American (lack of) days off for sickness

[Laura Corin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37353742

 

Let's talk in general terms without mentioning a particular candidate's or party's policies/record.

 

What do you think about the situation can/should it change?

 

Would improved sick leave damage America's economy?  Would it be too much of a burden on businesses?  Would it actually enhance productivity?  Other thoughts?

[Bluegoat]

Well, other nations with healthy economies seem to manage to allow for more significant sick leave, and somehow even very competitive businesses deal with it.

 

I tend to think that in an economy build on consuming, if you make people's situation precarious, they will not consume.  People in countries with good worker protection regulations are IMO more likely to be good middle class consumers. 

 

And I also think it saves a heck of a lot of resources being spent on the upkeep and care of those who can't manage to find a stable situation. 

 

 

[Guest]

We have a pretty good contract with DH's employer, I can't complain. We don't need weeks and months off, but some allowance for him being sick and me and the kids being sick is very helpful.

[Guest]

And in my lower wage jobs back when I worked I didn't really have sick days, but calling in sick for no pay or switching shifts was common and not that burdensome. Most workplaces were very understanding of short term illness, thankfully. Some situations are a lot tougher but I did okay even in minimum wage positions. My experience has been pretty positive, thankfully.

[mamaraby]

You also have to deal with a cultural attitude where using sick leave is frowned upon. There are places where workers are shamed/penalized into not using it. In essence making it as if sick leave is not offered.

 

Dh's employer is terrible about this. Doubly so when he took FMLA leave after our youngest was born. He faced a lot of pressure at work for having done so.

[Arcadia]

My husband does not have official sick leave because the employees just work from home when sick. He can take paid time off for dental and medical, including for me and our kids. The most picky of our employers about sick leave were a French MNC and a Australian MNC. However no work was required, they do not expect you to respond to emails while on sick leave.

 

So while one company has a quota of sick leave but let you recuperate, the other has no quota but you are still working, just from home or at the doctor's office waiting area.

[Lady Florida.]

I read that article yesterday. It was interesting to read about us written from an outsider's view. It's not really about the economy. I think it's an attitude that we haven't been able to shake since we were a colony. There have been half-hearted national conversations periodically about our refusal to take time off when needed, but they never really go anywhere. Some say it's the Puritan attitude but I think we're too far away from the Puritan ancestors (that most of us can't even trace back to) to blame it on them. Still, I don't think it's anything that will change in my lifetime. Maybe the "lazy millennials" will be able to do something eventually.

[shawthorne44]

My company is a lot like Arcadia's DH.   We get one week of PTO added in with vacation time.   And we are strongly encouraged to work from home when we even get a little sniffle.   I was discussing this with a co-worker the other day and we both agreed that we get sick Noticeably less often. The company culture is, "Don't give me your sickness", and since the sick person isn't penalized in anyway for working for home, they do.  

 

 Even when there has been a separate sick leave allowance, but you can't work from home, there is pressure from co-workers if you take too much sick leave.   

[MedicMom]

I don't have sick leave; it all gets wrapped up in PTO. I used it all at the beginning of the year when my son was hospitalized for over a week with RSV, and then had multiple doctors appointments. It sucks; my husband is having more surgery on Monday and I have no time left to be off with him, and I've been dragging myself to work sick. But as a culture we don't seem to be interested in leave.

[Guest]

I don't have sick leave; it all gets wrapped up in PTO. I used it all at the beginning of the year when my son was hospitalized for over a week with RSV, and then had multiple doctors appointments. It sucks; my husband is having more surgery on Monday and I have no time left to be off with him, and I've been dragging myself to work sick. But as a culture we don't seem to be interested in leave.

It really depends on the company. My husband's company actually had problems with personal time being used for sick leave, vacation, etc, and then there was none left after fishing trips so people came in sick. They divided up the leave into personal sick days which can't be used for anything else, general sick days for if your family is sick and you need to care for them, personal days for whatever, and a vacation allotment. They are pretty strict about which pot you take from in terms of days to make sure sick folks aren't coming in, but if you run out of leave you can still request more paid leave but it's at the discretion of your supervisor. Unpaid leave is also always on the table.

 

The biggest problem we have is that hubby is the only one in his company who does what he does and he is mission critical, especially of late, so missing time is tons of money and delayed projects and not assignable to anyone else or even a subcontractor. But that's not really the company's fault.

