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

- - anonymous12345 on 26/03/2019 - 22:12
    
    Yes, I work in Australia. Now I am not sure if companies follow NES about sick leave.
    
    It is worth noting that NES publish the below message on their website.
    https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/sick-and-carers-leave/paid…
    
    The method of accruing and taking of personal/carer's leave for the purposes of the National Employment Standards is currently the subject of legal proceedings before the Federal Court (Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v AMWU & others (VID 731/2018)). The decision in these proceedings may impact upon the FWO's advice on these matters. The FWO will be reviewing its advice at the conclusion of these proceedings. In the interim, you may wish to seek your own legal advice on this issue.
- Levathian on 26/03/2019 - 23:12
  
  Let me guess, half the workforce call in sick the days before it resets?
  - anonymous12345 on 27/03/2019 - 14:17
    
    Surprisingly not, I assume the majority of us knows what sick leave is for.
outlander on 26/03/2019 - 10:51

Here's a solution: You use it when your sick, or at the end of the year you can convert 50% of it to cash.
- prisonmike on 26/03/2019 - 11:47
  
  we think alike :D
ozbjunkie on 26/03/2019 - 11:21

I thought sick leave was basically factored in to your hourly rate anyway. Take it all. A preventative mental health day may reduce the chance of more serious mental health problems, use them all each year in good conscience - if you feel like you need (not want, but need) a day off, then you probably do.
Seaeagles on 26/03/2019 - 11:22

My old work has a KPI reward system determining how much bonus we got at the end of the year.
Everyone got the same base rate bonus but depending on your sick leave record on what the final amount an individual would get.
We got 15 sick days a year.
From memory, the bonus on sick pay was $2000.
If you used no sick days you got 100% of that $2000
Used 1-3 you got 85% of the $2000
Used 4-7 you got 50% of the $2000
Used 8-10 you got 25% of the $2000
Used anymore and you got no extra in the bonus.

The better part of our sick leave entitlement was if you reached 83 unused days sick leave than you got transferred to unlimited sick leave (and stayed there if it wasn't abused)
I was on that but never required it. A fellow worker who had a serious accident on holidays requiring 12 months off was paid in full as sick leave as he was also on the unlimited system and on his return to work remained on it as he never abused the system.

The biggest surprise to me only about 5% of staff were on the unlimited sick leave even though most of us had 10+ years service. They rather just have extra days off were I saw it as an insurance policy if I ever got injured or sick.
- Roman Sandstorm on 26/03/2019 - 17:09
  
  +7
  
  Everyone got the same base rate bonus but depending on your sick leave record on what the final amount an individual would get.
  
  What a terrible system.
  
  So… some clown/hero comes into work spluttering, gasping, hacking up phlegm… Unknowing, you sit in the chair in the kitchen he just infected.
  
  In three days, you contract influenza… not 'the flu', but the real thing. You are off work for at least two weeks.
  
  Typhoid Jack gets 100% of the bonus. You, innocent party, get zero.
  
  The system totally encourages people to come to the workplace while ill; a) their own productivity will be reduced/impaired, b) there is greater exposed risk to multiple other (less selfish) workers.
  
  The system advantages some people over other people, due to entirely random factors. Maybe the bonus should be based on skin colour? Or gender?
  - Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2019 - 19:22
    
    -3
    
    Talk about raging
    
    Just because you can convert sick league or be given bonuses for not using it doesnt automatically mean people will not use sick leave when needed.
    
    Being at work when sick is a shit feeling most ppl would just take the sick day…
    - [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 10:27
      
      +1
      
      Just because you can convert sick league or be given bonuses for not using it doesnt automatically mean people will not use sick leave when needed.
      
      Try this argument on payday loans, personal loans, ZipPay, AfterPay, double mortgages.
      
      Or even superannuation.
      
      Or even making people buy car insurance.
      
      We live in a society where personal responsibility counts for nothing and are told to look at the collective societal good.
  - stuffy on 27/03/2019 - 20:06
    
    Agreed. Not only that but this system is technically unlawful, in Australia anyway. It discriminates against those who have exercised a workplace right, i.e. personal leave.
prisonmike on 26/03/2019 - 11:46

+2

If you accrued 10 sick days then the employer should let you cash it out at 50% rate of your per hour rate or at a standard rate. That still gives you an option to use it instead of cashing it if you fell sick genuinely. And if you left the company then you have the option to cash them out at 50%.
- prisonmike on 26/03/2019 - 12:55
  
  Or convert any additional sick leaves over 10 days to personal days which could be cashed out like a regular leave at the end of employment.
- [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 10:30
  
  I'm sick. I know I won't be working at 100% capacity. I know everyone around me will be able to see how sick I am and lay off me for slacking.
  
