Cyclone Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I would be very interested to find out. One could argue if you turn up at 9am, shaking, sweating and vomiting you are in no fit state to work so the company has no choice but to send you home (if only for the health concerns of other employees) However, SSP is not based on work ethic and best endeavour. The bottom line (they would argue) is that if an employee is not fit to work through illness they must stay at home and accept that under the terms of their contract they will not be paid. If they have turned up for work in an attempt to not be docked a day's pay, one could argue this is completely irrelevant. You signed the contract, you accept the conditions. Moreover, attending work in an unfit state probably contravines other clauses in the employment acceptance. It's not right, but then many working practises aren't. It is right though, you form a contract to work in exchange for pay, not to be ill in exchange for pay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 A company can't just change the terms of your contract without agreement. But as I said earlier it was probably not in his contract to be paid if sick in the first place, but merely a custom that has now been stopped. If the contract states that sick pay will be made in full, or within certain criteria, then you are right ... the contract cannot been changed without agreement.* * (For "agreement" read "being threatened with redundancy") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'd say sick pay is one of those essential benefits when working for a modern company in the 21st century. You shouldn't be in fear of losing money from something out of your control, such as a nasty virus or breaking your leg. If people play the system, then deal with them accordingly. The NHS has a three stage system. Have more than 4 separate periods off or two weeks within a year - whichever comes first - you get put on a stage 1. If you have more than another two absences or 1 week off in 6 months then you go on a stage 2. Further abuse puts you on a stage 3, and they can sack you. After a year of no absences, you go down a stage. They also refer you to a health professional, and call you every day to see if you are ok. Maybe more companies should adopt this method, but keep sick pay for those that truly need it. I work in the public sector and we have a trigger point after a certain number of sick leave absences whereby the employee meets with their line manager and is referred to occupational health. I'm not sure what the number is, it's probably around 5 separate absences. As usual, we all end up paying the price for those who abuse the system.:mad: I've never reached that trigger point and have never had more than 5 working days off in one go and that's only been twice; once for a kidney stone and once because I collapsed when pregnant and was signed off work for a week. I agree with what Redycam says, that sick pay should be an essential benefit of 21st century working. The thought that someone may be gravely ill worrying about how to pay their bills is not conducive to a good recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger lily Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 my partner has been signed off sick for the next 4 weeks and is only entitled to the £81 statutory sick pay from work,is there anyway he can get help to top this up to what he normally earns a week?the SSP for the month wont even cover his rent!! any advice appreciated thank you.xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I work in the public sector and we have a trigger point after a certain number of sick leave absences whereby the employee meets with their line manager and is referred to occupational health. I'm not sure what the number is, it's probably around 5 separate absences. As usual, we all end up paying the price for those who abuse the system.:mad: I've never reached that trigger point and have never had more than 5 working days off in one go and that's only been twice; once for a kidney stone and once because I collapsed when pregnant and was signed off work for a week. I agree with what Redycam says, that sick pay should be an essential benefit of 21st century working. The thought that someone may be gravely ill worrying about how to pay their bills is not conducive to a good recovery. hmmm.. 2+2 = Seriously, think about it. It works both ways you know. Employers are also feeling the pinch these days. Not every business is a international conglomorate. How many employers do you really think can afford to have paid staff continually not at work therefore not producing, not selling and most imporatantly not earning the firm money. Taxpayers also provide for a government funded sick pay together with your public sector sick pay as part of most public sector woker terms and conditions. Employers CAN if choose offer an additional sick pay entirely at their discretion. On the flip side employees could offer to use some of thier PAID holday allowance if they are off long term sick and seemingly cannot survive on SSP. I fail to see why it should be forced upon an employer to continually pay out for someone who isnt there. Particuarly when they may have to pay out additional costs for covering temp staff. Sensible employees have health insurance, income protection insurance or other products that would supplement or provide extra to SSP. Maybe people should wise up a bit. Thousands of us never have the luxury of sick pay during our working lives. Plenty of others need to quit their whining and realise that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ousetunes Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 In effect, you are actually complaining about getting an income when you are not at work? Sure, £81.60 might not sound much but it's better than nothing and providing you've stood three waiting days, you are legally entitled to it (and it does not matter how many days in the week you work). Further, you are aiming your flawed argument in totally the wrong direction. It is HMRC who act upon directive from the government when it comes to SSP, SMP and the like. My guess is you think you are entitled to a full wage (a handout in other words) and believe that every employer is a nasty swine with a yacht in Cannes and a Rolex on his wrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samshe Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 hmmm.. 2+2 = Seriously, think about it. It works both ways you know. Employers are also feeling the pinch these days. Not every business is a international conglomorate. How many employers do you really think can afford to have paid staff continually not at work therefore not producing, not selling and most imporatantly not earning the firm money. Taxpayers also provide for a government funded sick pay together with your public sector sick pay as part of most public sector woker terms and conditions. Employers CAN if choose offer an additional sick pay entirely at their discretion. On the flip side employees could offer to use some of thier PAID holday allowance if they are off long term sick and seemingly cannot survive on SSP. I fail to see why it should be forced upon an employer to continually pay out for someone who isnt there. Particuarly when they may have to pay out additional costs for covering temp staff. Sensible employees have health insurance, income protection insurance or other products that would supplement or provide extra to SSP. Maybe people should wise up a bit. Thousands of us never have the luxury of sick pay during our working lives. Plenty of others need to quit their whining and realise that. I agree. People who aren't at their workplace and therefore aren't productive cost the company money and therefore are a burden to a company. Most bigger companies can swallow this and factor it in to their staffing costs. However, this can never be mandatory, some companies can't afford to pay staff full sick pay. People need to take more responsibility for themselves. If you get a contract READ IT. Who the hell would just sign something that they haven't read? Sick pay is quite an important aspect of a contract, there is a good chance we will need it (don't something like 1 in 4 of us get cancer at some point?) If you were surprised by this statutory sick pay, then it is your fault. From now on put aside a little money each month for rainy days. Living hand to mouth is dangerous and completely avoidable in the majority of cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 my partner has been signed off sick for the next 4 weeks and is only entitled to the £81 statutory sick pay from work,is there anyway he can get help to top this up to what he normally earns a week?the SSP for the month wont even cover his rent!! any advice appreciated thank you.xx See if his employer is willing to allow him to use his holiday allowance to cover the absence. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane39 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 It emphatically does not. Risking the health of all my other employees by coming in to work while sick and coughing and spluttering all over them, is not good for my business. Hence me having to send them home! Oh,give over! You can catch germs anywhere. Unless they have an highly contageous condition,coming to work with coughs and sniffles is fine,(unless you work with vunerable people) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.