Oh I think it's all 3. But work culture in the US has traditionally found solutions in pitting one employee's interests against another. It's convenient for the employer. I think for quite a while now, the shift has been to burden the single and/or childless employees in an attempt to appear "family friendly" without actually implementing any policy that would cost anything.

But I think the driving issue here, and why the situation/apology doesn't seem satisfying, is that it is empty, irrespective of how well-meaning it may be. If the T isn't willing to actually do anything to prevent most of the absences from affecting her clients, then what does the apology really mean? And, of course, would the same reasoning be acceptable both ways in the relationship. I'd be really interested to know if this T has a 24-hr cancellation policy for clients.