Sick pay

EVH said:
I’d say sick is bed-ridden, incapable of doing my day-to-day role
Click to expand...

That's the medieval definition of sick. There are some days where you're risking your own health and that of the department's by 'powering on through' that productive virus.

I can only assume you work for yourself and on your own, because as your boss I'd have told you to get over the old-fashioned faux-macho notion that a real man never takes sick days and to think of other people's welfare.
 
Participant said:
That's the medieval definition of sick. There are some days where you're risking your own health and that of the department's by 'powering on through' that productive virus.

I can only assume you work for yourself and on your own, because as your boss I'd have told you to get over the old-fashioned faux-macho notion that a real man never takes sick days and to think of other people's welfare.
Click to expand...
Nope, I work for a large American conglomerate and lead a team of 32.

I don’t go to work out of a macho notion, I generally don’t understand how anything other than bed-ridden would stop me doing my job. Sure there have been days where I’ve felt run down and grotty but nothing some water and the odd paracetamol couldn’t cope with. As I said to someone last week (when they mentioned my back injury: why take time off? I’d only be in pain at home and bored, at least I’m contributing here)

Like I said, why should I take a sick day because others might get a cold? Do you stop going to the supermarket if you’re sick too? Where does it end? Most of the virus would have already been transmitted by the time my symptoms show anyway so really it’s a trivial gesture at best.

Regardless, I’m sensible in my routines and religiously hand wash etc so I really don’t get the “ahmagad you murderer” mentality of those who run at the first sign of a headache.
 
I am upper management in a healthcare trust. We get 6 months paid sick leave and the assumption by many is this is horribly abused, but the truth is only a small number take the **** and most are eventually found out.

As a manager I have actually had to send individuals home when they arrive dosed with the flu or the cold. The old fallacy that "Most of the virus would have already been transmitted by the time my symptoms show anyway" is total hogwash. In fact most of the time being sick with a flu or a cold is when you actually show the symptoms. So going to work in that state is increasing the risk you will spread your disease to someone who most assuredly doesn't ******* want it.

I have seen one idiot coming in with a heavy cold thinking "how brave am I", only for multiple other people (myself included) get their unwanted disease and transmit it to family members. So instead of one person taking a few days sick leave I end up with three or four off, as well as a wife and small child with unwanted colds.
 
Shocker as companies pay people to work and not lie in bed sick. Statutory is a poor offer compared to what some other places offer, but why should anyone expect to be paid when they are not working? And why should you expect the same deal as other staff members doing a more skilled job, they probably get a better deal in terms of salary as well, are you complaining about that too?
 
shame people abuse sick leave, spoils it for the folk who'll use it as intended.

thing is, you go into work feeling like death you're going to be doing your utmost to be doing nothing all day anyway, so whats the point in coming in in the first place?
 
I dunno. Dons, can we make this thread into a poll please?

How much should sick pay be?

1. None
2. Statutory sick pay
3. Half pay
4. Full pay

I've worked in places where it's been none, half and full. Where it's none, people hardly took time off. Think I was off for 2 days when I had a shelf stacking job and therefore just forfeited 2 days' pay.

Personally, I think that half pay works the best. It cuts out the people who take the urine. Most people in the half-pay situation probably had 3-5 days sick per year on average. Hospital appointments and medicals were regarded as full pay (as long as you showed the appointment letter), but for GP appointments you had to work the time back.

Then there is full pay, and this is where people take the urine. NHS. One colleague goes off for stress virtually every year, sometimes twice. It's always 4 weeks off, then 4 weeks phased return. Plus, she only works 3 days a week to begin with and gets 41 days annual leave pro-rata! Then another colleague goes off for stress. Full sick pay switches to half pay after sick months. So she did the 6 months then came back. Bleeding obvious! Another colleague who was a new starter worked with us for 8 weeks, then buggered off for stress and never returned, so maybe hers was a more genuine case. But it's always the stress card and yet we are just admin monkeys! Bear in mind that the rest of us cope perfectly fine in non-stressful said admin monkey roles.

I have a friend who works for Argos and I think they got the right idea too: sick pay is full pay, but any absences over a certain trigger point per year and you lose your annual bonus. I think that's a good incentive not to take the urine.
 
I think sick pay should be evaluated on a case by case basis to prevent abuse. It's not impossible if local management are competent and allowed to manage, but that seems sadly uncommon nowadays in the drive to have everything inefficiently "managed" from the top of the hierarchy by people who have no connection with the actual running of the business and no understanding of employees being people. Why would they care if a work unit is damaged and has the choice of coming into work and getting more damaged or not coming into work and being unable to buy food or pay their bills? There are plenty of other work units available.

This idea that anyone and everyone can get signed off sick by a doctor on a whim and many people do so routinely just for jollies is like the idea that everyone on benefits lives in a mansion full of 60 inch TVs and goes on holiday for 3 months of the year in five star hotels. It's a great way to get people angry and support anything that makes people, especially poor people, worse off.

I'm lucky in that I'm still on a contract from before the drive to punish poor people for the financial crisis, so I could still get sick pay after 3 days. I don't have to worry about losing my home and being bankrupted by accrued debt if I break my leg, for example. Most of my coworkers do because they don't get sick pay. You can't live on SSP alone unless you've been able to save a large enough buffer and of course poor people can't do that.
 
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...


skilled workers get better perks thsn unskilled.

it's not a surprise really.
 
EVH said:
Nope, I work for a large American conglomerate and lead a team of 32.

I don’t go to work out of a macho notion, I generally don’t understand how anything other than bed-ridden would stop me doing my job. Sure there have been days where I’ve felt run down and grotty but nothing some water and the odd paracetamol couldn’t cope with. As I said to someone last week (when they mentioned my back injury: why take time off? I’d only be in pain at home and bored, at least I’m contributing here)

Like I said, why should I take a sick day because others might get a cold? Do you stop going to the supermarket if you’re sick too? Where does it end? Most of the virus would have already been transmitted by the time my symptoms show anyway so really it’s a trivial gesture at best.

Regardless, I’m sensible in my routines and religiously hand wash etc so I really don’t get the “ahmagad you murderer” mentality of those who run at the first sign of a headache.
Click to expand...


I generally draw the call in sick line at dihorrea/vomiting.

if it's regular/going to happen at work then definitly dont go in. the amount of contamination you could do by accident lol
 
Many company's if they can will offer the bare minimum as a: they can and it saves money and b: they will know their staff will abuse it sadly.

Going 15 plus years back working briefly in the civil service the majority of the people in the office used paid sick leave as additional holidays to be taken every year. One guy was sick about 5 years in a row every time Wimbledon was on, that is how much the system was abused.
 
=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Many company's if they can will offer the bare minimum as a: they can and it saves money and b: they will know their staff will abuse it sadly.

Going 15 plus years back working briefly in the civil service the majority of the people in the office used paid sick leave as additional holidays to be taken every year. One guy was sick about 5 years in a row every time Wimbledon was on, that is how much the system was abused.
Click to expand...

That's a symptom of bad management. I work in the public sector and we have around half the rate of sick leave of the national average. That's not down to enforcement either, but having a workplace where people are self motivated. If people are abusing the system, then it's the line manager's responsibility to deal with it and there are a variety of options depending on the root cause.
 
Energize said:
And why should you expect the same deal as other staff members doing a more skilled job, they probably get a better deal in terms of salary as well, are you complaining about that too?
Click to expand...

The drivers are not more 'skilled' than I, although I said I was an administrator (and therefore you perceiving this as some low skilled paper sorter), I deal with all the vetting and badging of all staff along with multiple other compliance work as part of the contract with EDF for the New Nuclear Build at Hinkley Point C, my salary is actually a few thousand higher than drivers.

The sole reason why the driver contracts are substantially better is because the drivers are 'valued' and were consulted about their contracts, where us staff aren't valued and were not consulted and therefore have been given the minimum legal amount, of course we should be valued, without the staff the company couldn't function and we'd be at risk of being shut down by the Office of Nuclear Regulations and if that happened construction at HPC would halt affecting thousands of workers, but to higher management it's only the drivers that are important, they also believe there's no chance of being shut down because they need us.

As far as I know none of the staff have signed the contract, but I still feel aggrieved that I have put up with sneezing, coughing and ill colleagues who are likely to pass it onto me.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Are you in a union? I'll bet the drivers are...
Click to expand...

Yes, most are, none of the staff are and we don't want to be, I could get the staff to join and approach the union, but I can't be bothered now, I'm set on looking for a new job as this isn't the only issue.
 
I once had a bus driver tell me he didn't have to accept my £20 note because the union said so. I had to get off and go break it somewhere. Ridiculous.
 
I've always worked for companies who have had pretty good sick policies, my current employer offer 20 days full pay and that runs January until December which normally is plenty as I don't often get ill but this year I suffered a ruptured appendix and used all my allowance by mid February as I was in hospital for a few weeks. Really sucked when I had food poisoning a month or two back but luckily working from home is a possibility if its not too often (not that you can get much done with the usual symptoms).

A few of the longer running employees get 6 months full pay as they are on older contracts but no one that I'm aware of abuses that.

It would terrify me working for a company that offers nothing for reasons like my appendix.
 
BYTEr said:
The drivers are not more 'skilled' than I, although I said I was an administrator (and therefore you perceiving this as some low skilled paper sorter), I deal with all the vetting and badging of all staff along with multiple other compliance work as part of the contract with EDF for the New Nuclear Build at Hinkley Point C, my salary is actually a few thousand higher than drivers.

The sole reason why the driver contracts are substantially better is because the drivers are 'valued' and were consulted about their contracts, where us staff aren't valued and were not consulted and therefore have been given the minimum legal amount, of course we should be valued, without the staff the company couldn't function and we'd be at risk of being shut down by the Office of Nuclear Regulations and if that happened construction at HPC would halt affecting thousands of workers, but to higher management it's only the drivers that are important, they also believe there's no chance of being shut down because they need us.

As far as I know none of the staff have signed the contract, but I still feel aggrieved that I have put up with sneezing, coughing and ill colleagues who are likely to pass it onto me.
Click to expand...

No I'm not perceiving it as a low skilled paper sorter because you said admin, it is simply generally the case that more skilled jobs have a lower supply to demand ratio which normally results in such employees being more 'valued' hence more benefits.
 
dowie said:
That could be solved quite easily - get others in the office to sign up to the same transport union the drivers are in.
Click to expand...

But trade unions aren't needed any more due to how generous and fair employers are and the excellent employment law we have.
 
Jamesyboyjim said:
It would terrify me working for a company that offers nothing for reasons like my appendix.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom