Should You Be Able to Cash-in/Convert Sick Leave?

Trying2SaveABuck on 25/03/2019 - 12:09
Last edited 25/03/2019 - 14:47 by 1 other user

Should you be able to cash-in/convert sick leave?

After reading some of the comments:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/446222?page=1#comment

I thought it would be a interesting poll to see what people think – I also have a load of sick leave >2months however there are people what have been at my company for over 30 years and have >2 years of sick days at there disposal should they (touch wood) ever need it.

However though I understand sick leave/personal leave is exactly for that ‘being sick’ I wounder what people who work full/part time would think about the ability to transfer it to either time in lieu or have it paid out – of course this would have to only be allowed once a person has a significate number of sick days accrued ie >3 months.

Wage growth has slow down to continental drift speed, comments in the forum would suggest being honest and not taking fake sick days is in reality to the detriment of the honest worker.

I know some would argue this would discourage people from taking sick days in general but I also think people who have 6+ months of leave due to doing the right think and not taking fake sickies shouldn’t be at a lose if they leave there job. I also think it would improve productivity because it would stop fake sickies and possible unethical sick leave.

Note: I know people who take sickies on a semi-regular that are not sick usually before public holidays or when they have event they want to go to all the time. It is really easy to get a stat deck or medical cert these days.

Personally i think you should be able to convert or get paid out your sick leave at a certain balance level but I am a worker if i owned i business i'd probably feel very different.

Poll Options

  • 124
    You should be able to convert sick days to time in lieu at the workers discretion
  • 67
    You should be paid out your sick leave if you leave a work place
  • 464
    You shouldn’t be able to convert sick days the system works fine
Education & Work

Comments

  • Some Guy on 25/03/2019 - 12:16
    +27

    If you opt for 1 or 2, then don't complain when your salary doesn't increase.

    • Waffles on 26/03/2019 - 10:50
      +6

      So, since people don't get that they should expect a salary increase?

      Seems to me like there is enough profit being made for salary OR benefits to improve. Maybe not both, certainly not neither.

      https://www.businessinsider.com.au/company-profits-rising-au…

      • Some Guy on 27/03/2019 - 10:45
        +1

        Businesses may use any number of reasons why salaries don't/can't increase. Lets not add paying out sick leave to the list.

    • sauce2k on 26/03/2019 - 13:51
      +2

      ..man the wage growth in the last couple years has been pathetic….

  • tsunamisurfer on 25/03/2019 - 12:22
    +11

    As a worker, of course I would say yes I want to be paid out.

    But I know several SME bosses / owners and sick leave is an incredible expense for them, that leave is there to cover workers in event of sickness and really shouldn't be treated as accrued AL or LSL to be cashed out later.

    • apsilon on 25/03/2019 - 12:29
      +3

      Yeah this. I'd love to be able to convert some/all into pay etc but that's not what it's for. Last time I checked I had accrued a bit over 5 months of sick leave. I've also had a mate and a coworker who both developed serious illness and were off work for the better part of a year so it'd also be nice to be covered in that situation.

      I worked at a place for a few years that did pay out unused sick leave each year but that meant you could never have more than 20 days of sick leave. I loved it at the time but looking back at it now that I'm older, I'd prefer to have it in reserve for it's intended purpose.

        • Toffees on 26/03/2019 - 01:24
          +7

          If companies were required to pay everyone's sick pay entitlement in full, salaries would probably decrease to accommodate this.

          Not every company can afford to pay the entirety of each of their employees' sick pay entitlement. This money isn't just going to appear out of thin air.

        • apsilon on 26/03/2019 - 06:24
          +2

          You're forgetting to factor in the job security. If you suddenly need to take 10 months off work, fine, you've received the money and done the right thing and kept it aside so you can cover your living expenses for those 10 months.

          Company doesn't owe you anything however and you don't have leave to cover your absence so they let you go as you're not turning up for work. You now need to find a new job. Obviously that could be easy or it could very difficult depending on your field, experience etc. Not to mention the stress involved as you're not back to 100% and still recovering from serious illness, jobless and your next mortgage and car payments are due.

          • Deridas on 26/03/2019 - 14:21

            @apsilon: That's what income protection insurance is for though.

            • Domingo on 26/03/2019 - 16:27

              @Deridas: And watch as the cost of income protection insurance becomes the same as the average extra amount people of salary people are paid instead of having sick leave.

              • apsilon on 27/03/2019 - 06:01

                @Domingo: Not to mention all the income protection I've seen only cover a percentage of your regular pay. Around 75% seems typical and they don't pay out indefinitely. Given so many people are living beyond their means so they can keep up appearances for social media I don't think too many would survive a 25% pay cut for any length of time.

        • arkie0 on 27/03/2019 - 09:31

          But then the company would just give you less of a pay rise each year until the below.

          (1) be paid $50 000 with certainty (and then have to have self control of saving 2083) or
          (2) be paid $47 917 and then maybe get paid more based on whether you fit the conditions.

          • random12 on 27/03/2019 - 09:37

            @arkie0: Using that same logic, surely all jobs should approach the minimum wage over time?

            • arkie0 on 27/03/2019 - 09:47
              -1

              @random12: Surely by using your logic, we would all have an IQ of 0.

              Yes I know - Irony in saying 0 IQ.

              • random12 on 27/03/2019 - 09:50

                @arkie0: Am I right, or am I right?

                ( you never actually responded to my comment )

        • Milk tea on 27/03/2019 - 21:16

          Basically it is about job security and workplaces do not owe anyone sick leave to be payed out if you don't use it just like insurance.

          Or maybe you're right and everyone on ozbargain and people that have set the laws misunderstands economics lol

  • [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 12:25

    I think we should have a system where we get 6 weeks leave a year that we can use as we want. If the leave is booked in advance you get leave loading if not then no loading.

    • Almighty Dollar on 25/03/2019 - 19:18
      +1

      … So you have a six week holiday and then need to take time off sick with a significant illness or injury. What then?

      • [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 20:51
        +20

        You take a bit of self responsibility and go on unpaid leave because you should ensure you kept enough leave to cover the unforeseen.

        • mooney on 26/03/2019 - 20:34
          -3

          Lol.. how have you gotten +11 votes for complaining that people should foresee the unforeseen???

          • [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 20:54
            +1

            @mooney: It's more wierd when my original comment only got 1 vote.

            Most people expect they are going to get sick sooner or later, that's why so many people pay thousands of dollars a year for health insurance because they foresee that they will get sick.

            • mooney on 26/03/2019 - 23:32

              @[Deactivated]: I'll give you a better reply why it's a bad idea. The poorest people among us will feel pressure to use that money for day to day living. It's not about foresight if you're just struggling financially… then what happens when those guys get sick? We chuck them out into the streets??

              The current system works fine. It's a social safety net.

              • [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 23:38
                +3

                @mooney: Money? What money? Are we talking about the same thing? It's leave not money… you only get to cash it out when you leave a job. Loading is not a lot of money (20%). Someone who is really struggling would probably take less leave as they don't have the money to go away on holidays.

  • vietbargain on 25/03/2019 - 12:25
    +70

    Defeats the purpose of people taking sick leave when they're actually sick. Being able to cash out would give people an incentive to come to work when they are sick, instead of staying home and not passing on their germy germs.

    • orangetrain on 26/03/2019 - 08:19

      That would be fine to my boss. Some sick leave are taken for hangovers, headaches, nausea, tiredness and more that are not contagious.

      • ripesashimi on 26/03/2019 - 13:15

        Is productivity really the concern here? Why even drag your sick body to the workplace which are full of people who have done nothing to deserve your germs? What happens to the 'you look after your mate and your mate looks after you'?

      • callum9999 on 26/03/2019 - 21:56
        +2

        Speak for yourself… When I broke my arm, I would have gone back to work much sooner had I not been covered. Not because I "wasn't really sick", but because I need an income…

        • random12 on 26/03/2019 - 22:11
          -8

          Tell me how having the option to cash out AT THE END OF EMPLOYMENT would have given you an incentive to not take sick leave?

          You just gotta use logic people, is it really that hard? I mean, I was top of the class for economics at school, but does everyone else really find this so hard?

          • random12 on 27/03/2019 - 09:42
            -4

            @random12: Trolls are neg voting the comment, but no one is actually making any valid arguments.

            I think I hit a nerve and have made people have a tantrum lol.

            Logic is not hard people.

            The guy said he would go back to work ASAP because he needed an income. Cash out sick leave at the end of employment is not regular income. Its not money that can be accessed right now. You get it in a few months or years away, when you quit. So it can't be used for immediate bills. If you are after an income now, saving sick leave to cash out in a few years won't do you any good.

            Why would someone avoid using sick leave ( which would give them income to pay their immediate bills ) and prefer to keep it for later and cash it out ( when it can't be used for immediate bills )?

            • callum9999 on 27/03/2019 - 10:10
              +3

              @random12: Oh grow up - do you know how pathetic your little tantrum makes you look!?

              For the same reason I didn't use my annual leave - I needed the income (nowhere did I say "immediately", as you keep repeating…). I would have definitely suffered in pain for those last 2 weeks I had off at work if I was going to lose out on $1000 in "sick pay redemption" at the end of employment.

              Sick pay is a safety net for those who become sick, not an extra benefit. In my case it did exactly what it was supposed to do - take all financial pressure off me and let me prioritize my health.

              • random12 on 27/03/2019 - 10:36
                -7

                @callum9999: 'but because I need an income'

                This wording suggested that you needed the income, at that time.

                If you need more income over a longer term ( I.e. you are systematically living above your means ) then the answer is to get a job with a higher base pay, not try and save leave to cash out ( but again, cashing out leave requires you to wait until you quit. It is not liquid. It cannot be used for day to day expenses). Or even better, reduce your expenses, so you aren't systematically living above your means.

                I am not having a tantrum or anything. I hope these posts don't come off as aggressive. I am just shocked at the lack of basic level of logic displayed on this topic, and I enjoy pointing out others stupidity.

                'I would have definitely suffered in pain for those last 2 weeks I had off at work if I was going to lose out on $1000 in "sick pay redemption" at the end of employment'

                Damn, our education system has failed…..

                • callum9999 on 30/03/2019 - 17:37
                  -1

                  @random12: Well, like the rest of your moronic posts, you are wrong. I did not need it at that precise moment, nor was I living above my means (you've never heard about saving up for something?). If there was a job available with higher pay then I would already be in it, regardless of whether I actually needed the money or not…

                  No, not at all. Your incessant comments about how smart you are and how thick anyone who disagrees with you is come across as calm and friendly, not at all aggressive…

                  I don't think the job of our education system is to change our brains to never want money. If you think it is then it's certainly failed you, that's for sure!

                  • random12 on 30/03/2019 - 19:20

                    @callum9999: Do you realise that by going into work, and 'saving' the sick day, you are giving up 7.6 hours of your time?

                    That is, it's not free. You have to work to get the money you get from cashing out.

                    So you are saying that you are just as happy with working 7.6 hours 'normally' as you are working 7.6 hours 'in pain'? That's totally irrational. You should be demanding a higher pay rate to 'work in pain'.

                    And yes, you are not the smartest cookie if you would 'work in pain' even when you didn't immediately need the money ( you wouldn't be very smart if you did need the money immediately as well).

                    You can make money anytime. So why wouldn't you wait 2 weeks? The sick leave would pay out your normal income.

  • dcep on 25/03/2019 - 12:25
    +10

    Come on guys…

    annual leave is the one you can cash out

    now you want to cash out on every types of leave ?

    might as well cash out on, carer's leave / parental leave / maternity leave

    • [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 14:52
      +2

      Don't forget domestic violence leave. That is coming in

      • pangwen on 26/03/2019 - 09:46
        +1

        Not sure why you’d do that even if you could - DV leave is unpaid. So you would be trading off the opportunity to take “official” unpaid leave (ie the employer has little say in whether you are allowed to be off or not) in a DV situation, for the grand total of $0?

        • [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 11:28

          Some workplaces offer paid DV leave (my wife's workplace does) it will be the norm before too long and then people will be saying I haven't taken my DV leave how can extract some value from it.

    • ribze1 on 26/03/2019 - 19:05
      +1

      Yep, no kids so i want to 'cash out' parental leave please.

    • random12 on 26/03/2019 - 23:32
      -3

      'might as well cash out on, carer's leave / parental leave / maternity leave'

      umm yes, what would be wrong with that?

      Why the sarcasm? It makes you appear very unintelligent.

      Everything can be represented as an expected present value ( albeit, in some cases, quite hard ). So yes, there is no reason, in theory, why all types of leave cannot be cashed out.

      • yellowfever on 27/03/2019 - 22:35
        +1

        mate sick leave is not meant to be a reimbursible cash entitlement, what part do refuse to not understand this?

        It is simply a paid entitlement for being sick (or caring someone)
        If you are not sick, you wouldn't qualify for this paid entitlement.
        Therefore, to meet the purpose of this entitlement, you do not and should not be reimbursed

        For FT worker by law, the simple deal is 4 weeks paid leave + 48 weeks paid work which includes 10 days sick leave = 52 week year i.e annual salary.
        You cannot deduct 10 days as cash if sick leave isn't taken up, because those 10 days is already shared within the 48 working weeks.
        In your beliefs that sick leave should be possible to cash out, that would require the 10 days to be separate reimbursible entitlement outside of the 48 working weeks, which requires the employer to set aside money to the value of 10 days, which increases wage cost for each worker.

        Similarly with parental/mat leave, if a worker choses not to have kids they cannot expect their entitlement for such leave to be cashed out.
        Both these entitlements are part of the 48 working week salary.

        The employer would not sustain if your belief to make such entitlements become reimbursible entitlements, or you would have actually have a situation where there would be lower wages to allow the employer to sustain.

        Sick leave in its current form provides a balanced entitlement for the worker for genuine time off without loss of income for being sick (or caring for a person) and a set 10 days certainty for the employer for potential lost productivity per year.

        The purpose is to have balanced set of rules for worker and employer and allow the business to be sustainable.

  • Ugly on 25/03/2019 - 12:28
    +3

    I think you should be able to cash-out anything over an agreed minimum - say 6 weeks.

    • random12 on 26/03/2019 - 00:47
      -8

      Too much, because it takes 3 years to accrue 6 weeks, at a minimum.

      There is no need for anyone to have more than 10 days. This is not supposed to be for anything major. Trust me, if you have cancer and you are rely on sick leave from work, you are screwed. You should have separate income protection, or ideally just have had savings (income protection is a rip off).

      • Hazzard on 26/03/2019 - 08:14

        That's what my company does. 10 days per year of sick leave. Reset every year. So if you don't take it, it's gone.

        • Soluble on 26/03/2019 - 08:53
          +1

          https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/sick-and-carers-leave/paid…

          Doesn't it state it rolls over? I don't think they can reset it

          • chriskq on 26/03/2019 - 11:32

            @Soluble: Sick and annual leave resets also for me. I work for a UK company. Pretty pissed the first year where i lost 4 days of annual leave as i didnt book it in time.

            • Roman Sandstorm on 26/03/2019 - 16:39
              +4

              @chriskq: @chriskq I think you've been hoodwinked.

              If you work in Australia for a company owned anywhere, it is subject to Australian workplace law.

              You cannot just 'lose' your leave because it's not booked, or 'resets', or you are told the conditions apply to some other country, or some other nonsense.

              Further, any employment contract or agreement must meet the minimum NES standards; ie, you cannot 'sign away' your entitlements.

        • Roman Sandstorm on 26/03/2019 - 16:41

          @Harshad
          Your company might do that, but it is probably not legal for them to do so.

