Small business staff - sick pay

TheTracker

cavework wrote: »

If the OP has applied for the employment allowance ,this will save the business up to £2000 a year in NIC .
Instead of arguing the 'eroded rights of the working class' perhaps this piece of information could help both the OP and his employee.

The one that got bladdered on a work night and made himself unfit for work the next day or longer

The Tracker..
respect works both ways..

First I've heard that you need to apply, as payroll software will automatically calculate. And likely be subsumed by the other two employees first.

I must have missed the part in the OP about being "bladdered" or "wasted" as someone else put it, or perhaps it wasn't stated? Enlighten me as to how you arrived at that conclusion. Respect does work both ways. I wouldn't be going back to an employer that didn't respect me enough to show some sympathy for a broken foot in the form of time in lieu. Taking on a new business without the flex to permit £87.55/wk sick pay? Holy moly.

OhReally_2

TheTracker wrote: »

First I've heard that you need to apply, ...

They do say you can learn something new everyday.
You could tick that box for today, if you do actually learn from the advice others give.

TheTracker wrote: »

I must have missed the part in the OP about being "bladdered" or "wasted" as someone else put it, ....

Me too, where did you see that, exactly? :huh:

TheTracker

OhReally wrote: »

Me too, where did you see that, exactly? :huh:

Cavework said the handyman was "bladdered" while ruthnjasper said the handyman was "wasted", and their judgment appears to be influenced by those suppositions. The OP only ever said the subject was "out on a Saturday night". Granted, it appears he was out until 4am, at his gf's insistence, but I would not have thought that fact alone would lead to an assumption of wastage or bladderness. If only we had Judge Judy.

RuthnJasper

TheTracker wrote: »

Cavework said the handyman was "bladdered" while ruthnjasper said the handyman was "wasted", and their judgment appears to be influenced by those suppositions. The OP only ever said the subject was "out on a Saturday night". Granted, it appears he was out until 4am, at his gf's insistence, but I would not have thought that fact alone would lead to an assumption of wastage or bladderness. If only we had Judge Judy.

Apologies if I am in error; the OP referred to "partying with friends" and that the employee "lost the plot at 6am". I, perhaps wrongly, assumed that it was a party involving some jolly-juice. Whether or not alcohol was involved, however, I stand by my points; a responsible person ought not to get into work having had only a very few hours' sleep. Nor should they kick something with such force that they break their own foot. For all I know, he's probably a very nice guy, just not a terribly smart one.

TheTracker

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Whether or not alcohol was involved, however, I stand by my points; a responsible person ought not to get into work having had only a very few hours' sleep.

Here and now it's 2am on a Wednesday. I expect to be asleep by 2.30. I've not had a drop of "jolly juice". I'll be up at 6.00 for work. How can you judge whether that is responsible or not? I'm sure you are a lovely person, but do try not to judge others based on what is normal for you.

RuthnJasper

TheTracker wrote: »

Here and now it's 2am on a Wednesday. I expect to be asleep by 2.30. I've not had a drop of "jolly juice". I'll be up at 6.00 for work. How can you judge whether that is responsible or not? I'm sure you are a lovely person, but do try not to judge others based on what is normal for you.

2.30 to 6am is 3.5 hrs kip. 6 to 7.30 is 1.5 hrs kip, broken foot or not.

Please don't patronise me; it belittles us both.

TheTracker

RuthnJasper wrote: »

2.30 to 6am is 3.5 hrs kip. 6 to 7.30 is 1.5 hrs kip, broken foot or not.

Please don't patronise me; it belittles us both.

He tried to go home at 4am. Further, there was nothing in the OP that indicated he was going to go into work, regardless of the injury, having been so unexpectedly stretched for sleep. So from the evidence alone, not only does it not show he was "wasted", there is nothing to indicate he was going to work on an level of sleep that would have been irresponsible. Finally you even suggest from the evidence he isn't "smart", but there is little to support that. I hope you're never selected for jury duty.

Takeaway_Addict

TheTracker wrote: »

Here and now it's 2am on a Wednesday. I expect to be asleep by 2.30. I've not had a drop of "jolly juice". I'll be up at 6.00 for work. How can you judge whether that is responsible or not? I'm sure you are a lovely person, but do try not to judge others based on what is normal for you.

Unless you don't live in the UK it was 1.04am when you posted.

cavework

TheTracker wrote: »

He tried to go home at 4am. Further, there was nothing in the OP that indicated he was going to go into work, regardless of the injury, having been so unexpectedly stretched for sleep. So from the evidence alone, not only does it not show he was "wasted", there is nothing to indicate he was going to work on an level of sleep that would have been irresponsible. Finally you even suggest from the evidence he isn't "smart", but there is little to support that. I hope you're never selected for jury duty.

Original post..
One of our staff members went out on a Saturday night with his girlfriend...The story as he told it: at 4am he wanted to pack it in and go to sleep, she wanted to continue to party with friends (despite him needing to start at 7:30am)...


stretched for sleep?
This guy knew he was expected to be at work at 7.30am the next day.. but HE made the decision to carry on because of grief from his girlfriend?


I rest my case..