Sick pay

BYTEr said:
Exactly, what are you supposed to do if you genuinely have to be off work for a month for example, at present, I couldn't afford my mortgage etc if I didn't receive a months worth of pay.

I suppose you'd be forced to use credit cards, ask family etc, or there's always insurance for this stuff, or maybe SSP needs looking at?
Click to expand...

yup, credit cards could be a solution, provided it was only a temporary thing... tis better to have a few months worth of savings set aside in the first place though
 
I don't get sick pay, basic staff at my work don't get sick pay. Supervisors get sick pay and I assume the rest of upper management do. Some of the basic staff refuse to fill out sick forms if they go sick citing that if they aren't getting sick pay whats the point.
 
linktoinsanity said:
Sounds like the best approach to me. That was people who abuse it don't get sick pay, however those that are genuine do.
Click to expand...

Yup, it's what my employer operates. Call it discriminatory or bias if you will, personally I like it for numerous reasons. Equally it has its downsides but in those circumstances where people are physically unable to work but on the breadline and can't afford not to, full pay would be offered or some other amicable arrangement.
 
BYTEr said:
Hi all,

More of a rant, I currently work for a bus company providing a park and ride for a large construction site and I'm basically an administrator in the office. The staff members (around 30 of us) get no sick pay apart from the statutory sick pay of £89.35 per week which is only applicable after 3 days. The drivers (number around 200) however get £180 per week starting from the first day of sickness plus SSP.

So not only do the drivers have a much better deal, I'm forced to put up with sick staff members who cough, sneeze and all sorts in the office because they can't afford to take a day off, which increases my chances of catching something forcing me to take time off unpaid, or for only £89.35 a week. A staff member recently was advised by doctors to take 3 months off work as she was having serious back surgery, instead she came back after just 2 weeks barely able to walk and in constant pain because she couldn't afford to take any more time off.

Just seems wrong, but I guess, if they offered a decent sick pay scheme people would take the **** but on the other hand, if I'm genuinely ill, what do I do? take time off unpaid which I can't afford to do or come into work and potentially infect everyone else in the office? Surely it's better I take time off but the company basically force me to come in, I get slightly angry with staff members who come into work who are constantly sneezing, coughing etc thinking how selfish they are, but then I can't really blame them.

In my previous job, because I was technically working in a food manufacturing environment I had to take days off if I was ill and it was paid, you just had numerous forms to fill in etc and I think you had to have 3 separate cases of absence in a 12 week period before they'd even start any sort of investigation.

What are people's opinions on this?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Maybe because being a Bus driver is considered a "skilled" profession, in general administration & office work is very easy, and often has a high turn-over.. why would a management team want a new member of staff going off on full sick pay.
 
Meridian said:
A more accurate translation would be: managers and their pets get proper sick pay, other workers can suffer because we don't care about them.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, it stops people swinging the lead and makes them more inclined to take only genuine sick leave.

If this were the case (managers and their pets) it wouldn't be much different to people abusing full sick pay. If it's the first instance of sickness and you're declined full sick pay I'd expect there to be a pretty good reason.

If someone has a grievance with the rate of SSP and having to wait 3 qualifying days I suggest they do something proactive about it.
 
BennyC said:
Perhaps, it stops people swinging the lead and makes them more inclined to take only genuine sick leave.

If this were the case (managers and their pets) it wouldn't be much different to people abusing full sick pay. If it's the first instance of sickness and you're declined full sick pay I'd expect there to be a pretty good reason.
Click to expand...

I suspect it wouldn't be too feasible to implement - tis one thing for an entire class of workers to be treated differently it is quite another for some different treatment to be dished out at a managers discretion - that sort of thing opens the company up to all sorts of potential discrimination cases if the wrong person loses out.
 
Tefal said:
sounds like an appalling approach thst leaves employees open to bullying, blackmail or vindictive behaviour by managers.
Click to expand...

i'm thinking more people will abuse sick leave then claim discrimination when they don't get full pay.

really sad people abuse stuff like sick leave, this is why we can't have nice things.
 
dowie said:
I suspect it wouldn't be too feasible to implement - tis one thing for an entire class of workers to be treated differently it is quite another for some different treatment to be dished out at a managers discretion - that sort of thing opens the company up to all sorts of potential discrimination cases if the wrong person loses out.
Click to expand...

I agree, so there is an incentive, as well as a duty, to not create a double standard.
 
I live and work in the US. If we're sick, its taken from our holiday days... Needless to say people rarely take them, and if they have a bit of a headache or cold, they just come in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom