Employee Health Fund - Compulsory 0.5% contribution...

[JQ]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Are you sure? I'd imagine some people thinking - I've paid for may sick pay, I need to claim to get it back and feeling less guilt for doing it.

[crofty1984]

I'd rather get paid 0.5% less and have the company pay out of its pocket. For the same reasons I hate the tipping culture in America (though I do tip). Employer shirks their responsibilities to either pay their wait staff fairly or give decent sick pay, and if I don't pick up their slack, I'M the one that's the ahole!

[Countdown]

How likely are you to be sick for 1-25 weeks?

Do you have 6 months' salary in savings?

[CzechItOut]

Companies are legally obliged to pay Statutory Sick Pay of £92.05 per week after the first week of sickness. Presumably, this fund will pay your contracted salary, which can be significantly more?

Given the amount is 0.5%, which would come to £250 per year for someone on £50,000. This is significantly cheaper than what it would cost to get income protection privately.

I have never heard of anything like this before, but it is actually quite an ingenious way to offer your employees enhanced sick pay while also reducing the cost to the company.

Is it an optional payment? I'd be strongly tempted to sign-up just for the peace of mine.

[Countdown]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Your question reminded me of the PPI insurance I was offered on my mortgage (25-odd years ago, I think it was called Accident Sickness Unemployment). It was only £12/month but I worked out that the chances of me claiming on it were so limited that it just wasn't worth my while. ie I'd be able to live off savings or make alternative arrangements etc Having said that everybody's circumstances are different.

If it's an Employer-backed scheme it might not have the same get-out clauses that PPI or aftermarket warranty claims have so it might be a good thing.

[StanleyT]

I've worked two places with this but they dress it up as part of the "pension / life assurance / sickness schemes". perhaps it can no longer be bundled like that and that is why it is seen as seperate - however neither of mine were compulsory - but if you didn't have then - you didn't get paid at the last place anything above stat for the first three days of sick.

Hence lots of ill people coming in making others ill but not ill enough to be incapacitated - think of the five months from Oct - Feb being a continual breeding grounds of colds, sniffles, flu etc etc. Think average sick (not inc long term such as operations, car accidents etc) per employee there was about 3-4 days / annum, compare with out "sister" civil service organisation on the same basis where the average was nearer 8 - wheeled out from an excuse as being that the employees were higher stressed than we were due to the government eroding their T&Cs since the mid 2000s.