How common is it to have pay deducted for sick days?

zzzt

It is the policy of my company to deduct sick days from your salary. It's surprisingly high, because as a Mon-Fri job they base it on 20 days worked per month, whereas obviously there are more days than that in a month. So it can seriously hurt cashflow.

My question is how common is it? Do any of you have the same thing?

I am wondering what would happen if I had something bad like flu that took me out for a week or more. I would not be able to pay my bills. I'd have to claim statutory sick pay from the government, which isn't very much, it's a fraction of what I normally earn, so I would not be able to pay my mortgage just because I have the flu?

What's the point of having a salaried full time job then? I'm not someone who is sick often, and I feel guilty taking time off work so I often try to come in anyway unless I'm very unwell. But this policy is very off-putting to me.

marliepanda

Very common. Companies pay you to work, not to be off sick.

Some companies have generous sick pay policies. Some don't.

getmore4less

Very common to only be paid SSP.

You could discuss the daily rate to get that more reasonable.
Many use annual 260 working days. (Yours is using 240)

The company should be paying SSP

sangie595

zzzt wrote: »

It is the policy of my company to deduct sick days from your salary. It's surprisingly high, because as a Mon-Fri job they base it on 20 days worked per month, whereas obviously there are more days than that in a month. So it can seriously hurt cashflow.

My question is how common is it? Do any of you have the same thing?

I am wondering what would happen if I had something bad like flu that took me out for a week or more. I would not be able to pay my bills. I'd have to claim statutory sick pay from the government, which isn't very much, it's a fraction of what I normally earn, so I would not be able to pay my mortgage just because I have the flu?

What's the point of having a salaried full time job then? I'm not someone who is sick often, and I feel guilty taking time off work so I often try to come in anyway unless I'm very unwell. But this policy is very off-putting to me.

This is the norm for most people - you genuinely didn't realise that you don't normally get paid for not being in work?


The point of a full-time salaried job is so that (a) you can get the mortgage in the first place and (b) put aside some savings so that you have an emergency fund for situations exactly like this.


SSP may not be much - it is significantly more than people in many countries get.

elsien

zzzt wrote: »

What's the point of having a salaried full time job then? .

The point is so that you don't have to rely on job seekers allowance which for a single person is even less than SSP and which would not get your mortgage paid for you either.
That's why where possible people have emergency funds and/or insurance policies covering illness, redundancy etc.

bouicca21

Is it a policy or is it In The contract of employment?

Oakdene

I dont get any sick pay for sickness for the first year, SSP or otherwise.

Undervalued

zzzt wrote: »

It is the policy of my company to deduct sick days from your salary. It's surprisingly high, because as a Mon-Fri job they base it on 20 days worked per month, whereas obviously there are more days than that in a month. So it can seriously hurt cashflow.

My question is how common is it? Do any of you have the same thing?

I am wondering what would happen if I had something bad like flu that took me out for a week or more. I would not be able to pay my bills. I'd have to claim statutory sick pay from the government, which isn't very much, it's a fraction of what I normally earn, so I would not be able to pay my mortgage just because I have the flu?

What's the point of having a salaried full time job then? I'm not someone who is sick often, and I feel guilty taking time off work so I often try to come in anyway unless I'm very unwell. But this policy is very off-putting to me.

Or to put it the other way, you expect your firm to pay you for no work at all "Just because you have the flu"?

More seriously.....

Firstly, assuming you qualify, the firm have to pay you the SSP and can no longer reclaim this from the government so any sick leave represents a cost to them.

If a company offers sick pay over and above SSP then it is, in effect, a form of insurance. They have to budget for the average number of days employees are sick per (c. eight from memory) which is about 3.5% of your salary. The money has to come from somewhere, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

So, either you need to budget better and have a rainy day fund or you need to change jobs to one where their are more generous benefits which may well mean a lower basic salary.

Undervalued

Oakdene wrote: »

I dont get any sick pay for sickness for the first year, SSP or otherwise.

That may not be lawful. If you qualify for SSP according to the government's rules then the firm have to pay it and cannot reclaim the cost.

If you do not qualify for SSP then you may be able to claim ESA directly from the government providing you have a doctor's certificate.

Oakdene

Undervalued wrote: »

That may not be lawful. If you qualify for SSP according to the government's rules then the firm have to pay it and cannot reclaim the cost.

If you do not qualify for SSP then you may be able to claim ESA directly from the government providing you have a doctor's certificate.

I'm not sure if I qualified for SSP as it was just a sickness bug which cleared up in 24 hrs.

Undervalued

Oakdene wrote: »

I'm not sure if I qualified for SSP as it was just a sickness bug which cleared up in 24 hrs.

It is not payable for the first three days in any case. However it is worth checking on gov.uk to see if you qualify for future reference.