Benefit of 100% attendance at work?

miduck

MissSarah1972 wrote: »

I am not worked up at all :rotfl:
No it wasn't a database administrator.

Carry on looking if you must.

Well if you come across like this to employers then it's no wonder you're having problems seeking work! Calm ...

I have searched through all with "administrator" in the title, they are all grade 5 or below. Perhaps you have seen one that included an inner London weighting? Unless you show is, we'll never know!

MissSarah1972

miduck wrote: »

Well if you come across like this to employers then it's no wonder you're having problems seeking work! Calm ...

I have searched through all with "administrator" in the title, they are all grade 5 or below. Perhaps you have seen one that included an inner London weighting? Unless you show is, we'll never know!

Yes I come across worked up on a CV - well done in pointing that out.

falko89

Ah sick pay, I am another one who has never received it, I know what the NHS is like, I have a relative and a friend who are nurses, the thing is because everyone is at it no one actually see's what they are doing as wrong, I'm surprised that sick pay hasn't actually been done away with at this stage of the game with so many other cuts, think of the money that could be saved if stat pay was the norm in the public sector.

ohreally

falko89 wrote: »

I'm surprised that sick pay hasn't actually been done away with at this stage of the game with so many other cuts, think of the money that could be saved if stat pay was the norm in the public sector.

Leaving abuse to the side, thats an issue for management, it's not a race to the bottom of the terms and conditions of service league.

If you don't recieve a benefit, fight to improve your lot in working life, don't agitate to dilute the hard fought entitlement of other workers.

BobQ

There is nothing wrong with the concept of sick pay.

Only a totally vindictive and nasty employer would want someone to work while they were unfit to do so. But paying them when they are sick is a privilege and should be seen as such. Sick pay is a benefit of some jobs and like all benefits needs to be considered as part of the overall employment package.

The problem with sick pay is abuse of the system by the few.Most people do not abuse it but there always some who do. I have worked in organisations which have it and those which do not. In these days where many people work closely with each other in shared workspaces (open plan offices, workshops, hospital wards, classrooms) there is very little benefit to the organisation having infections and viruses passed around when it can be avoided.

Equally I see nothing wrong with an employer rewarding good service with paid sick leave rather than forcoing unfit people to do work they are incapable of doing. But people who have the benefit should definitely not abuse it and I agree that giving it to people who have just joined is not necessary.

miduck

MissSarah1972 wrote: »

Yes I come across worked up on a CV - well done in pointing that out.

Well something must be wrong with it ...

We're still waiting for your examples of these administrators on £25,000.

BobQ

falko89 wrote: »

Ah sick pay, I am another one who has never received it, I know what the NHS is like, I have a relative and a friend who are nurses, the thing is because everyone is at it no one actually see's what they are doing as wrong, I'm surprised that sick pay hasn't actually been done away with at this stage of the game with so many other cuts, think of the money that could be saved if stat pay was the norm in the public sector.

Yes I can see the attarcation of visiting hospital while the viruses and infections are passed around between individuals who carry them but struggle into worlk to do a half decent job while feeling ill.

Just because we have a Government hell bent on returning the economy to a VIctorian era we do not need to adopt such policies in all organisations.

teajug

ILW wrote: »

I object to any public sector organisation being lax with sick pay. Cannot see the point in 6 months full pay whilst they have no problems recruiting.

It's the same with LA and central government when they have qualified for sick pay ie length of service.

People do get ill and some times become disabled due to accident or inherited conditions and these conditions can be very painful therefore workers maybe on medications which can cause more damages in the lone run, medication can cure one conditions but can give patients other problems that they did not bargain for either.

Thank your lucky stars that you have been blessed with good health.

ILW

teajug wrote: »

It's the same with LA and central government when they have qualified for sick pay ie length of service.

People do get ill and some times become disabled due to accident or inherited conditions and these conditions can be very painful therefore workers maybe on medications which can cause more damages in the lone run, medication can cure one conditions but can give patients other problems that they did not bargain for either.

Thank your lucky stars that you have been blessed with good health.

I see you point, but cannot see why this is an employers responsibility. Why keep paying someone who is giving you no labour in return?

teajug

ILW wrote: »

I see you point, but cannot see why this is an employers responsibility. Why keep paying someone who is giving you no labour in return?

It is a contract agreement, there will be lots of meetings with the employee, if there is no sign of the employee retuning to work with adjustments then they will be dismissed accordingly.