Employment law

[straycat]

Does anyone know...

What the regulations are (if any) on planned absences for medical reasons (an operation, in this case) - what entitlements there are & what standard practice is?

Got an operation coming up, two weeks off work are recommended, and neither I, nor my employers, seem to have a clue on whether I'm supposed to take it off as leave , be signed off onto sickpay, or what. So the obvious font of all wisdom on which to pose this question would be here

Anyone?

[Tiggerbabe]

I'd have thought that if 2 weeks off was recommended then your doctor will sign you off and you'll be on sick leave.

[Twirly]

Are they suggesting that you take it off as leave - do they have a problem with the sick leave aspect cost wise or something?

Not sure what the legal situation is. Usually this is laid out in an employee handbook and depends on company policy if they decide to be more generous than the legal minimum, whatever that might be. Sounds like they need to make a policy decision.

[Dance Demon]

First seven days of any sickness is covered by self certification, thereafter you require a doctors certificate. for a two week absence you will only need a doctors crtificate for the second week. You are entitled to statutory sick pay, or more if your company has a scheme that deals with sickness & absence.

[Dreadful Scathe]

"take it off as leave" ? who came up with THAT one ?

[straycat]

"take it off as leave" ? who came up with THAT one ?

Evil pointy-haired boss....
What I'm being told at present is that we don't have a policy (yet) (we're a small company, and this is a first). Initial investigation suggests three days on no pay, followed by the rest on minimum 'sick leave' payrates (70 quid a week)

Seems a tad... harsh.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Evil pointy-haired boss....
What I'm being told at present is that we don't have a policy (yet) (we're a small company, and this is a first). Initial investigation suggests three days on no pay, followed by the rest on minimum 'sick leave' payrates (70 quid a week)

Seems a tad... harsh.

I think your employer is correct. That would be your minimum lawful entitlement - just as it would if you were ill with pneumonia, acute appendicitis or any other illness.

Employers who continue to pay full salaries while employees are off sick do so at their own discretion; I guess if there was a company policy on the subject that was not being followed in your case then you would have something to argue. As it is, I think you'll have to rely on the PHB's largesse.

When I ran a small company I included in the letter of employment given to employees that sick pay beyond SSP was at the company's absolute discretion in each case. If someone was off for a couple of days I had no problem with paying them at their full rate; if someone was to be off for two weeks or more (it never happened) I doubt that the company would have been able to afford to pay them full whack.

[Twirly]

I don't know what you do for a living Stray, but is there any chance you can do some work from home to alleviate the situation whilst recuperating? If it's a worse case scenario that is. Might give you some leverage to get more money out of the company.

[Blueshoes]

Does anyone know...

What the regulations are (if any) on planned absences for medical reasons (an operation, in this case) - what entitlements there are & what standard practice is?

If you have a written contract of employment sick pay should be covered in this so that's the first port of call. If not then it's custom and practice, what has happened in the past to people in a similar situation. The legal minimum is to be not paid for the first three days then the rest at statuatory sick pay, currently £70.05 a week, leaving you with £98.07 for the two weeks.

If the statuatory minimum applies the leave option would allow you to receive full pay whilst you're off, obviously at the expense of not being able to take the holidays at another time.

This could be construed as harsh but it depends on the size of the company and whether they can afford to pay someone for not being there.

Though probably not welcome information I hope it's of some use.

And good luck for the operation!

[straycat]

Thanks for the info - got a useful amount to go on, anyway. Been checking the contracts and so on - ESG is pretty well on the money there.

At the end of the day, it's going to be up to pointy haired boss The likelihood is that I may need to take a few days of leave, and the rest will be covered as if I'd gone off sick for a few days (although I think I'd rather protect the leave, and take SSP.) Fingers crossed.

Working at home... probably not an option in this case - the setup isn't really there for it. The trip in isn't arduous though - frankly, if I'm up to working at home, I should be up to coming in to work.

Just need to focus on getting myself healed as fast as possible. And look at income protection insurance - just in case...

[David Bailey]

Evil pointy-haired boss....
What I'm being told at present is that we don't have a policy (yet) (we're a small company, and this is a first). Initial investigation suggests three days on no pay, followed by the rest on minimum 'sick leave' payrates (70 quid a week)

Seems a tad... harsh.

It does seem harsh. And in fact, it is harsh.

But I think it's within their rights - and quite plausible for a small company to be making it up as they go. It may be worth trying to persuade them that now's a good time to actually start a sick-pay policy, of course, and do some research about it, provide suggestions etc.

But a lot of companies will be a lot nastier than not paying you, believe me; I know people who've been sacked for taking time off to cope with serious illness. Ironically, you have more statutory rights if you have kids, than if you have an illness.

This is one of those areas where a lot of companies have got a lot nastier recently I think - probably an unintended consequence of cracking down on absenteeism.

You have my sympathy - I know what it feels like. But the main thing to focus on is getting well. Once you're healthy, every other problem is manageable.

And good luck of course!

[Barry Shnikov]

Just need to focus on getting myself healed as fast as possible. And look at income protection insurance - just in case...

