Workers say they’re punished for taking sick time
September 29, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, They said what?
One in six workers surveyed recently by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago say they or a family member had been fired, suspended, punished or threatened by an employer for taking sick time.
Those sorts of claims have turned sick time into a political hot potato.
A bill introduced in Congress, the Healthy Families Act, would mandate that employers with at least 15 workers give seven paid sick days to employees a year.
Would Congress be so bold to pass such a bill? Maybe, because surveys show about 80% of workers think paid time off for illness or taking care of sick relatives should be a basic worker’s right.
Of course, FMLA requires employers to hold jobs for a reasonable period for personal or family illness. But there’s no current federal law to mandate any of that time is paid.
Some states legislatures are also reviewing their own paid-time-off bills.
Do you think companies should be mandated by the federal government to provide a minimum amount of paid time off for illness to employees? What is your company’s policy? Let us know in the Comments box below.
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 am
I do feel this should be mandatory. Seven days is adequate for an entire year. This does not mean that employees need to use it but if their children are home sick or they get sick, they do not have to come in and spread the illness through the office becuase they do not have enough sick time to stay home and rest.
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 am
I’m on the fence on this one. You give employees seven days and then they want eight. However, they do not need to feel like they can’t take a sick day or come in when they are obviously sick and could infect other employees. Some employees won’t use the extra sick time and others will use it and complain that they don’t get enough. How do you balance it?
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 am
If employees are truly sick then fine. Our policy gives unlimited sick days throughout the year, and we do certainly have people that abuse this. It is the same repeat offenders every time.
No one wants a legitimately sick person at work but when sick days are used as extra vacation days then that is not fair to the company or their co-workers’.
As far as getting the government involved; they need to concentrate on bigger and better things besides making companies pay for lackies.
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
I believe that it should be mandatory. For some reason, some companies refuse to see the benefits of having happy healthy employees. They should be allowed to use it for themselves or their immediate family.
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
This is bad news for employers…especially small employers. If companies are forced to pay employees for sick time, they will have to make cuts some where else. For example: fewer benefits, cuts in vacation time already being provided or even eliminating jobs.
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 am
We have six sick days, which if not used are paid in full on the anniversary. I am happy if they are used for illness, family business, etc. However, our non-exempts are allowed to use the time in 2-hour increments (used to be .5 hours!) and they use it not when they’re sick, but to come in late. Administration is a pain!
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
We do not have sick time and guess what, some employees come in sick, some don’t, it just depends on their financial needs. But a sick worker is NOT productive at all and might as well just be home.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:01 am
So small employers can’t afford to give any sick time to their employees? When they have it, a good employee will only take it when they need it. If you have abusers, there is something else going on that needs to be dealt with. Sick time does not have to be paid out- it can accumulate and rollover or be forfeited. I have many employees that never use their time. The abusers are dealt with accordingly.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
Our company provides employees with 3 sick days per year. Many do not use them. I can’t remember EVER needing to call in 7 times in one year. 7 is excessive.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
I don’t believe it should be mandatory that sick leave be paid. However, I do think they should be allowed to take time off if they are sick. If they want to make something mandatory to be paid it should be jury duty. I’m sorry but $10.00 a day just doesn’t cut it, if your not getting anymore reimbursement.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
We already offer 96hrs of sick leave, which includes up to 40hrs of family sick leave, and either a paid/unpaid FMLA status choice. Why should it be mandated by Congress, rather than the business itself as an incentive. I can tell you why. There is so much abuse of the sick leave we offer that most of our discipline issues stem from absenteeism rather than productivity or performance. Don’t back us into a corner by a federal mandate…….
