Should You Be Able to Cash-in/Convert Sick Leave?

Trying2SaveABuck on 25/03/2019 - 12:09
Last edited 25/03/2019 - 14:47 by 1 other user

Should you be able to cash-in/convert sick leave?

After reading some of the comments:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/446222?page=1#comment

I thought it would be a interesting poll to see what people think – I also have a load of sick leave >2months however there are people what have been at my company for over 30 years and have >2 years of sick days at there disposal should they (touch wood) ever need it.

However though I understand sick leave/personal leave is exactly for that ‘being sick’ I wounder what people who work full/part time would think about the ability to transfer it to either time in lieu or have it paid out – of course this would have to only be allowed once a person has a significate number of sick days accrued ie >3 months.

Wage growth has slow down to continental drift speed, comments in the forum would suggest being honest and not taking fake sick days is in reality to the detriment of the honest worker.

I know some would argue this would discourage people from taking sick days in general but I also think people who have 6+ months of leave due to doing the right think and not taking fake sickies shouldn’t be at a lose if they leave there job. I also think it would improve productivity because it would stop fake sickies and possible unethical sick leave.

Note: I know people who take sickies on a semi-regular that are not sick usually before public holidays or when they have event they want to go to all the time. It is really easy to get a stat deck or medical cert these days.

Personally i think you should be able to convert or get paid out your sick leave at a certain balance level but I am a worker if i owned i business i'd probably feel very different.

Poll Options

124
You should be able to convert sick days to time in lieu at the workers discretion
67
You should be paid out your sick leave if you leave a work place
464
You shouldn’t be able to convert sick days the system works fine

Education & Work

Comments

[Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 13:20

-8

I think we should all be paid as per the rules of casual workers (note I said pay and only pay).

Sick leave is a benefit extended to workers because humans fall sick. If that's paid out, then cost of running businesses go up and cost of goods/services increases proportionately or worse. It's not meant as extra pay. No funds are involved for the employee but the employer needs to have some cash ready to cover a sick employee.

Annual leave etc should just be unpaid and wages adjusted as per casual agreement. Don't work, don't get paid. Annual leave days should be left as is (sans the remuneration) so workers have the right to make plans and see them through.

This convoluted system of leave payouts, superannuation, PAYG, is just another way of forced savings at the expense of everyone who can manage their own finances.
- p1 ama on 25/03/2019 - 13:33
  
  +8
  
  Annual leave etc should just be unpaid and wages adjusted as per casual agreement. Don't work, don't get paid. Annual leave days should be left as is (sans the remuneration) so workers have the right to make plans and see them through.
  
  That makes for a horrible system. By that same logic, we should have no social insurance - no Medicare, no Centrelink, no pension. Again, "don't get sick, don't pay medical bills", "don't work, don't get paid", "didn't save up whilst you're working, die early from starvation when you retire"…etc.
  
  There's a reason why we moved towards having social insurance for things that are not predictable. It can happen to anyone and it can happen to you. We support each other.
  - altomic on 25/03/2019 - 13:39
    
    tshow makes a very good argument……..whilst he lives safely in Australia where there are safety nets to assist people in need.
    - [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 14:21
      
      I'm not sure what you're insinuating.
  - [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 14:16
    
    You do realise that annual leave is accrued. For example, If I am paid $400/day and I get a day off every 10 days as annual leave (just an example for easy maths), it would make no net difference if I got paid $440/day and my annual leave isn't paid.
    
    The only difference is that each person needs to put money aside so they can pay their liabilities even if they take their annual leave.
    
    Ps.
    
    There's a reason why we moved towards having social insurance for things that are not predictable. It can happen to anyone and it can happen to you. We support each other.
    
    And the party that supports these social insurances more will win the support of the segment reliant on these provisions. It's not altruism that spurs welfare, it is electoral segments.
    
    If we truly wanted to share (both as a benefactor or beneficiary) it would happen without the need of policy.
    - dasher86 on 25/03/2019 - 14:50
      
      There is a difference and it is called oncosts.
      eg. $400 plus super of 9.5% vs $440 plus super 9.5%.
      don't forget other costs to the business, insurance workers comp, LSL provisions, payroll tax.
      - [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 15:02
        
        @dasher86: That's why I mentioned it is an example for easy maths. The adjustment wouldn't be quite so proportional but ultimately, it can work out the same.
        
        But as you mentioned, the amount of red tape attached is just prohibitive for someone to go into business. When it is so prohibitive, workers give up on the idea of ever becoming a business owner and they band together to form a union with the assumption all business owners are evil.
        
        dasher86 on 25/03/2019 - 15:07
        
        @[Deactivated]: I understand what you are saying but 'no net difference' would mean the legislation would have to change to adjust your base pay/definitions which most oncosts are calculated on.
        
        [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 15:11
        
        @dasher86: Definitely there would be legislative change for a move like this and the upfront cost of a change of this magnitude will seem unnecessary, however, I would argue the downstream benefits of deconvolution outweighs the immediate growing pains.
        
        I was once an employee and the transition to business ownership was extremely daunting. I lost hair, gain weight, my blood pressure was constantly 180/120 at rest. And I was in the very upper limits of physical health before I started.
        
        It has taken me a decade to get my health in order as I journey through this boobytrapped maze of business ownership.
        
        Ps. I didn't buy into a business. I built it from scratch.
    - p1 ama on 25/03/2019 - 17:23
      
      +1
      
      And the party that supports these social insurances more will win the support of the segment reliant on these provisions.
      
      Yes, keep saying that until you're faced with an accident which, in another country, would cost you millions of dollars, sending your entire family into bankruptcy, leaving you a burden to everyone around you until you take the time to recover. You sound exactly like the idiot driving around without insurance because "I'll never get into an accident" until they hit someone and can't pay for it.
      
      It's not altruism that spurs welfare, it is electoral segments.
      
      It's not altruism that spurs welfare, it is the fact that you don't want to get f'd over for the rest of your life when it happens to you, so you pay a little extra (and everyone does too) so that if it happens to you you can live.
      
      If we truly wanted to share (both as a benefactor or beneficiary) it would happen without the need of policy.
      
      This is loony conservative clap-trap garbage. I'm neither really a left or right-leaning, I look at the evidence in terms of what works. Go to the US where you have much lower social safety nets and there are more people in poverty, healthcare is the leading cause of bankruptcy, and students graduating with so much loan debt they're underwater before their careers even begin. Compare that to Canada, their next-door neighbour, one of the best healthcare systems in the world, much lower poverty rates, much more liveable, people much more happy…etc.
      - [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 20:09
        
        -5
        
        @p1 ama:
        
        Compare that to Canada, their next-door neighbour, one of the best healthcare systems in the world, much lower poverty rates, much more liveable, people much more happy…etc.
        
        Best healthcare in the world". You mean state run healthcare because it doesn't go anywhere close to privately funded healthcare in the US. And of course the Canadian "free" healthcare is better. The net amount per person spent on said healthcare is astronomically higher.
        
        Lower poverty rate because they take the money from the top and push the bottom up so it crosses the poverty line. Of course, to many, this is completely acceptable because "sharing" is good.
        
        Much more liveable because if you're bear the bottom, someone else is keeping you afloat. Not so good if you're the someone else.
        
        Much more happy, sure. If you take from 10% and give the 90%, you get 90% of people happier.
        
        How bout the not so glamourous socialist neighbour? V..v.. Venezuela. (I feel like I almost need to hide for saying it. It's taboo amongst the bleeding hearts).
        
        Yes, keep saying that until you're faced with an accident which, in another country, would cost you millions of dollars
        
        By that logic, I better buy insurance for a snowstorm. Because… "You never know but wouldn't you be glad to know you're covered".
        
        p1 ama on 25/03/2019 - 21:47
        
        +4
        
        @[Deactivated]: You're saying things which are simply untrue.
        
        You mean state run healthcare because it doesn't go anywhere close to privately funded healthcare in the US.
        
        Yes, a system where people are dying on the street and where medical costs are the greatest cause of bankruptcy is a great system.
        
        The net amount per person spent on said healthcare is astronomically higher.
        
        Factually untrue. The amount spent per person is higher in the US than anywhere else. Unsurprising because they have a highly inefficient system where private health insurers need to make a profit as well as provide care.
        
        Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_healthcare_s…
        
        There are also other flow-on costs from expensive care in the US. This includes people not seeing medical professionals until their condition is worse due to costs, meaning that the costs for care of those patients are now higher…etc.
        
        Lower poverty rate because they take the money from the top and push the bottom up so it crosses the poverty line. Of course, to many, this is completely acceptable because "sharing" is good.
        
        That's not true economically. In a capitalist system, the main driver of innovation is profits, i.e. products need to be able to sell. You can't just simply sell stuff to rich people, there simply aren't enough rich people in the world for most businesses to survive and thrive.
        
        Therefore, you need poorer people to be able to access the markets. This means that by taking some tax dollars from the very rich and giving it to the very poor, you increase their economic activity - they spend more, more goods are produced, more jobs are created and more wealth is generated which, surprise surprise end up flowing back to the the ultra-wealthy when their corporations do better due to the increased sales.
        
        Much more liveable because if you're bear the bottom, someone else is keeping you afloat. Not so good if you're the someone else.
        
        No, you don't get the point. The point is, when you give me $1, I use that $1 productively which generates $2 in the economy, which then generates $4, then $8 and at some point in the chain, you will eventually get your $1 back because people buy more of whatever product you are making.
        
        Much more happy, sure. If you take from 10% and give the 90%, you get 90% of people happier.
        
        No, read above. There's a reason why many ultra-rich people (e.g. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos…etc.) tend to lean lefter on the political spectrum. It's not just because they're nice people, but they have an understanding of economics and, especially in Bezos' case, can see that the less people there are in poverty, the more people are going to be buying crap from Amazon and the more money he makes.
        
        How bout the not so glamourous socialist neighbour? V..v.. Venezuela. (I feel like I almost need to hide for saying it. It's taboo amongst the bleeding hearts).
        
        Nobody is advocating for the means of production to be owned by the state. We are talking about institutions that have existed in Australia and most developed nations around the world for a very long time. Things like universal healthcare, pensions, unemployment benefits…etc. are common in the overwhelming majority of the richest countries in the world.
        
        By that logic, I better buy insurance for a snowstorm. Because… "You never know but wouldn't you be glad to know you're covered".
        
