Where I’ve worked you’d hit a limit after a certain number of consecutive sick days and then move on the a short or long term disability package which wouldn’t be at full pay but not ruinous either. I’m not sure those are usable to care for somebody else though
Comment on These aren't "feel good" stories, they're "we live in hell" stories.
lugal@lemmy.world 8 months ago
The concept of limited sick days is still so wild for me … if you’re sick, you’re sick.
phx@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I think the problem is that people will obviously abuse this if they were left unchecked. It’s sad but the root of these restrictions aren’t just companies being assholes, it is also a minority of employees being assholes. They drive companies to take these stances.
lugal@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Citation needed.
It’s not like you say “I feel sick for 6 months, deal with it” but you have to check with your doctor regularly. That’s how it works in Germany. And at some point, you get less payment and when you are chronically ill, you will lose your job at some point. But it’s not a set number of days per year
Knightfox@lemmy.one 8 months ago
It’s not a set number for the US either, we have Family Medical Leave (FMLA). When they say you have sick days it’s referring to paid sick leave by your job. If you’re sick you can be out for sick leave for quite a long time and the jobs can’t do anything against you, they just don’t have to pay you. If you’re so sick that you’re on FMLA for a long time you’ll probably qualify for Short Term Disability which you might also supplement with Short Term disability insurance.
platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I’m talking by experience. I’ve seen people abuse the benefits that the companies give. When the companies find out, they feel betrayed and start restricting those benefits for everyone.
I’m just saying that greed isn’t the only reason behind these issues. That workers also have the responsibility to be respectful towards companies, which isn’t always the case.
Both sides need to be better. Companies even more than workers obviously, but workers ain’t saints either.
Plus, I don’t think that losing your job because you have a serious illness should be acceptable or the mechanism to ensure people aren’t abusing their benefits.
I’m sure companies would be more open to these changes if those few cases of bad apples didn’t exist. But they exist, so companies are like “ok, if treating you like shit is the only way you won’t abuse the benefits, we’ll go down this path then”. And yeha, it’s just a couple of workers who fuck it up for everyone else.
Oszilloraptor@feddit.de 8 months ago
Well, it’s not like a significant part of the world is already working with “unlimited” sick days.
It’s not really unlimited, anyway. You will need doctors notices (ofter after a few days), after a while some attestation from certain state doctors, after a while the money will be paid by your health insurance, after a while you will loose your job.
Not to mention that you forfeit chances for promotions and raises.
Taking enormous amounts of sick days won’t be without consequences. Especially not if unjustified.
The difference is that I don’t have a sickness budget.
If I’m sick, i’m sick.
If I’m suspiciously often sick, my employer will talk to me.
Snowpix@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
I think this way of thinking is reductive. There are always going to be people who will abuse the system. You can have all the checks you want, but it’s gonna happen anyway. However, these people are a minority. Most people do want to work, and having the ability to rest and recover when they’re sick no matter how frequent it may be, means they’re doing and feeling much better at work. We shouldn’t refuse to implement things that will benefit everyone because a few people might abuse it.
platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yeha, that’s sadly what happens. They punish everyone because a few abuse their trust. Obviously, there are companies out there that are just shitty, I’m just saying that workers also have the responsibility of being respectful with the few companies that are still good. Thankfully I work in a place that lets people take as many sick days as they need and nobody has abused their trust.
oce@jlai.lu 8 months ago
There has to be some limit for the company. Let’s forget a minute about big evil corporation and take a little local company that hire a new person that is needed to run the shop. If this person is absent unlimited and you don’t have the funds to hire a replacement, should you just close the shop? It doesn’t mean we can put an arbitrary limit on sickness but rather than at some point the company have the liberty to let you go if you can’t fulfil your part of the contract anymore in the forsable future. It doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a system to help the sick person recover, but maybe that’s not the company’s job past a certain time, and rather the role of social/health insurance.
b0gl@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Here in Sweden your workplace will pay 80% of your salary for the first 7 days, and then if you are still sick, you need to get a doctor’s note and then the state will pay you instead.
Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 months ago
this is extremely sensible and reasonable
jflorez@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
This is what a well implemented democratic socialism gets you (The Nordic model)
ARk@lemm.ee 8 months ago
B-But why should my taxpayer money go to the welfare of my fellow people /s
Clipboards@lemmy.world 8 months ago
This is a very elegant solution, but unfortunately it’s a productive use of our tax dollars so we’ll never do that here in the U.S.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yeah, this is why in many countries, Australia included, part of parental leave is paid by the state (it’s at minimum wage), and the company isn’t required to pay anything extra (but must let you take leave).
Most employers however, are much more generous than this to attract talent.