  I'm going to go to work and sneeze on people, sharpen pencils and complain about my sinus for my usual wage.
Slippage on 26/03/2019 - 12:39

+1

No you shouldn't, it would encourage people to come to work sick. Leave it as is.

RDO's on the other hand….
- Soluble on 26/03/2019 - 13:36
  
  Doesn't it currently encourage people to take days off when they're not sick?
  - [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 10:33
    
    The employer is providing the benefit of the doubt at their expense by allowing sick leave (doesn't necessarily mean paying out sick leave also).
    
    People taking days off when they're not sick is dishonest.
    
    People generally do what's convenient or most beneficial to themselves yet they are more than willing to assume everyone is far worse.
    - Danstar on 27/03/2019 - 10:54
      
      Businesses aren't doing things to benefit their bottom line?
      
      Businesses aren't allowing sick leave….it's law
      - [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 11:00
        
        @Danstar: It's law that the business makes the allowance. Ie. It is not extra money for workers that they're entitled to. It is money put aside to relieve sick workers.
        
        Businesses aren't doing things to benefit their bottom line?
        
        Of course they are. It's called business but it doesn't mean they have to operate unethically to do so.
        
        Workers who try to defraud the employers are doing so dishonestly.
        
        Workers do not have to be dishonest to negotiate better benefits but the action of taking sick leave when not sick is undeniably dishonest.
        
        Danstar on 27/03/2019 - 11:20
        
        @[Deactivated]: What defines sick?
        
        A cough? A headache? Mentally exhausted?
        
        A day off to buy a car?
        
        We accumulate sick leave to be used, whether it be ethical or unethical, as long as you can prove it, you nor any business can say otherwise.
        
        I can almost guarantee every business in every country has done something unethical. Small or large.
        
        The world is corrupt.
        
        [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 11:27
        
        @Danstar:
        
        I can almost guarantee every business in every country has done something unethical. Small or large.
        
        Big businesses with collective decisions, sure.
        
        I'm a small business and I make more than I need so I can confidently say I have not.
        
        If every business has to operate unethically to still be around, there's something wrong with our policies.
        
        If every worker has defraud their employer to put food on the table, something is wrong with our policies.
        
        I don't think either one of those scenarios are true.
        
        Maybe I'm too optimistic.
        
        Danstar on 27/03/2019 - 11:28
        
        @[Deactivated]: I bet you have in one way or another but you either would never admit it, or you just can't think of anything specifically at this time.
        
        That's just my opinion, I'm sure you're 99.99% legit.
        
        As I said previously, the whole world is corrupt, especially when it comes to money.
        
        [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 11:33
        
        @Danstar: That's a very cynical view of the world and likely a projection onto me.
        
        Sure, some of my decisions can indirectly be unethical like I demolished an old building and it may have been more carbon neutral to have refurbished it (it wasn't due to mould).
        
        There's a distinction between unknowingly/indirectly being unethical vs knowing it is unethical and proceeding anyway.
        
        In this case, wouldn't you agree that calling in sick when not sick is lying?
        
        Danstar on 27/03/2019 - 11:39
        
        -2
        
        @[Deactivated]: I'll excuse your indirect unethical-ness :P
        
        It is lying….to an extent. But it's a deserved lie.
        
        [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 11:53
        
        @Danstar: Oh, I copped hell for the demolition.
        
        An activist even filmed the demolition. Ironically, it showed the extent of black mould caused by rain ingress from rotten roof and cladding.
        
        And I still wasn't excused.
        
        Thankfully, people have short attention spans.
- siresteelhell on 27/03/2019 - 09:58
  
  There is another reason employers let many employees cash them out… It costs additional money to cover the people away if you are in a job where the manning level is essential to the running of the company…
Donaldhump on 26/03/2019 - 13:20

and whats your plan if you have a heart attack?

what i think is more intelligent is half of your sick leave balance when leaving a job goes into your super fund, and should you have a heart attack on day 1 of your job, you can access that money.
Choc83 on 26/03/2019 - 14:53

Make it portable between employers, like they do in health. Obviously it doesn't apply for contractors, who effectively choose not to have sick leave provisions.
- [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 17:24
  
  That will make sure a person with lots of sick leave doesn't get a second job.
  