        Again, you make an absurd point. If the probability of a snowstorm is low, then don't get insurance for it. If there is a reasonable risk of having a snowstorm, then it makes sense to have insurance. What would you do if someone hit your car and was uninsured and couldn't pay you a cent and declared bankruptcy when they took you to court. Would you just shrug your shoulders and move on, or say that they should have been insured before driving a car. Don't be hypocritical.
        
        Basically, to sum up your arguments, you're taking typical hacky conservative talking points and combining it with below first-year level economics to try and make yourself sound smart. That might work on people who don't know any better, but I'm a PhD trained economist with experience in private and government roles analysing policy and regulation. I don't really care much about the politics, I care about the facts.
        
        [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 22:01
        
        -4
        
        @p1 ama:
        
        You're saying things which are simply untrue.
        
        And you reference a wiki article which referenced articles that say the comparisons are not conclusive and mentions articles from major publishers that show evidence to the contrary. Yet the editors on wiki does not even summarise the contrary findings. Strangely convenient.
        
        I've access to those articles since I have a subscription to Cochrane reviews and many medical journals.
        
        I'll summarise - the contrary findings are much more detailed and compelling. I doubt I'll change anyone's mind here so if you're so inclined, follow the links to contrary claims on your source to find out more.
        
        No, you don't get the point. The point is, when you give me $1, I use that $1 productively which generates $2 in the economy, which then generates $4, then $8 and at some point in the chain, you will eventually get your $1 back because people buy more of whatever product you are making.
        
        Because giving unproductive people money taxed from productive people is more likely to result in more productive use of the money.
        
        You've used "circulation" interchangeably to "productivity". Productive it is not and circulation is a means to itself.
        
        No, read above. There's a reason why many ultra-rich people (e.g. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos…etc.) tend to lean lefter on the political spectrum.
        
        You mean the capitalist who are claiming to be left whilst practicing all the tenets of the right? You sure it has nothing to do with popularity? Last I checked, Bernie wasn't too pleased with Bezos and Bernie is all about the ~~robbing~~ sharing.
        
        you're taking typical hacky conservative talking points and combining it with below first-year level economics
        
        I do not need to name call for you nor your points. They qualify on their own merit.
        
        Look, I'm clearly not going to change your mind. You've clearly resorted to mud slinging so whatever post you want should go unchallenged. Good luck.
        
        Ps. I didn't even bring up safety nets. Merely said annual leave should be paid out as you go, and when/if you do take annual leave, you don't get paid (again). Way to stir up a topic and start hurling poop.
        
        p1 ama on 26/03/2019 - 00:26
        
        +3
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        I'll summarise - the contrary findings are much more detailed and compelling. I doubt I'll change anyone's mind here so if you're so inclined, follow the links to contrary claims on your source to find out more.
        
        I'm not a health economist, so I'll accept that I have no expertise in this area. However, based on what I have read in health economics and based on conversations with people who are health economists, I think that it is a majority held opinion that US healthcare is much more expensive than other places around the world. I accept there might be other opinions, again, I'm not an expert.
        
        Because giving unproductive people money taxed from productive people is more likely to result in more productive use of the money.
        
        Define what is the "productive use of money", as an economist, I've never heard of this concept.
        
        Productive it is not and circulation is a means to itself.
        
        Again, flowery words, but meaningless. The whole point is trade because it allows people to realise their comparative advantage.
        
        You mean the capitalist who are claiming to be left whilst practicing all the tenets of the right? You sure it has nothing to do with popularity? Last I checked, Bernie wasn't too pleased with Bezos and Bernie is all about the robbing sharing.
        
        I'm not a political analyst or a politician. I'm an economist. I don't care about "left" or "right" nonsense. Neither do I care about who Bernie Sanders likes or dislikes. It's completely irrelevant to an economic analysis of the problem.
        
        The question of economic truth and policy are separate questions and you are confusing the two, as people often do.
        
        The idea of using taxation to allow poorer people to participate in markets and hence, generate more wealth for all of society is not new. It's well understood and accepted by economists. You might not agree that we should implement that as a policy. That's fine. However, it is wrong to say that because you don't agree with it, it mustn't be true.
        
        Another example - smoking. We can discuss whether we should ban cigarettes. However, it would be wrong to say that cigarettes are not harmful to health because you don't want to ban them. You're simply bending the truth to suit your narrative.
        
        Look, I'm clearly not going to change your mind. You've clearly resorted to mud slinging so whatever post you want should go unchallenged. Good luck.
        
        Of course not. I've been an economist my entire working life. I've researched many of these issues first hand, I've written papers, written reports for the Australian government and private entities, presented at conferences…etc. I don't think I'm closed minded, but you're just saying things that are not correct.
        
        Try convincing a doctor that vaccines don't work, or convincing a scientist that there's no such thing as an electron.
        
        Ps. I didn't even bring up safety nets. Merely said annual leave should be paid out as you go, and when/if you do take annual leave, you don't get paid (again). Way to stir up a topic and start hurling poop.
        
        I'm not the one regurgitating points I've heard on Fox News or conservative talk radio. If you want to make a political point, fine, but don't try to dress what you're saying as any proper form of economics.
        
        [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 14:47
        
        -1
        
        @p1 ama: You're constantly talking about social insurance, you look at the economy from a societal perspective and you claim you are politically neutral. Well, you're not.
        
        A rose by any other name…
        
        Deridas on 26/03/2019 - 15:34
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: @tshow
        
        I totally agree with most of the things and the points you say. I think most people from your background with some knowledge/interest in politics/social would have similar leanings. However, this is a minority, even here on Ozbargain.
        
        [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 15:57
        
        @Deridas: I'm fully aware. Thanks for the show of empathy.
        
        I'm used to being apathetically labelled apathetic. The level of irony has given me hemochromatosis.
        
        p1 ama on 26/03/2019 - 20:50
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        You're constantly talking about social insurance, you look at the economy from a societal perspective and you claim you are politically neutral. Well, you're not.
        
        You still misunderstand. Whether you want social insurance is different from how and why social insurance works.
        
        I don't want to ban smoking, I would assume you don't want to ban smoking either. I would vehemently oppose anyone looking to ban smoking. However, it would be dishonest of me to say that "smoking is actually good for you".
        
        This is the issue with talking about economics with people who don't understand economics besides catch phrases. Don't get me wrong, it's not because of your political leanings. I could have similar discussions with people from any political leaning. If someone supports the socialisation of the means of production, I would gladly discuss with this would be in direct contrast with current economic rationale.
        
        Basically, my point is, whether we want social insurance or not is irrelevant. If you don't want it, then don't vote for it, don't take it, don't live in a place that has it…etc. It's separate from the economic analysis of the situation (which you have to do using proper econometric techniques and models).
- random12 on 25/03/2019 - 21:14
  
  -1
  
  @tshow
  
  Wait a minute, you do realise that we agree on basically 90% of things ( go and reread the other thread, and then come back ).
  
  I would much rather base pay get increased by actuarially equivalent amount, rather than having all these different leaves with conditions that you need to show proof for. I want to get rid of super and increase base pay.
  
  So why were you so hostile to me in that thread?
  
  I only said that I wanted to take fake sick days because in the established system, its the only way to get value. I would much rather get rid of all bs.
  - [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 21:33
    
    +1
    
    I wasn't hostile. I merely and repetitively called out the attempt to lie and defraud. I did not name call nor try to make anything personal. You made every attempt to vilify me by trying to lump me in with the rich or the bosses, etc. It served no purpose but to guide a narrative.
    
    A lot of people, maybe yourself, may have been trying to ignore the fact that calling in sick when not sick is a lie. I did not invent the definition of a lie and many, yourself included, tried to call it otherwise.
    
    The rest is just projection onto me. No amount of calling "high horse, self righteousness, etc" was going to change the definition of a lie nor the action of one.
    
    And I do not agree that sickie should be paid out. I clearly specified annual leave. Getting paid out for annual leave is already a thing, and using annual leave for holidays isn't fraud.
- Danstar on 26/03/2019 - 13:43
  
  Every workplace is different, it's too hard to have a general view for every business in Australia.
  
  Personally, Sick days aren't only for days you are "sick". They are there to be used at your own discretion, if you use them all up and have none left for when you actually are sick, you will not be paid.
  Simple.
  
  Generally we all get less wage growth because of sick days, so unless business want to pay 20% more P.a.
  We have the right to use our sick days while employed.
  
  I agree that we shouldn't get them paid out if we quit.
  - Deridas on 26/03/2019 - 15:25
    
    "They are there to be used at your own discretion" - that's called annual leave, not sick leave.
    
    "We have the right to use our sick days while employed." - we have the right to use sick days supposedly ONLY when we're actually sick.
    
    "if you use them all up and have none left for when you actually are sick, you will not be paid." - that's not a great incentive for chucking a sickie, I can get income protection insurance and continue getting paid if I get sick/disabled for a moderate period of time.
    - Danstar on 26/03/2019 - 16:23
      
      You can get income protection if your legitimately sick or unable
      to work. Not cos you used up all your sick leave and want to rort the system
    - Danstar on 26/03/2019 - 16:24
      
      Sick leave can be used when ever you want as long as you can get a doctors certificate or a stat. Dec.
altomic on 25/03/2019 - 13:35

+7

I'm not racist but sick leave is there as a safety net.

a form of insurance.

if it was "cashable out" then it could equate to a huge debt/burden to employers
- ihbh on 25/03/2019 - 15:05
  
  +1
  
  Totally agree.
  
  I'm not racist
  
  Why would you be a racist for making that comment?
  - [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 15:14
    
    +1
    
    I feel like that's how we should start any conversation or express any opinions these days.
    - [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 08:20
      
      You “feel” hence your opinion is not a scientific fact. Do not tell me what I or we “should” be doing. You are just a random stranger and your display picture shows that you are an ageist and elitist person hence a racist one.
      - [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 09:08
        
        +3
        
        @[Deactivated]: That escalated quickly. 😂
- Kangal on 25/03/2019 - 15:09
  
  +2
  
  …that's exactly what a racist would say ;)
arkie0 on 25/03/2019 - 13:37

I think you should be able to convert but only at a certain limit, say 1000 hours and maybe convert at 2:1.
Quantumcat on 25/03/2019 - 13:44

+4

You need a new poll option - you should be able to transfer your sick leave to your new job. That would solve people using it under false pretenses so it isn't wasted.
- Some Human on 25/03/2019 - 14:03
  
  That's actually a good idea.
- wei13 on 25/03/2019 - 14:13
  
  so the new employer needs to take up sick leave from another employer ?
  - boomramada on 25/03/2019 - 14:32
    
    and why they want to do that? New employer feeling sick?
  - Quantumcat on 25/03/2019 - 16:07
    