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:13 am
Our policy is 7 sick/personal days are “earned” throughout the year … 1/2 day per month. At the end of the month, not the beginning. I dont feel that it should be mandatory.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 am
I got the flu last year and was off for a week. Fortunately I had the sick leave. When I called in my manager made me feel like I was a criminal. I feel that everyone deserves some sick leave. If they abuse it that is on them. They won’t have it when they really need it. But for those that do really need it, it is a life saver. And you shouldn’t have to FEAR calling in when you are sick.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
Our small company provides 3 sick/personal days per year. This should NOT be mandated. Small business cannot afford to keep picking up the tab. FMLA was written to protect employee’s jobs.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
Forcing employers to pay for sick time, rather than incentivizing them to provide it, will result in yet another hurdle for small businesses to overcome. Provide incentives for small employers to provide better benefit packages to their employees and require employees to earn them. Paid time off from work is simply not a right - it’s a priviledge and should be treated as such. Those who abuse it - lose it.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
I think this is another example of government forcing employers, now small employers, to provide benefits. I don’t need, nor do I want government intervention in the benefit packages I provide my employees. The employment market usually dictates what I must do to attract qualified employees. I provide sick time because I want too, but I don’t think we need our government making this a requirement. The next thing we’ll see is a minimum vacation day requirement!
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
We have some employees under PTO policy and others under V P & S days. The employees who use the Sick days use many more days off per year (up to 10) than the employees who have thier time grouped into PTO. I see much more abuse under the traditioanl time off and I have heard that employess make statements like “if they give it to us we should use it”.
I do not believe it should be mandatory. The government should stay out of this issue. They have enougth LARGER issues to deal with. Like protecting our pensions during this financial crisis. This is going to cost employer funded plans plenty.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 am
We finally lumped vacation and sick time together and give employees 18 days of Paid Time Off per year — use them however you want. When we had sick time, I could always tell which employee was planning to quit — they first drew their sick time down to zero knowing they could get paid out for vacation but not sick time. The new plan keeps them from lying and I don’t think we actually end up paying out much more than we did before.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
I work for a company that provides no sick time. This is a small but profitable company (over 60 mostly very hard-working employees). There are lots of companies like this. The actual cost of seven sick days/employee is no more than 5.5% of existing salaries (this covers the direct cost of sick pay and replacement hours worked by other employees to cover missed time). But it’s difficult to quantify offsetting gains in productivity and avoiding presenteeism - I’m guessing the offset is probably 1/3 to 1/2 (or more) of the direct costs. It’s a good idea to mandate this benefit and the costs are not nearly as catastrophic as some are indicating. Remember, the catastrophic cost argument has been used a lot in the past (about minimum wage increases, FMLA, etc.), but has typically proven to be very wrong.
The best solution for those of you concerned about sick time “abuse” is to implement a high-quality PTO plan. The best PTO plans allow the use of at least some of the time off without advance notice - and no questions asked. In other words, you don’t have to tell me your sick when you’re actually just so fried from working so hard for my company that you just need a mental health day.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Most of the replies that deal with mandated leave do so because a manager was harsh when some called in sick. These compaies are the problem that are going to casue the goverment to stick their nose into something else they have no business in. The companies wih these managers need to do some training and or replace these people. Bottom Line: Paid sick time and vacation are a benefit and not a right.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:42 am
Here’s just another instance where business is looking to government to “force” them into doing what they should do to attract and keep a productive work force.
On the one hand, there are those who believe they should have a “right” to paid time off, even though that was not agreed to when hired. These same people who generally are “rules followers” look for ways to make the rules work for them. If there is time on the books they are going to take it for fear of losing it. If it is a PTO, then they will come in sick to save the PTO for personal use later. From this viewpoint, it is easy to see the company in an adversarial position and so employees become “mini-lawyers” to argue their point of views and file grieveances, complaints and lawsuits.
On the other hand, there are those who believe that government should stay out of making rules for businesses. Government does not understand and cannot respond to the day to day complexities of running a business. The less government the better. If a company has the resources, they can provide these benefits to their employees. If they can’t afford it, then they can’t provide it. A “trickle down” philosophy.
The reality is that there is some truth to both views, but they both miss the BIG PICTURE. A company that responds to employee needs is going to have loyalty and productivity. Sick leave should be provided to help employees deal with their problems. If employees trust and believe in their company leadership, they will encourage co-workers to do their best. They will help each other resolve issues and be the most productive. They will confront those who appear to be disloyal or unproductive.
If an employee is abusing sick time for personal use, the issue is not really the sick time, but how to get this employee to be more loyal and productive on the job. Also, if the company only does what is mandated by government, then the loyalty of the employees goes from the company who provides the benefits to the government who mandates the benefits.