If you're just about to have a serious operaton the rates on income protection insurance will be pretty eye-watering...

You might be better off looking at specific one-event insurance, something like 'policy will pay off if and only if you cannot return to work after 2 weeks and will pay something until you are able to return to work'. The actuaries would calculate what their risk is based on your exact circumstances and the operation involved. Income protection will consider you a bad, BAD risk precisely because you are already ill...

Of course that isn't going to be available from Direct Line...!

[straycat]

If you're just about to have a serious operaton the rates on income protection insurance will be pretty eye-watering...

The insurance isn't for this occurrence - it's because this incident is making me look at how fragile this whole earning-a-living thing can be...

[TheTramp]

Hmmm. You'd probably be better off on unemployment benefit that you would be on SSP. Lower rate (probably about £60 a week), but you get housing benefits, council tax rebate etc. Get your company to fire you before you leave, and take you on when you get back!!

[El Salsero Gringo]

But a lot of companies will be a lot nastier than not paying you, believe me; I know people who've been sacked for taking time off to cope with serious illness. Ironically, you have more statutory rights if you have kids, than if you have an illness.

It seems nasty, I suppose, especially if it's a large company and you're the one that's ill. But an employer pays you to work; if your illness compromises your ability to do that, what then? A job is not an insurance contract for your lifetime; it's an exchange of labour for money...

[stewart38]

If you're just about to have a serious operaton the rates on income protection insurance will be pretty eye-watering...

You might be better off looking at specific one-event insurance, something like 'policy will pay off if and only if you cannot return to work after 2 weeks and will pay something until you are able to return to work'. The actuaries would calculate what their risk is based on your exact circumstances and the operation involved. Income protection will consider you a bad, BAD risk precisely because you are already ill...

Of course that isn't going to be available from Direct Line...!

One event Insurance not heard that term before

PM me if you need expert advice or talk to a broker

Ive written most of the polcies

[David Bailey]

It seems nasty, I suppose, especially if it's a large company and you're the one that's ill. But an employer pays you to work; if your illness compromises your ability to do that, what then? A job is not an insurance contract for your lifetime; it's an exchange of labour for money...

It is nasty, because it's kicking you when you're down - by definition, you're not exactly at your best when you're ill.

It's also short-sighted, because it gives off the message "We don't care about our employees".

And it means that you may be throwing away valuable talent simply to save a few weeks' salary. When recruiting a new employee typically costs several thousand pounds, and training them up to speed costs thousands more pounds.

There's a reason most successful companies are also benevolent companies - because that approach motivates their staff.

[Blueshoes]

It is nasty, because it's kicking you when you're down - by definition, you're not exactly at your best when you're ill.

It's also short-sighted, because it gives off the message "We don't care about our employees".

And it means that you may be throwing away valuable talent simply to save a few weeks' salary. When recruiting a new employee typically costs several thousand pounds, and training them up to speed costs thousands more pounds.

There's a reason most successful companies are also benevolent companies - because that approach motivates their staff.

Difficult one this. I run a small company where the staff are directly responsible for bringing in the money that pays all the wages. If someone's not in, the cost to the firm isn't just the sick pay, it's the loss of the funds that person would have brought in. The less people in the less money there is to pay everyone, let alone paying people to not be there.

Add to that an already high absenteeism rate, if the staff were paid in full for being off sick there would never be anyone in and the doors would be shut in no time.

And I know what you're going to say David, if we were more benelovent the absenteeism rate wouldn't have been so high. And in many cases I'd agree with that, specifically for professional staff. However in this line of work our employees are motivated by how much money they need, for example if we pay bonuses the productivity goes down. It's been proved before that the more we give the more they take, to everyone's detriment in the end.

This post is in no way meant to reflect on Straycat's situation!

As I said, a difficult one this.

[David Bailey]

Difficult one this. I run a small company where the staff are directly responsible for bringing in the money that pays all the wages. If someone's not in, the cost to the firm isn't just the sick pay, it's the loss of the funds that person would have brought in. The less people in the less money there is to pay everyone, let alone paying people to not be there.

It is difficult with a small company, as it's so cash-flow dependent (and fundamentally, the question is of balancing short-term costs vs. long-term benefits of course). Small companies have so much cashflow pressure to think short-term, it's amazing any of them manage to survive really.

But in Straycat's case, there's no excuse for at least not having a policy, it's just poor planning.

Add to that an already high absenteeism rate, if the staff were paid in full for being off sick there would never be anyone in and the doors would be shut in no time.

Good point - if you've already got a poorly-motivated work force, you need to motivate them before you can start handing out rewards.

And I know what you're going to say David,

You do? Great - can you tell me next time so I know too?

[Dance Demon]

If you have a written contract of employment sick pay should be covered in this so that's the first port of call.

And everyone should receive a written contract of employment after 13 weeks, outlining basic terms and conditions, including hours of work, rate and method of pay, holidays, sick pay, notice periods etc. If you have not received one after 13weeks you should ask for one as you are entitled to it by law.