to think DH's work are DISGUSTING for not paying people when they are sick?

[MoomieAndFreddie]

he has worked for them for 5 years, been an absolutely exemplary, loyal employee. he started as a warehouseman and has been promoted 3 times since being there, and is now a senior manager. he has completely turned around his branch and its earning about 5 x the profit it was when the last manager was in charge. the last time he took time off sick was about 3 years ago (for 2 days) when he had swine flu.

he has gone in to work on loads of occasions when he has felt unwell, because they DON'T PAY SICK PAY. basically, they just ASSUME people are skiving.

so anyway, he is really poorly with flu. yet he has dragged himself in today, so he is going to infect his whole team, customers and probably not be able to even do his job properly just for the sake of "presenteeism"

and who does he work for, I hear you ask? well, its not just a small back street business who probably genuinely can't afford to pay when workers are absent - this is a huge, multi, multi million organisation....

YOU TIGHT, STINGY, HORRIBLE BASTARDS, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES.

[NOTE FROM MNHQ: OP has been edited to remove company name at the OP's request]

Hello

Just to let you know, we've edited the company name out of the OP now.

Are more or fewer people entitled to sick pay now? iirc before 1997/8 there was not entitlement at all - the change came in with NMW and holiday.

I didn't have paid holiday until then.

I left retail because I just couldn't cope with having to justify illness any more to my employees. I was disciplined for having 4 days off in a 12 month period, which with a severely disabled child to care for I thought was pretty good but yes, no sick pay with them either

thanks mnhq :) x

I also run a very small business & fortunately my one sole employee is a superstar who would never take a sick day unless she absolutely needed it. I have had to send her home on some days. I used to work for the post office donkeys years ago and we got 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay. As you can imagine, there were alot of sickies!

For the most part, you have to be pretty ill to need a day off. As another poster has said, when you're off sick, the business has to cope or possibly bring in other staff to cover your illness. I think the fairest way is to up to 3 days unpaid, and over that some payment. I don't know how long is fair. It's certainly not the fault of the employer that an individual gets sick. Maybe a payment protection plan should be in place if the individual's income that precious.

Certainly loyalty should be rewarded along with looking at previous sickness records.

Flame me now,

Oh yes, of course, as with any benefit there are always those who take the piss. But generally speaking - going on past experience as an employee it's usually pretty obvious who, exactly, is swinging the lead - the ones who are always "sick" on Fridays or Mondays (only), the ones who are coincidentally "sick" the day before they're off on holiday (or the day after they come back), the ones who come back from being sick with a new haircut (but claim it was done on the evening of their last working day), the ones who are only ever "sick" for one day and it's always very non specific such as "headache", "tummy bug" and so on (not that headaches and/or tummy bugs can't be genuine). As a past team leader, the people you suspected were taking the P were, surprise, surprise, also the ones who did the minimum required of them, the ones always late back from lunch, the ones who took lots of personal calls in work time and so on ..... in other words, when people take advantage there's normally an overall lack of commitment and responsibility and there are disciplinary/warning measures which can be taken when an undeniable pattern starts to emerge. And so they should be - as others have said, why should employers lose out for someone malingering, or other employees have to take on extra work ?

But .... that shouldn't mean, IMO, that genuine illness is penalised. Again, the opposite applies - based on someone's overall and usual attitude and standard of work, you can have a pretty good guess at who's being truthful. Plus of course, there's no denying doctor's certificates for many conditions. I find it truly shocking that other posters have related tales of chronic illness, accident or surgery - all of which could be easily substantiated - yet they or their partners have struggled back to work far sooner than would be medically advisable because they can't afford to live otherwise. More than 20 years ago I had to take 8 months off work for genuine medical reasons and was fully paid all that time - more recently, I suffered another miscarriage and was signed off for 2 weeks, again, fully paid. I'm finding this thread really shocking because I'd assumed that most other employees would be similarly protected when they needed to be. I'm afraid I don't know what THE answer is - from either an employer or an employee perspective - but to have no sick pay at all (or the minimum SSP) seems inhumane when someone's seriously ill or injured.

Most people's incomes are precious - in fact most people would say their income is wholly vital. But only a small minority - especially these days - earn enough to be able to afford income protection insurance, which ain't cheap!

To my mind, offering a decent sick pay plan is something a decent employer does in order to attract and retain the best employees - obviously with safeguards in place to avoid advantage taking. But I guess ATM fewer and fewer employers care as much as they once did about stuff like that because they know there's such a huge pool of other prospective employees out there waiting for a job if their existing employees don't like the conditions.

I work as a dinner lady - min wage job. I don't, neither do my colleagues, get sick pay. Yesterday 2 of the ladies were discussing how they have diarrhea. The rules are very clear, if you have sickness or diarrhea at all you have to have 72 hours after your last bout before coming back to work. Yes, 72 hours, not 48, because we work with food.

I know exactly why they came in... because we don't get sick pay.

I don't blame them, I have done the exact same thing. I once worked a whole day feeling really sick, having diarrhea and two of my children had vomited and had diarrhea. I still worked.

Jenai Last Christmas my OH was working for a company on Agency that just refused point blank to pay any holiday entitlement. The company closed down for 6 days and non of the Agency staff were paid

We are a small business (4 employees) and we pay full sick pay (with a clause allowing us to reduce this to ssp if we think someone if taking the piss - have never had to use this clause yet)

I'm stunned. I didn't think anyone wouldn't get sick pay. I'm seriously seriously shocked.

