Another reason to leave the EU
Discussion
don4l said:
Shar2 said:
It's always been the case where I work. If you're taken ill during your holiday and you have a note from the GP/Hospital you can claim back your leave days.
Do you think that this is reasonable?Don
--
bhstewie said:
don4l said:
Shar2 said:
It's always been the case where I work. If you're taken ill during your holiday and you have a note from the GP/Hospital you can claim back your leave days.
Do you think that this is reasonable?Tbh I'd assumed it was normal practise as presumably most organisations let you cancel time off if you need to.
Do you work in the public sector?
These proposals can only make European companies less competitive, and will therefore drive unemployment up.
Don
--
don4l said:
I've never seen this in any company that I have worked for.
Do you work in the public sector?
Nope, private.Do you work in the public sector?
I would add that I don't know the ins and outs like if you can do so on self-cert or if it has to be accompanied by a doctors note.
I look at it this way - if you booked a day off because you were having a sofa delivered and they called at 8am to cancel, would you be able to cancel your day off and go into work instead?
If so, IMO it's a similar parallel with being ill, but I say that not having had a sick day for god knows how long so not being entirely sure how the rules work.
The (extremely profitable) FTSE100 company I work for does this as a matter of course. A friend of mine was staggered to be told to take the rest of the year off until the end of December on holiday when he came back from an episode of long-term sickness a couple of years back. It doesn't seem to be putting us out of business.
YorkshirePudding said:
Company policy for us as well.
One of the blokes has just claimed back 2 weeks of holidays that fell during his 6 weeks off sick due to high blood pressure.
He still managed to fly to Cuba for his hols though,
That's where I think it starts to get a little dodgy, when you book a week off and say "Oh but I had a headache on Thursday so I wouldn't have been in anyway".One of the blokes has just claimed back 2 weeks of holidays that fell during his 6 weeks off sick due to high blood pressure.
He still managed to fly to Cuba for his hols though,
I can't articulate why it seems wrong, it just feels it.
davepoth said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What happens if I go on holiday whilst I'm off sick?
If you are off sick from work and then holiday starts? Same thing.If you are off sick just so you can go to Magaluf? You get sacked.
don4l said:
Do you think that this is reasonable?
Don
--
I worked for one of the largest companies in the UK and they had this policy - also one of the most profitable.Don
--
I suppose it is a good deal for the employee when you think about it - probably another term from the glory days of when employers needed good benefits to attract employees.
dickymint said:
davepoth said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What happens if I go on holiday whilst I'm off sick?
If you are off sick from work and then holiday starts? Same thing.If you are off sick just so you can go to Magaluf? You get sacked.
The point of the ruling was that the worker should get to enjoy their time off, and time spent being ill should be on the company shilling, not to fleece the company to get a paid holiday.
Stress and other mental illnesses are a slightly difference circumstance; I guess if the doctor said it would help then it would be OK.
Will it make a material difference either way for most employers given the low probability of employees being both on holiday leave and sick at the same time?
The actual "cost" to employers (who hadn't already adopted this policy, though it looks like many already have) would be the difference between whatever revenue the employee earns for the company less the labour cost of the employee. Which seems preferable to the alternative of double paying the employee I suppose.
It seems like quite a fair and balanced ruling to me, no one is getting a free lunch at anyone else's expense.
The actual "cost" to employers (who hadn't already adopted this policy, though it looks like many already have) would be the difference between whatever revenue the employee earns for the company less the labour cost of the employee. Which seems preferable to the alternative of double paying the employee I suppose.
It seems like quite a fair and balanced ruling to me, no one is getting a free lunch at anyone else's expense.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff