By clicking “Accept All”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts
These cookies enable our website and App to remember things such as your region or country, language, accessibility options and your preferences and settings.
Analytic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
My business is not in the UK and what I've described is perfectly normal and legal. I'd like to know, according to you, when comes that point that employee does not get paid anymore for missing work? If he's been 60 days off... does he still get paid?
Of course. He deserves a good life doesn't he. He has to put food on the table somehow.
The thread started out about holiday pay. It is both the law and sensible to let staff have holidays so that they are refreshed. It can help motivate and increase productivity.
As for sick pay it depends on what your contract of employment says. Many small businesses cannot afford to be generous so do not pay people who are off sick. Instead they pay Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) which is a lot less, and in any case can be claimed back from HMRC in most circumstances. Other businesses will pay up to 6 months full pay and perhaps a further 6 months at half pay. This is a staff benefit, perhaps negotiated by a union.
In ALL cases a well run business will have factored in the above costs and consider it part of the cost of employing someone.
Why everytime I have this discussion do people always end up saying ‘you have to let staff have time off’.
At no point in my OP or anywhere in this post have I or anyone else said staff can’t have time off or a holiday.
My whole argument is that I don’t see why I should pay people in full to not be at work if they are choosing to do something else for the day/week.
You want a holiday or a night out be my guest, I’m not gonna stop them, I just don’t want to pay for it. I always ask if they were paying a decorator to do their kitchen every week and he went on holiday half way through would they still pay him for that week? Would they ****.
If people can’t afford to go on holiday or miss a days work without getting full pay for it then maybe they should look at their own way of life rather than expecting employers to bail them out.
Places I have used decorators I have always agreed a price for the job.
If he takes a couple of days off for a holiday partway through its no extra money - nor does he lose money. Job still gets paid for and job gets done.
Perhaps your experience by employing decorators is different.
You do not have to like the laws of this country. Could always try somewhere with more suitable local laws regarding holiday pay.
Or just buy some slaves. Not being subject to the same employment laws due to being slaves....
The fact that you constantly ignore the points I’m making and instead choose to resort to extreme examples (employ slaves?), or ramble on for 3/4 of your post about decorators when it was clearly just an example, leads me to believe you can’t come up with a decent counter argument other than ‘it’s the law’.
You’ve already revealed yourself to be an employee rather than employer anyway so I don’t expect you would understand.
You forgot to mention increasing post count.
My mistake, thought it was yours because of all the ramblings.
You forgot to mention increasing post count.
Don't forget your rising post count pointing out others! LOL
Still waiting on hearing about your miracle flu cure.
Thousands of people die from the flu, there are many others who can develop problems from secondary infections caused by the flu.
If someone had a flu cure rather than some quack remedy they'd make billions from it. Or get such things as a Nobel prize, civilian awards, knighthood etc.
Perhaps he has both of those and he's slumming on here...?![]()
I guess by rambling I meant the above. Your answer is usually a very long winded example or Google search result-esqe answer, in most cases pointing out the obvious.
And to clarify I do not have the cure for the flu - but as you're always getting it, a trip to the doctors is probably advised rather than trying to find the cure.
I won't. Since yours is even smaller than mine, I decided you are not worth the time.
I was thinking to post the exact thing. What's with that? The whole point of the thread is to discuss whether the law makes sense. "It's the law" is not an answerleads me to believe you can’t come up with a decent counter argument other than ‘it’s the law’.
I was thinking to post the exact thing. What's with that? The whole point of the thread is to discuss whether the law makes sense. "It's the law" is not an answer
Law doesn't have to make sense to be followed or ignored.
You are still expected, by some parts of society and some branches of government, to do what the law requires.
And where did anyone suggest not to do what the law says? Is it perhaps illegal to complain that the law sucks?Law doesn't have to make sense to be followed or ignored.
You are still expected, by some parts of society and some branches of government, to do what the law requires.
Which particular law do you have in mind?And where did anyone suggest not to do what the law says? Is it perhaps illegal to complain that the law sucks?
Instead they pay Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) which is a lot less, and in any case can be claimed back from HMRC in most circumstances.
Slaves are so last century, or was it the century before?Or just buy some slaves.