I can have 2 years sick and I have never needed to produce a certificate and do not need to say what's wrong with me.

I thought that was normal.

2 years sick pay without having to say what is wrong with you is taking the piss.

I can't blame firms for not offering sick pay, too many people just take advantage of it and have days off.

Nope. Not normal. And not only small companies. My H and father work for big national companies and neither get sick pay. They just got to work when ill otherwise they cannot pay the bills. My father has not had a day off sick in 10 years.

Well legally I don't need to say what is wrong with me, however I will be expected to meet with the company doctor to discuss any issues.

I had a lot of time off (reduced hours for a year) and received full pay. Now I know that's generous, but I'm still shocked that illness is treated the same as "holiday".

I'm really surprised because although I've not worked in the UK since the 90s, I worked for a well known supermarket back in 90 as a sub-2 quid an hour 16 year old employee and even then I got paid holiday and sick. Every little helps.

Pingu - I sympathise. My head knows - as does yours - that you shouldn't be working with food, but my heart completely understands why you and your colleagues come in nonetheless. Most people in your position simply don't have a choice do they - it's come in and pay the rent etc, or don't come in and go into debt and/or go without essentials like food and heating.

The thing is though, while I'm not blaming you, it's obviously very very bad practice and perpetuates this whole bloody cycle when germs, bugs, viruses are passed on - which then means that more people are infected and more people then go into work and spread it around even further. And of course, no-one wants to expose anyone who's especially vulnerable to something which could seriously affect them. But what is someone in your position supposed to do otherwise ? You can't live on thin air and a very large proportion of employees literally can't save and/or take out expensive insurance.

If employers are going to be cocks about these things, then at least those involved in food production and service should be obliged to pay their employees when they are ill.

Years ago we were told that individuals rather than organisations (ie employers) are liable if food poinsoning can be traced back to them. Is that true*? Maybe that needs to change, or maybe if a case can be traced back to an individual then the employer must be made to take some form of responsibility if they essentially compel their staff to work despite being unwell.

*Actually isn't that what happened to poor Clarry-love in The Archers?

I worked for a company some years ago which paid sick pay from the first day of absence. The no of manhours lost to sickness every year was enormous.

They introduced a sickness policy of not paying for the first 3 days of any absence, and that more than 3 periods of sickness/11 (I think) working days off in a rolling 12month period resulted in a disciplinary. Absence levels plummeted - but it had little effect on retention rates which would seem to indicate that a lot of the sickness wasn't genuine, and that employees generally supported the new policy.

Most people I know are self-employed, or subcontractors, or work for v small firms and get no sick pay at all. To me, receiving any sick pay is fairly generous on the part of the employer.

I work for the NHS and in my trust we get 6 months full sick pay and then 6 months half pay, paid for from first day of sickness. The sickness rates in our office are astronomical though. I think out of a team of 50 ish we always have at least 2 people off sick on any one day, if not more.

Full NHS employees dont just get SSP

In the NHS it's dependent on your length of service. For long term sick, if you've been there 1 year, you get one month on full pay and then one month on half pay then move onto SSP. If you have more than 3 episodes of the same illness in a 6 month period, then you have a OH assessment but they dont stop your pay in any way

After 5 years and above service you get 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay then SSP. It may be different for Bank staff or sub-contracted workers but this is the entitlement for NHS staff. One of the perks of being in the public sector i'd say!

x-posted with ninjanurse

Nursery staff don't get paid sick leave. Your nursery might ask you to remove your child so it doesn't infect vulnerable children at the same time as pressurising sick staff to come in. They run on minimum ratios so HAVE to have the right amount of staff. If they give the trainee getting paid £2.65 per hour the day off they might have to hire a supply staff at £14 per hour. I've worked with staff who were constantly running off to the loos to throw up..

My company pays sick pay from the first day of absence but people being off for odd days here and there is rare. They use the Bradford Factor and you will end up having your absence reviewed and on a formal disciplinary quickly if you're off too often. It's also a factor when deciding redundancies.

This year they have brought in a policy of no sick pay for new employees until their 8 month review when they are confirmed in post. We've really felt the squeeze with in the current economic climate and I think it's only a matter of time before they stop paying for the first day/few days of absence.

The problem is proving if an individual dinner lady was the one who passed on the sickness/diarrhea bug. There is so much going about that it is hard to pin point one person. If lots of children get ill with s&d then it isn't the catering staff blamed; they just say 'it's going around'.

There is 1 loo at work and the 2 ladies in question were in and out of it all day. I'll probably get it next and I too will work. I can't afford to have a day's wages docked. But I will have to have the time off (unpaid) when my children are ill with s&d and the school won't take them!

NHS terms and conditions here, including sick pay

Yep, after 5 years it's 6 months full pay and 6 motnhs half pay - but you will require sign-off from a doctor. Bradford scales are also in use, so if you take a lot of sickies because you have a hangover, you will be called on it.

TBH I think sickness rates depend a lot on morale - in our team it's a very supportive working environment, very well managed, so sickness rates are very low - even by the standards of the private sector. if you're happy at work you will pick up fewer bugs too - I've had 2 days off sick in the last 3 years due to a venomous spider bite and that is all.