Employer accusing workers of abusing companies sick pay

LilElvis

holow666 wrote: »

so you mean if company pays SSP with the reason because you sick, and refuse to pay csp with the reason you not been sick, to me it does not sound fairly

The company can impose whatever restrictions they wish on the portion they control. That isn't necessarily unfair. For example an employer might choose not to offer company sick pay for an employee who is taking time off to undergo cosmetic surgery, but will still pay SSP because they have been given a valid fit note.

You could ask your union to become involved if you feel that the company is not following it's own policies.

theoretica

As I read it, the company only authorise discretionary sick pay once the employee has returned to work - so a cash flow issue for anyone off just before payday, and especially anyone on long term sick.

sangie595

theoretica wrote: »

As I read it, the company only authorise discretionary sick pay once the employee has returned to work - so a cash flow issue for anyone off just before payday, and especially anyone on long term sick.

That's how I read it too. But it's up to the company you decide. They could, of course, decide to not pay anything other than SSP - so the cash flow issue would still exist. It's certainly an odd system which I've never heard of before, if that's what they are doing. But it appears to work if it gets people back to work quickly!

Wyndham

Peter999 wrote: »

I work for a company as a contractor. In 5 years of being a contractor, not one of the contractors I've worked with has had a day off sick. You just don't get paid if you're off sick.

Yes - I did this for 3 years. I did take one day off, and there was another where, to be honest, I shouldn't have been in but was. I'm now back on PAYE, and the thing I've had most trouble adjusting to is paid holidays - haven't even thought about sick pay!

After saying that, my one day off was for a chronic condition that I will live with for the rest of my life. In my case, it's really not so bad, and is under control with medication. But I do know that others live with much worse, and much more disabling, conditions.

Mr_da

The company I work for has three branches in different parts of the country, and two departments in each branch, office staff and warehouse distribution. There have been people abusing the company sick pay in my department and due to that fact they have stopped sick pay for our department. Even though it was down to half the staff abusing it, the other half including myself having very good attendance records.

holow666

I understand companies discretion, but as i say and you just mentioned, it should be a good reason for discretion. So if employer just deliberately wants certain workers be without paying CSP they can start making clumsy reasons for discretion.
If there is a good reason, i would understand, but not otherwise.

holow666

LilElvis wrote: »

The company can impose whatever restrictions they wish on the portion they control. That isn't necessarily unfair. For example an employer might choose not to offer company sick pay for an employee who is taking time off to undergo cosmetic surgery, but will still pay SSP because they have been given a valid fit note.

You could ask your union to become involved if you feel that the company is not following it's own policies.

No they can't impose what they wish by choosing the worker and stopping his CSP without a good reason, that is discrimination. Let's say employer pays to some workers by agreeing that they been sick, and not to others just because they believe they been not sick. This is clear unfair management. Companie can use it as motivation tool for unwanted workers.

sangie595

holow666 wrote: »

No they can't impose what they wish by choosing the worker and stopping his CSP without a good reason Yes, they can. That is the definition of discretion., that is discrimination No, it isn't. Discrimination had a specific meaning in law, and this isn't one of them.. Let's say employer pays to some workers by agreeing that they been sick, and not to others just because they believe they been not sick. This is clear unfair management. Possibly it is - but that isn't unlawfulCompanie can use it as motivation tool for unwanted workers No they couldn't. If they don't want the workers they dismiss them, not motivate them! They use it as a motivation for people they believe are skiving. Whether you like it or not, that's lawful.

Given you don't agree with anything you are being told, I don't see the point in continuing to post. You are wrong. It might not be "fair", but this is a workplace not a playground, and if the employer doesn't want to pay company sick pay, unless the contract specifies it is always paid, then they don't have to pay it.

Undervalued

holow666 wrote: »

No they can't impose what they wish by choosing the worker and stopping his CSP without a good reason, that is discrimination.

As Sangie has said, yes they can and no its not discrimination.

Only a very few types of discrimination are prohibited by law, any other "discrimination" is perfectly legal.

So if they paid CSP to, say, men and not women that would be unlawful discrimination. As would paying it only to people of a particular race.

However paying it to those they consider better workers or even paying it to those who's birthdays are in October would be perfectly lawful!

holow666

sangie595 wrote: »

Given you don't agree with anything you are being told, I don't see the point in continuing to post. You are wrong. It might not be "fair", but this is a workplace not a playground, and if the employer doesn't want to pay company sick pay, unless the contract specifies it is always paid, then they don't have to pay it.

You are totally bias to employer side, and of course i won't agree with you, the main point is here, that. your argument about workplace and playground explains everything, you forget employers responsibilities too. Unfair treatment of workers brings hate, anger and demotivation, and many other negative impact to the business. I would agree that if its clearly that worker takes a !!!! about sickness, they should not get a penny from company, but again this is not the case.
I don't need to agree with anything i'v been told if this is not true to my findings.