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

sangie595

Oakdene wrote: »

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

SSP is not paid for the first three days of any claim, or any connected claim.

BJV

I own a company and we used to pay everyone full pay no matter how long they where off for. I say used to because after two years we had lost over 3 & 1/2 months sickness between the staff. Add in holidays and ?????. ( not talking anyone long term sick just a day here a day there??? ) normally it was just after pay day or the Friday before bank holidays)

Needless to say we now only pay SSP and for the past 2 years running days off sick and more than halved.

Rosemary7391

I'm curious though... if the deduction is based on 20 days in a month, what would happen if you were off sick for an entire month? June has 22 working days this year for instance. Would you have to pay them?

glentoran99

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

I'm curious though... if the deduction is based on 20 days in a month, what would happen if you were off sick for an entire month? June has 22 working days this year for instance. Would you have to pay them?

They just wouldn't get junes salary

TELLIT01

Oakdene wrote: »

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

That's very different to claiming you don't get SSP in the first year. As has been said previously, SSP has to be paid if you meet the criteria but isn't paid for the first 3 days of sickness.

To the OP's comment about what's the point of a salaried job if you don't get paid when sick, there is no link between being salaried and automatically being paid when off sick. Some companies have a sliding scale of entitlement, others only pay SSP.

zzzt

sangie595 wrote: »

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

I guess I must have been very lucky in the jobs I've had so far. I've always been paid my normal salary every month even if I had time off for illness.


Thanks guys. This is exactly the info I wanted to hear. Seems the consensus is that it's perfectly normal. You've stopped me from potentially doing something stupid. :eek:

gingerdad

its time the government stop the paying the civil service and public sector sick pay. sickness is so much higher in the public sector because of the cushy number they are on.

most sensible companies don't pay people to be off sick.

Malthusian

zzzt wrote: »

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.

It's not your employer's problem that you are living beyond your means by spending your rainy-day savings. Rainy-day savings are essential expenditure, like your mortgage.

The conventional wisdom is that you should have at least 3-6 months worth of expenditure in cash. If you don't even have a week's worth then you need to urgently cut expenditure and start building up your savings.

zzzt

Malthusian wrote: »

The conventional wisdom is that you should have at least 3-6 months worth of expenditure in cash. If you don't even have a week's worth then you need to urgently cut expenditure and start building up your savings.

That is in fact what I do; I could go months without being paid without problem. I was talking more hypothetically, because I know most people do not. The type of people visiting this forum are probably better at managing their money and saving than most of the general public.

I'm just surprised that you could lose hundreds of pounds or even 25% of your pay by having a bad cold. Rather than making me want to work because I feel guilty about taking time off, which is what I did in the past, this policy is likely to make me take more sick days, having the opposite of the desired effect. If they're not gonna pay me then !!!! 'em, I won't do the work if I'm feeling under the weather. In fact, even if I'm a little bit hungover I'll just stay in bed. It's my money I'm wasting rather than someone else's so no guilt.

glentoran99

zzzt wrote: »

That is in fact what I do; I could go months without being paid without problem. I was talking more hypothetically, because I know most people do not. The type of people visiting this forum are probably better at managing their money and saving than most of the general public.

I'm just surprised that you could lose hundreds of pounds or even 25% of your pay by having a bad cold. Rather than making me want to work because I feel guilty about taking time off, which is what I did in the past, this policy is likely to make me take more sick days, having the opposite of the desired effect. If they're not gonna pay me then !!!! 'em, I won't do the work if I'm feeling under the weather. In fact, even if I'm a little bit hungover I'll just stay in bed. It's my money I'm wasting rather than someone else's so no guilt.

Ok? so not being paid is going to make you be sick more? crazy logic