  As an employer, I wouldn't want to inherit sick leave liability from another employer. There's absolutely no benefit nor reason for me to take on more liability.
  - Some Guy on 27/03/2019 - 10:40
    
    Presumably then, as an employer, you would want to know the health record of a potential employee. Then you can avoid hiring those prone to illness. And try asking a woman if she plans on getting pregnant whilst in your employ.
chiuy on 26/03/2019 - 16:21

Also need a way to keep the doctors honest. Sounds like its way too easy to get a shonky sick note from your GP.
(applies to workers comp stuff too)
- Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2019 - 16:32
  
  Or perhaps if work places dont trust their workers they should for the medical consult if they require a note
  
  You got no hope keeping GPs honest they are too powerful
Black Brown Blue on 26/03/2019 - 16:35

+2

Now we need a post regarding paying employees to travel from home to work and vice versa because it is their right. This getting out of control.
- FloatingPoint on 28/03/2019 - 13:47
  
  +1
  
  Don't stop there. Eating and sleeping is essential to their work as well. No sleep = bad performance at work = Employers should pay me to sleep.
foolsgold on 26/03/2019 - 17:26

if sick leave didn't accumulate, ie it got capped at 14 days I think many people would have a different perspective on this. ie its just a bank or an insurance against if you are sick.
drfuzzy on 26/03/2019 - 18:00

It's a safety net.
It's not a cash cow.
Don't be a parasite.
Brouw3r on 26/03/2019 - 18:43

Sick leave is there so there's no incentive for you to come in and infect the rest of the workplace when your sick. It's not as a part of your total remuneration package like annual leave is. I seldom use sick days and I currently have ~420hours sitting there that I fully understand I will probably never use or see any benefit from.
ssyl9 on 26/03/2019 - 19:52

+1

To all those who think we should be able to cash out sick leave

Can you tell me then why cant we cash out maternity leave?

Sick leave doesn't come out in a companies liability expense where annual leave does (accounting 101) The sick leave is more for a safe keeping for employees Companies sometimes need to insure against this and take out insurance to pay employees sick leaves.

Sick leave is there for the employee to feel ok to take days off when they are actually sick and not worry about losing in payments.

I am quite disgusted on the amount of people who voted 1 and 2.. they are maybe the people who keep chugging sickies and leaving the others with more work.
- Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2019 - 20:37
  
  Look i get sick leave/personal leave for sick or personal usage my point was more round people that have 6-12months worth of sick leave chances are they are unlikely to use over a year of sick leave in there lift time (touch wood they never need too)
  
  Companies factor in sick leave in to an employees package to lose it all your you retire or leave a job is to the benefit of the employer and in the past decade employee right and conditions have stagnated or gone backwards with increase company profits but lower wage growth. This would be a change that would inadvertently give more money without cost companies anything in reality it might improve productivity.
  
  However i understand there are counter arguments but thats why i put it out there
- random12 on 26/03/2019 - 22:22
  
  'Sick leave doesn't come out in a companies liability expense where annual leave does (accounting 101) '
  
  https://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content102/c3/AAS30_3-94.…
  
  Page 5 part (c).
  
  Seems its not accounting 101 (not for you at least). In fact, if you knew accounting 101, you would know its the other way around.
  - ssyl9 on 27/03/2019 - 18:48
    
    If you actually understand what you posted
    
    Sick leave is only under employee liability expense if vested.
    
    Otherwise employers are only required to hold a small portion as a sick leave liability expense should employees goes sick and files their sick leave entitlement
    
    Again, Accounting 101
    - Arbitrageur123 on 28/03/2019 - 03:00
      
      Read para 42(b) to 46. This best reflects sick leave provisions that are defined by NES scheme…
      - ssyl9 on 02/04/2019 - 12:53
        
        @Arbitrageur123: 44 In measuring the liability to be recognised f or non-vesting accumulating
        sick leave it will be necessary to recognise as a liability only that
        component of the entitlements accumulated as at the reporting date that
        is expected to result in payments to employees. This is because not all
        accumulated non-vesting entitlements will result in payments being
        made by the employer.
        