[Rebel Yell]

I once had a job with zero sick pay or vacation, and zero health benefits. If I called off I needed a doctors excuse. So to miss a days work I had to self-pay, often at the emergency room, and I missed whatever I would have earned that day, so basically I lost the equivalent of 2-3 days pay for one day off. One day off would have been enough to rest and get well, but working often turned the cold I to bronchitis. Most times I worked sick, so my coworkers or clients would get sick too. One client was a retired nurse, she took look at me and asked what I was doing out of bed. I told her why I couldn't afford to call off and she chewed out the business owner.

 

I was lucky that at the time I was living with my parents. If I was a single mom or had a family depending on every penny of my income a single sick day would have been disastrous.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Rebel Yell

[LucyStoner]

And in my lower wage jobs back when I worked I didn't really have sick days, but calling in sick for no pay or switching shifts was common and not that burdensome. Most workplaces were very understanding of short term illness, thankfully. Some situations are a lot tougher but I did okay even in minimum wage positions. My experience has been pretty positive, thankfully.

I assume this was before you were a parent?

 

From what I see, many parents struggle to keep their jobs at such employers when they don't just have their handful of sick days to deal with...when you have kids sick days, appointments and yours too, people often wind up choosing between staying home to take care of their or child's illness OR just plain losing their jobs. Or choose between going in at the last minute on their day off they were planning something important and losing their job. I've seen that play out with many of the single working poor parents whom I worked to help in my professional life running a non-profit that served low income families.

 

Minimum paid leave and somewhat predictable scheduling is essential. If we pretend it is not a problem, we are blind to a plight faced by many.

[Pawz4me]

I read that article yesterday. It was interesting to read about us written from an outsider's view. It's not really about the economy. I think it's an attitude that we haven't been able to shake since we were a colony. There have been half-hearted national conversations periodically about our refusal to take time off when needed, but they never really go anywhere. Some say it's the Puritan attitude but I think we're too far away from the Puritan ancestors (that most of us can't even trace back to) to blame it on them. Still, I don't think it's anything that will change in my lifetime. Maybe the "lazy millennials" will be able to do something eventually.

 

:iagree:

 

I think much of the "problem" is cultural. Sure we all know the lazy-good-for-nothing, but most Americans have a very strong work ethic. We drag ourselves into work even when we know we shouldn't because that's just what we do. It's what our parents and grandparents did. It's what we know.

 

But I say that with the caveat of being someone who really only has experience with white collar or higher level blue collar jobs -- the types of positions for which there is generally at least adequate (if not downright generous) paid time off. I'm guessing it's somewhat easier to drag yourself into work in that scenario and tell yourself it's due to work ethic than it would be if you were dragging yourself into work because you had no paid time off and desperately needed the money. In that case you'd probably (understandably) be telling yourself a whole different story.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Pawz4me

[goldberry]

I used to get so annoyed when people would come to work sick and spread it around the office.  But yes, sometimes it was just because they couldn't afford to be off, or they were worried about keeping their job and not getting the stink-eye from the boss.  It's both sad and counter-productive. 

 

But as an example, even though we have laws about overtime, there are so many companies that get around that and force often unpaid overtime.  There is a suit going on against Chipotle right now, but they are certainly not the only ones doing it.  I would like to see mandated sick time (at least a small amount), but it won't do much good when employers still sneer at people that take it. 

 

It goes back to a culture where employers don't value employees, and instead view them as a "use them and toss them" commodity.  I am fortunate to work at a company that is not like that, but they are hard to find any more.

[marbel]

I think my husband's work changed from sick days to personal time off because people would call in sick whether they were or not, in order not to "lose" the free day off.  I don't know the number of days; as far as I know he's not gone over the limit.   After a certain number of sick days, short-term disability kicks in.  Of course this would not work for frequent short illnesses, but longer-term. 

 

When I was working people often took advantage of liberal sick day policy to augment weekends (as if people didn't know what was going on when someone called in sick on the Friday before a 3-day weekend).  

 

I knew my share of people who had the attitude of not missing work unless they were dead.  When I was a supervisor I encouraged people not to come in when sick.  

 

But all my experience is based on large companies with good benefits packages (both my own and my husband's) and I realize that is not how it is for many people.

 

As an aside, I've known many teachers who complained about kids staying home sick when they weren't sick enough (according to the teacher).  For all I know, that's where the attitude (of carrying on no matter what) starts.