          Look at the link Soluble has provided.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 11:32

        As you get older many people need time off work for major things like joint replacement. I had a rotator cuff done 3 years ago and took 6 weeks sick leave (All I had at the time).

        I have seen some jobs that use an external sick leave provider which makes sick leave portable between jobs and means the employer doesn't have that debt in their books (sick leave is often recorded as a debt for the company)

  • thrillho on 25/03/2019 - 12:35
    +10

    Unpopular opinion:

    I've not once taken a sick day in the two odd years at my current place of employment. There are those that seem to take one or two every couple of weeks for a sniffle or sore throat. While some might say that cashing out sick leave is unfair and a rort, there are those that rort the use of sick days as well.

    Just because I'm relatively healthy (touch wood) or don't feel the need to take sick days for a sore throat shouldn't mean I get to use the benefits afforded to me at work - through use of sick days or paying them out. Sue me.

    • Some Human on 25/03/2019 - 13:02
      +2

      People at my work come in, see what jobs they have to do that day and if it’s too challenging, “I don’t feel well” then go home.
      It would be nice if I got rewarded for not doing this.

      • Quantumcat on 25/03/2019 - 13:49
        +2

        You do - if you break a leg and need two months to recover, you can be paid during that time and not have bill pileup as an added stress.

    • MeesusEff on 25/03/2019 - 15:50
      +2

      Yup, same as my husband. Even if he's sniffly he has to go to work because no one can do his job/if someone tries , it is more work for him to fix up when he gets back. Has about 13 weeks accrued.. no such thing as 'mental health' sick day at his workplace even though hes exhausted…

      • TheOtherLeft on 26/03/2019 - 08:03
        +3

        So now he's at risk of burning out. How is that fair for your husband, yourself or the business?

        • MeesusEff on 26/03/2019 - 10:30
          +1

          Honestly, (smallish) business doesn't care. They and the other workers put the expectation on him to get the job done or fix up others mistakes. One Christmas he worked for 18 hours, with a 2 hour nap in between. Job market is not great for him out there and with a baby on the way he can't afford to leave. Even last week when he told them he was at my ultrasound after work they kept trying to call him during, I was steaming! Just waiting for his LSL in 3 years then I can go back to work and he can be a house husband 😁

    • jjjaar on 25/03/2019 - 17:29
      +15

      There are those that seem to take one or two every couple of weeks for a sniffle or sore throat.

      And then there are those that don’t and come in and infect everyone else, making 5 different people around them take one sick day each.

      For me a sore throat is the first sign I’m gonna get a bad cold or even the flu. If I take one day off at the start, I manage to ward off the cold or flu. If I “push through” on that first day, I end up sick for a week and taking three or so days off later down the track.

      Don’t assume that a “sniffle or a sore throat” is nothing. I know what my body is telling me and I’m taking that one day to rest my body and also spare everyone else from getting sick.

      • dabarkle on 26/03/2019 - 12:52
        +4

        Don't forget that a single sickness can impact people very differently. A minor cold for one person could be much worse for someone else, especially if they may already be dealing with other health issues that impact the immune system.

      • Nebargains on 27/03/2019 - 13:02

        That's fair enough, but if you have a sore throat tomorrow and take the day off and recover, are you likely to be legitimately sick in a week's time with another sore throat that needs to recover?

        It's always the people that abuse the system that make people sceptical.

    • Cunning Linguist on 27/03/2019 - 00:35

      There's always that one macho mucus trooper who comes in with a cold and a week later half the office and their family is down with it.

    • SLY JD on 28/03/2019 - 07:24

      Even more unpopular opinion:

      Why should employers be responsible for paying when you're sick? I've always been of the mindset of if you don't work, you shouldn't get payed.
      If you're too sick to work and struggling financially, there is the option of welfare.

      • Danstar on 28/03/2019 - 07:51

        Sick leave is incorporated into your wage.

        I.e. you get paid approx. 20% less for being full time and accumulating sick leave

        • SLY JD on 29/03/2019 - 07:22

          In an ideal world, yes. Not all employers play by those rules.
          IF employers weren't responsible for sick leave, you may see wages go up.

