LucyS wrote:In the Public Sector and many organisations, sick leave that spans a weekend will include the weekend. For example, an absence on a Friday followed by an absence on the Monday will be counted as four days as it includes Saturday and Sunday. This absence will require a medical certificate.
However, the Public Sector pays sick leave up to 3 months on full pay. The OP pays none whatsoever.
But that’s not what has happened in this case.
My understanding is the person was back on their next rostered day I.e. they had two days off, then a rostered off day, and then back to work.
Iamsoneedy wrote:Payment to an employee when they’re sick is not a ‘benefit’. It’s standard practice and has been for years among decent employers. It’s only in recent years I’ve been amused to note that it’s touted as a benefit in some job descriptions. Talk about clutching at straws.
If an organisation doesn’t pay people when they’re sick why should an employee be out of pocket to the tune of €60 to prove that they’re sick? Nonsense. They can’t have it every which way.
Sick pay is a benefit.
It is not my term, it’s the term used in the industry ( aka illness benefit)
It is not a statutory entitlement, so if an organization pays it, they do so as a benefit ie above and beyond what is required of them statutorily.
It is very common in multinationals and various good employers.
But there are many employers up and down the country where it is not paid, so it’s not as common as you portray. The local shop, garage, hairdressers, accountants office , small factory etc..... while these kinds of organizations form a vast chunk of the employment market in Ireland, huge numbers of them do not pay salary top up for sick leave.
And, although you think it is nonsense to require employees to provide a sick cert, it can still be included in handbooks and contracts, if an employer wishes to do so, a candidate can then decide to join the organization or not. If they think this is a draconian approach, then they can decline to join.
So, contrary to what you think, an employer can actually “have it both ways” as you put it.
Of course, as the market gets tighter and tighter those organizations might find it harder to attract good candidates, but the law does not prohibit a policy around managing absence that includes requirement for sick certs while simultaneously not having a sick pay benefit scheme.
[quote="LucyS"]In the Public Sector and many organisations, sick leave that spans a weekend will include the weekend. For example, an absence on a Friday followed by an absence on the Monday will be counted as four days as it includes Saturday and Sunday. This absence will require a medical certificate.
However, the Public Sector pays sick leave up to 3 months on full pay. The OP pays none whatsoever.[/quote]
But that’s not what has happened in this case.
My understanding is the person was back on their next rostered day I.e. they had two days off, then a rostered off day, and then back to work.
[quote="Iamsoneedy"]Payment to an employee when they’re sick is not a ‘benefit’. It’s standard practice and has been for years among decent employers. It’s only in recent years I’ve been amused to note that it’s touted as a benefit in some job descriptions. Talk about clutching at straws.
If an organisation doesn’t pay people when they’re sick why should an employee be out of pocket to the tune of €60 to prove that they’re sick? Nonsense. They can’t have it every which way.[/quote]
Sick pay is a benefit.
It is not my term, it’s the term used in the industry ( aka illness benefit)
It is not a statutory entitlement, so if an organization pays it, they do so as a benefit ie above and beyond what is required of them statutorily.
It is very common in multinationals and various good employers.
But there are many employers up and down the country where it is not paid, so it’s not as common as you portray. The local shop, garage, hairdressers, accountants office , small factory etc..... while these kinds of organizations form a vast chunk of the employment market in Ireland, huge numbers of them do not pay salary top up for sick leave.
And, although you think it is nonsense to require employees to provide a sick cert, it can still be included in handbooks and contracts, if an employer wishes to do so, a candidate can then decide to join the organization or not. If they think this is a draconian approach, then they can decline to join.
So, contrary to what you think, an employer can actually “have it both ways” as you put it.
Of course, as the market gets tighter and tighter those organizations might find it harder to attract good candidates, but the law does not prohibit a policy around managing absence that includes requirement for sick certs while simultaneously not having a sick pay benefit scheme.