    +2
    
    It's not a bad thing like it seems at first glance - for one thing, it would make you an employer of choice (the potential employee will have some sick leave in the bank and won't have to work for a few months to have some days earned), and if the potential employee has a huge amount of sick leave banked up - that means they don't take sick days willy-nilly when they just don't feel like working. The potential employee that DOESN'T have any sick leave banked despite working for their previous employer for a number of years, is the one you need to be wary of!
- KeplersLaws on 25/03/2019 - 14:33
  
  +2
  
  I believe public sector does this? at least with QLD govt
  - bob smith on 25/03/2019 - 14:40
    
    +1
    
    In Vic, this is possible in public health. Recognition of continuation of service.
- original15 on 25/03/2019 - 18:07
  
  Watch employers go ever further away from older candidates
- Danstar on 26/03/2019 - 13:40
  
  Nurses get that (In Victoria anyway)
- Levathian on 26/03/2019 - 23:05
  
  How does that work. I hire a new employee and a few weeks later they're sick and I'm up for say 2 weeks of pay, which was accrued when they worked for a past employer?
  - Quantumcat on 27/03/2019 - 08:52
    
    If they accrued a lot of leave that means they probably don't tend to take it for mental health days.
    
    So that means if they are off sick they are really sick. If they had no sick leave yet they would be in the office, infecting people, and making more people take sick leave.
    
    Plus, it makes you more attractive as an employer, so you get more candidates and higher quality candidates applying for the role. Given time, the one you hired will be more productive and earn your company more money. You could also offer less salary and this may make people still want to apply (eg public service is lower wage than private but has benefits to make up for it).
trustnoone on 25/03/2019 - 14:18

+2

I think the issue is it kind of makes it sound like extra free money for employees but I assume its all a numbers game, they come up with an idea on how much they want to people, for example 100k a year based on average sick leave taken, rec leave cost, long service leave etc etc. If you start costing more by taking money from sick leave, they just take it out of what would be everyones total wage (say that 100k). I don't know many companies that would actually give you more money.
- [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 15:22
  
  +2
  
  Exactly. This is what the masses who are perpetual employees fail to see - any business that is even remotely well managed operate on a budget.
  
  Wages and all associate cost of labour is seen as a whole and the government isn't giving businesses money for hiring people. (Exceptions exist ie. Rural grant or hiring people off the Dole, but these are the micro minority).
  
  Tangent - Instead of people aspiring to build businesses and be captains of industry, we have a toxic culture of banding together and attacking employers and it is my opinion that most people acknowledge the difficulties of owning a business (beyond just capital limitations) and as such have completely denounced any desire of being on the other side.
  
  Empathy works both ways but it cannot exist in the absence of potential to actually be in another's shoe.
dust on 25/03/2019 - 15:13

I'm pretty sure cashing out sick leave already exists. It's called mental health days!
[Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 15:40

+2

If we moved to an environment where sick leave was paid out we would end up with less sick leave entitlement i.e. instead of 10 days per year we'd probably receive less than 5.
- spiff on 25/03/2019 - 16:46
  
  That would be an interesting poll! Keep the current entitlement the way it is or reduce the personal leave entitlement to 5 days per year, still roll over and could be cashed out when you resign. I think the latter option would curtail the issue of taking a sickie.
  - jjjaar on 25/03/2019 - 18:40
    
    +1
    
    To be honest I would still use my personal days.
    
    My work expects 45 hour weeks (paid for 40) and I am often overworked and mentally drained*. If I did not take a mental health day once every month or two, my productivity, happiness levels and willingness to achieve my goals would go down significantly.
    
    Note, my company does accept mental health as a legitimate use of a personal day.
    
    Also note, I take annual leave every other month as a mental health day too.
    
    *I am looking for a new job.
    - [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 18:42
      
      I'm sure they accept legitimate mental health issues. I'm not sure that feeling drained meets that definition.
      - jjjaar on 25/03/2019 - 18:49
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Mental health is not simply a diagnosed condition. I’m trying to prevent getting to that diagnosed state by looking after my mental health on a daily basis.
      - [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 08:15
        
        @[Deactivated]: Please don't ever manage workers
  - [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 18:43
    
    +1
    
    It would, however it'd create other issues with people coming to work when they're sick and infecting other people.
[Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 19:45

+1

Isn't 'sick leave' now called 'personal leave' under the NES? In my organisation , no excuse or explanation is needed to take personal leave. There's never been any abuse afaik. Personally, I rather that those who don't feel like coming to work , don't turn up for work. Nothing depresses me more than being in the same air-space as a grumpy, passive-aggressive colleague.
- Trying2SaveABuck on 25/03/2019 - 20:07
  
  You must lover your job - today all i did was complain about Monday-itis
  - [Deactivated] on 25/03/2019 - 20:10
    
    +2
    
    I'm a lover alright! :p But yes, I do love my job.
    - Trying2SaveABuck on 25/03/2019 - 20:26
      
      Bahaha just wadda typo!
- [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 08:14
  
  There's no such thing as personal leave abuse. It's impossible (unless you are talking about other people who judge workers for taking entitled personal leave)
  - [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 19:20
    
    +1
    
    There's no such thing as personal leave abuse.
    
    I meant taking personal leave without needing to justify it or produce a stat dec/ medical certificate.
Mrgreenz on 25/03/2019 - 22:16

I feel a cash out at a reduced rate would be a good balance, maybe paid days out at 50%.
No ONE on 26/03/2019 - 00:28

As much as I love option 1 & 2, I have to vote for 3. It is intended for the purpose it is created. Don't screw up the system.

FYI, salary below 80k.
- random12 on 26/03/2019 - 00:33
  
  -1
  
  'Don't screw up the system' - This statement seems to imply that it is working now. It's not (definitely not optimally anyway).
gregsurname on 26/03/2019 - 00:35

+1

Sick leave is there for when you, or others you care for, are sick so that you are not financially penalised by ill-health. If you never have to use it then be glad that you are not unwell. Being able to cash out sick leave would result in people getting fewer sick leave days, and reduced ability for future EBAs to include more sick leave. Then those who are unfortunate enough to really need lots of sick leave would run out.
RolandWaites on 26/03/2019 - 02:38

+2

No. The system is there, and is relatively generous, because it exists as a vital safety net. You should be glad you didn't have to use it.

Paying out sick leave would, I believe, result in people who shouldn't be going to work (because they are actually sick and will infect others), going to work. That way they can struggle through work for the financial bonus at the end for not taking the day off. That would be counter-intuitive to the purpose of sick leave.
[Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 04:57

+3

Should you be able to cash-in/convert sick leave?

No, for historical reasons.

Sick-leave is a relatively modern thing in Australia (mid 1920s). It used to be you got sick, you either worked while sick, or you didn't get paid. This was monumentally unfair on the poor working class. Because we're not talking sniffles or a headache here, these are people with serious wounds or broken legs being given the difficult choice between working-while-injured or their family starving.

Last week I watched the Vice (2018) film about Dick Cheney. In it a linesman falls off an electrical pole and breaks his leg. A hideous looking compound fracture with bones emerging from the skin. The worker would be crippled for life. The foreman throws $5 at him and dumps him in the local town. No sick leave. No workers comp. No medical assistance. This was obviously fabricated for the film to show a point, but it's a true reflection of the USA in the 1960s. And that's how Australia was until the 1920s.

Australian trade unions fought hard for us to get sick-leave. It allowed the poor working classes to have some manner of dignity. The alternative being some awful dystopia where injured and sick people are worked to death due to having no choice. That awful dystopia still being the reality for most of this planet.

So ffs don't abuse sick-leave by claiming it if you are not sick. It's only there for sick people, not as a free "piggy bank" for you to raid for some extra cash. Hopefully you never have to make the difficult decision between working while injured or having no income. Thank the trade unions for that privilege and - again - ffs don't abuse it.
- random12 on 26/03/2019 - 22:14
  
  -1
  
  'No, for historical reasons'
  
  That's not an argument. There was slavery for historical reasons. Does not mean it was ok.
  
  'That's how it's always been' and 'Don't break the system' are not valid arguments.
  - [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 09:38
    
    'That's how it's always been' and 'Don't break the system' are not valid arguments.
    
    That wasn't even remotely the argument. In fact you literally got it 100% backwards. The "history" bit is important so you understand why we have sick leave and how life would be without it. I'll spell it out with dot points.
    
    We didn't used to have sick leave
    
    The poor working class were hardest hit
    
    People would work with serious injuries or starve
    
    Unions fought hard for sick leave - it was strongly opposed
    
    Corporate relented on the proviso the system wasn't abused
    
    Op is a greedy idiot abusing sick leave to get extra cash
    
    Enough people do this, sick leave gets taken away
    
    We're back to square one
    
    Sick leave is a fragile agreement that corporate would treat workers with dignity, and in turn workers would not abuse the system to get "free holidays" or "extra cash". It is certainly not a benefit for non-sick people.
    
    Abuse the system enough and sick leave will be taken away. If you think this can't happen just take a look at history.
    
    PS: and your slavery comment was utterly retarded.
kaleidoscope on 26/03/2019 - 07:23

+1

I work in software engineering. In my workplace, we have permanent employees vs contractors doing the same level of work. contractors get paid about 3-4 times (yes the rates can go upto like 1200 per 8 hrs work) more than a permanent employee but are not entitled for leaves. So that means being a perm employee you earn much less while being entitled to certain things like leaves and other perks at company.
Eitherway, the lesser amount you earn as perm is because the employer has taken into consideration the leaves you’re entitled to (annual leaves) + sick days you can potentially take. it’s like insurance…

I would say certain part of your sick leaves should be allowed to cash in say for example if you havent taken more than 1/4 of ur sick leaves then allow half of remaining to be cashed in, because of reasons above.
[Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 08:10

It's a good way to encourage workers to not take sick days (which is bad)
[Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 08:14

I think sick leave should be like insurance. It should be used when a person is actually sick. It should probably be a part of superannuation scheme that can be rolled over once you leave an employer. Hence there is a cost after it is used and benefit when it is saved. Until then each the worker and the employer will continue to get away with what they want and can and it won’t be ever a fair game.
- Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2019 - 08:26
  
  +1
  
  This is actually a good idea your super balance is paid a 'personal leave' amount in which regardless of where you work you get paid this out and when you are older and really need sick leave you should be able to take it at a whim it would stop employees from reaping the benefits and also stop works from abusing it
wiipantz on 26/03/2019 - 08:47

I'm not sure If I'm working in the wrong jobs (worked for ASX listed companies and abroad in multiple industries) but my sick leave has never 'accrued' are we all sure this is a thing? In my lowly exp. it's been the mandated minimum of 10 days or whatever and use it or lose it basically annually… How the hell can you accrue 2 years of sick leave? I've never heard or seen anything such? I can accrue Annual leave but I like to travel a fair bit. Anyone else scratching their head at this conundrum or I've just had about 12 average work contracts in two countries across 4 industries?
- Soluble on 26/03/2019 - 08:51
  
  https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/sick-and-carers-leave/paid…
  
  Carries over each year
  - wiipantz on 26/03/2019 - 09:19
    
    Crazy, must had a stream of bad contracts then as I thought that was standard. Although is this a recent change as I see a reference to 2018 in it?
    - rompastompa on 26/03/2019 - 12:52
      
      I believe it was changed in 2009 - possible source somewhere in here..
      
      15/Jul/2009
      96 Entitlement to paid personal/carer’s leave
      
      Amount of leave
      1) For each year of service with his or her employer, an employee is entitled to 10 days of paid personal/carer’s leave.
      Accrual of leave
      2) An employee’s entitlement to paid personal/carer’s leave accrues progressively during a year of service according to the employee’s ordinary hours of work, and accumulates from year to year.
      
      - actual source
Soluble on 26/03/2019 - 08:49

I've always thought a % value would be good. I left my last job with 1350 hours. Would have been good to get a little bit back.
happirt on 26/03/2019 - 09:01

you are rewarded with good health what else do you need greedy one?

what you are forgetting from your insight is the actual people who are sick. That's what this is primarily about.
- random12 on 26/03/2019 - 09:08
  
  +1
  
  (1) Rewarded with good health by who? Your employer? They should take credit for this?
  
  (2) Do you actually realise that the employer has recognised expense for sick days, whether you take it or not. If you resign, the employer is allowed to wipe clean this accured liability, and it can be worth a substantial amount, especially if you have been with an employer for many years.
  - Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2019 - 09:14
    
    this is exactly my point
  - happirt on 26/03/2019 - 11:11
    
    again, you seem to be missing the whole point of "sick leave" and life… too busy distracted/caught up in the politics.
    
    you do realize you have the freedom to choose your employer. here is a thought, since you have great health, you could even stop being so reliant and clingy on your employer, stand on your own two and be your own employer and see how far your great idea will take you. then you will get all the credit and money you think you deserve.
    - random12 on 26/03/2019 - 13:13
      
      Did you even read anything I wrote?
      
      Ahh, why let facts get in the way of a "you're so entitled" rant?
      
      'You could stop being so reliant and clingly to your employer'.
      
      I will ask again, did you read what I wrote?
      
      I want all these types of leave to be converted into equivalent cash payments or increase in base remuneration, precisely so employees are not forced to cling to their employers to get value out of sick leave. Precisely to increase mobility. You should not have to stay at an employer to get value from sick leave. You should not have to stay with a company for 10 years to get value from long service leave. You should not need to have kids to get value from paternity leave.
      
      But sadly, the world is full of so many irrational people ( just look at all the trolls that neg vote my comments without actually providing any logical arguments to rebut )….
      - happirt on 26/03/2019 - 13:30
        
        @random12: yes I did read it. employees are not "forced" to stay by any means. it's totally their choice. cant leave current job because you dont own a sustainable business? got a mortgage you need to pay off? it was your choice. got a credit card debt to pay off? your choice again.
        
        you have totally missed the point of who the sick leave is actually for. your idea has no depth. you are clinging to what employers can offer you. "cash payments or increase in base remuneration"? it all sounds gutless coming from a spoon fed individual looking to make easy money.
        
        random12 on 26/03/2019 - 20:53
        
        -1
        
        @happirt: Unfortunately, you missed the point again…
        
        I did not say people were tied to employers because of debt.
        
        I said they were tied because of ridiculous conditional leave payments.
        
        Take long service leave as an example. You get 15 weeks of leave after 10 years continuous work. Every fortnight you get 'monopoly money' credits equal to (15/260) weeks of pay. However, these are only worth something if you stay the whole 10 years. If you stay 9 years and then leave, you built up 0.9 x 15weeks of monopoly credit, and its worthless. So you are in effect forced to stay with an employer if you want to get the value.
        
        Danstar on 27/03/2019 - 06:32
        
        @random12: I thought LSL is still cashed out if you leave before 10 years ?
        
        Or is that just the last place I worked at and current employer ?
hts on 26/03/2019 - 09:14

I recently turned down a job where part of my package (salary, super, car) was the ability to cash in sick leave after 12 months. Now, at first I thought that is awesome, if I don't use it I can still get some benefit from it, but they were using it to form part of my salary, so I would be getting paid less overall and shooting myself in the foot to cash in my sick leave so I wouldn't be able to use it if required.

Sick leave shouldn't be part of the package, it should stay where it is, not as an entitlement but as a safety net to help.
- Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2019 - 09:19
  
  That is just the employer being dodgy
  
  Your base salary is your actually salary for them to include that is bullshit it should be salary + super AL Sick leave - when they say package it is all inclusive it is a shift way to advertise a job to look more attractive then it really is
  - hts on 26/03/2019 - 12:08
    
    Yep, one of the many reasons I turned the job down!
    
