Poll: How much do you think sick pay should be?

How much do you think sick pay should be?

  • No pay

    Votes: 12 5.9%
  • Statutory sick pay

    Votes: 16 7.8%
  • Half pay

    Votes: 27 13.2%
  • Full pay

    Votes: 139 67.8%
  • Other (specify)

    Votes: 11 5.4%

  • Total voters
    205
Soldato
Joined
10 Jan 2007
Posts
4,862
Location
Warwickshire
1st week should be statutory, helps deter people that are not sick, after working for business that pays full, and the amount of people that did not turn up to work when they were not ill, and then working somewhere that does not pay for the week, and hardly anyone was ever off sick
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2009
Posts
13,911
Location
France, Alsace
I'd go:

- Set sick days per year, say 5, anything more than 2 days needs doctors note.
- Sickness with doctors note, which is still classed as short-term (up to 1 week) should be half pay.
- Anything longer than that, long-term doctors note should be covered statutory sick pay.
- Anything that is over your 5 days short term sick days over the year comes out the holiday, or no pay. Your choice.
 
Caporegime
Joined
26 Aug 2003
Posts
37,491
Location
Leafy Cheshire
I think it should be based on earned trust. My previous employer I’d been there 10 years with less than 5 days off total for that time period. When it came to time off for appointments for things like baby scans (so not even my appointment or sickness), I was simply told to take all the time I needed, paid in full.

I’d not expect the same treatment from somewhere I’d been for 6 months with no track record of not abusing the system.

I do however feel that ALL cases should be taken on their own merits and that systems like the bradford factor do little to make people feel like anything other than an ID number.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 May 2011
Posts
11,868
Location
Woking
I've had to take off a whole load of time primarily related to Crohn's disease. I know that the company doesn't need to pay me, they're losing out after all, but they always pay me in full. I had 21 sick days last year I think, but had no deduction in pay. The fact that they are happy to continue to pay me properly is a massive benefit to me and one of the things that means that I'd have a very hard time leaving this company - so the benefit is in-kind.

I guess it's worth knowing that I've been there for 7 years nearly, and this is pretty much the only job I've ever done. I'm well trusted.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jul 2007
Posts
3,443
Full pay.

Its should be dictated by people who play the system, the system should be for the benefit of those who don't. I was off work for about 3 months 10 years ago with an undiagnosed back condition, I would have been in trouble if I wasn't still being paid but I physically couldn't work. On the other side of that coin I would never take advantage of this and take sick leave if I wasn't properly sick. Odd day here and there with illness in the 10 years since but not really any more than that.

To me that's a fair system.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,299
Full, otherwise people rock up to work ill, make mistakes and make everyone else ill.

Some people take the ****, but sick days are something which can be disclosed in references and most places have a system in place for that now.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Posts
23,904
Location
Hertfordshire
I think it should be based on earned trust. My previous employer I’d been there 10 years with less than 5 days off total for that time period. When it came to time off for appointments for things like baby scans (so not even my appointment or sickness), I was simply told to take all the time I needed, paid in full.

I’d not expect the same treatment from somewhere I’d been for 6 months with no track record of not abusing the system.

I do however feel that ALL cases should be taken on their own merits and that systems like the bradford factor do little to make people feel like anything other than an ID number.

I agree.
It really does depend on the company though, and for me, depends on people's moods apparently. Been at my place for almost 12 years, it's sometimes flexible but recently had a few issues where it's clear that length of employment/loyalty and performance isn't worth ****. Which is no way to treat long-standing decent employees.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,299
I agree.
It really does depend on the company though, and for me, depends on people's moods apparently. Been at my place for almost 12 years, it's sometimes flexible but recently had a few issues where it's clear that length of employment/loyalty and performance isn't worth ****. Which is no way to treat long-standing decent employees.

No companies reward loyalty anymore, which is why they shouldnt expect any.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Mar 2011
Posts
305
Location
Sherwood Forest
Forgetting the key factor of fakers, for professional jobs it should be full pay if evidence is provided, up to a certain limit.

Employers should look after their staff - we are humans. The direct and indirect costs of annoying a staff member is substantially higher than wages.

Any employer that does not do this (if there where no fakers) are stupid, unskilled, and not maximising profitability.

Unfortunately fakers do exist, so all the above is mute.
 
Associate
Joined
31 Jul 2018
Posts
254
Other

The same level as a job seeker on Universal Credit for 2 weeks then full pay every week after for another 10 weeks. At the end of the 10 weeks a full medical(independent fully trained doctor) to identify the underlay medical problem then moved onto sickness/disability benefit(a future supportive system), or sacked on the basis of exploiting the in work illness system. In the first 2 weeks you can't be sack and there is no need for medical. Just your standard 3 time off and 3 strikes and your out.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2011
Posts
6,012
Sick pay should be full pay imo, its a part of
Job security, you know if you break your leg and are off for 6 weeks your not gonna be financially screwed.

My company pays 6months full pay as standard and 1 year full pay after 2 years employment.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Jul 2003
Posts
9,595
Other

The same level as a job seeker on Universal Credit for 2 weeks

What is that now, a quick google puts JSA at up to £73.10 a week which is a pittance so you'll still get the problem of sick people coming in to work when they shouldn't which only costs the company more money long term.

Best way to reduce sickness is to create a good working environment where employees are treated as people not numbers / machines. So many companies fail at that, which just leads to overall poor productivity and resentment from staff.
 
Associate
Joined
31 Jul 2018
Posts
254
What is that now, a quick google puts JSA at up to £73.10 a week which is a pittance so you'll still get the problem of sick people coming in to work when they shouldn't which only costs the company more money long term.

Best way to reduce sickness is to create a good working environment where employees are treated as people not numbers / machines. So many companies fail at that, which just leads to overall poor productivity and resentment from staff.

If your working for a business that will only pay the statutory level then you are already likely working for that sort of company, the first two weeks is taking into account that people will and do pull a sickie for reasons other than illness. £73.10 will open their eyes and in truth minor illness is just that minor and the income hit is nothing on the grand scale. Major life changing illnesses like cancer, RTAs and so on should be the real focus, a heavy cold that knocked you about for a 10 days should not.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Jan 2007
Posts
4,862
Location
Warwickshire
What is that now, a quick google puts JSA at up to £73.10 a week which is a pittance so you'll still get the problem of sick people coming in to work when they shouldn't which only costs the company more money long term.

Best way to reduce sickness is to create a good working environment where employees are treated as people not numbers / machines. So many companies fail at that, which just leads to overall poor productivity and resentment from staff.

Never worked in a supermarket have you? Full of part time students that go out on the drink on the weekend and then phone in "sick"
 
Associate
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
994
It should be full pay properly managed to avoid people taking advantage. For a certain number of weeks/months each year. For all jobs.
 
Associate
Joined
31 Aug 2017
Posts
2,209
Part of accepting a job your appying for is the package offered to the employee and its more than just how much they are paid.
I wouldnt be as likely to go to a place that did offer a good employee package.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
32,996
Location
Panting like a fiend
If it's for say hospital treatment or similar there should be no question, full pay no matter how long (whilst day appointments possibly half pay or allowed to make it up*), or at least a high percentage (possibly on a sliding scale - iirc similar to how the government does it if a company goes bust).
Possibly backed by an independent insurance fund or something so that if say someone has cancer and requires 6 months off for treatment it doesn't hurt smaller companies.

It's really a complex question that has no real yes or no answer as there are so many factors involved not least is that any amount you say should be paid may not be enough to cover living costs for some (mortgage/rent, childcare etc) but for others might be negligible compared to their normal wage.

A friend was off work for about 6-8 months a while back, full pay. Although given it was due to him breaking a bone whilst at work they really didn't have much choice about it (even when he returned he was on light duties for a long time as he couldn't physically do the job until the muscle strength had built up, and the bone was fully recovered).

*I tend to find it fairly disgusting that some companies are difficult when employees need time off for a medial appointment.
 
Caporegime
Joined
9 May 2004
Posts
28,551
Location
Leafy outskirts of London
Full pay, the system works fine as it is, rather have the odd chancer than having some draconian monitoring of all activity. I mean, that would be the end of my daytime OCUK visits :p

Thankfully usually I am not sick enough not to work, just sick enough to not want to commute and spread my grossness to randoms and my colleagues, so it just become WFH.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
32,996
Location
Panting like a fiend
Part of accepting a job your appying for is the package offered to the employee and its more than just how much they are paid.
I wouldnt be as likely to go to a place that did offer a good employee package.
The problem is, for a lot of people you don't really have a great deal of choice unless you're skilled enough or lucky enough to be in a position to be picky about it :(

My friend's place of work is in some ways pretty bad, but in others it's very good to the staff (for example when an in-law of his died the boss immediately told him he'd be paid for the time off for the funeral etc, regardless of staffing levels).
 
Back
Top Bottom