Who Will Watch the Children?

With the H1N1 virus, which is usually referred to as swine flu, expected to hit hard just as the new school year begins and the announcement of delays until October at best in the availability of the vaccine now in development against the disease, a great deal more attention must be paid to the child care dilemma that all too many working American parents face. The efforts going forward to contain the spread of the disease, in addition to the development of the vaccine and plans by many school districts to provide it when it becomes available, include increased attention to hand-washing, making children aware of the dangers of sharing drinks and food, and emphasizing the need to cover the mouth when coughing or sneezing—and keeping those infected with the virus away from others.

This means that one of the major questions facing the nation is when and if schools should be closed as a precautionary measure. This past spring, school closings were a common response to large flu outbreaks, but according to an article in the Washington Post, that recommendation is now being reconsidered by the administration’s health officials, with the most probable outcome being that this fall closures would be recommended “only under ‘extenuating circumstances,’ such as if a campus has many children with underlying medical conditions.” During the outbreak of this flu last year, according to the same article, “more than 700 schools nationwide dismissed nearly a half-million students within days.” The closures did not seem to do much to limit the outbreaks since they took place after most children within those schools had already been exposed to the virus.

Moreover, when children are out of school because of these closures, there is no assurance that they will not congregate with other students and that parents, desperate not to miss work, will not simply take turns watching one another’s children.

The issue of child care during an epidemic is troubling. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius advised parents to consider alternative strategies for caring for their children if they contract the disease. Telling parents to keep sick children at home is logical, but how sick is sick enough for a parent who will lose a day’s pay for staying home with that child? If it looks like it is no more than the possible start of an illness, ignoring the problem and sending the child to school for as long as possible in order to go to work and keep food on the table may seem a logical choice to many. Aware of this dilemma, Paul Johnson, superintendent of the Bismarck, North Dakota school system says officials will be “a little firmer” this year in telling parents to keep sick youngsters home. The very wording of that statement makes clear the scope of the problem.

 

If parents cannot find alternate child care options, the economic costs to the economy and to individuals, especially poor individuals, will be dramatic. The Lancet, Britain’s notable medical journal, after examining the costs both in the United Kingdom and the United States of school closings, reported that “a 12-week closure could wipe up to six percent off GDP,” as parents stay home to care for their children. This means that finding “alternative strategies” should make sense.

 

But the question is what alternatives are available, especially to a single parent who works at a low-paid job, especially the kind of job that does not offer sick days? (And even if a job offers a limited number of sick days, most parents use them to take care of their child and then, having contracted the illness from the child, they feel compelled to make it in to work while sick themselves.) What if the costs of hiring someone to look after the child cannot be met? What if there are no nearby family members to ask for help? There has been little follow-up to Sibelius’s recommendation, probably because there is no real solution for most parents who have neither the means nor support systems to cover such contingencies.

 

Basic child care, let alone care arrangements when children are ill, is a major problem even when we are not facing a pandemic. Many parents leave sick children who are school age alone at home when they are ill. In fact, “almost 40% of families have left a sick child home alone or had to send a child to school or day care sick. And 27% said they left a child in the care of another child,” according to USAToday.

 

Among the possible solutions to the basic problem of finding alternate child care for ill children during normal times are provisions for in-home care in emergencies with charges based on income; developing infirmaries adjacent to schools, day-care centers, and large corporate places of employment; and telecommuting options (which unfortunately are not possible for most in low-paying jobs, such as those in the service industry—think waitresses or nurses aides and the dangers inherent in those people coming to work ill).

 

Unfortunately, even having such arrangements in place may not work if a true pandemic develops because of the numbers involved, but having such programs in place would provide the basis for a degree of emergency expansion in times of crisis, and thus are worth exploring. Simply telling parents to consider alternative strategies is not the answer.   

Comments

[Nicole Belson Goluboff, Esq.]

Businesses willing to incorporate telecommuting in their swine flu preparedness plans may discover an unexpected obstacle: the telecommuter tax.

Under a state rule known as the “convenience of the employer” rule, a state can tax nonresidents who work for in-state employers and sometimes telecommute, not just on the part of their salaries they earn within the state, but also on the part of their salaries they earn at home – in a different state. Because workers’ home states can also tax the wages they earn at home, many Americans are double taxed for telecommuting.

Say, for example, a Connecticut resident is an editor for a newspaper in New York. Her twelve year old daughter comes down with swine flu symptoms, and her supervisor gives her permission to telecommute while her child is home from school. Connecticut can tax the editor on the wages she earns in Connecticut. Under the “convenience of the employer” rule, New York can then tax those wages again. The editor can be double taxed for her choice to be a responsible parent while staying on the job and limiting the spread of infection in her New York office.

The threat of double taxation for telecommuting is a powerful deterrent to the practice – especially in these difficult economic times. The punitive tax makes it hard for employees to tap the work/life benefits of telework as well as the savings on commuting costs and child care that telecommuting offers. It can also make it hard for employers to sell the telework alternative to employees.

Legislation is pending in Congress that would abolish the double tax penalty for telecommuting. This bi-partisan bill – the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act (H.R. 2600) - would bar states from taxing the income nonresidents earn while working in their home states. To help the greatest number of working parents and businesses use telework to weather a severe outbreak of the H1N1 virus, Washington should enact the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act now.

[STOP THE VAX]

Vaccines are POISON. The only one[s] who benefit from vaccines are PHARMACEUTICALS. Lots of Vitamin D will protect you from the flu and many other diseases. DON'T be fooled by paid off media hype. STOP the sickening assault on humanity.

[viagra online]

it was a great question that all we have ...