 

As for a political candidate continuing to campaign while sick... that's not the same thing at all as someone showing up to work.  I guess the article just used that as a jumping-off point. 

[LucyStoner]

My husband works at a large hospital. Because they are never closed, not even for an hour (obviously), they roll all holiday, sick, vacation and personal days into a single PTO allotment for each employee. For a fulltime FTE, 11-12 days for what most other professionals get for paid holidays, 10 days for sick and IIRC at this point for his duration of service, 3 weeks for vacation and personal days, it adds up. It's about 7 weeks. He uses time off only for scheduled vacations (usually 4-6 days of work off) or when it is necessary and we have found it accrues to the the maximum number of days they are allowed to carry over quickly. In November we fill out a form and they cash out max of about a week and 1/2 of pay because if we don't he will lose a number of accrued days. He has more than that free but they limit the number of days they will cash out. when he needed to take FMLA after the birth of our younger son and then a longer period of FMLA for a child's health matter, it was all paid 100%.

 

It's a significant relief to know that we don't have to deal with a financial penalty when he is sick or something serious enough happens we need his extra set of hands at home. Even when we don't need to use it, just knowing it is there as an option of a hugely stabilizing force.

 

I don't find what he has to be excessive or observe it hampering the hospital from doing its work. It's also helped make him a very reliable employee because he feels an increased sense of loyalty over old jobs where he was sometimes threatened if he wouldn't cover an absentee employee's shift at the last minute or stay and work a double without overtime.

 

Obviously the hospital offers more than they are legally required to do so. They do this because they want to stay competitive for talent and because it is beneficial to operations.

Edited September 15, 2016 by LucyStoner

[SKL]

I have never worked at a job where I could not take off when I was really sick.  Of course when I was in part-time unskilled jobs, I might not be paid for the time off, but that is why people aspire to something more stable than part-time unskilled jobs as they grow into more life responsibilities.

 

Having an official sick leave policy is one thing; being able to use it in practical terms is another.  It depends on work culture really.  How will you be viewed as an employee, a manager, a team player if you take off for relatively minor things?  If you don't take your laptop home and at least check and respond to some emails?  This will vary depending on the person's age and position.

 

Personally I had to be practically unable to climb out of bed before I would take time off work for illness.  I might decline to work overtime that day, I might work at home, but rarely would I just check out.  Even when I was on maternity leave I was advised that I'd better at least work part time (unofficially of course).

 

Now as to whether this is a good or bad policy, I think it's neutral.  The only reason we have sick policies is because some people are irresponsible in the other direction.  That said, there are still lots of jobs where everyone gets paid sick leave and uses it.  These might not be the kinds of jobs I want, but there is always a trade-off.

[SKL]

Well, other nations with healthy economies seem to manage to allow for more significant sick leave, and somehow even very competitive businesses deal with it.

 

I tend to think that in an economy build on consuming, if you make people's situation precarious, they will not consume.  People in countries with good worker protection regulations are IMO more likely to be good middle class consumers. 

 

And I also think it saves a heck of a lot of resources being spent on the upkeep and care of those who can't manage to find a stable situation. 

 

I don't know about your consumer argument.  The US seems to have no problem consuming.

 

[zoobie]

The ability to work from home sometimes is helpful, but we need to reduce the expectation that work is always feasible and always...I don't know, holy? Staying home when you have a cold so you don't sneeze all over everyone but are still able to work is great. Staying home when you have the stomach flu or some other sickness that renders you useless but work still expects you to be accessible? Not helpful. DH is able to work from home when he needs to do so, but somehow people still expect him to answer the phone on the first ring or respond to an email in minutes no matter what. He had surgery and I manned his phone for that day (and the day after because of the pain meds). Multiple people seemed perplexed that he would not be able to call them back that day. "Well, when will he be out of surgery? He can call me then." IT IS SURGERY, MORON. NOT A PEDICURE! The office bookkeeper texted me seven times during a 45 minute period. Seven. Nope, still unconscious with someone slicing him open. Sorry to inconvenience you. Admittedly, she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but...

[LucyStoner]

I was called 9 times the day of my grandmother's funeral to answer a question I had already answered, had emailed everyone the answer to, labeled the supply boxes needed to start the campaign and, because I knew who I was dealing with, taped a note to my office door before I left. I should have quit that job the day I flew back.

[SKL]

As an aside, I've known many teachers who complained about kids staying home sick when they weren't sick enough (according to the teacher).  For all I know, that's where the attitude (of carrying on no matter what) starts.

