Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Martyn Sadler

Michael Foot Centenary

88 posts in this topic

Seriously?

 

Because 1% is an average figure.  If you are the unlucky one to be ill twice during a whole year you lose the first three days pay of the second sickness period.

The problem with a carte blanch sickness benefit is that people generally feel the urge to treat them like holidays. In my experience Mondays and Fridays tend to be quite popular. I worked for a firm where the wording in T&C's literally was "you are entitled to 10 days sick leave per annum". I advise all companies to put a statement to the effect that unforced absence will be dealt with on an individual basis. This stops loafers and hypochondriacs spoiling it for those who genuinely have problems.

If someone is genuinely absent for sickness and it is a long term problem then companies tend to be very supportive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Also I assume in John's scenario he would be happy that union workers would be the first to be laid off during any hard times, due to their improved pay and conditions making them less profitable than non union workers?

I don't realistically think we should be paying people different rates for the same job, no. It's more a question of acknowledging the fact that others got you that pay and conditions you enjoy and not denigrating them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 years work for 90 years life?  That's not going to work in the long run is it?

Exactly. It worked for one generation of individuals and good luck to them. It's the rest of us that will have to work for 50 years+ to pay for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with a carte blanch sickness benefit is that people generally feel the urge to treat them like holidays. In my experience Mondays and Fridays tend to be quite popular. I worked for a firm where the wording in T&C's literally was "you are entitled to 10 days sick leave per annum". I advise all companies to put a statement to the effect that unforced absence will be dealt with on an individual basis. This stops loafers and hypochondriacs spoiling it for those who genuinely have problems.

If someone is genuinely absent for sickness and it is a long term problem then companies tend to be very supportive.

I get no sick pay (other than SSP) if absent from work. If someone knows you are off for genuine reasons, then its up to their discretion and they will possibly pay you. This situation was brought about by people abusing the previous system where you got 2 weeks sick pay every year and some people took it every single year without fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what's wrong with that? Isn't that how it should be?

I just wanted to say it is how it should be but.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get no sick pay (other than SSP) if absent from work. If someone knows you are off for genuine reasons, then its up to their discretion and they will possibly pay you. This situation was brought about by people abusing the previous system where you got 2 weeks sick pay every year and some people took it every single year without fail.

I'm self employed so I pray to God I don't get ill!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are other ways of managing sickness absences other than the 'big stick' approach of withdrawing the benefit. The company I work for pay 100% of wages for the first 6 months absence and then 85% for the next 4.5 years after that (subject to a 6 month probationary period, and for long term obvious medical criteria ). Sickness absence is still relatively low as absences are managed using the Bradford Factor in conjunction with an in-house sickness absence policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are other ways of managing sickness absences other than the 'big stick' approach of withdrawing the benefit. The company I work for pay 100% of wages for the first 6 months absence and then 85% for the next 4.5 years after that (subject to a 6 month probationary period, and for long term obvious medical criteria ). Sickness absence is still relatively low as absences are managed using the Bradford Factor in conjunction with an in-house sickness absence policy.

My partner works for HMRC. They have similar sick pay and I can tell you that there are many totally abusing it. Off on full pay for months with totally minor ailments. It's pretty scandalous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sickness absence is still relatively low as absences are managed using the Bradford Factor in conjunction with an in-house sickness absence policy.

That's the system we use. It stops the Friday/Monday sickness quite well. Long term absence doesn't accrue points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner works for HMRC. They have similar sick pay and I can tell you that there are many totally abusing it. Off on full pay for months with totally minor ailments. It's pretty scandalous

 

I think it is down to how well it is managed. If I was to be off with something pretty minor for any length of time questions would be asked believe me. Like I said, we have a pretty strict policy in place, the Bradford Factor is only one part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Foot, the former leader of the Labour Party, was born on 23 July 1913. He would have been 100 years old today.

 

Foot was probably the last leader of a major political party in this country who didn't modify his style to take account of modern media coverage.

 

That was probably why he was good to watch and to listen to, although his political naiveté saw him lead Labour to a massive defeat in 1983.

 

But politics seemed a more vital and exciting activity in those days, before modern spin doctors got their hands on it.

Wasn't Bernard Ingham the epitome of the spin doctor?

And wasnt thatcher completely reinvented including the timbre of her voice by the Tory publicity department?

As I remember she was contemporaneous with foot

Foot was a fine writer and orator but not much of a politician

Healey should have got the job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thatcher, ingham, Saatchi, Bell invented spin to sell Thatcher.  Everything that followed by both parties was a reaction. Attlee would never have won an election today, despite the fact that he's (IMO) the greatest PM of the 20th century (even Norman Tebbitt said something to that effect on R4 the other day) Instead we get lightweights like Cameron, Osborne, Blair, and possibly Milliband leading our country.  Churchill was in his mid sixties when he became PM for the first time and he led us sucessfully through a war! In fact he was almost exactly the age I am now.  I think I might give it a go! :sleep:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thatcher, ingham, Saatchi, Bell invented spin to sell Thatcher. Everything that followed by both parties was a reaction. Attlee would never have won an election today, despite the fact that he's (IMO) the greatest PM of the 20th century (even Norman Tebbitt said something to that effect on R4 the other day) Instead we get lightweights like Cameron, Osborne, Blair, and possibly Milliband leading our country. Churchill was in his mid sixties when he became PM for the first time and he led us sucessfully through a war! In fact he was almost exactly the age I am now. I think I might give it a go! :sleep:

I listened to that program as well. It was very interesting to discoverer the high regard Tebbit had for the Attlee government as a whole. Went some way to changing my opinion of the bloke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017