My son was telling me about a new company he will be working for. " They have no set sick leave," he said. I was about to say that is terrible before he added they just expect you to take off with pay if you are sick. Hard to believe this is an American company. Lucky him.
He should ask around amongst his co-workers and see if people really take time off when they're sick. It's entirely possible that this policy is on the books, but people feel pressured to show up when sick because they're being paid.
I really hate the "donate your sick leave" thing, as it makes meeting the needs of cancer patients etc. a matter of charity from their fellow workers, rather than a matter of justice between the worker and the company. It's sort of cringy to force the needy person to deal with a heap of gratitude on top of major medical issues, and to worry that there may not be enough donated--or even that some people may be shortchanging themselves and need it later and not have it.
In a similar vein, I found myself frustrated when a friend was about to go completely insane by trying to fit work around her wedding and modest honeymoon (think: must work up until 5 pm on the day before the wedding, which was the usual big production--and not because her help was particularly needed at that point, but simply because the math of being a worker with less than five years seniority worked out that way). I thought to solve the problem by donating a day or two as a wedding present.
Upon approaching HR, I discovered that I was only allowed to donate days to a general pool, and that these days would be split among however many people HR deemed worthy--which meant that there was a real possibility my friend might get no more than an hour or so, depending on how much I was willing to throw into the pool. I declined to give up my entire vacation for the year just to ensure that a day of it made its way to my friend. Really, how is this just or fair?
There is plenty of evidence that having unlimited sick leave, rather than a fixed amount, reduces the amount of sick leave taken (at least in any reasonably well-functioning workplace where there aren't other significant issues going on).
I really hate the "donate your sick leave" thing, as it makes meeting the needs of cancer patients etc. a matter of charity from their fellow workers, rather than a matter of justice between the worker and the company. It's sort of cringy to force the needy person to deal with a heap of gratitude on top of major medical issues, and to worry that there may not be enough donated--or even that some people may be shortchanging themselves and need it later and not have it.
Yeah, I agree. But it’s better than no other option. (And I’m not sure the the person knew who had donated.) We did have other options, including short-term disability and Family Medical Leave Act leave. But the general rule was use your own leave, then use donated leave, then move on to FMLA or short-term disability.
There is plenty of evidence that having unlimited sick leave, rather than a fixed amount, reduces the amount of sick leave taken (at least in any reasonably well-functioning workplace where there aren't other significant issues going on).
The *fixed amount* of sick leave sometimes backfires, if people take it as some sort of extra holiday time - and then subsequently do fall ill, with the resultant Stiff Official Letters and Disciplinary Procedures...
Anyone taking what may seem an unreasonable amount of sick leave should indeed be dealt with considerately by management - there may be significant personal issues to be handled.
The organisation I work for has a policy of if you have 3 blocks of time off sick in 12 months, this flags to your manager for review incase you've got problems. This is a nice idea, but it's applied somewhat differently by different sections...
My previous section, almost trying to make me feel that having stress-related migraines either side of a bad cold was my fault and not that of the job, the manager in question, and some bad luck in the case of the cold! My current one, acceptance that the laryngitis was bad luck, and the migraine and other stress-related item were due to a combination of personal and work things. Same sort of time spacing in both cases - about 9 months.
I once had the beginnings of a cold while at work, nose running, etc, and before going home at the end of the day went to tell the head so he could get a supply teacher in. I was surprised when he told me never to tell about an absence in advance. Apparently this would give the impression that it wasn't a genuine illness. He muttered something about time off to go to the races at Goodwood.
It seems to me that employers have the same idea, that employees don't really get ill.
I used to encourage my teaching staff to notify early if they were feeling off colour. It meant supply staff could be hired more readily and minimised spread of infection among the staff. Nothing worse than a sick teacher ringing in at 7.15am when you're already through the round of phone calls.
I seem to recall a boss ranting on and on about how he'd looked at the absences, and fully forty percent (!!!!) of them fell on a Friday or Monday. Clearly we were lying and just trying to extend our weekends.
I don't think anybody pointed out to him that ANY 2 days divided by 5 is.... forty percent. So an average distribution, then.
I seem to recall a boss ranting on and on about how he'd looked at the absences, and fully forty percent (!!!!) of them fell on a Friday or Monday. Clearly we were lying and just trying to extend our weekends.
Oh God. That's the point where you think "I'm working for an idiot" and look to move on.
I seem to recall a boss ranting on and on about how he'd looked at the absences, and fully forty percent (!!!!) of them fell on a Friday or Monday. Clearly we were lying and just trying to extend our weekends.
Not that this means it couldn't have happened at your work as well, but that's the plot of a Dilbert cartoon from 1996.
I seem to recall a boss ranting on and on about how he'd looked at the absences, and fully forty percent (!!!!) of them fell on a Friday or Monday. Clearly we were lying and just trying to extend our weekends.
I don't think anybody pointed out to him that ANY 2 days divided by 5 is.... forty percent. So an average distribution, then.
Clearly “9-5 er”.
He’d be laughed out of court by all us 7 day roster folks, stupid fucker
We have a two-tier system to deal with injury and illness here in Victoria. If the absence is not work related, sick leave applies. There is a minimum legislated standard here for all permanent workers, and a few industry sectors, like the police and shift workers in disability, get extra days. Unused leave accumulates from year to year (mostly) so that the longer you are working for an employer, the more sick leave you tend to have accumulated. Some industries have portable sick leave schemes.
Work-related illnesses and injuries are dealt with via a no-fault compulsory insurance scheme called Workcover. Employers are obliged to have Workcover insurance, which covers all types of employment. Workcover pays the medical expenses and provides a percentage of ordinary time wages as income support. Depending on the injury and a person's capacity for work, lump sum payments and "common law" payments are also available, but I think you have to sue to get the latter. I'm not even a 20-years out of date expert re workcover.
The difference between the schemes is that you just need a Dr's note or to swear a stat dec to get sick leave. Workcover is more formal, and involves applications, notifications and potential visits to Workcover-nominated doctors to assess your injury and capacity to return to work. So if you suffer a mild injury, you may well choose to take sick leave. I certainly do. I only went on Workcover once, when I had a burst bursar (or something) in my shoulder. Workcover is a massive pain in the arse.
In addition to this, Employers must also contribute an amount equal to a % of your earnings into a superannuation fund for you. If you are unable to work, you can access a portion of that superannuation if you are in financial difficulty. If you are permanently incapacitated from work, many Super funds have an insurance component attached, and you can access that, usually quite a large payment unrelated to your earnings and separate from your superannuation.
Workcover gives you a suite of protections against dismissal, which is another reason you might want to go down that route. The focus of the scheme is not so much to give an employee access to a bucketload of cash, but to facilitate their return to work with their employer. So when I went on workcover, my employer had to find work for me that I could do while my shoulder was recovering. So I went and worked in the day centres, where I didn't have to do much manual handling. The obligation on the employer is to make reasonable efforts to provide suitable work. They don't have to make up a new job that doesn't need doing.
We also have the Transport Accident Commission which is sort of like Workcover. Everyone must pay an insurance premium collected through your vehicles' annual registration. Broadly similar benefits are available, including paying medical expenses and a proportion of your ordinary wages as income support. There are also lump sum and common law benefits available if you are unlucky enough to have sustained serious injuries.
Comments
He should ask around amongst his co-workers and see if people really take time off when they're sick. It's entirely possible that this policy is on the books, but people feel pressured to show up when sick because they're being paid.
In a similar vein, I found myself frustrated when a friend was about to go completely insane by trying to fit work around her wedding and modest honeymoon (think: must work up until 5 pm on the day before the wedding, which was the usual big production--and not because her help was particularly needed at that point, but simply because the math of being a worker with less than five years seniority worked out that way). I thought to solve the problem by donating a day or two as a wedding present.
Upon approaching HR, I discovered that I was only allowed to donate days to a general pool, and that these days would be split among however many people HR deemed worthy--which meant that there was a real possibility my friend might get no more than an hour or so, depending on how much I was willing to throw into the pool. I declined to give up my entire vacation for the year just to ensure that a day of it made its way to my friend. Really, how is this just or fair?
The *fixed amount* of sick leave sometimes backfires, if people take it as some sort of extra holiday time - and then subsequently do fall ill, with the resultant Stiff Official Letters and Disciplinary Procedures...
Anyone taking what may seem an unreasonable amount of sick leave should indeed be dealt with considerately by management - there may be significant personal issues to be handled.
My previous section, almost trying to make me feel that having stress-related migraines either side of a bad cold was my fault and not that of the job, the manager in question, and some bad luck in the case of the cold! My current one, acceptance that the laryngitis was bad luck, and the migraine and other stress-related item were due to a combination of personal and work things. Same sort of time spacing in both cases - about 9 months.
It seems to me that employers have the same idea, that employees don't really get ill.
I don't think anybody pointed out to him that ANY 2 days divided by 5 is.... forty percent. So an average distribution, then.
Oh God. That's the point where you think "I'm working for an idiot" and look to move on.
Not that this means it couldn't have happened at your work as well, but that's the plot of a Dilbert cartoon from 1996.
Clearly “9-5 er”.
He’d be laughed out of court by all us 7 day roster folks, stupid fucker
Work-related illnesses and injuries are dealt with via a no-fault compulsory insurance scheme called Workcover. Employers are obliged to have Workcover insurance, which covers all types of employment. Workcover pays the medical expenses and provides a percentage of ordinary time wages as income support. Depending on the injury and a person's capacity for work, lump sum payments and "common law" payments are also available, but I think you have to sue to get the latter. I'm not even a 20-years out of date expert re workcover.
The difference between the schemes is that you just need a Dr's note or to swear a stat dec to get sick leave. Workcover is more formal, and involves applications, notifications and potential visits to Workcover-nominated doctors to assess your injury and capacity to return to work. So if you suffer a mild injury, you may well choose to take sick leave. I certainly do. I only went on Workcover once, when I had a burst bursar (or something) in my shoulder. Workcover is a massive pain in the arse.
In addition to this, Employers must also contribute an amount equal to a % of your earnings into a superannuation fund for you. If you are unable to work, you can access a portion of that superannuation if you are in financial difficulty. If you are permanently incapacitated from work, many Super funds have an insurance component attached, and you can access that, usually quite a large payment unrelated to your earnings and separate from your superannuation.