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!
Benefit of 100% attendance at work?
Comments
-
Again, I fail to see why the public sector are using taxpayers money to offer contracts such as this. I see no evidence that they are having trouble recruiting people for most positions.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.0 -
Again, I fail to see why the public sector are using taxpayers money to offer contracts such as this. I see no evidence that they are having trouble recruiting people for most positions.
I expect contracts for NHS and LA and government employees have changed since the recession save for MP's of course. All good employer even private ones pays their employees sickness according to the size of the company. Big retails also pays their employees sick pay according to the length of services this is not unusual.0 -
Again, I fail to see why the public sector are using taxpayers money to offer contracts such as this. I see no evidence that they are having trouble recruiting people for most positions.
But if they dropped the benefits they would then need to pay higher wages to attract and keep the same caliber of staff? At least for those staff who look at the whole picture, not just money in pocket each month. If I did not have sick pay available I would want a job which paid considerably higher so I could save my own safety net.But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,Had the whole of their cash in his care.
Lewis Carroll0 -
I expect contracts for NHS and LA and government employees have changed since the recession save for MP's of course. All good employer even private ones pays their employees sickness according to the size of the company. Big retails also pays their employees sick pay according to the length of services this is not unusual.
I cannot help but feeling that much of NHS, LA etc are run more for the benefit of the employees than the "customers".0 -
As said before, they currently seem to have many more applicants than jobs available, so why offer such generous perks?theoretica wrote: »But if they dropped the benefits they would then need to pay higher wages to attract and keep the same caliber of staff? At least for those staff who look at the whole picture, not just money in pocket each month. If I did not have sick pay available I would want a job which paid considerably higher so I could save my own safety net.0 -
As said before, they currently seem to have many more applicants than jobs available, so why offer such generous perks?
Because they want good applicants. Would you really like to see every job become a reverse auction and given to the person who will do it for least?But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,Had the whole of their cash in his care.
Lewis Carroll0 -
No, but I cannot see that it is right to use taxpayers money to pay over the odds.theoretica wrote: »Because they want good applicants. Would you really like to see every job become a reverse auction and given to the person who will do it for least?0 -
No, but I cannot see that it is right to use taxpayers money to pay over the odds.
Would you be happier with the taxpayers money being used for Income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit etc for people on SSP together with paying for all the associated bureaucracy?But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,Had the whole of their cash in his care.
Lewis Carroll0 -
It would generally be less money overall, so yes.theoretica wrote: »Would you be happier with the taxpayers money being used for Income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit etc for people on SSP together with paying for all the associated bureaucracy?
I guess I just don't see all this as an employers responsibility.0 -
So its more cost effective then to dismiss people and go off sick and then replace them with new staff who then need to be trained ?.
I speak as someone who has :
In 2001 being off with work related stress for 6 months on full pay - not nice at all
In 2009 being off for 3 months with a fractured wrist then
In 2011 being off for another 3 months following surgery to correct and improve my wrist.
I write this as a CS with 24 years service.
Did I want to be off ?? no but needs must.It would generally be less money overall, so yes.
I guess I just don't see all this as an employers responsibility.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards