Certified Sick Leave

fade out

I am wondering is there a limit on certified sick leave? I am attending hospital appointments maybe 4 in a month and may require some surgery soon enough although would only miss a 2-3 days after.

judeboy101

I think after 4 weeks you get ratted out to medmark by the principal

strawberrie

Yes there is a limit. Think it's 90 days over rolling three year period before your pay is cut in half. Then a further length before it is cut altogether. There are allowances for serious illness.
If you are sick the days can add up very quickly, especially as weekends are counted.
Check out http://www.education.ie/en/Education-Staff/Services/Breaks-Leave/ for more info. They have a new book out today.

man_no_plan

judeboy101 wrote: »

I think after 4 weeks you get ratted out to medmark by the principal

What sort of a statement is that? This is governed by circular letters in black and white.

Ratting out? You need a day off when you're starting to sound like the teenagers you're teaching.

man_no_plan

fade out wrote: »

I am wondering is there a limit on certified sick leave? I am attending hospital appointments maybe 4 in a month and may require some surgery soon enough although would only miss a 2-3 days after.

You have 3 months full pay and 3 months half pay on a rolling period of 4 years. You should be well within that once your recoverey goes okay.

Depending on where you are in relation to the doctor or hospital you can take a part daybif that suits and you're worried about clocking up days.

judeboy101

man_no_plan wrote: »

What sort of a statement is that? This is governed by circular letters in black and white.

Ratting out? You need a day off when you're starting to sound like the teenagers you're teaching.

A principal has the right to refer you to medmark at 4weeks. His/her discretion. If they like you they won't if they don't like you they will. I believe 'ratted' is the appropriate description for the latter behaviour.

strawberrie

Not true. On the OLCS a medmark referral number is needed to process any claim over four weeks. Hardly optional!

judeboy101 wrote: »

A principal has the right to refer you to medmark at 4weeks. His/her discretion. If they like you they won't if they don't like you they will. I believe 'ratted' is the appropriate description for the latter behaviour.

man_no_plan

judeboy101 wrote: »

A principal has the right to refer you to medmark at 4weeks. His/her discretion. If they like you they won't if they don't like you they will. I believe 'ratted' is the appropriate description for the latter behaviour.

Are you saying you should be allowed to take as much sick leave as you like without question then?

judeboy101

man_no_plan wrote: »

Are you saying you should be allowed to take as much sick leave as you like without question then?

If its medically certified, there should be no need to be dealt with by the cold hands of a multi-nationals' doctors. No one can honestly say that an employers doctor will treat you completely fairly (they are paid by the government). There are plenty of horror stories here on boards about employees sent to company doctors.

judeboy101

strawberrie wrote: »

Not true. On the OLCS a medmark referral number is needed to process any claim over four weeks. Hardly optional!

Actually, the principal has the right to rat you out to medmark BEFORE the 4weeks under discretionary powers.

spurious

Less of the 'ratting out', thanks. It does not do your argument any favours.

amacca

strawberrie wrote: »

If you are sick the days can add up very quickly, especially as weekends are counted.
Check out http://www.education.ie/en/Education-Staff/Services/Breaks-Leave/ for more info. They have a new book out today.

Is that still true? I always found that ridiculous.....saturday and sunday not official working days in most places a lot of (even though people do put in voluntary time on them) so how can they be justified as counting for days of work missed?

When they decided to "reform" the sick leave system how come they didn't clean that anomaly up as well?

joebloggs32

amacca wrote: »

Is that still true? I always found that ridiculous.....saturday and sunday not official working days in most places a lot of (even though people do put in voluntary time on them) so how can they be justified as counting for days of work missed?

When they decided to "reform" the sick leave system how come they didn't clean that anomaly up as well?

Yes, they count weekends and holidays, so if you find yourself out sick at the end of May, be sure to get certified fit to return to work as soon as possible. It is because we are paid a salary.

On the flip side, a day of strike would see you only docked 1/14 of your fortnightly pay as opposed to 1/10. The last strike day cost me about €35 net.

endacl

man_no_plan wrote: »

Are you saying you should be allowed to take as much sick leave as you like without question then?

That's why the new limits were introduced. Too many were taking three months a year. There's income protection available through the unions. Costs about a tenner a week though...

acequion

endacl wrote: »

That's why the new limits were introduced. Too many were taking three months a year. There's income protection available through the unions. Costs about a tenner a week though...

To be honest in my many years teaching in my current and former schools I never saw anybody abuse the system. I'm not saying that nodody abused it but I think the "too many" in your comment is a big exaggeration.The vast majority of teachers are and have always been committed professionals.

I also feel that posters have been a bit over the top in reaction to judeboy 101's comment about principals and medmark. Sadly many principals are no longer supportive as collegiality is gradually being replaced by a more managerial structure.

However,as somebody who is rarely sick,can I ask when you say can be referred to medmark after four weeks do you mean four weeks of continuous sick leave or four weeks of occasional days leave?

strawberrie

Taken from Medmark website

Non-discretionary referrals:
• From 1 January 2014, any teacher/special needs assistant on sick leave who has 4 weeks (28 days) continuous or cumulative sick leave absence in a 12 month rolling period must be referred to the Occpational Health Service.

implausible

acequion wrote:

To be honest in my many years teaching in my current and former schools I never saw anybody abuse the system. I'm not saying that nodody abused it but I think the "too many" in your comment is a big exaggeration.The vast majority of teachers are and have always been committed professionals.

Up until very recently, it wasn't uncommon for teachers to take a year 'sick' before retirement. I'd call that abuse.

seavill

That has been happening since I was on my first TP 12-13 years ago. That's nothing new

mahoganygas

amacca wrote:

When they decided to "reform" the sick leave system how come they didn't clean that anomaly up as well?

For a salaried position it is not an anomaly. In fact it's very common in other professions.

spurious

I must have missed the sick before retirement boat.

From what I hear from my colleagues, the new system puts a lot of pressure on those with genuine chronic or serious illnesses in terms of time for appointments etc.. Sledgehammer to crack a nut as usual. Malingerers should have been called out without stressing genuine people on chemo etc..

rainbowtrout

implausible wrote: »

Up until very recently, it wasn't uncommon for teachers to take a year 'sick' before retirement. I'd call that abuse.

It was a regular thing in my school until 4-5 years ago. We even had teachers call in for a chat and tea at lunchtime who were on sick leave for the year, who had a lovely tan after a couple of weeks holiday in Spain in September.

icebergiceberg

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It was a regular thing in my school until 4-5 years ago. We even had teachers call in for a chat and tea at lunchtime who were on sick leave for the year, who had a lovely tan after a couple of weeks holiday in Spain in September.

Did they give any information as to the nature of their illness?

rainbowtrout

icebergiceberg wrote: »

Did they give any information as to the nature of their illness?

Nature of their illness??!!! They were a year away from retirement, they weren't sick. It was common knowledge.

icebergiceberg

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Nature of their illness??!!! They were a year away from retirement, they weren't sick. It was common knowledge.

I must be getting very naive and very stupid too.

Did they actually tell you they weren't sick?

How did they get medical clearance?

Dodgy doctors?

rainbowtrout

icebergiceberg wrote: »

I must be getting very naive and very stupid too.

Did they actually tell you they weren't sick?

How did they get medical clearance?

Dodgy doctors?

Well when someone says in April/May 'I'm going to be sick in September' I think that's enough really. As for doctors I can't answer that one only that I assume there are doctors out there who will issue medical certs without investigating too much.

Put it this way, there were genuine cases of teachers being off sick on a long term basis, eg 6 months and we knew it was genuine and ones that we knew were just passing the last year until they officially retired.

deiseindublin

I've never heard of or seen a teacher going sick before retirement.

amacca

mahoganygas wrote: »

For a salaried position it is not an anomaly. In fact it's very common in other professions.

Bull****...salaried or not you should only be recording as missing a days work if a an actual work day has been missed.

Common or not its nonsensical imo....and I call it an anomaly because it makes no sense whatsoever to me......so while they were addressing other perceived inadequacies why wasn't that addressed as well?

Give me some actual reasons why non working days are recorded in the total of days missed that go beyond "it happens in other jobs"

amacca

deiseindublin wrote: »

I've never heard of or seen a teacher going sick before retirement.

Could have been a culture at one time or more likely in some areas.... or maybe both?

Also never seen it in any of the places I taught or even the schools I went to (and that was a long time ago)

evolving_doors

Tis fraud though..

implausible

Maybe it was confined to certain areas or sectors (my experience is mostly VEC), but there was an "entitlement" to one year in four sick and some teachers were very blatant about it. Perhaps in other schools, staff and students just assumed the person had retired already; unless the teacher made it common knowledge, very few staff would know if s/he was sick or retired.

Some teachers got permanent jobs out of covering 'sick' for a year and then getting the vacancy created by the retirement.

Spurious is right about the sledgehammer to crack a nut though. Having employees endure the stress of financial worries on top of something like cancer is horrible, as is forcing someone back to work before s/he is fit.

rainbowtrout

implausible wrote: »

Maybe it was confined to certain areas or sectors (my experience is mostly VEC), but there was an "entitlement" to one year in four sick and some teachers were very blatant about it. Perhaps in other schools, staff and students just assumed the person had retired already; unless the teacher made it common knowledge, very few staff would know if s/he was sick or retired.

Some teachers got permanent jobs out of covering 'sick' for a year and then getting the vacancy created by the retirement.

Spurious is right about the sledgehammer to crack a nut though. Having employees endure the stress of financial worries on top of something like cancer is horrible, as is forcing someone back to work before s/he is fit.

I would agree completely on the entitlement thing, not just for those leading into retirement, but just in general.

In terms of knowing if someone was sick or retired, oh we knew the difference. If a person has retired they have resigned their job, you hear about stuff like that. Much different if they have gone on sick leave for a year. Also the person replacing them has a contract based on sick leave or their own hours. It's very clear cut. In the example I gave above the teacher coming in knew the teacher was going to be out on sick leave for the year, and that they were retiring afterwards and that the job would be theirs the following year.

implausible

rainbowtrout wrote:

In terms of knowing if someone was sick or retired, oh we knew the difference. If a person has retired they have resigned their job, you hear about stuff like that. Much different if they have gone on sick leave for a year. Also the person replacing them has a contract based on sick leave or their own hours. It's very clear cut. In the example I gave above the teacher coming in knew the teacher was going to be out on sick leave for the year, and that they were retiring afterwards and that the job would be theirs the following year.

I would've known too, but I'm trying to understand why other teachers have never heard of this - perhaps in larger staffrooms maybe it was hush hush and younger staff didn't know about it or know what contracts colleagues were on.

r93kaey5p2izun

Never heard of this happening. I find it strange that people who get very angry at any suggestions of widespread nepotism or dodgy hiring practices are happy to generalise about serious abuse of sick leave being commonplace.

implausible

Nova High Box wrote:

Never heard of this happening. I find it strange that people who get very angry at any suggestions of widespread nepotism or dodgy hiring practices are happy to generalise about serious abuse of sick leave being commonplace.

Perhaps it was just VECs then, where it's harder to get away with nepotism, but where this 'entitlement' was definitely taken up (at the very least in two VECs).

r93kaey5p2izun

implausible wrote: »

Perhaps it was just VECs then, where it's harder to get away with nepotism, but where this 'entitlement' was definitely taken up (at the very least in two VECs).

Well my experience would be the opposite on both counts. I've seen widespread nepotism in VECs but little abuse of sick leave - certainly nothing of the scale described here.

implausible

Because it was part of terms and conditions and wasn't technically wrong - you could be sick for one year in four and still get full salary, as long as you were medically certified. There are still GPs who will issue sick certs without ever seeing you, but the new system doesn't take the GP's word for it at all and you're down to half salary after 3 months.

It was the same logic as teachers who felt they could 'use up' their uncertified sick days as they were 'entitled' to them.

The old system was very open to abuse, but this new one hammers everyone.

rainbowtrout

Nova High Box wrote: »

Never heard of this happening. I find it strange that people who get very angry at any suggestions of widespread nepotism or dodgy hiring practices are happy to generalise about serious abuse of sick leave being commonplace.

