Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
As I watch certain fellow employees get a virtual extra week of vacation every year by calling in sick, I am more and more beginning to think that company "sick pay" is a bad idea.
What would you do if you hired somebody- let's say a painter to paint your house. He says he will paint it Monday but then he calls you on Sunday and says he won't be able to come tomorrow because he is sick. But then on Tuesday he shows up demanding that you pay him.
Paying employees for being ill is pretty much the same thing in my view. A business pays people to work and not to be ill. Now, have I taken it myself? Yes. 3 days in the last 15 years. Once for a toothache and emergency dental appointment to stop the pain and once for the flu.
But others seem to have the idea that sick pay is like "extra vacation" time. They take it every year. If I ran a business, there would be no "sick pay". If you were sick, your options would be:
1. Use your vacation days
2. You can elect to put 1 hour of pay each 2 weeks into a "sick account" that will give you about 3 days every year in an account you can draw from if you are sick. You can save as many days as you wish and if you don't use them, you will get the money back when you leave or retire.
3. You can elect to purchase "sick insurance" that will pay you when you are ill and cannot work.
As I watch certain fellow employees get a virtual extra week of vacation every year by calling in sick, I am more and more beginning to think that company "sick pay" is a bad idea.
What would you do if you hired somebody- let's say a painter to paint your house. He says he will paint it Monday but then he calls you on Sunday and says he won't be able to come tomorrow because he is sick. But then on Tuesday he shows up demanding that you pay him.
Paying employees for being ill is pretty much the same thing in my view. A business pays people to work and not to be ill. Now, have I taken it myself? Yes. 3 days in the last 15 years. Once for a toothache and emergency dental appointment to stop the pain and once for the flu.
But others seem to have the idea that sick pay is like "extra vacation" time. They take it every year. If I ran a business, there would be no "sick pay". If you were sick, your options would be:
1. Use your vacation days
2. You can elect to put 1 hour of pay each 2 weeks into a "sick account" that will give you about 3 days every year in an account you can draw from if you are sick. You can save as many days as you wish and if you don't use them, you will get the money back when you leave or retire.
3. You can elect to purchase "sick insurance" that will pay you when you are ill and cannot work.
Start your own Company and dictate your own policies. Leave others the same Right....or do you propose we get the Government involved to rectify your opinion of a "bad idea"?
As I watch certain fellow employees get a virtual extra week of vacation every year by calling in sick, I am more and more beginning to think that company "sick pay" is a bad idea.
What would you do if you hired somebody- let's say a painter to paint your house. He says he will paint it Monday but then he calls you on Sunday and says he won't be able to come tomorrow because he is sick. But then on Tuesday he shows up demanding that you pay him.
Paying employees for being ill is pretty much the same thing in my view. A business pays people to work and not to be ill. Now, have I taken it myself? Yes. 3 days in the last 15 years. Once for a toothache and emergency dental appointment to stop the pain and once for the flu.
But others seem to have the idea that sick pay is like "extra vacation" time. They take it every year. If I ran a business, there would be no "sick pay". If you were sick, your options would be:
1. Use your vacation days
2. You can elect to put 1 hour of pay each 2 weeks into a "sick account" that will give you about 3 days every year in an account you can draw from if you are sick. You can save as many days as you wish and if you don't use them, you will get the money back when you leave or retire.
3. You can elect to purchase "sick insurance" that will pay you when you are ill and cannot work.
The company I work for... a major information technology firm, doesn't have sick days. Their feeling is that if you're sick, you're sick and they trust their employees to not abuse the policy. And, I can't think of anyone that I've worked with that has flaunted the policy. So, in a way, we don't have sick days.... it's an honor system that I've seen work well for over 30 years.
Edit: I will say that when I was released from the hospital a couple of years ago, I would've had to fill out some forms for disability or something if I stayed out for longer than 2 weeks. But, I know folks who have been out longer than that and getting paid.
The company I work for... a major information technology firm, doesn't have sick days. Their feeling is that if you're sick, you're sick and they trust their employees to not abuse the policy. And, I can't think of anyone that I've worked with that has flaunted the policy. So, in a way, we don't have sick days.... it's an honor system that I've seen work well for over 30 years.
companies that have policies like that which show the employees that they are trusting in them end up being great properous businesses most the time...
companies that want to control their employees and always keep an eye on them and everything, show that they have no trust for their employees and the employees in turn take more sick days, and cheat the system in every way they can, b.c they don't feel appreciated or respected.
I've worked in a few medical centers/practices where employees' benefits include paid "personal days" - sick days, vacation days, what-have-you, all lumped together. The rationale that I've been told for doing so is to keep the employer from having to police what out-of-office days are used for what purpose. With the "personal days," you get X amount of time off paid and when you've used that, you move on to unpaid leave. It feels like semantics to me, but apparently it was easier to manage from the adminstrative side.
1. People would stop staying home when they are sick and make everyone else sick costing a company even more.
2. It pi$$e$ me off when people come to work hacking all over everyone.
3. See allydriver's comment.
As a retired businessman and a conservative, I paid sick/personal days leave not for the sake of the worker but for the sake of my business. It's cheaper for me to pay a guy for a few days to be sick than for him to come to work sick, infect my whole crew, and shut me down for a week. I'd just as soon have sick people stay home for personal reasons as well because I don't like getting sick and would rather not have some clown running around the shop coughing his germs in my face.
By the same token, if a guy used up his sick leave to go fishing and then showed up to work sick, I'd send him home without pay.
If this posting was coming from a conservative, the liberal response would be.
You dont want to give poor hard working enslaved workers time off when they get sick? They are sick, how do you expect them to pay their bills? Its not bad enough you conservatives expect people to pay $75 to go see a doctor when they are sick, money out of their own pocket, now you dont want to give them a day off of work either? You mean spirited conservative would rather they just die so you wont have to pay them at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.