 

This is a good point.  The make-up work policy at schools is draconian, even for little kids.  If they miss Tuesday and they're back at school Wednesday, they have Weds & Thurs evening to do ALL of Tuesday's seatwork + 3 days of homework + whatever else they do in the evening.  Usually they are still a little sick and would benefit from an earlier bedtime, but forget that.

 

They should have at least through the weekend to catch up, but nobody asked me.  :P

 

So either the kid powers through school sick, or is bombarded while still recovering.  It stinks.  Yes, sometimes I feel like I'm creating a workaholic when I send my kids to school on Tylenol.

 

At least with work, I can pace myself if I'm sick, only do the most urgent stuff, make the rest up later.

[Spryte]

I do think it would enhance productivity.  I don't think it would damage the economy.  

 

There is something to be said for feeling valued by one's company or employer.  

 

DH is fortunate, in that his company holds a very liberal view re: time off and sick leave.  The attitude is that if you take care of your employees they will take care of you.  Unlimited sick leave, as needed, unless it becomes obviously excessive and abused.  In 16 years, I've never seen this happen.  Sick leave can be used for spouses, kids, oneself.  And - as a chronically ill wife, I've seen this in action.  As has the wife of a colleague, as she has chronic back pain and has had multiple surgeries and hospitalizations.  In DH's case, he mostly works from home or remotely, and still puts in a full day.  And when he's sick, he generally powers through.  I know he's very ill if he takes a full sick day.  Most of his German counterparts tend to go to the doc when sick, get a note, and take off a full week.  They come back to work completely recovered, not just able to stand again, and they work hard, and well.  I actually think that is healthier than powering through and working while sick or not fully recovered.  

 

I think vacation needs to be addressed here, too, and its importance.  If people felt able to use their sick leave, without being penalized or judged, perhaps they'd use more of their vacation.  The benefits of vacation are important, too.  

[SKL]

I am not sure vacation is viewed the same way though.  With vacation, you have the ability to plan ahead and make sure nobody needs you (much) while you are gone.  I don't see people looking down their noses at each other for taking planned vacation, unless they really are neglecting their job overall.

[Lady Florida.]

 

But I say that with the caveat of being someone who really only has experience with white collar or higher level blue collar jobs -- the types of positions for which there is generally at least adequate (if not downright generous) paid time off. I'm guessing it's somewhat easier to drag yourself into work in that scenario and tell yourself it's due to work ethic than it would be if you were dragging yourself into work because you had no paid time off and desperately needed the money. In that case you'd probably (understandably) be telling yourself a whole different story.

 

Yes, here too for both dh and me.

 

When I was teaching though, it was a PITA to take time off. We all were required to have 3 days worth of emergency lesson plans on file, but they were usually just busywork plans so you didn't want to use them unless it was a true emergency. And if you did use them, you had to create 3 more days worth. So, most of the time, if I knew I was feeling sick the night before, I'd make sure everything was together for my regular lesson plans. Sometimes I'd even drag myself to work to make copies, unless I could get a fellow teacher to swing by and pick up my notes (and plan book if I brought it home, which most teachers do). Sometimes it just wasn't worth being sick, unless I knew I was too contagious to be around kids. General not feeling well? Not worth it, even when I had enough sick days. It was like that for most teachers I knew.

[Greta]

At the time my daughter was born, my husband's employer offered fathers one week of paid leave with the birth of a child.  (I don't know what the policy was for the mothers, nor what the policies are now.)  I think one week is pathetic, but here's what's even more pathetic.  My husband took one day off of work, ONE DAY.  The day my daughter was born, after he'd spent the entire night in the hospital with me while I labored.  That was it.  And yet his boss gave him no end of grief about it, and made him count it as one of his vacation days rather than a family leave day.

 

Using your vacation days (not just sick days or family leave days) is also frowned upon. There is a lot of pressure to simply not take time off, for any reason, ever (this rule doesn't apply to upper management, of course, just the lowly employees).  Lots of people where he works would have several months' worth of vacation time accumulated, which they would use in one big chunk right before they retired.  So, it's like they got to retire six months early (and at full pay for those six months).  The company decided to put a stop to that, so there's now a time limit on your vacation days, meaning if you haven't used them by a certain amount of time after they were earned, they disappear.  So now, you can't take vacation when you earn it because there's too much pressure to always be at work, and you can't save it up for later either.  This is a workforce that is made up largely of PhDs.  So these are people who are very accustomed to working hard and sacrificing to get things done.  Management knows that, and doesn’t mind taking full advantage of the fact.

 

I haven't worked in almost 17 years now, but at every job I ever had, the automatic assumption if you called in sick was that you were lying and just wanted a day off.  These were pretty crappy jobs with unpaid sick days, so there actually was no reason to lie.  But the overall culture of the workplace was that the employer treated the employees like burdens and liabilities instead of assets.  They made it very clear to you that you were “lucky†that they tolerated your presence.

 

American work culture is very dysfunctional in this regard.  I know that not every employer is like this, but many, many are.  I suspect they would find that their workforce would be just as eager to work hard if they were appreciated rather than just tolerated, and that letting people stay home when they’re sick without fear of repercussions would actually be beneficial because it wouldn’t spread contagious diseases throughout the workforce!  But what do I know?

 

[LucyStoner]

Also from an accounting standpoint, you need to be worrying at least a little about the employee that literally never stays home or takes a day off. Fraud, theft and other employee hijinks are easier to uncover if someone isn't the only one with the eyes on ordering or any system that manages things people might want to steal. Where my husband works, when people are quickly let go it's usually because they were absconding with medications and it's usually uncovered when they aren't there. It doesn't happen often where he works but is a consideration at any pharmacy. It's well within the range of possible. This is part of why many financial industry employers have a minimum amount of vacation days they are required to take.

Edited September 15, 2016 by LucyStoner

[EmilyGF]

As the daughter of a small business owner, my dad was always frustrated by the same employees taking sick days after big football games or three day weekends. When his company changed to flex days, he was a lot happier because his employees no longer lied about being sick when they were just taking a 4-day weekend or hung over.

 

These were blue-collar workers in a factory environment. Most did not have any college, some didn't speak English. The workplace must have been pretty good because most hires were found by friends of people already working there.

 

Emily

[Guest]

It would be helpful if people could not bank sick days for the purpose of cashing in at retirement. Around me that is the number one contributor to coming in sick.

[Guest]

It would be helpful if people could not bank sick days for the purpose of cashing in at retirement. Around me that is the number one contributor to coming in sick.

Our company doesn't allow it - they're issues and expire yearly. Really, the whole multiple pots of days thing works out really well all in all. Only the actual vacation time is bankable, the rest doesn't roll over with rare exception (we have two babies now who are set to be born around the new year and in both the last one and the coming kid hubby has been allowed to roll his leave time to get more days in a stretch, by supervisor signoff).

[Greta]

It would be helpful if people could not bank sick days for the purpose of cashing in at retirement. Around me that is the number one contributor to coming in sick.

 

 

I've never heard of being able to bank sick days before!  That seems odd, but perhaps it's more common than I realize.

[meena]

You also have to deal with a cultural attitude where using sick leave is frowned upon. There are places where workers are shamed/penalized into not using it. In essence making it as if sick leave is not offered.

 

Dh's employer is terrible about this. Doubly so when he took FMLA leave after our youngest was born. He faced a lot of pressure at work for having done so.

I won't like your post because I find it to be both true and despicable that companies do this. At DH's previous job he accumulated weeks of sick days but if he ever dared take a day he knew he risked being called by his boss in the immediate term, or being penalized during his twice-yearly performance evaluations. The company contract also capped the sick leave after accumulating to a certain point. Thankfully, he was allowed to cash out his sick pay periodically to go under the cap so he could start accumulating again. Now that he's at another company, DH is amazed that he can call in sick and it's not a big deal.

[maize]

If improved sick leave=fewer folks coming in sick and spreading their germs to all their co-workers--or sending their kids to school sick to spread their germs to the entire classroom--how could it not improve the economy?

[meena]

Yes, here too for both dh and me.

 

When I was teaching though, it was a PITA to take time off. We all were required to have 3 days worth of emergency lesson plans on file, but they were usually just busywork plans so you didn't want to use them unless it was a true emergency. And if you did use them, you had to create 3 more days worth. So, most of the time, if I knew I was feeling sick the night before, I'd make sure everything was together for my regular lesson plans. Sometimes I'd even drag myself to work to make copies, unless I could get a fellow teacher to swing by and pick up my notes (and plan book if I brought it home, which most teachers do). Sometimes it just wasn't worth being sick, unless I knew I was too contagious to be around kids. General not feeling well? Not worth it, even when I had enough sick days. It was like that for most teachers I knew.