        45 ….For non-vesting sick leave entitlements, the probability criterion in the case of expenses and liabilities should be assessed on a group basis, rather than on the
        basis of individual employees..
        
        46 An employer's experience with claim s for non-vesting sick leave and the use of estimation techniques will usually allow a reliable measurement of the employer's expense and liability to be determined. In some instances, the pattern of sick leave taken may be so stable that
        the best estimate of the sick leave expense for the reporting period is the amount of sick leave paid during the reporting period.
        
        Again
        
        If you actually read what you posted.. you will know what I said is correct
        
        Sick leave is only under employee liability expense if vested.
        
        Otherwise employers are only required to hold a small portion as a sick leave liability expense should employees goes sick and files their sick leave entitlement
        
        You don't need accounting 101.. you need reading comprehension 3rd grade primary school
- random12 on 26/03/2019 - 22:23
  
  'Can you tell me then why cant we cash out maternity leave?' - special interest groups? employers lobbying?
  
  EVERYHING should be able to be cashed out. EVERYTHING has an expected present value (not exactly, but can be estimated).
  - [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 23:57
    
    Will you accept a lower base wage so your sick leave can be cashed out?
    - random12 on 27/03/2019 - 00:17
      
      It already is lower
      - [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 08:54
        
        @random12: So you are getting paid less than your award category? You should file a complaint with fair work.
        
        random12 on 27/03/2019 - 09:29
        
        @[Deactivated]: No, what I mean is that employers have already reduced the base pay.
        
        Let's say there is a role that is 'worth' $60 000. The employer knows that they need to provide all these different conditional leave etc. The employer determines a distribution of likely usage rates of this leave, and determines the expected present value to be say $4000.
        
        Well, that means that they will pay $56 000 in cash, because they know there is an implicit $4000 extra cost.
        
        So its already been subtract. So to make it even, it needs to be added back.
        
        Of course, the easiest way is to scrap conditional leave altogether, then we don't need this mess of employers implicitly paying less, and then needing to recalculate at the end of employment to cash out.
        
        [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 10:17
        
        -1
        
        @random12:
        
        No, what I mean is that employers have already reduced the base pay.
        
        No they have not. Your base pay has factored in sick leave not being paid out.
        
        You want it to be paid out, they'll deduct it further.
        
        As employers, we have to do everything to make sure you don't get sick or injured otherwise it costs us more by staff taking sick leave. That's why we take out workers comp and comply with OHS. Some companies hire independent consultants to make suggestions on ergonomics. Added cost to us but prevents further cost later.
        
        It's to the mutual benefit of the employer and employee that no one gets sick/injured.
        
        You're proposing that we remove this symbiotic arrangement and replace it with payout.
        
        You know what increased pay/payouts have never been able to fix? Workers asking for more pay/payouts. This is a lose-lose proposition for the employer.
        
        (In case you ignore context again - lose-lose refers to the employer paying out now but the employee will still demand paid sick leave and/or want higher pay and other payouts later).
        
        arkie0 on 27/03/2019 - 09:29
        
        @[Deactivated]: Can you two get a room already.
- Mrgreenz on 26/03/2019 - 22:46
  
  Maternity leave generally isn't claimed fraudulently
  - [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 23:55
    
    You're going to be surprised.
    
    People do. Maternity leave is paid by the ~~tax payer~~ government. It was fairly easy to defraud this system if someone with a business went in cahoots with a female of child bearing age.
    
    Now, Centrelink strictly requires a doctor's (potentially an OBGYN's) confirmation that a woman is pregnant. They'll follow up with a request for birth certificate.
    - Mrgreenz on 27/03/2019 - 15:06
      
      Ye I'm sure they do, I think it was Murphy who said:
      
      Any government payout that can be exploited; will be exploited
      - [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 15:06
        
        @Mrgreenz: Eddie?
youknow on 26/03/2019 - 20:45

I'm lucky, my employment agreement has unlimited sick leave. There are some basic rules about producing sick certificates once certain thresholds are met each year, but it's management discretion and only very rarely do people get asked. I mention all this, because when you have unlimited sick leave, people tend not to take illegitimate sick days. There is no quota to use up, no sense of missing out by not using them etc. It's an excellent system. Clearly not for all size businesses, but it's definitely worked well in my company. Employer wins because there's a lower rate of sick days and employee wins because they have sick days if ever they need them.
gstfree on 26/03/2019 - 21:54

+1
Cash out SL is prohibited by Fairwork Act.

