Sick leave/pay examples

tommytynan123

Hi all
I've got an interview next week for a training role.:D Part of the interview is a presentation based on ''What methods would you implement to minimise the impact of sick leave on the company''

They have given me the present sick leave/pay rules for the company and I'm trying to find out if these are good / average / bad compared to other companies rules. I'm not certain whether the ''impact'' is real or simulated but that doesn't change my approach to it.

Any comparisons would be great – thanks (format is length of service / full pay (weeks) / half pay (weeks) )

Under 6 months / Nil / Nil
6 – 12 months / 2 / 2
1 – 3 years / 4 / 8
3 – 5 years / 8 / 8
Over 5 / 12 / 12

Any real examples of recent changes to sick leave/pay would be great as well.
Thanks:)

Wyndham

It's not so much about the time - if you're sick, you're sick. But, at my place we have back to work interviews after an absence to check the cause and details, which are supportive for genuine cases, but if someone were slacking it may make them think twice. Also, there are levels of absence which are deemed 'not acceptable' so in a 12 month period if it is over 10 days, or over 4 absences, then there is an interview, which may or may not lead to action.

As an employee with an ongoing condition (all declared, but not a disability) I do find this hard, and you need to be aware of disability legislation etc. with anything you suggest. But, I know that these rules have had an impact on absence.

Sorry, not a comparison for you as I don't have that to hand, but I hope it's helpful?

AP007

tommytynan123 wrote: »

Hi all
I've got an interview next week for a training role.:D Part of the interview is a presentation based on ''What methods would you implement to minimise the impact of sick leave on the company''

They have given me the present sick leave/pay rules for the company and I'm trying to find out if these are good / average / bad compared to other companies rules. I'm not certain whether the ''impact'' is real or simulated but that doesn't change my approach to it.

Any comparisons would be great – thanks (format is length of service / full pay (weeks) / half pay (weeks) )

Under 6 months / Nil / Nil
6 – 12 months / 2 / 2
1 – 3 years / 4 / 8
3 – 5 years / 8 / 8
Over 5 / 12 / 12

Any real examples of recent changes to sick leave/pay would be great as well.
Thanks:)

How about no matter what the length of service sick pay is ZERO and all you get is SSP. If you do not get paid you will only take time off when you are actually ill

an9i77

AP007 wrote: »

How about no matter what the length of service sick pay is ZERO and all you get is SSP. If you do not get paid you will only take time off when you are actually ill

The problem with that is that the employer then becomes particularly unattractive to new applicants and present staff may leave in order to join a better company with some sick pay provision.

You have to consider both sides of the coin. Employers don't generally give benefits becuase they're nice, kind hearted souls. They give benefits in order to attract and retain quality staff and avoid losing these staff to a competitor who will then be able to run a better business.

The trick is to balance the direct cost of giving the benefit, with the cost to the business of not giving it.

HeadAboveWater

Our sick pay was reduced last year due to 'increasing numbers of people taking the mick' (IMO! )

For staff with under 3 years service: SSP only
For staff with over 3 years service and under 5 years: 2 weeks full pay with 3 waiting days*
For staff with over 5 years service: 6 weeks full pay with 3 waiting days*
*When you are absent for four or more consecutive days payment will then apply.

It's really crap to be honest. I'd agree with Wyndham that it should be decided on a case-by-base basis to separate the genuine people from the slackers.