Who's generalising? I'm certainly not but I have experienced what I describe where I work.

More to the point if a VEC or Dept or Ed, prior to the changes to sick leave, were getting in certs for long term illness surely it wasn't beyond them to send a teacher to medmark for verification?

I agree that the sledgehammer approach that has been implemented is wrong but absenteeism wasn't tackled beforehand and perhaps it needed to be.

mirrorwall14

The one that I find outrageous is the removal of the exemption for pregnancy illness. I used up 6 weeks of sick pay two years ago on maternity hospital admissions. I actually missed the deadline for the change by 1 day. If I had been hospitalised on the 31st of August rather than the 1st of September then that month of illness wouldn't have been counted. As it is I'm still waiting on that 6 weeks to drop off my 4 years. And it has impacted on my decision to have another as if it wasn't for being able to take maternity early due to the time of year I was pregnant I could potentially have used up a lot more of my sick leave before switching to maternity

mahoganygas

amacca wrote:

Give me some actual reasons why non working days are recorded in the total of days missed that go beyond "it happens in other jobs"

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it. I'm just saying its not an anomaly confined to the teaching profession.

Every job I've had was the same. I'm sat at a table here with 6 people - an engineer, two bank workers, a teacher, a receptionist and a fast food manager. All bar one of us have the same clause in our contracts.

It seems to be the norm.

icebergiceberg

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

The one that I find outrageous is the removal of the exemption for pregnancy illness. I used up 6 weeks of sick pay two years ago on maternity hospital admissions. I actually missed the deadline for the change by 1 day. If I had been hospitalised on the 31st of August rather than the 1st of September then that month of illness wouldn't have been counted. As it is I'm still waiting on that 6 weeks to drop off my 4 years. And it has impacted on my decision to have another as if it wasn't for being able to take maternity early due to the time of year I was pregnant I could potentially have used up a lot more of my sick leave before switching to maternity

If a teacher has to go to the doctor now for a prenatal check up, is that now classified as a certified sick day?

implausible

icebergiceberg wrote:

If a teacher has to go to the doctor now for a prenatal check up, is that now classified as a certified sick day?

No. It's separate leave.

icebergiceberg

implausible wrote: »

No. It's separate leave.

Just to be clear. It is not certified?

So what category of leave does a pre-natal visit come under?

mirrorwall14

icebergiceberg wrote: »

If a teacher has to go to the doctor now for a prenatal check up, is that now classified as a certified sick day?

Antenatal appointments are not sick leave. Thats law across the whole workforce asfaik

mirrorwall14

icebergiceberg wrote: »

Just to be clear. It is not certified?

So what category of leave does a pre-natal visit come under?

I'm not sure what leave it comes under but all workers are entitled to attend their antental appointments and it has to be paid leave. That comes under the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 and 2004, the Maternity Protection (Time Off for Ante-Natal Care and Post-Natal Care) Regulations 1995, and the Maternity Protection (Disputes and Appeals) Regulations 1995 according to citizensinformation.ie

amacca

mahoganygas wrote: »

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it. I'm just saying its not an anomaly confined to the teaching profession.

Yeah I suppose I wasn't saying its anomaly confined to teaching either (although tbh I was considering it in isolation - not knowing if it was commonplace or not)

just that it is an anomaly/unfair full stop imo regardless of how common it is....a logic anomaly imo

mahoganygas wrote: »

Every job I've had was the same. I'm sat at a table here with 6 people - an engineer, two bank workers, a teacher, a receptionist and a fast food manager. All bar one of us have the same clause in our contracts.

It seems to be the norm.

Some legacy historical/legal reason for it which is no longer all that relevant maybe?

TheDriver

There's a difference between a pregnancy related appointment and pregnancy related illness

icebergiceberg

TheDriver wrote: »

There's a difference between a pregnancy related appointment and pregnancy related illness

Yes, this is true. Yet I think-and am very much open to correction here and please do if I am- that when the former is being reported officially it's described as certified sick leave. Though there is no sickness as such, the teacher is absent for the day and can be replaced by a sub.

TheDriver

No, its the latter though it has a different weighting