Pay out SL is Okay if specially agreed in employment contract or part of EBA. SL pay out on normal termination is an ETP (non-excluded).

I have seen various arrangements for SL on termination:

xx% pay out on normal termination upon 10 years continuous services subject to a cap;

xx% pay out on normal termination upon 5 years continuous services subject to a cap;

xx% pay out on retirement subject to a cap;

xx% pay out on redundancy

I do not require my team to produce MC for SL. I do allow female staffs to use up SL for maternity reasons. I do advise everyone not misuse my generous SL rules.
Miss B on 26/03/2019 - 22:02

Sounds good, I hope they bring in an extra 12 days for women, bigger payout for us.
- Miss B on 27/03/2019 - 19:33
  
  +1
  
  My serious answer:
  
  Honestly, other people get paid the same as me for a lot less work and it's not just because of sick leave. I don't really care because I go in, I do my job, I get to chill out and they leave me alone.
  
  If I was going to spend my time worrying about what other people aren't doing or the ridiculous shit people are taking sick days for it's only going to affect me, not them. The people who whine about not fair are often doing less because they're so busy worrying about what everyone else is getting away with and trying to get more.
  - Danstar on 28/03/2019 - 05:45
    
    100% agree.
    
    So many of my workers are so worried about what other people are/aren't doing
    
    I give them the same advice I give my kids, worry about what you have to do and you won't have anything to worry about.
    
    I find it's not only the people who are doing less, it's the peoples who lives around work or don't have much of an personal life, they have nothing else to think about other than work and what everyone else is doing.
Levathian on 26/03/2019 - 22:59

+1

Absolutely not.

Sick leave is for being sick. If you want a holiday take your annual leave.

Sure, people who take their sick leave as it accrues get paid the same for marginally less work, but being sick SUCKS. I'd rather be healthy and working than bed ridden and ill.

If we allowed people to cash in sick leave, it would become a defacto extra bank of AL hours. So people would use it on holidays then when/if they actually got sick, and they had no leave, they'd either have to stay home unpaid and risk being unable to afford to pay their bills, or they'd go into work anyway and make everyone else sick. And/or be a OHS risk.

Maybe we could overhaul the sick leave system and make it a government owned fund which follows an employee through jobs. Then when an employee is sick they get paid from their fund rather than from their employer directly.
ESEMCE on 27/03/2019 - 07:47

I'm thankful for sick days and recognise that they're not mine, however, I think the system could use some tweaking to reduce the "chucking a sickie" culture.
Maybe a fund into which unused Sick days are paid such that if/when you move jobs you don't start the new role at 0 days.
In order to not make it onerous to the businesses, I would be happy for it to be heavily discounted, ie 20 days within the employer equates to 2 days in the fund.
realfancyman on 27/03/2019 - 10:10

I think it should get transferred for use at your next job. Not just giving the whole amount to the new employer though, making it so the employee can claim it as used
prisonmike on 27/03/2019 - 10:55

This should be the policy then for those who seem to be against cashing them out :D

https://dn.truthorfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/260…
brad1-8tsi on 27/03/2019 - 12:51

+1

My 2nd job we got 5 sick days/pa and it didn't accrue (I didn't know this). A lot of the guys would suddenly "get sick" just before their work anniversary to burn the 5 days.
I broke my arm and needed a month off. I was crapping myself and wondering how I'd pay rent. My area manager comes to the hospital and says "We are covering your pay for as long as you need because you don't take sickies."

I've mostly only taken sick when sick. I left my last employer with 200+ days accrued despite having an extended absence after a knee reconstruction. I know for a fact that if you were genuinely sick and had used your entitlement they kept paying you.

I have 150+ days with my current employer despite needing 2 months off a few years back. I do tend to take a day when feeling even slightly sick these days but that's probably 5 days a year maximum and I don't want to spread my germs around the office like some of the heroes.

The best system I've seen is where you get 10 accruing "non-certificate" days per year and the other ten go into a pool to be used for people that have genuine long term illnesses.
- ESEMCE on 28/03/2019 - 16:52
  
  Can't believe the places that don't allow it to accrue…
  It just encourages people to take them as your colleagues did!
  
  Then to give you "accrued" leave anyway makes it even more of a joke! Cannot fathom the logic.
Kerm70 on 27/03/2019 - 13:19

Some comments from people wanting pay for accrued sick days, If you want this so bad it’s called “Casual rate of pay”.
In fact how about an employer pays you per hour everything in your hourly take home pay rate ie. tax, super, annual leave, long service, perceived value of maternity and sick pay etc. One payment, they notify the tax office how much they have paid you and it’s up to you to sort out your tax, super and required savings put aside in case you are unable to work. The employer only paid you the hours you actually work.
If you want accrued sick leave pay paid to you, then get sick or injured and you’ll get paid.

As to travel, in my industry of agriculture I have to pay shearers $0.79 / km each way to their place of employment from their place of residence when using their own car.
- [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 15:09
  
  I would love the system you suggested even if the net total in labour related outgoings is up 5%.
  
  I'd have far less paperwork and I may even save money as I can get rid of payroll manager.
  - Kerm70 on 27/03/2019 - 17:24
    
    +1
    
    So would I, but the government would never go for it because then every worker would have to pay their tax out of the money in their bank to the tax office = workers hating on the government for “taking” their money. If the individual wage earner doesn’t pay their tax govt has to chase up 1000’s of individuals too.
    I like my suggestion because the amount of time I have wasted chasing up seasonal employees for Tax File Numbers, super fund details etc. just so I can pay them correctly is unbelievable. Especially when they are all adults who do this for a living and every employer would ask them the same questions. I should charge $90/hr for my office time. (Plumbers rates:)
    A bit of a rant and off topic soz.
    - [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 17:38
      
      You sound like someone who is clued in.
crashloaded on 27/03/2019 - 16:09

+1

I've always said that as an employer, if you offered to pay out 50% of sick leave if you leave a job, it would prevent a lot of people abusing the system.

In jobs such as transport operations, the only excuse you need to call in sick is not feeling 100%, because you have 100's of lives you're responsible for. This leads to the abuse of sick leave because employees know they will never get that money and don't need to provide proof of being legitimately sick.
MessyG on 27/03/2019 - 18:52

+1

I raised this in the other thread but what about parental leave? This can range from a few weeks to a few months pay depending on where you work. Like sick leave it's an entitlement that's there if you need it and in many organisations now it's simply primary carer leave in case the man wants to be the stay at home parent. So if you argue that you should be paid out sick leave, why not parental leave? Sure you might not be a parent but it's your entitlement right? That's where this falls down. You can't be paid for something that might happen but didn't.
- Mrgreenz on 27/03/2019 - 23:47
  
  The main gripe people have as far as I can see is the misuse of sick leave i.e people rewarded with a day off who fake it.
  
  Parental leave wouldn't be abused nearly to the same level that sick leave is.
Tightwads Dad on 27/03/2019 - 21:27

Years ago, many many years ago, the mother of a school friend worked for a sporting goods company. Their policy was that staff could not touch their sick leave at all until they had accrued 20 days. Then, once a year they could elect to “cash in” some of their sick leave, but they weren’t allowed to have the leave drop below the 20 days. The sick days that they cashed in were paid at half rates, ie cash in 10 days and you would receive 5 days pay. The philosophy was that the staff kept a buffer, and the number of “sickies” was kept down, improving productivity for the business. It seemed to work well for both sides. But what would I know, I left one of the big 4 with 204 sick days accrued!
afordprefect on 27/03/2019 - 22:25

+1

Honestly I think sick leave and long service leave should be portable (at least the potential income from a prior employer). I'm all for reserving sick leave from when you're sick, rather than just making it another entitlement as it helps prevent the spread of disease which is a societal benefit. But it seems a little silly that you go back to having none when you leave a job and start a new one.

I know an employer that sold their business, the buyer after negotiating the deal with them insisted the amount be reduced by all outstanding sick leave, even for the employees that had been there 10 years and hardly taken more than a day or two. It was the sort of business that can take years to sell too, so they effectively had to pay it all, even though staff got nothing for it.

Accrued sick leave is already a liability on companies books, whether they actually have to pay it or not. It's a bonus for the business when a staff member leaves without taking it.

Personally I took more sick leave when self employed and not paid for it, because I felt bad not being able to give 100% to my clients rather than as an employee where you feel like you're being judged for taking it, even though you should (and even if you're not actually being judged for taking it).

