píss. So she'd come into work even if she wasn't able for it, because otherwise it would seem like she was taking advantage.

If they are legally entitled to days then there is nothing the employer could do

maudgonner · 24-03-2016 12:10PM

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

If they are legally entitled to days then there is nothing the employer could do

No of course there's nothing overt the employer can do. But if 'Patricia' is career minded, or simply has enough self-respect to want her colleagues to think well of her, she won't want anyone to think she's taking advantage of the system.

Some people will take advantage of the system. Some won't. Some will be so conscious of not being included in the piss-takers category that they'll come to work when they're not able to. It happens already with sick-leave, any system that's liable to be further abused would only make it worse.

runawaybishop · 24-03-2016 12:11PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Patricia actually might not take the time off, even if she needs to. Because people would assume that she was pulling the píss. So she'd come into work even if she wasn't able for it, because otherwise it would seem like she was taking advantage.

Might. Yeah, that enough to base a policy on. People might not abuse the fook out of it. I can think of certain sectors where this would be considered mandatory leave if it was introduced

Do people also not think this will make women less employable?

Electric Sex Pants · 24-03-2016 12:12PM

maudgonner wrote: »

No of course there's nothing overt the employer can do. But if 'Patricia' is career minded, or simply has enough self-respect to want her colleagues to think well of her, she won't want anyone to think she's taking advantage of the system.

Some people will take advantage of the system. Some won't. Some will be so conscious of not being included in the piss-takers category that they'll come to work when they're not able to. It happens already with sick-leave, any system that's liable to be further abused would only make it worse.

So you are saying that this ridiculous and sexist system should be brought in just because some people might not take advantage of it??

Electric Sex Pants · 24-03-2016 12:15PM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Might. Yeah, that enough to base a policy on. People might not abuse the fook out of it. I can think of certain sectors where this would be considered mandatory leave if it was introduced

Do people also not think this will make women less employable?

Of coarse it does!! after all the crap about how women are descriminated against in the workplace (which they arn't) we have to hear from feminists and now they want extra days off?? Why would people hire women??

maudgonner · 24-03-2016 12:16PM

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

So you are saying that this ridiculous and sexist system should be brought in just because some people might not take advantage of it??

Read back a little bit there - I said this system shouldn't be brought in. (As did most of the women on this thread btw)

Because it's misguided. And open to abuse. And will make life harder for genuine women who want to work and not take advantage of the system and be treated as equals in the workplace.

Existing sick leave mechanisms should be strengthened if necessary to cover women who are genuinely unwell enough not to be able to work when they've got their periods. As it should for all people with chronic illnesses & conditions. That would help everyone.

Electric Sex Pants · 24-03-2016 12:20PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Read back a little bit there - I said this system shouldn't be brought in. (As did most of the women on this thread btw)

Because it's misguided. And open to abuse. And will make life harder for genuine women who want to work and not take advantage of the system and be treated as equals in the workplace.

I didn't see your original post, i though you were saying it should be brought in.

maudgonner · 24-03-2016 12:24PM

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

I didn't see your original post, i though you were saying it should be brought in.

Yeah, maybe relax the foot on the outrage pedal there...

24-03-2016 03:08PM

Lu Tze wrote: »

Really, I haven't come across a policy like this anywhere I have worked. There is normally a set amount of sick leave per year. I have an ongoing condition, where I occasionally get so run down I can't work, in addition to hospital appointments etc. There is no "exceptional" sick leave outside of normal sick leave for these occasions, I wouldn't expect it, I take unpaid leave for this.

Yeah I didn't say it was a policy, I was saying this is the kind of policy we're talking about. And for the record, I said I was against it. When I'm too ill to work, I have to take unpaid leave if I've used up my generous allowance of 0 sick days.

However, I do see some merit in allowing extra sick days for people who are too ill to work. Whether its because that person has a chronic illness, or intermittently suffers from chronic pain, some people need more days than other so it could be looked at from that perspective, though it shouldn't be framed as time off for periods because thats just a stick to beat women with when they're competing for employment.

To be clear, I don't know of anywhere with this leave in place, it's being implemented in ONE place in the UK, and I'm completely against this becoming widespread.

MintyMagnum · 24-03-2016 03:16PM

Stheno wrote: »

It's not twenty years since I worked with a manager who is still working who got sick of the amount of sick leave caused by period pain. He once infamously said that "The next woman to come in here after period pain is hopping up on my desk for an internal"

I kid you not.

Maybe he'd settle for some clot samples.

Maguined · 24-03-2016 03:17PM

Candie wrote: »

However, I do see some merit in allowing extra sick days for people who are too ill to work. Whether its because that person has a chronic illness, or intermittently suffers from chronic pain, some people need more days than other so it could be looked at from that perspective, though it shouldn't be framed as time off for periods because thats just a stick to beat women with when they're competing for employment.

Would the lack of distinction make that much of a difference though? If a manager would be biased against hiring a woman because she could avail of these leave days would they not simply be biased against women saying they take more sick leave then men? Whether a woman is getting beaten with stick A or stick B she is getting beaten by a stick in this case.

24-03-2016 03:22PM

Maguined wrote: »

Would the lack of distinction make that much of a difference though? If a manager would be biased against hiring a woman because she could avail of these leave days would they not simply be biased against women saying they take more sick leave then men? Whether a woman is getting beaten with stick A or stick B she is getting beaten by a stick in this case.

It's a tough one, but framing it as a woman only policy is going to tip the balance in a lot of cases, I would assume.

You can't win sometimes, you just have to be careful not to give people a reason to turn your gender against you.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-03-2016 03:38PM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Lexie is wrong.

God forgive you!

I honestly don't think it can have people take advantage of it anymore than it is already.
But hey, that's said as a woman that doesn't have a wide set vagina and a heavy flow.*

(*mean girls reference, I jest)

the_syco · 24-03-2016 03:41PM

Candie wrote: »

What's being proposed is that women can take the time off, if needed, and make up the hours later. Flexi time around the event, so to speak.

Flexi can not always be made up for the missed time, although it's a good idea.

Candie wrote: »

No one is getting paid for doing nothing. Oh, and it generally lasts more than 24 hours for people who get it bad. It's a health issue, not a laziness one.

Never said it was a laziness issue. I said that I have no issue with someone taking unpaid leave if needs be, but I do object that someone gets paid for not coming into work.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Oh, We have paid sick leave here under the law ? How do you mean like sick leave exactly ?

Not in Ireland we don't. You get money from Social Welfare after being off for 6 days, and you provide a sick cert from the doctor.

runawaybishop · 24-03-2016 04:04PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

God forgive you!

I honestly don't think it can have people take advantage of it anymore than it is already.

Its what, 2-3 days unvouched for leave per month? Of course people will take advantage of it. The public sector in particular would be ripe for this sort of abuse. Its very naive of you to think that people will not take advantage of extra sick leave.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-03-2016 04:15PM

But they're probably taking it already!

Giving women time off for periods

Comments