I think Shakespeare was right. “First, kill all the lawyers.”
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
The government doesn’t mandate paid holidays or paid vacations. Why mandate paid sick leave? Mandating will just take away one more way companies can compete for the best employees.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
The union positions here recieve 10 hours sick every month; plus 4 personal days and a minimum of 2 weeks vacation (3weeks after 7 years; 4 weeks after 10 years, 5 weeks after 18 years) per year. Totaling 120 sick hours, 32 personal hours and 80 vacation hours plus 14 holidays. Sick hours, up to 40 hours, may be bought back in November. We also offer FMLA as unpaid leave. Sad to say that we have employees that abuse the sick/personal/vacation allowed to them. One good thing is you cannot call out sick/personal/vacation after or before a holiday/vacation; these have to be pre-approved. If you call in sick after a holiday/vacation you must have a doctor’s note or you will recieve no pay for the time called off.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I am in agreement with the government bill. I also believe that going this route will outline the small employer protections/exemptions that were accomplished by the FMLA and COBRA and others. The US is so far behind other countries when it comes to providing PTO for our workforce. However, I fear that no matter how many days or what is the rule, the key is how the management responds to the employee’s request/need for time off. Many employees respond that even when entitled to PTO, they “feel like a criminal” when calling in. Others boast that even when sick they are dedicated and come into work anyway. Well , we all know that immunity varies in people and I do not feel that our employees who come in when they are sick and infect the rest of our staff is really doing the company any favors. Then I am faced with several employees out because it goes through the office from the contaminated “hero” who should have stayed home. We are in a service industry that relies on employees who are detail oriented and accurate as well as productive, and a sick employee who will not stay home does not deliver that, despite their show of dedication. What happens too often is that our supervisors and managers spend too much time “policing” time and attendance when they are paid to address client issues and services.
If US corporates understand that this is an employee’s right and that it is discriminatory or otherwise illegal to interfere with that right, businesses can plan and move on with business , not T&A monitoring. But I do agree, small businesses who have minimal position coverage issues need to be exempt.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I strongly concur with the person who brought up the point about jury duty. If the government is so concerned about employees financial circumstances, then they should pay for jury duty. I was recently asked to serve on a jury. Not getting paid and not having child care were not adequate reasons to be excused.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Our employees can accumulate up to 80 hrs. of sick leave per year to a max of 1250 forever hours. Sick leave is earned on hours worked, vacation & holidays @.0385 per hour. It is earned per pay period. Cannot be earned on sick leave taken. We even have an attentdance incentive program for not taking sick leave. 1x per year an employee can cash in anything in their sick leave bank over 480 hours @ 25%. It is amazing some employees take every hour earned and think it’s unfair when they really need it and it’s not there. Others take it only when necessary and are grateful it’s there when something major occurs. Absolutley agree with RJB the government should stay out of this issue, concentrate on the larger issues and let business decide what they need to do to attract the employees they need.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Federally mandating it 7 days is excessive. Better to let individual companies set their own rules. If you don’t like a comany’s PTO rules just go to another company. Here is an idea we do at our company. Have a Perfect attendance award program that pays a bonuse for employees who do not take sick days during the year along with a competitive sick program. Our experience is that it holds down sick instances.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Lois, dude you are headed down the wrong road. The US has the most productive workforce on the planet. If you think the US should do what other countries have done our prodcutivity will be destroyed. Soon the government will prohibit us from terminating/firing an employee for any reason. You state that “IF US corporations understand that this is an employee’s right and that it is discriminatory or otherwise illegal to interfere with that right..” I don’t know if you are in HR but there is no right to pay sick leave and nor should there be. The market will determine what a business offer and if it is not sufficient to attract the skilled workers it needs then the business will adjust. But there is no “right” and US corporations do not need to model themselves after foreign companies. My 2 cents.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I agree that the government should not mandate the sick time for businesses. However, sometimes it is the only way to get fair treatment for employees.
Seven days seems very excessive. Our employees work 12 hour shifts. 3 and 4 days per week or about 17 days per month. If we had to give them 7 paid sick days per year it would incurr a lot of overtime for people to work while they are off. It would have to be adjusted for companies with 12 hour shifts.
From my experience the best policy is to offer sick time and pay back half at the end of the year if not used. Most people would rather get the extra money than have the time off. The pay is still there if they do get sick.
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I don’t feel the government should mandate it, but I have to tell you that if employers want to attract and retain talent, they should provide some sort of sick or PTO. I have adult children who work for employers that don’t provide sick time and it has devastated them a few times. The choice is to go in sick, be miserable and infect everyone else or not be able to pay the rent and put food on the table.
October 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I don’t think there should be mandatory sick leave, too many people will feel they need to use it or loose it. There are time when I didn’t feel well but went into work anyway, and as the day went on I started to feel better. I do like the idea of sick/personal leave where it can be paid out at the end of the year, but it should be each employers choice.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I think the underlying problem is that some employers make their employees feel they can’t use sick leave, even when it’s offered. Mandating sick leave would force those employers to allow their employees to stay home when they are sick - and even to pay them for the time. But I don’t think it’s really going to deal with the problem, which is the attitude of managers.
People get sick. Some people get sick a lot (genuinely) and others never seem to catch anything. Everyone is different and illness happens with irregular, unpredictable frequency. Some people abuse this and every other policy offered by an employer. Some people don’t. Whether a company pays for the time an employee is off work due to illness or not, if the boss is making the employee feel like a dog for staying home, then maybe it’s time to find another job. A person should not be made to feel like a criminal if they are sick and need to stay home from work. Since when did taking care of yourself become wrong? It’s inconvenient for the boss and co-workers, but it is what it is. Life is like that.
Should the government mandate paid time off for illness. I think the government mandates enough. Unfortunately, heartless, uncaring, unthinking, unfair employers are at the root of most of our employment laws. Don’t want the government involved? If people would only do the right thing, we wouldn’t have to deal with all this stuff. But then, if that happened, I wouldn’t have a job (HR professional), would I?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 am
Our company gives non-exempt employees 8 personal days a year - to be used for sick time, doctor visits or other personal business. (This is in addition to their vacation days.) Employees are paid for any personal days/time not used at the end of the fiscal year, which discourages the “use it or lose it” mentality.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I don’t think employer’s should be obligated to pay for days not worked, unless there exists a standard / policy that compensates for sick days already in the company.
Our company provides for 6 sick days per calendar year and any balance does not roll over to the following year (use it or lose it), and is non-paid sick days. Per my understanding of employment law, employers are required to pay for time worked, therefore if the employee isn’t there, they are not paid. We provide for accrued paid vacations if an employee so chooses to obtain pay with available vacation time.
We also have other policies to work in conjunction with this policy requiring doctor’s notes at 2 or more consecutive sick days, to call in to notify your manager for business operational support.
If abusive amounts of sick days are taken, and/or if an employee exhibits a pattern of abuse beyond permissible sick days, they are counseled, and possibly written up if it interferes with operational needs. The good ol’ documentation, etc. procedure.
I cannot speak for others, but I work to enjoy vacations and survive in So Cal (paying with my sunshine dollars), so if I need a sick day, its legitimate. But I have a job to work, not to pass the time until I decide to take time off.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
The merits of federally mandated sick time aside, I think it’s the responibility of the editor, Mr. Hosier, to indicate that the bill mentioned, the Healthy Families Act, was submitted in May 2005 (that is not a typo) and never became law.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-1085
November 21st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I already give my employees two hours sick leave every pay period will equal to 52 hours a year. I don’t think Congress should mandate that employeers be required to give employees sick time. What’s next; mandated vacation time!
November 26th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Our team members are required to bring in a doctors not if they are going to be out more than a day. We have a point system in place and if they bring in a doctors note it won’t count against their attendance. It has been a very effective way to keep people honest. So yes, I would agree with giving paid sick days.
Our establishment got hit hard with the flu last year, where we were literally losing 2-4 people per shift. They would come in knowing they were sick, knowing they would spread germs, but they couldn’t afford to stay home and lose a days wages. Let the government mandate paid sick time.