After 8 years with an employer and months of accrued sick leave I did need to take about a month off to recover from surgery and it was great to not have to worry about having enough sick leave.
porsche26c on 28/03/2019 - 07:53

+1

honestly most of the comments are from people who have never run a business or seen the books of a business. i had a family member with 20 works but due to paper thin margins in the building industry he basically lost his whole business due to one builder not paying. his worker thought he was a millionaire. its not always the case. i run a small business as well and sick leave is for sick leave not to be paid out. it costs me double when someone is sick i.e paying them for that day as well as getting someone to cover them. people complain about not getting pay rises, most small business owners dont see pay rises and sometimes absorb the cost out of their own pocket to keep people on the books and their business running.

so my answer is no, you should not be paid out for sick leave. its there for when your sick. you get 4 wks leave and that is plenty. in the USA they only get 2 and if your luck 3 wks.
- Trying2SaveABuck on 28/03/2019 - 08:38
  
  This is fair however note in the UK they get 5 weeks of AL
  
  But i agree with the idea that some businesses are are razor thin margins some of those business probably need to go under - and im not saying this is your family member but there are a load of people who go into business that really shouldnt they see the people who are successful and think 'i can do that too' fast forward 12months and they are bankrupt.
  
  Both my sibling are business owners and successful they do not have thin margins but they do complain of outstanding invoices
  
  i see have this issue with my side business sometimes i dont get paid for 6months and these are insurance companies that legal have to pay within 3-months in the end of the day that is just business
- Roman Sandstorm on 28/03/2019 - 11:42
  
  @porsche26c
  
  i run a small business as well and sick leave is for sick leave not to be paid out. it costs me double when someone is sick i.e paying them for that day as well as getting someone to cover them.
  
  It seems strange to complain about **completely knowable and predictable*** business expenses. Surely it's like complaining about rent or utilities?
  
  There are simple formulas which can work out employer's liabilities regarding leave, super, long service, etc, etc. Further, there are ABS/FairWork statistics for things like the amount of sick leave taken in various industries.
  
  It's not like it is mysterious and random bill that suddenly becomes due, driving a small business into ruin.
  - porsche26c on 28/03/2019 - 14:35
    
    hi roman, im not complaining im just stating facts. i can absolutely afford the 10 days leave if someone uses it. i have great staff which only take the day off if they are really sick ( i have never asked for a cert as i know them well). so paying for it is not a problem. im just saying its really a safety net for the workers if they are sick. not just annual leave.
- Slippery Otter on 28/03/2019 - 12:46
  
  I took over a run down cafe/bottleshop in Braybrook and I can vouch for this. I have one full time staff and 2 casual staff. All I can say it's tough and there's little to no support for owners out there who're struggling emotional and financially. I'm lucky I work with family with their business and the flexibility of going to my own business in any event like theft, assault to our staff etc etc.
  
  But in reality some businesses cannot operate with staff, instead needs a family to run them (like me). That way if a client/customer pays an invoice(s) for 30-90 days then family can forgo wages for 1-8 weeks. However you cannot do this to staff as they need to a solid wage to support themselves.
  
  Adapt or die. If you treat your staff like crap, they will get you on sick leave. If you treat them with respect and let them run your business then they won't need to claim sick days unless required.
Choc83 on 28/03/2019 - 08:38

If sick leave is a problem at your work, then hire more contractors or managed services. They never get sick.
- Danstar on 28/03/2019 - 08:48
  
  +2
  
  Oh yes they do.
  
  Reason for this is, most big companies have a majority of contractor work force, with varying hours dependent on how busy they are for that day/week. So contractors get in the mood of taking (unpaid) days off, cos they've done extra hours the day before, or know it will be a quiet day the next day so don't bother.
  - Mugsy on 28/03/2019 - 15:08
    
    Also since contractors only get paid when then work, I've seen a good number continue to come in when they're sick… and then you see other staff get sick soon. I'm not saying this is the case with all contractors but I've known a few contractors who have outright said they're continuing to work when they're coming down with the flu as they need the money to pay rent.
    - Danstar on 28/03/2019 - 18:42
      
      Or fear of losing their job for calling in sick
dman55 on 28/03/2019 - 10:06

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
- porsche26c on 28/03/2019 - 14:35
  
  thanks Bill, didnt know you were on ozbargain.
myusername on 28/03/2019 - 14:52

entitled much?

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

Poll Options

Comments

New Forum Topics