  • FoxJump on 25/03/2019 - 12:40
    +28

    I had three months of sick leave a accrued.

    Someone in the household got terminal cancer. I took the role of carer and consumed the three months.

    I'm glad it was there.

    • dcep on 25/03/2019 - 12:44
      +8

      My condolences

      • FoxJump on 26/03/2019 - 07:06
        +1

        Cheers

    • plasmoske on 26/03/2019 - 04:39
      +6

      That's what it is there for. Most people don't understand this.

      Unexpected things can happen in life.

      Sick/personal leave = the best kind of income insurance.

      • random12 on 26/03/2019 - 09:26
        -2

        'The best kind of insurance' - umm, not really, because it is capped.

        Let's say you have only been with your current employer for 6 months or 12 months. That means you only have 5 - 10 days of sick leave. That means nothing if you have major problems.

        Now, less assume that you had been with your previous employer for 10 years, and had accured 20 weeks of leave. All that was wiped clean when you resigned. Don't you wish you got some value for it?

        • tooslow8888 on 26/03/2019 - 17:18
          +1

          Not even in the same context. I sincerely hope you do not work in a HR/M or IR capacity.

          • random12 on 26/03/2019 - 22:28
            +1

            @tooslow8888: What do you mean by not even in the same context?

            If you start a new job, your sick leave is reset. If you get your serious medical problem around when you have changed jobs, you are screwed.

    • random12 on 26/03/2019 - 09:22
      -4

      'I am glad it was there'

      Wouldn't you have rather had that 3 months of payment just built into a higher base pay?

      Then it would be paid regardless of whether someone had cancer or not.

      • BangkokBreakfast on 26/03/2019 - 09:32

        Why? That small additional income each fortnight would probably have been spent already. Then what would you do for 3 months? Most people have a budget that relies on a fixed income. Would be much easier if that income continued over that period just like normal.

        • random12 on 26/03/2019 - 09:37
          +2

          So your argument is we need all this nonsense, because idiots can't control themselves and take the extra they would have got, and planned themselves?

          And because of this, all the smart people need to have substantial amounts of their pay tied up in worthless sick leave?

          • FoxJump on 26/03/2019 - 10:32
            +1

            @random12: Also, if you do get paid more .. you get taxed more too.
            And yes, although of course "every ozbargainer is a wizard with money" .. most of the people out there are not.
            The govt needs to cater for the majority (hopefully)

            • Deridas on 26/03/2019 - 15:14
              +1

              @FoxJump: I don't mind getting taxed more if that means I get paid more, that argument doesn't hold water.

              Thanks government needs to care for the majority (the non-money wizards) - that's what compulsory super is for…

  • bargainhunter87 on 25/03/2019 - 12:47
    +22

    My 2 cents - Sick leave is there IF you need it. If you have been working for 2 years and never taken a sick leave, you are not worse of than someone who has used up all their leave. We shouldn't feel entitled to be paid out sick leave, but rather should be THANKFUL that we have a system that gives us the flexibility to take time off work SHOULD WE REQUIRE IT.

    • Kangal on 25/03/2019 - 14:49
      +1

      True in theory, not in practice.

      I've had several jobs, and each job had that one or couple people that would use sick leave as much as possible. And knowingly when not sick, but I'm not the person to confront their mistakes or narc on them to management.

      One situation was a young lady who had several children out of wedlock, and used to take sick leave quite often to go on dates with several boyfriends. Don't worry her grandmother usually looked after the kids (other times childcare), and she was getting benefits from Centrelink and partners. And remember it costs a lot of money for childcare, at least in Sydney. She would take time off on Friday because it was the busiest day, and gave her a long weekend to get drunk. And because it's only one day, as per most workplaces, she didnt need to produce a Dr's note (and didn't care for, as she used the kids as an excuse when desired). The worst part is this meant we couldn't hire any extra staff, and it meant every so-often Friday people were working an extra hour and bit.

      So this individual, while legally doing nothing wrong, was directly benefiting from claiming her right, at the detriment to people that were trying to be moral and follow the rules. Especially when someone like myself would still goto work even when I was sick (migraine, loss of hearing, speech difficulty, after surgery, etc etc I'm always of the mindset to soldier on and help others).

      • papachris on 25/03/2019 - 20:31
        +1

        Individual cases make bad policy.

        Did you "whistle-blow" this woman? If what you say is true, she was rorting the system unquestionably. The idea of not dobbing in your work "mates" leads directly to these things becoming common place…

        • Kangal on 25/03/2019 - 21:50

          No I didn't, and I still wouldn't because that's really not who I am.
          Eve, if I get a raw deal by a workplace, I try to put on a smile and not burn any bridges, you never know how it can be useful in the future. I feel like this is the right attitude to have; don't reciprocate slights caused by others/Christian ethics. And honestly I don't think this makes me special, I think many people in Australia are like this.

          With that said, I think there are many people out there like her. And willing to use her right, at the detriment of others.

          So that means this isn't a clear cut issue. So I cannot say that those who don't burden society with children and live a healthy life, I cannot say those people shouldn't be incentivised or rewarded, as others who make poor choices weigh them down. Nor can I say we should punish those that are clever enough to understand the system, and play it to their strengths.

          The only solution I see, is to break the cycle, transform society by educating them with morals, values, and critical thinking at an early stage til adulthood. Unfortunately, these days I'm quite pessimistic about such ambitions (it could be Biased TV, or Internet sensationalism making things seem worse than they are).

          • papachris on 26/03/2019 - 20:34

            @Kangal: @Kangal: That's a shame, but I respect your opinion.

            don't reciprocate slights caused by others/Christian ethics

            Really not sure what you are trying to say or insinuate here.

            burden society with children

            I assume here you mean having many children to claim more government money. Although this does happen, mostly it's just a lifestyle choice to have a large family, which I don't see as a problem for society. You have to remember for most families, every extra child actually adds more financial 'burden' to themselves well above anything they can claim from the government.

            Of course, having children to many different fathers is hardly a great moral standard.

            Nor can I say we should punish those that are clever enough to understand the system, and play it to their strengths

            Unfortunately this type of thing gives a green light to corruption in society - moral corruption at least - unless we actively change 'the system'.

            The only solution I see, is to break the cycle, transform society by educating them with morals, values, and critical thinking at an early stage til adulthood. Unfortunately, these days I'm quite pessimistic about such ambitions

            I share your pessimism about this. Unfortunately, 'morals' has become a dirty word. In an increasingly self-centered society, the 'moral line' is simply whatever 'I' think…

        • X35rgfF45 on 26/03/2019 - 18:45
          +1

          Good policy still has to acknowledge incentives.

          Currently employee's are encouraged to fake sickies even if they aren't sick, which is unfair to the people who don't.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 05:03

        I've had several jobs, and each job had that one or couple people that would use sick leave as much as possible.

        Having worked as a manager I assure you we know who these people are, and it works against them when it comes time to decide who gets promoted.

        • ripesashimi on 26/03/2019 - 13:20
          +1

          and when the manager is also a lady who abuses the system?

          • Kangal on 27/03/2019 - 09:58

            @ripesashimi: It's even worse when the managers don't care to do anything about it (well technically they can't), but when it comes time to issue wage raises the people that didn't rort the system are not given promotions. And when raises were given, it was 2% for all due to mandatory increases by the industry. In many companies, the cheaper the manager can keep the wages, the bigger the profit margin remains and that directly leads to larger bonuses for them.

            And yes, this happened at that very same company. The power dynamic between employee and employer was never in balance, but hey, at least my managers were able to all buy real estate in the lucrative Sydney market.

  • singlemalt72 on 25/03/2019 - 12:56
    +2

    Our new EBA just passed and in it the company is now taking a view that sick leave is YOUR leave - no doctors certs required any more.

    • 2jzzzz on 25/03/2019 - 13:21

      Just need a Stat Dec where you say you were not fit for duty at my work.

  • Some Human on 25/03/2019 - 13:05
    +4

    My last manager said it’s okay to take a sicky every now and then to recharge your batteries. But then this same manager would also come up to me at the end of the work day, pile on some jobs and say, “you’re not leaving until that’s done”.

  • madseason on 25/03/2019 - 13:08
    +9

    If you can convert your sick leave into extra holidays you're just starting a culture of people showing up to work sick, infecting everyone and doing so because they have now got an extension to their holidays at the end of the year.

  • Changskies on 25/03/2019 - 13:08
    -1

    Well its a privilege we get in AUS - yet people are complaining whether they should be able to cash out or not?? Seriously, (other than few countries) most countries may have this as an entitlement / law but you get scorned, lose respect, deemed 'incompetent' for taking sickies.

    • Some Human on 25/03/2019 - 13:24
      +2

      I don’t think the unions would let that happen TBH. They fought for those benefits, so they’re not going to allow them to be taken away.

      • Seraphin7 on 25/03/2019 - 13:34

        I agree with you. But it certainly sharpens the mind.

        Consider the following … there are 261 non-weekend days in a year.

        Knock off public holidays and (pending your state) you get to 251 business days.

        With 20 days' annual leave and 10 day's sick leave, you're expected to work 221 days.

        Now, let's say you're making $70k a year. You could earn $70k and keep your leave, or enjoy a salary of $79.5k and not get sick leave and annual leave.

        I reckon you'd get a good spread of opinions between those options.

        • Numpty21 on 25/03/2019 - 13:44
          +2

          or just get your AL paid out at the end of the year if you don't use it

          • 91rs on 26/03/2019 - 09:00

            @Numpty21: This.
            I have a shit-ton of AL which can't be paid out in full (unless I find another job).
            I'd prefer the payout to clear whats not used. They will pay it out at 2 weeks per year but thats kinda useless given how much I have accrued.

            • Roman Sandstorm on 26/03/2019 - 16:50
              +1

              @91rs: Your employer seems to be quite negligent.

              First, they have a large annual leave liability they have 'let accumulate'.

              Second, they have not 'forced' you to take this excessive leave, which they should/could have done.

              Third, they are neglecting your mental and physical well-being by not permitting/forcing you to take necessary leave. Your job cannot be that important that leave is denied forever. (Even if you are saving babies from a nuclear reactor meltdown every day.)

              Finally, it would be a very strange environment indeed which let such leave accumulate, and then not have a cash-out procedure.

              Check Fair Work regarding cash-out. But two weeks cash-out per year is absurd. At my office, it is two weeks/pay period.

    • RandomNinja on 25/03/2019 - 13:32
      +3

      Challenge with that approach is people may feel obligated to come in to work when they should probably be home resting (and not spreading germs).

    • DarwinBoy on 26/03/2019 - 11:50

      Never give up your hard earned rights. You can bet if you did as you suggested within a few years wages would slow down and you would be earning the same money but without any benefits.

  • p1 ama on 25/03/2019 - 13:19
    +13

    I think of sick leave as a form of social insurance. When a large number of employees accrue sick leave, it gives the company the ability to give an employee significant time off if they need it and won't go bankrupt (or have to fire said employee) whilst doing so.

    Think of it like Medicare or Centrelink. You pay into a system and you get the entitlments as needed. If you don't go to a doctor in a particular year, should you also be able to convert the amount Medicare "would have paid out" into a cash payment? Of course not, that sounds silly.

    These sorts of systems are put in place so that we can help one another. If you want to be selfish, then the social insurance won't work because sick leave will just be the same thing as annual leave. If that were the case, what would happen is that we would just be going back to a system where we don't have sick leave and if you get sick, you can just use up your annual leave.

    The way I see it is that the current system offers insurance for people who are sick for both the employee and employer. It's there if you get sick, if it is abused, then it defeats the purpose of sick leave being separate to and different from annual leave.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join