acemuzzy wrote:

To Tiger 3% is a percentage.

To me that 3% is a child. A life. Let down. Failed. How the fuck anyone could celebrate in the face of that is beyond me.

Yeah, but the child is a prick so...

This is why Priti Patel turned out to be evil.

"Maybe"

One of my "this job is too busy" moans.  40 patients this morning. BMA currently reckons I'm supposed to see 25 in a whole day. The worst bit isn't so much the feeling knackered, as the suspicion/knowledge that I can't possibly have done all of those as well as I would have liked to.

I did not, however, have the temerity to take someone's House Captain badge away, so still less of a monster than Tiger.

Can you not leave the patient from India in the corner Tiger-stylee?

I..

I handed in my notice today.

I have seen the will of the people. I will, however, remain as the teacher for the next few years to ensure a smooth transition.

Back to work today. WFH.

Did my return to work. I get full sick pay for time off. Never had this before. Why doesn't everywhere do this it is amazing.

Dark Soldier wrote:

Back to work today. WFH. Did my return to work. I get full sick pay for time off. Never had this before. Why doesn't everywhere do this it is amazing.

Because its a cost not every business can afford. Thats not to say its a good or bad thing - I'm in favour of paid sick leave but its pretty obvious why its not unviersal. 

Its coming into law in Ireland and will billed up to a mandatory 2 weeks off sick (assuming you can get a doctor to sign off which is costly in Ireland (€50 to 60 per gp visit) but most doctors are happy to give extended sick notes. Overall this is a good thing, but as said many doctors will give you a 2 week sick note over here if you ask for it. This means that an average employee will have 4 weeks mandatory holiday pay, 2 weeks of bank holidays and potentially 2 weeks sick pay (thats 8 weeks total or 15% of the year) Thats a lot of hours to cover and roughly means that every 6th employee is potentially just cover for the other 5.

I'm very much in two minds on the sick pay. I think its great its going to be in law so it wont be something a company can dodge. But I do have issue with the employee paying a Pay related social insurance tax as well as the employer paying a pay related social insurance tax if employers have to cover the sick leave as well. Employers PRSI is an additional 10% average on every employee and is never brought up when people discuss pay rises over here but is a huge factor.

You should try running a small business first.

Yossarian wrote:

I remain of the opinion that if a company can’t afford to treat their employees well (sick pay, living wage, not expecting employees to work more than their hours without compensation), then that company doesn’t deserve to be in business.

Just to be clear - are you advocating no job over one that may not be tip top (let's say min wage , overtime paid but no sick pay)

Sick pay means that employees don't come in and spread contagious diseases among the workforce because they can't afford to be off work unpaid.

There's no justification for unpaid overtime. If you want someone to work, you pay them for it.

Yossarian wrote:

My feeling is that if there is a gap in the market for something, someone will come in and fill it. If that person can get away with treating their employees like shit and offering fewer benefits, then they often will, and if they do so, they’ll likely be able to outcompete a business that looks after its employees due to reduced costs. This just ends up pulling standards down for everyone as reducing employee costs becomes one of the major ways of becoming competitive.

Ultimately, if you can’t run a business profitably and look after your employees, go do something else and leave the task someone else who can.

Complete agreement.

Everything Yoss says is fine for full-time 9–5 jobs. It’s not so simple for shift-based stuff, like most hospitality roles. If I were a barman, for example, I wouldn’t be expecting full sick pay. Which sucks, but it is the way.

poprock wrote:

Everything Yoss says is fine for full-time 9–5 jobs. It’s not so simple for shift-based stuff, like most hospitality roles. If I were a barman, for example, I wouldn’t be expecting full sick pay. Which sucks, but it is the way.

Would you not expect it because it's generally not happened, or is there a reason you think it can't happen?

Because I can't see any reason it can't be done.

It's when you've got a really good salary bragging to your mates and "I've got SICK PAY man!"