We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
what can they do
Comments
-
treetrunks wrote: »The insurance payout is likely to be for the employer and help cover the costs of temporary workers.
No, it's for the person who is unable to work. My employer has a similar benefit - called PHI (Personal Health Insurance) and ours is administered by Unum.
I've got ME and am unable to continue to work full time, but am currently able to work a 60% week. I have just had a payout, backdated to 12 weeks after I reduced my hours, and ongoing, which will pay me the difference between 60% and 75% earnings.We may not have it all together, but together we have it all :beer:
B&SC Member No 324
Living with ME, fibromyalgia and (newly diagnosed but been there a long time) EDS Type 3 (Hypermobility). Woo hoo :rotfl:0 -
No, it's for the person who is unable to work. My employer has a similar benefit - called PHI (Personal Health Insurance) and ours is administered by Unum.
I've got ME and am unable to continue to work full time, but am currently able to work a 60% week. I have just had a payout, backdated to 12 weeks after I reduced my hours, and ongoing, which will pay me the difference between 60% and 75% earnings.
I still don't get why its taken 2.5 years for the OP for this to kick in?The Googlewhacker referance is to Dave Gorman and not to my opinion of the search engine!
If I give you advice it is only a view and always always take professional advice before acting!!!
4 people on the ignore list....Bliss!0 -
Yes that is want its called PHI is it any good.No, it's for the person who is unable to work. My employer has a similar benefit - called PHI (Personal Health Insurance) and ours is administered by Unum.
I've got ME and am unable to continue to work full time, but am currently able to work a 60% week. I have just had a payout, backdated to 12 weeks after I reduced my hours, and ongoing, which will pay me the difference between 60% and 75% earnings.0 -
Dont mean to be rude. But why do people commet on treads, when its clear they havent got a clue what there are on about.treetrunks wrote: »The insurance payout is likely to be for the employer and help cover the costs of temporary workers.0 -
So you don't believe that employers can't have this insurance?dave030445 wrote: »Dont mean to be rude. But why do people commet on treads, when its clear they havent got a clue what there are on about.
You give scant details so people presume and are trying to help.The Googlewhacker referance is to Dave Gorman and not to my opinion of the search engine!
If I give you advice it is only a view and always always take professional advice before acting!!!
4 people on the ignore list....Bliss!0 -
I had already stated that the policy was for me. ive given all the details I have so i dont think im being scant on my info. But thankyou for trying to help (in your own little way):rotfl::rotfl:Googlewhacker wrote: »So you don't believe that employers can't have this insurance?
You give scant details so people presume and are trying to help.0 -
OP - Is this a correct summary of the situation:
You have been off work for two and a half years, are receiving 75% of your salary through the employer's insurance scheme, topped up with benefits. And your employer are giving no indication of wanting to terminate your employment.
If so, to be frank, I think you're onto a pretty good deal, and are receiving way above what many people would be receiving in a similar situation.
Perhaps you could clarify what your actual question is.0 -
Hi sueOP - Is this a correct summary of the situation:
You have been off work for two and a half years, are receiving 75% of your salary through the employer's insurance scheme, topped up with benefits. And your employer are giving no indication of wanting to terminate your employment.
If so, to be frank, I think you're onto a pretty good deal, and are receiving way above what many people would be receiving in a similar situation.
Perhaps you could clarify what your actual question is.
I’m not getting the employer's insurance scheme yet, I been asked by HR if I would like to applied for it. If I do qualify for this it will pay out about £1600 do I have to pay tax on this money. And you say topped up my benefits could you tell me what benefits I would still get at the moment I’m on ESA CTC CC thanks for your help.0 -
dave030445 wrote: »Hi sue
I’m not getting the employer's insurance scheme yet, I been asked by HR if I would like to applied for it. If I do qualify for this it will pay out about £1600 do I have to pay tax on this money. And you say topped up my benefits could you tell me what benefits I would still get at the moment I’m on ESA CTC CC thanks for your help.
Sorry, but I don't have the answers to any of those questions.
Your HR people should be able to tell you whether the insurance money is taxable, and calculate what the take-home rate would be.
And hopefully someone else on here will be able to clarify whether the benefits you are receiving would remain payable if you were receiving the insurance money each month.
Sorry I can't be more help.0 -
dave030445 wrote: »Had boss and HR round today it went really well. They said there was no thought of them getting rid of me. They said they have a insurance policy that pays out when your sick, it pays out 75% of your wages,which sounds quite good. They also said that i dont acure holiday pay when off sick for the whole year she said you have to work for part of the year you are claiming holiday pay for does this sound about right.
Post 31, when you first mentioned Insurance payout, its not actually clear who the insurance is for from your postdave030445 wrote: »No its for me
Post 46, when you actually state it is for you. You then go and quote the same poster again having a go at them a bit later in the thread.
The person did not know that the insurance was for you when they made that statement.
Glad I can help
:rotfl: The Googlewhacker referance is to Dave Gorman and not to my opinion of the search engine!
If I give you advice it is only a view and always always take professional advice before acting!!!
4 people on the ignore list....Bliss!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.2K Life & Family
- 260.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards