Sickness and Overtime.(13 Posts)
Just looking for other people's opinions really and what happens in their workplace.
My workplace ( healthcare) has been struggling to recruit and retain staff so they recently decided to start paying existing employers overtime rate if they will take on extra shifts at short notice. On a weekday this can be time and a third on a sunday it can be double time.
A collegue offered to work overtime last sunday, so double time. This was despite her having been off sick just a couple of days earlier and another sick day the week before.
It seems unreasonable to me that people are allowed to do overtime in the same week that they have been off sick.
Every place I've previously worked at has had a rule in place that if you have been of sick you don't get allocated overtime for a few weeks mainly so employees don't take on too much if they are already recovering from illness.
I'm just wondering really what other work places do?
Most of the health care settings I've worked in have been the same, no paid overtime I the 7-10 days following sickness. Official line is to stop burn out, my theory is that it also lowers the sickness rate, as if you can make it in you will, if you know that you will lose out on a few hundred pounds worth of overtime.
My work doesn't allow overtime rates to be paid if you've been off sick during that week - not healthcare but common sense surely
That's what I thought Ny. it doesn't seem right to me that someone can be paid double time when they have already been off sick and received full pay for the sick day already. the only reason I can think it would be allowed was if the overtime was arranged in advance of the sick time but I think this is unlikely as overtime is usually only granted if very short notice.
Not sure if I would be ureasonable to ask my line manager if there is a policy on this.
If the purpose of paying higher rates is to incentivise people to take on shifts at short notice, then I'm not sure why sickness absence on a different day is relevant? Without that incentive for those who've been off sick, then they'd have fewer people volunteering for the extras.
Either way, it's up to your employer to decide on the rules of such a scheme, and if they haven't specified exceptions for people who were absent with sickness in the same week (or whatever rule it would be), then obviously they don't mind.
Not sure why it 'doesn't seem right' to you? Why does it matter to you? Presumably if you work extra shifts you get the extra pay? You're not losing out?
My partner's company rule was that you had to have worked a fixed amount of "normal" hours during the week, before you could claim overtime on any extra shifts. So, for example, if he had been off sick or taken a day's leave during the normal working week, then overtime rates would not kick in until that time had been made up first. So if he took Wednesday off but came in on Sunday, he would only be paid at standard rate for that extra day's work.
Your objection, and any limitations on when people are "allowed" to take on overtime, is only potentially valid if there is an excess of people willing to take it on.
If lots of people want to take the overtime shifts, the employer can have policies that "reward" employees by allowing them to take the overtime.
If it is hard to get people to take on extra shifts (as it seems to be, otherwise why would they be paying extra?) then the employer doesn't want to do anything to limit who might volunteer.
I'm just looking at it from a business point of view ( employer is a charity) really. It doesn't affect me personally as I never do overtime as I have another job. I also very rarely take sick time.
Flowery - yes I see your point if they need staff that urgently I guess they won't be bothered if that person has been off sick earlier in the week. I just wondered if other places had a specific policy on this really.
Trillis - There often are quite a few people willing to do the overtime because it is so well paid and because there are a lot of part time workers who only do two or three shifts a week.
If there are lots of people willing to do the shifts then maybe they don't need to pay them quite so generously.
That would reduce the number of people fighting over the shifts, without the admin that any rules over sick leave would entail.
That wouldn't be much fun for any of you, but that might be the way that an employer who was only concerned about getting shifts filled would think.
I'm sure management keep a close eye on spending, including overtime, and would revise their policy if they felt it was not representing a reasonable use of charitable funds.
Perhaps as a charity, they are keen not to penalise people for having been sick, or to do anything which might encourage people who are sick to come into work anyway. The fact that they pay some sickness absence at full pay suggests that.
It's quite a new thing. Previously people got standard rate of pay to take on extra shifts, Now it is time and 2 thirds for a weekday and double time I think for a nightshift or Sunday so it does make a big difference. Thanks for your opinions everyone.
Flowery - Yes I suspect that is the case. Sick pay is pretty good. Six months full pay and six months half pay. I know we are very lucky in that respect.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.