    Add in expected minimum 40 hours per week, required billable (read chargeable) hours of 35 hours per week, less actual pay than current role (but salary originally discussed was about 10% more), aggressive internal communication (semi-abusive), culture based on work is life, and a whole bunch of what was being said not adding up when actually looking into it.
    
    Bullet dodged IMO. Not for an IT Consulting gig, which I have been doing very differently for many years….
kellycarlos on 26/03/2019 - 09:56

i dont know if its already been said, but I saw someone else post this
if you work 100 days and use 0 sick days, you get paid 100 days
if you work 80 days and take 20 sick days, you get paid 100 days
- Ughhh on 26/03/2019 - 10:50
  
  And 20 days of being paid to go the beach, do hobby, to sleep, or extra income on second job is way some may think of it.
  - Levathian on 26/03/2019 - 23:10
    
    Your doctor shouldn't be writing med certs for people who aren't actually sick.
Brianqpr on 26/03/2019 - 10:04

Bad idea. For a start you would have sick people dragging themselves in and making everyone around them sick too. People who abuse sick leave may regret it if they genuinely need it one day. That's their risk to take.

Also, good luck with any income protection type insurance claim you may ever have to make if the insurer finds out you have cashed in a load of sick leave before coming to them.

Some employers do pay it out on redundancy I think.
Spending2Much on 26/03/2019 - 10:20

+1

There's a fourth option.
I work casual, have been for for 6 years, for the same company, same job.
I pretty well work full time, on average around 1800 hours a year.
No annual leave,no sick pay.
I try to take a few weeks as year holiday, to unwind and recovery and relax.
I have to be in a pretty bad way to not go to work…no work, no pay.
- [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 14:40
  
  +1
  
  According to some here, that model results in the loss of social insurances.
  
  We must have days put aside where you don't work, you still get paid, but your hourly wage when you do work is lower. Somehow that equates to more society benefits.
  - jjjaar on 26/03/2019 - 18:38
    
    So if the hourly pay rate goes down to allow for sick leave, then it’s fair game to take sick leave, as technically you’ve earned it by taking a lower pay?
    - [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 18:41
      
      Sick leave and annual leave are not interchangeable. Think of annual leave as forced savings so you can have a holiday. That paid time off is yours because it has been taken out of your wage.
      
      Sick leave is on top of annual leave and is there as an allowance for the employee. The employers share the burden of sick employees.
      
      If sick leave is going to be paid out, the wage rate will be even lower.
      - random12 on 26/03/2019 - 22:32
        
        @[Deactivated]: Yes, that's why the full balance should not be paid out, but whatever is the expected present value.
        
        Whatever the company has provisioned for, in terms of an expected present value, should be paid out as cash. And the method of determining expected present value needs to have regulatory oversight, to make sure companies don't undervalue it to short change people cashing it out.
        
        Of course, the best way is to just get rid of it completely, and add the expected present value to the base pay.
        
        [Deactivated] on 26/03/2019 - 22:45
        
        @random12: Both your options incur additional cost to the employer in any given situation.
        
        It's a very convoluted way of simply saying "give more money".
        
        Arbitrageur123 on 28/03/2019 - 02:46
        
        @random12: The question on payout etc. is all determined by the underlying provision by law or your employment contract. If you refer to fair work Australia (https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/sick-and-carers-leave/paid…) sick leave is not payable in most awards unless stated in your specific contract or award. The company has no legal liability in any case to pay you out. As stated by fair work Australia, the evidence you provide ‘has to convince a reasonable person that the employee was genuinely entitled to the sick or carer’s leave’ and not because you feel entitled to it.
        
        TLDR - In the end of the day, it’s about if you have the right to that money.
        
        If you aren’t happy with the pay, just quit already. There’s plenty of people in line finding a job who are willing to replace you. If you’re confident you should be pay more than your current job, either negotiate for a better salary or move. Just note that you better hope your actual experience / talent reflects this fact. No one is dumb enough to pay above market rate unless you’re exceptional is some way. Focus on improving yourself rather than just trying milk a quick buck out of this. As mentioned by others, sick leave is a safety net to help you when you’re sick.
        
        Further, how much the company has provided for has no impact on you whatsoever. It’s the company’s own estimate of how much and likelihood an amount might be cashed out so they don’t have to take an expense in one hit whenever someone takes AL for example.
Ozpit on 26/03/2019 - 10:25

If my wife had the option of cashing out her maternity leave, I swear to God we would never have had any kids (we have five), but taken the money each time instead, which would have added up to a very large sum. We would have put it in our joint super account and with the compound interest been able to live a full life in retirement.
anonymous12345 on 26/03/2019 - 10:49

Am I the only one here that works for a company where sick leave gets reset yearly? Our sick leave is cap up to 10 days (accrued) for a year and then reset the next year, thus, don't go up more than 10days. While it is good to have more sick leaves, I've learned that sick leave is not an entitlement. My logic tells me why a company would pay for a work that doesn't been carried out. Sick leave is a way of forcing a company to care for their employees and for an employee to take advantage of it reflects more on the employee's character. It will be good to convert it to cash but I don't think it is justifiable.
- neyo on 26/03/2019 - 20:03
  
  NES states that your company can't reset sick leave (assuming you are in Australia). Your employer is talk s***

Should You Be Able to Cash-in/Convert Sick Leave?

Poll Options

Comments

New Forum Topics