My first year of teaching I didn't take a single day off because it was way more work than just going to work. At my first end of the year evaluation, my principal gave me orders to use my sick days the following year even if I just needed to use them as mental health days. He was great principal, so I took his advice. Unfortunately this backfired on him, as I used those days off during my second year to visit my long-distance boyfriend, which led to my engagement and resignation at the end of that school year.

[City Mouse]

I have never had an hourly job with sick leave, but at all my salaried jobs, sick leave has been adequate after the first year, and it is what I consider generous at my current job. For government jobs in my current state, the amount of sick leave is good, but it is only for actual sick days (or family illness). There was a big dust up a couple of years ago when a local municipal took his "sick leave" for a vacation.

 

"Adequate" to me means I never had to take days off without pay when my kids were little and got sick a lot, but my DH and I did have to trade off who would take days off with them.

Edited September 15, 2016 by City Mouse

[Mbelle]

The past many years my dh has only received 15 days off.  They can be for sick days or vacation.  As a consequence everyone goes to work sick and spreads it around.  I would prefer actual sick days separate from vacation days.  

In the past we have owned our own business.  I would like to offer good benefits, but not something like what is mentioned in the article like the NL of getting 70% off for 2 years and holding your position.  I think that needs to be turned over to public/universal health care or disablitly.  I don't have a good solution for that off the top of my head.  But holding someones position and paying them months/years long  and then having to hire someone else in the meantime is just not going to work for small businesses.  I do think we as a nation need to prioritize our people on a national scale, such as universal healthcare and long term disability needs to be included in that.  

eta:typos

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mbelle

[SKL]

Decades ago, I knew a guy who, when subordinates called in sick, would go visit them at home to make sure they were actually sick in bed.  One time he himself was sick in the hospital, and he received multiple very nasty, anonymous "get well" [or not] cards.

 

Just thought I'd share.  :P

[eternalsummer]

For very small businesses it would be difficult; we could pay for sick leave but then we'd have to pay as much less in wages (approximately) as we'd estimate we'd be spending on sick leave.  It's not like there would just be more money magically appearing from somewhere that we could give to someone.

 

So I guess it would be like asking employers to manage their employees' money for them?  (that is, pay less, but keep some in reserve so that you can still pay your employees when they are not able to work vs pay more, but employees figure out for themselves how to manage the money in case they are not able to work for a few days).

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think companies should be forced to be better about sick day policies, but part of the problem is they can fire you for any reason anyway so people will still, understandably, worry for their jobs even if the policies were better.  So maybe there is no point.  I suppose it is worth a shot. 

 

My husband's employer is very reasonable and generous with their sick time policies. 

[SKL]

We had a deal at my last job where you could donate personal days to someone who was in a bind.  For example, if someone had to take off a bunch of time for a family illness and had used up all their days.

[Ravin]

I am very glad I have sick leave time now.

 

[Laura Corin]

I think companies should be forced to be better about sick day policies, but part of the problem is they can fire you for any reason anyway so people will still, understandably, worry for their jobs even if the policies were better.  So maybe there is no point.  I suppose it is worth a shot. 

 

 

This is a good point.  In the UK, you can't just fire someone like that:

 

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/fair-dismissals

[Rachel]

I've never heard of being able to bank sick days before! That seems odd, but perhaps it's more common than I realize.

When I worked in HR at a university people could bank sick days. It was not unheard of for people to have 6 months of leaved saved up. The policy had changed to no longer include vacation days over a certain number, but one man who was grandfathered in under an old policy had a couple YEARS of leave saved up.

 

I will say that men and childless women were the only ones with a lot of leave saved up. Women with children tended to use theirs, the younger the children, the more days they used.

[TheReader]

The one thing I wish would change, is that if a doctor suggests the employee needs x number of days off to recover, that should count as one incident. Maybe some places do that already, I don't know, but it seems like to me, if a doctor's note is required, and if the doctor writes that they can't come back to work until.....then all days encompassed by that should be one incident or strike against their "sick leave" count. Or even if the doctor writes something like "able to return once fever free" or whatever, or even doesn't write something. I don't know, obviously it has to have a way to prevent abuse, but if people could actually stay home and recover before going back, I feel it would really help.

