Companies who don't pay sick leave?

Dalkeybabe

Hi
I didn't realise until recently from someone I know who works in employment law that companies don't have to pay sick leave, it's discretionary.:eek:
I guess are there many companies who don't? I know someone who works for Musgraves & they don't pay it for the 1st year. It seems very mean to be honest but then I'm not an employer.
Anyone know other companies who don't pay it?

GBX

I have never had paid sick leave. I haven't worked in many places - but my current job now pays 2 days sick leave. I don't think its too uncommon.

wrmwit

It's quiet common, especially in the retail industry.

Sunny Dayz

I've never worked anywhere that paid sick leave to be honest. I administer payroll for clients (small companies) and not one of them pays sick leave.
I imagine that it's public service and MNC's that pay out sick leave.


But some places can be choppy about how they apply sick leave. My husband has a long term illness, he's grand 99% of the time. When he has hospital appointments in relation to his illness he gets paid time off, but when he got unwell a year or two ago and had to take near enough a month off work, he wasn't paid for that and had to then apply for Social Welfare but work never said clearly whether they would pay him or not, he literally had to wait for his payslip.

Sunny Dayz

But for myself I work in a very small company and am on a salary paid by standing order. Boss can't be bothered changing the standing order if I miss a day. That said I can count on one hand how many sick days I've taken since I started here over 5 years ago.

Shermanator

Was in my last job for 25 years. Company policy was to pay for 3 sick days a year at employers discretion.
However, most of the employees were there over 10 years with some over 20 years and most took very few sick days.
There were a few people who were genuinely sick for long periods and got full pay for up to 3 months in one case.
Great to see an employer who believes in a bit of give and take

bmwguy

If you think about it, if they absolutely must pay sick leave it would be abused. If it is seen as genuine and very rare, a decent employer will generally pay it. The more in demand of an employee you are will help you get it too. Compare a talented engineer, skills in short supply, the firm are delighted to have him and offer a good salary package including a blind eye to sick leave. Now compare that to an unskilled employee that can be easily replaced with minimum time and cost, they would be more likely to be docked.

westcoast66

The basic employee/employer contract is that the employee provides labour, while the employer pays the employee for that labour.

So why should the employer be obliged to pay an employee who is not providing labour?

I think that is the default case, but in some situations the employer may want to help an employee out by supporting them when they are sick.

Strumms

westcoast66 wrote: »

The basic employee/employer contract is that the employee provides labour, while the employer pays the employee for that labour.

So why should the employer be obliged to pay an employee who is not providing labour?

I think that is the default case, but in some situations the employer may want to help an employee out by supporting them when they are sick.

Relationships between employers and employees are not that cold and black and white when it comes down to it. It's part of human nature that people get sick. From a cold that might keep you out of action for a week or something more long term.

From an employee point of view if you have 2 job offers, similar pay but one company has sick pay and the other not, all other T&Cs are similar what are you going to do ? If you are an employer who values their people and who wants to attract good people who will stay their long term you need to offer a good package and benefits.. its that simple. Unless it's a pretty menial position the actual hiring process, training HR / Admin side of things can get very expensive for an employer if their is high turnover within that company. If people think they can do better and get better terms elsewhere they will walk. Especially in the climate now where there are a hell of a lot more jobs out there then there were a couple of years ago.

JTL

I worked in a multinational that paid six months full pay when off sick and a reduced rate after. It was used and abused by a huge amount of staff.

Mrs OBumble

westcoast66 wrote: »

The basic employee/employer contract is that the employee provides labour, while the employer pays the employee for that labour.

So why should the employer be obliged to pay an employee who is not providing labour?

Because an intrinsic part of being human is that you get sick occasionally. If companies employ humans, they have to deal with the intrinsic aspects: pregnancy, sickness, bereavement, jury service, etc.

It would be ok if benefits were available from day one of sickness. But they're not until day 7 and beyond. This hurts low paid workers the most, as the're least likely to have paid sick days.


NB in many other countries, a certain number of paid sick days is legally required, just like minimum wage and annual leave. It's abused less than you might think.

Jim2007

Dalkeybabe wrote: »

Hi
I didn't realise until recently from someone I know who works in employment law that companies don't have to pay sick leave, it's discretionary.:eek:
I guess are there many companies who don't? I know someone who works for Musgraves & they don't pay it for the 1st year. It seems very mean to be honest but then I'm not an employer.
Anyone know other companies who don't pay it?

Yes, but you do realise that you can claim welfare benefits when sick right?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/disability_and_illness/disability_benefit.html

seamus

The general rule is that short-term sick leave isn't paid for waged workers, and is usually paid for salaried workers.

Varies from place to place though, smaller companies and/or lower-paid workers may not get paid sick leave, even if they're salaried.

The basic employee/employer contract is that the employee provides labour, while the employer pays the employee for that labour.

So why should the employer be obliged to pay an employee who is not providing labour?

It's a fair argument. Realistically you could apply the same logic to holidays and the rules around maternity leave.

The problem is that employers occupy a position of privilege - that is, the privilege of being in control of the availability of work. So the state needs to provide some base levels of protection to try and ensure that this privilege isn't abused - for the benefit of society and therefore the state as a whole.

Ultimately this ends up benefitting employers in the long run - employees who feel like the power/decision to take leave (annual leave or sick leave) is in their own hands are more productive. Employees who are forced either by the employer or by circumstance to work when sick or to not take holidays, end up being less productive overall and damaging to the workplace.