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

TBagpuss

zzzt wrote: »

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:

It's worth checking your contract of employment - some companies will pay sick leave and some don't, and there are huge variations as to how many days they will pay for.
For instance, where I currently work, full time employees get 6 days paid sick leave*, so if you were of for up to 6 days (cumulative over the year) you would have no reduction in pay, anything over that, you don't get paid for the extra sick days.
Some jobs have much more generous rules - my sister (who works for a Local Authority) gets full pay for 3 months and half pay for a further 3, so doesn't ever lose pay for normal, mild illnesses.

And of course a lot of organisations these days don't give any paid sick leave at all, so you're on your own or the the first 3 day and then reliant on SSP.

TBagpuss

zzzt wrote: »

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.

That doesn't make sense. If you had a bad cold you might be off for a day or two, that's not going to be 25% of your pay!
They simply pay you when you work, and don't pay you when you don't work. At no point are you expected to work for nothing.

zzzt

glentoran99 wrote: »

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

It's more that being paid without working guilt trips me into working when sick. Feel like I'm letting the side down so I've always done my best to push through and come back to work as soon as I can.

If they're not going to pay me when sick and I have enough money then I'll just take as much time as I need and they'll have to do without me.

Edit: maybe this is a collectivist vs individualist thing. I'm willing to waste my own money, but would feel great shame if I wasted anyone else's money. It's probably the opposite for most people, which is why policies like this exist: most people would abuse the system and take sick days when they aren't sick and feel no guilt about it.

sangie595

gingerdad wrote: »

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.

Please substantiate your allegations with verifiable facts please. "The government" doesn't pay sick pay to the public sector, any more than than they pay SSP. And there are private sector companies who not only pay sick pay, but pride themselves on it. Whether they are sensible or not is your opinion. Not fact.

If these jobs are so cushy, go get one- don't whinge about it. But be ready for a huge shock. Because cushy they generally are not. And by salary comparison, like for like skills and experience are better paid in the private sector. But that's good news for you because it means that in many parts of the public sector there are real recruitment crises, so there's jobs for you to apply for.

jobbingmusician

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.

I take your point about feeling that you can take an unpaid day because you don't feel guilty about costing the firm money. However, don't forget that sickness absence will be monitored and managed whether they are paying you or not. You are likely to find yourself on a disciplinary, and then jobless, if you are 'sick' every time you feel 'a little bit hungover'.

Undervalued

sangie595 wrote: »

Please substantiate your allegations with verifiable facts please. "The government" doesn't pay sick pay to the public sector, any more than than they pay SSP. And there are private sector companies who not only pay sick pay, but pride themselves on it. Whether they are sensible or not is your opinion. Not fact.

If these jobs are so cushy, go get one- don't whinge about it. But be ready for a huge shock. Because cushy they generally are not. And by salary comparison, like for like skills and experience are better paid in the private sector. But that's good news for you because it means that in many parts of the public sector there are real recruitment crises, so there's jobs for you to apply for.

I think it is largely historical (and maybe slightly anecdotal too)!

Certainly it used to be the case that many civil service jobs, plus those with large universities etc, would come with sick pay of six months at full pay followed by six month half pay right from day one. They also frequently had longer holidays and and a better pension scheme. It was rare, though not impossible, to find as generous terms in the private sector.

To some extent this was balanced by a lower basic salary than the same qualifications would attract in the commercial world.

I think this is generally no longer the case. As I have said before, company sick pay is in effect insurance. An individual can buy sickness insurance privately if they wish and many, mainly self employed, people do just that. Those private companies that offer extensive sick pay generally have it underwritten by insurance, certainly for cases of very long term sickness.

JJG

My company pays 6 months full pay then 6 months half pay in sick pay. In the ten years I've been with them I haven't had a single day off sick.

TELLIT01

gingerdad wrote: »

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.

What utter carp on all levels! In my entire working life I only had one employer who didn't pay people for a period when off sick. If you think working in the public sector is such a cushy number maybe you should try it.

jobbingmusician

I do think the title of this post is interesting. You don't get pay 'deducted' when you are off sick. You haven't earned it!

itchyfeet123

JJG wrote: »

My company pays 6 months full pay then 6 months half pay in sick pay. In the ten years I've been with them I haven't had a single day off sick.

This is consistent with research evidence -- companies that move from low numbers of sick days to being very generous, even up to having unlimited sick days, typically see *reductions* in absenteeism. There are three reasons for this:
1. People aren't incentivised to come in and spread their germs to their colleagues.
2. People don't see sick days as a resource to be used up.
3. Generous sick leave policies signal an organisation which values its employees, which motivates many employees not to seek to abuse benefits.