[Guest2]

I have worked at hospitals that actually gave a bonus in Dec . if no sick days were used. So staff would cough and sneeze all over immune compromised patients so they could get their bonus. This was for the lower paid staff who transport patients, ect. I don't really blame them, they didnt have much and the money was significant. I think the hospital knew what they were doing. Hospital didnt care much about patients.Very sad.

[TravelingChris]

My dh works at a job where all holidays. vacation days, personal days, and sick days are rolled into one allowance.  He sometimes works on one of the government holidays to have more other time off. I don't think he has taken any sick leave himself in the slightly over two years he has worked there.  He has taken some time off (hours, not days) for times like my dd's surgery, some of my appointments, and some of his appointments (he has a lot less appointments than I do).  He is only paid for forty hours of work a week so he also can work longer hours on one day and then take time to go to the dentist, for example, the next day.  That is a very useful feature of his job.  Also his job provides him with a disability benefit which kicks in on day seven, I believe, of an illness or injury.  So far, in his entire working career, he has never been sick for more than seven days.  But as we get older, it is especially good to know he has that benefit.

[LucyStoner]

Aside from working for an individual in their home like babysitting, I've never had a job without some form of paid leave. I've only worked for small employers. My largest employer was still under 50 employees. I've thought about growing my contract work into a business where I would hire others and I probably will at some point when I have fewer family responsibilities. I will factor in the whole cost of the employee before deciding if I could hire some one. When I have helped my clients figure out if they could afford a new FT position, the chart has always included the cost of wages, paid time off and benefits. No one expects to be able to hire someone without a full compensation plan.

[LucyStoner]

I have worked at hospitals that actually gave a bonus in Dec . if no sick days were used. So staff would cough and sneeze all over immune compromised patients so they could get their bonus. This was for the lower paid staff who transport patients, ect. I don't really blame them, they didnt have much and the money was significant. I think the hospital knew what they were doing. Hospital didnt care much about patients.Very sad.

Stuff like that makes me mad.

[Bluegoat]

I don't know about your consumer argument.  The US seems to have no problem consuming.

 

 

It does seem like that.  And I actually feel a bit weird about that kind of argument because I think consumerism is an unsustainable model.

 

But I think in terms of people making the major money decisions, and being able to sustain that, stability makes a big difference.  People who feel unstable don't generally do things like buy a house, or start a new business.  It's similar to me with universal health care - if you know that is covered, financially, and you can depend on it being there when you need it, you have a certain decision making freedom that isn't there when that is in question.  Overall, I think that contributes to a more active economy.

[Bluegoat]

The past many years my dh has only received 15 days off.  They can be for sick days or vacation.  As a consequence everyone goes to work sick and spreads it around.  I would prefer actual sick days separate from vacation days.  

In the past we have owned our own business.  I would like to offer good benefits, but not something like what is mentioned in the article like the NL of getting 70% off for 2 years and holding your position.  I think that needs to be turned over to public/universal health care or disablitly.  I don't have a good solution for that off the top of my head.  But holding someones position and paying them months/years long  and then having to hire someone else in the meantime is just not going to work for small businesses.  I do think we as a nation need to prioritize our people on a national scale, such as universal healthcare and long term disability needs to be included in that.  

eta:typos

 

That is pretty much what happens here - someone who is off for that long would normally be paid by the government run Employment Insurance program.  Parental leave is also managed through the same program, and lay-offs and such too.  But the employer still will have to take the sick person back once they are well as long as it doesn't go over the limit. 

 

ETA: Both employees and employers are responsible for contributing to EI, so the cost of that is factored into the job itself right from the beginning.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Bluegoat

[SKL]

It does seem like that.  And I actually feel a bit weird about that kind of argument because I think consumerism is an unsustainable model.

 

But I think in terms of people making the major money decisions, and being able to sustain that, stability makes a big difference.  People who feel unstable don't generally do things like buy a house, or start a new business.  It's similar to me with universal health care - if you know that is covered, financially, and you can depend on it being there when you need it, you have a certain decision making freedom that isn't there when that is in question.  Overall, I think that contributes to a more active economy.

 

Yes, but I don't think it's wrong to wait to buy a house until you're somewhat established in a career.  I don't think we want transient part-time unskilled workers to think they need to buy a house.  Seems that's putting the cart before the horse.

 

As you can see in this thread, the norm for a person in a stable full-time job is that s/he has sick pay.

 

Even so, I would rather people get a little more established than just being on a regular payroll before they make a huge financial commitment.