Is this legal in employment?

[Isthebusstillrunning]

An hourly paid job that has a 'bonus rate' attached to the hourly rate. Paid monthly, each month you'll be paid the bonus rate as long as you aren't off sick. If you're sick or absent, you'll lose the bonus rate.
Aibu to think this is not legal? It's punishing people for being sick.
Ofc there are always people who take the piss and skive sometimes but we're human, sometimes we are unwell and it cannot be helped.
I find it outrageous and have never heard this before.

I think if you assume you are getting the base salary but see any more as a liberal bonus it’s fine
If you needed the higher pay then it’s not the job for you as there’s no guarantee.
Its like any job that comes with a bonus for hitting certain targets you need to decide the basic pay is enough before you take it

This

I wish my workplace implemented this because I'm never off sick!

It's an incentive. I do similar for my team except they can earn an extra day paid holiday. It depends on my business objectives at the time but I did do one for perfect attendance ( this included lateness). It worked I had 12 straight weeks without one person off sick or being late (without cause on days the just for oil protesters were out - didnt count those.)

I hate the attitude that some have spoken about of about having x number of sick days owed per year. It’s just taking the piss out of those of us who are honest enough only to take our annual leave and genuine sick leave.

maybe we should move to the US model where you get a set number of PTO (paid time off) per year and it’s up to you whether this is used for sickness or vacationing. But if you have used it all up and get sick before the end of the year, or need time off for any other reason, then those days are unpaid.

I'd hate it. I wouldn't want to work there.

I'd question if it's legal if it's applied equally to those with disabilities (i.e. they don't exclude leave required by those with disabilities from the policy).

I don't know if I think it's good business practice, particularly not if they might make patients or residents ill.

If they have made adjustments for those with protected characteristics though, I would expect it is legal.

Like you say you don't need to agree with it but it's not illegal. We get a yearly increment however sickness is taking into account. If you've had more than 11 days sickness during the year you don't get your increment. Anything under the disability act gives you an extra 5 days wiggle room and pregnancy related absence doesn't count. That's just how it works for us unfortunately. The only time I've ever really had an issue with it is through the pandemic when I was off with covid and they refused to pay my increment. It was my only absence! I'd worked all through lockdown and still worked around my husband who was receiving treatment for cancer. It felt like a real kick in the teeth to be honest.

Employers are always looking for incentives to encourage people to go to work when they are able. It definitely reduces the amount of people who are taking time off when they could reasonably work. Unfortunately you can't please all the people all the time.

They are not being penalised for being sick. They are still being paid the agreed wage. It’s a bonus or thank you to those who picked up the slack to cover for a colleague’s (often unexpected) absence.

This would be a pain for me. Due to my disability I am immuno suppressed so get a lot of bugs. Can see why they would want to incentives people but not ideal for those with disabilities

I think thats quite a lot of sickness TBH

They are not penalising people for being sick, they are rewarding people for not being sick.

Not ideal. But consider the other side of it. Someone has to lie on a wet/soiled bed, or have their food on medicine late because their allocated carer is off sick.

The real issue is that carers are paid minimum wages and have terrible conditions including zero hour contracts. I don't blame carers for taking short term sickness, but it has consequences for the people requiring care.

I suppose if enough people complain they may address it by removing the bonus scheme on entirety?

They are trying to incentivise those who fake sickness and as a result penalise those who don't fake it. It's a poor policy.

Those saying it's a bonus for picking up the slack, would mean in a month where no-one was sick, no bonus is due because no one picked up any slack.

So your thinking is equally flawed here. That's not what r hi a policy is about.

It assumes the worst in people and encourages genuinely sick people to keep working with lack of support for their wellbeing. It's incredibly outdated.

You are still getting your normal wage, just missing out on an incentive bonus. If you worked somewhere else you would get your wage and no bonus at all. You are not "losing" , and surely most people are not sick every single month so you get the bonus on the other months.

I imagine it may influence who would or wouldn't apply to work there as people are likely to self-filter out if they know they tend to have higher than average sick leave and people who tend to be off less often will feel it a bigger draw.

This is rewarding those with good attendance, all of them are happy.

OP: Is this policy I don’t like legal?
Everyone: Yes.
OP: Well I don’t like it and you’re all big meanies for answering my question in a way I don’t like.

I agree OP. I don't agree with it in school or in the workplace. It's discriminatory and penalises the long term sick and disabled. And encourages presenteeism which is just a way of spreading bugs around. Another problem for the long term sick and disabled in particular.

Some people don't get any bonus at all, so think yourself lucky that your work does offer this.

Same! But let's not jinx this on us. 😂

It doesn’t penalise anyone. It’s an incentive.

it's not punishing people for being ill

Yes it is.

No it’s not. It’s rewarding them for not being ill. They’re different things.

It is not rewarding people for not being ill. It is punishing the sick.

What could possibly be morally right in penalising people who are unfortunate enough to become ill?