1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Pawnless Endgame, Nov 21, 2019.


How much do you think sick pay should be?

  1. No pay

    12 vote(s)
  2. Statutory sick pay

    16 vote(s)
  3. Half pay

    27 vote(s)
  4. Full pay

    138 vote(s)
  5. Other (specify)

    11 vote(s)
  1. Haze


    Joined: Jan 10, 2007

    Posts: 3,056

    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
  2. randomshenans


    Joined: Sep 11, 2009

    Posts: 11,157

    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.
  3. paradigm


    Joined: Aug 26, 2003

    Posts: 35,024

    Location: Staffordshire

    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.
  4. dirtychinchilla


    Joined: May 2, 2011

    Posts: 9,172

    Location: Woking, Surrey

    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.
  5. placeholder


    Joined: Jul 14, 2007

    Posts: 3,326

    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.
  6. Nasher


    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 15,144

    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: Nov 22, 2019
  7. Rossi~


    Joined: Nov 5, 2010

    Posts: 19,533

    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.
  8. 413x


    Joined: Jan 13, 2010

    Posts: 16,726

    Location: Cardiff

    No pay is just not great. People will come in if they can and infect everyone else.
  9. Nasher


    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 15,144

    No companies reward loyalty anymore, which is why they shouldnt expect any.
  10. morbid42


    Joined: Mar 24, 2011

    Posts: 296

    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.
  11. Geodude97AD


    Joined: Jul 31, 2018

    Posts: 137


    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.
  12. NoobCannon


    Joined: Jun 13, 2011

    Posts: 4,964

    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.
  13. Puzzled


    Joined: Jul 9, 2003

    Posts: 6,232

    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.
  14. Geodude97AD


    Joined: Jul 31, 2018

    Posts: 137

    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.
  15. Haze


    Joined: Jan 10, 2007

    Posts: 3,056

    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"
  16. RobHu


    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 319

    It should be full pay properly managed to avoid people taking advantage. For a certain number of weeks/months each year. For all jobs.
  17. sideways14a

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 31, 2017

    Posts: 1,682

    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.
  18. Werewolf


    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 27,972

    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.
  19. krooton


    Joined: May 9, 2004

    Posts: 25,623

    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.
  20. Werewolf


    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 27,972

    Location: Panting like a fiend

    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).