Sick pay for full time staff -a nasty surprise..

[CockneyMafia]

I would be interested to hear people’s opinions on the following.

 

I am a full time PAYE employee of a company in the South East. In my payslip today I was docked two days full pay for illness earlier in the month. When I raised the matter with HR, I was informed that the company used to pay full pay for sickness but this stopped as people were abusing the system.

 

Now, the company only pays statutory sick pay, which means that you need to be off work at least four days in a row, at which point you receive the standard weekly rate of £81.60 a week. This is the first time I have ever come across such draconian working practices and feel it penalises those who have genuine reasons for being off work. Moreover, it encourages people who are genuinely not fit to be in work to come in to the office through fear of losing money and spread germs around, which in turn means otherwise healthy people become sick.

 

Does anyone have any experiences of this? It’s a shocking sign of the times if you ask me.

[Lady Star]

I remember working for real 'bargain basement' businesses when I first left uni, and this was the practice amongst all of them... Take five days off, recieve about £50 stat sick, or take two days and lose the wages from them... If you have sick pay in your contract though, they will have to pay up this time, and get you to resign... It's not so much as sign of the times as a sign of where your company is positioning itself - bargain basement level, rather than a professional business...

[rickiethecat]

This has been the case for staff working through an agency for years. Why the surprise that companies are extending it to their own employees? Too many people see taking a few days sick leave when they're not really too ill to work as a perk of the job.

[CockneyMafia]

I remember working for real 'bargain basement' businesses when I first left uni, and this was the practice amongst all of them... Take five days off, recieve about £50 stat sick, or take two days and lose the wages from them... If you have sick pay in your contract though, they will have to pay up this time, and get you to resign... It's not so much as sign of the times as a sign of where your company is positioning itself - bargain basement level, rather than a professional business...

 

You may well be right.

 

I am going to read my contract again tonight - although in all honesty I, like many people, would probably take the term 'Statutory Sick Pay' to simply mean you will be paid if you are not well enough to attend work. I have never encountered this situation before so had reason to be fully conversant with employment law. Besides, even if I did know the full implications, it takes a lot for someone to turn down an offer of employment based on contractual small print. Furthermore, I imagine the benefits agency wouldn't be overly impressed if people became selective in who they did or didn't work based on contractual caveats.

[CockneyMafia]

This has been the case for staff working through an agency for years. Why the surprise that companies are extending it to their own employees? Too many people see taking a few days sick leave when they're not really too ill to work as a perk of the job.

 

I agree to a point. But what if, for example, you were knocked off your bike riding to work and needed a few days off to recover. Or were assaulted in the street? Being told by an employer who you have given loyal service to that you are enititled to either nothing or the bare minimum they are legally obliged to provide doesn't do a lot for employee relations.

[samstar999]

Welcome to my world!!!

[speedbirdone]

The company i used to work for sick pay was payed on case by case basis.

 

If you where genuinally ill you got paid but we did have people that would take the <REMOVED> and see phoning in sick as just an excuse to have a few more days paid leave during the year.

 

Funny thing is when the new sick pay policy come into effect the amount of staff " chucking a sickie " almost ended overnight.

 

I guess your grumble should be aimed at the people who are abusing the system.

[Lady Star]

You may well be right.

 

I am going to read my contract again tonight - although in all honesty I, like many people, would probably take the term 'Statutory Sick Pay' to simply mean you will be paid if you are not well enough to attend work. I have never encountered this situation before so had reason to be fully conversant with employment law. Besides, even if I did know the full implications, it takes a lot for someone to turn down an offer of employment based on contractual small print. Furthermore, I imagine the benefits agency wouldn't be overly impressed if people became selective in who they did or didn't work based on contractual caveats.

 

I do feel that you would have to be very fresh faced when it comes to work to not know what stat sick pay is - it's not your wages when you are sick, is it? In my contract, it details that I get paid for the first 10 days sick, then after that at my managers discretion... Long term sick is detailed very clearly, how much for first 3 months, 6 months then 9 etc... Take a look at your contract, as it will def be listed somehow - perhaps they have it as 'managers discretion' though, so not so great for you now...

 

When I was in my early 20s I turned a job down over small print - admin job asking me to give 3 months notice? Yeah, right! Course I'm going to do that! When they wouldn't amend, I didn't start... You don't have to tell the benefits agency anything about your job search, after all... I know I never have, but then I have never signed on...

[quisquose]

I would be interested to hear people’s opinions on the following.

 

I am a full time PAYE employee of a company in the South East. In my payslip today I was docked two days full pay for illness earlier in the month. When I raised the matter with HR, I was informed that the company used to pay full pay for sickness but this stopped as people were abusing the system.

 

Now, the company only pays statutory sick pay, which means that you need to be off work at least four days in a row, at which point you receive the standard weekly rate of £81.60 a week. This is the first time I have ever come across such draconian working practices and feel it penalises those who have genuine reasons for being off work. Moreover, it encourages people who are genuinely not fit to be in work to come in to the office through fear of losing money and spread germs around, which in turn means otherwise healthy people become sick.

 

Does anyone have any experiences of this? It’s a shocking sign of the times if you ask me.

 

It probably is a sign of the times I'm afraid.

 

Our company began to employ these "draconian working practices" about 5 years ago. I didn't agree with it, but I was out voted. What peeves me now is the fact that the rule doesn't seem to apply if your one of the chosen few.

[CockneyMafia]

I do feel that you would have to be very fresh faced when it comes to work to not know what stat sick pay is - it's not your wages when you are sick, is it?

 

As mentioned previously, this is the first time I have ever experienced it, so was genuinely unaware. I imagine if you stopped 100 people in the street and aksed them to explain what stat sick pay is a good percentage wouldn't give a correct answer. Mind you, the same could be said if asked who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats.