Paying back shifts after you have been off sick

elliesmemory1

As part of the normal working month we have to do a couple of late shifts, which mean you do your normal days work then go back and do a further couple of hours in the evening.
You then get the time off the following day.
This is done on a rota system.
the problem comes if anyone is off sick.
You are then expected to do a shift for who ever did your shift when you were off.
Does this make sense?
I dont feel this can be right, anyone know.

elliesmemory1

anyone know?

paddedjohn

Its not up to you to provide cover for your job when you are off sick, thats your boss's job.

elliesmemory1

Thats what I think, its not that you have to find the cover, just do the person who does your shift, next shift to pay them back. I still dont think its right though.

getmore4less

As long as you get paid for the hours you work then that should be ok.

what is the sick pay policy.

elliesmemory1

we do get sick pay.

jayII

Are you saying that you work extra (unpaid) hours that week, to pay the shifts back?

Or do you still get the 'extra shift' time off the following day, so in effect you just have a different working pattern but do your usual number of hours?

elliesmemory1

we still do the same amount of hours, but i dont think its right that you have to make up the missed late shift.
Surely if you are off and miss a shift its up to the boss to sort out.

EmmaHerts

Hardupandfedup wrote: »

we still do the same amount of hours, but i dont think its right that you have to make up the missed late shift.
Surely if you are off and miss a shift its up to the boss to sort out.

I think it sounds very fair.

patator

It depends on how formal the arrangement is - when I've worked in places with shift patterns (part time bar work etc), the staff all kind of helped each other out - it meant that none of us lost out on wages through taking time off unexpectedly! Example being; if 'Pete' called in sick one afternoon, I might get a call asking me to cover his shift, and he would cover mine for me on another day, thus giving me time off in lieu. That way 'Pete' doesn't miss out on any pay, because he gets to do my shift when he's better, I get an unexpected day off as a result for doing his shift.

However...that was an informal arrangement, and we were free to say "nope, sorry, got plans". Plus, you'd get into trouble if 'Pete' wasn't available on your next shift day to cover for you. Hmm. If this is something that's expected of you and enforced, it'd be a totally different matter. Also, if you get sick pay...surely your boss should find cover and you shouldn't be expected to make up lost time for genuine illness? And I'm sure anybody who covered a shift would be grateful of getting the extra money, while the sick person would receive sick pay anyway...

Do you have a contract? Does it say anything about arrangements for sickness? Hopefully somebody with a bit more knowledge and experience will be along soon!

WestonDave

Doesn't sound that unreasonable if you are either getting time off in lieu of the late shift and/or you are getting paid more than SSP (i.e. nothing for the first 3 days and then minimal pay). Both of those are an advantage for which you are trading the hassle of having to fill in the shifts. If the boss employed more people to have spares to cover, then its possible over time your pay etc would be eroded (no payrises etc) to restore the profitability.

In a lot of these situations you need to think through the implications to the business overall - if there was spare money to have someone around to cover then there would already be someone to do it, so if you push for changes, you may set off a chain reaction which swings round and bites you somewhere else.