Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Not really. The signs have to go where they are practical. Every single yellow should have a time plate, and the motorist has to look for it - you can just say you couldn't see it. If it's there, and I assume the CEO took a photo of it, then the driver has neglected his obligation to find out what the restriction is before parking.   The only way you might be able to argue this is if the sign is next to a separate stretch of yellow line - eg, separated from the one he parked on by, say, a road junction or a parking bay. Every individual stretch of line needs its own sign.
    • You haven't told us anything about the vehicle in terms of the make model mileage – price paid et cetera. Also where was it advertised and what the advertisement say? On the basis of what you have told us, you should have no problem asserting rights whether or not you are dealing with a trader or a private seller. However it would be helpful if it was a trader – and you say that it is and that you have evidence. The problem is, whether they trade. Do they have any seizable assets? You obviously dealing with somebody who is going to be very slippery even if you get a court judgement against them. Do you know where they live? Do they and their own property? And I suppose it won't be much of a comfort to you but it may be instructive to others when I say that you have managed to acquire all this evidence – but what a shame you didn't go about this before you parted with your money rather than afterwards.
    • Brillliant reply from Caroline Voaden MEP on Twitter.   Who will hold these people to account asks @june_mummery ? She has also asked if she can come back to attend fisheries com mtgs. Thing is June you wanted to leave. You wanted us to have no voice here, to go it alone. You all crow about your ‘win’. This is what it means. Well done
    • Thank you. What you have suggested about a motor trader had occurred and yes she has been naive about this. They were sufficiently satisfied to purchase the car and they did know about the problem. She had been driving it up until the morning of the sale with no problems and she had told them about the oil leak - it's otherwise in very good condition, has a long MOT and has been serviced regularly. There's also the issue of insurance should she accept return (she transferred insurance to her new car )
    • June Mummery, a Brexit Party MEP, has just woken up to the fact that leaving Europe gives us less control over fisheries. From her Twitter feed.   Attending the penultimate session of the #EuropeanParliament’s #FisheriesCommittee #PECHcommittee) with #BritishMEPs. The big question now is, who will be here to hold these people to account while they still control Britain’s waters, but the UK has no representation?
  • Our picks

caring guy

effectively fining staff for being off sick

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2626 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Our CC (County Council) where i work now has a policy where if you are off sick you do not get paid for the first two days.

 

One of our staff arrived for work last week but the manager told this member of staff she did not think she was fit for work and told her she was sending her home (she had flu i think).

 

If a member of staff has leave they can take a day's leave and still be paid.

 

This member of staff has taken all of her leave so now she will be financially penalised as when she is paid she will lose one day's money.

 

Effectively, she's being fined for being ill.

 

Any advice would be well received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSP only kicks in on day 4, so that's actually more generous than some employers!

 

What does the contract/sickness absence policy state? If there's an absolute right to sick pay (which is rare) then there's a valid grievance. If its discretionary, it can only be challenged on discrimination grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The policy says that yo do not get paid for day 1 and day 2 off sick. It also says you can take leave (if you have it) in order to get paid.

 

The policy states the management have a right to send you home and you will not be paid (the same as not coming in).

 

Your right to sick pay starts on Day 3.

 

If you have no holiday left then you would lose 2 days money if you were off for 2 days or more.

 

Have i understood your question properly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is the policy then I am afraid that they are withing their rights. Many companies do not pay people for days off sick and they only start getting SSP on day4 .

I used to work for a large multinational and different divisions had different policies. The one I was in was three days no pay then full pay. They then changed it to paid sick and the sickness rate rocketed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware, this is pretty standard protocol - every company i've ever worked for has done the same but usually the fist three days unpaid.


"Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me". Martin Niemöller

 

"A vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting can't be done. A person ignorant of the possibility of failure can be a half-brick in the path of the bicycle of history". - Terry Pratchett

 

If I've been helpful, please click my star. :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not great employment practice, but not illegal I'm afraid if applied consistently.

 

How do management judge whether to send someone home if that person believes they're fit for work? Are they qualified doctors/nurses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telling them you can take a days holiday instead of going sick is in fact taking away your holiday entitlement. Another Council rip-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not great employment practice, but not illegal I'm afraid if applied consistently.

 

How do management judge whether to send someone home if that person believes they're fit for work? Are they qualified doctors/nurses?

 

Got to be honest, I've done it myself as a manager/supervisor in the past. The last place I worked had a policy that if the employee was sent home after 11am, they wouldn't lose their days pay, so I always tried to hang on if I could. Sometimes, it's just obvious that someone shouldn't be there and need to take the day off to dose themselves up and get better. Also, in my experience staff who insist on coming in when clearly unwell almost always eventually end up on long term sick when their body just stops co-operating.

 

Telling them you can take a days holiday instead of going sick is in fact taking away your holiday entitlement. Another Council rip-off.

 

I missed that bit - that's definitely a bit naughty.


"Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me". Martin Niemöller

 

"A vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting can't be done. A person ignorant of the possibility of failure can be a half-brick in the path of the bicycle of history". - Terry Pratchett

 

If I've been helpful, please click my star. :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LaughingGirl, I think you have a point. Problem is if the company doesn't provide sick pay there's a massive incentive for an employee to come in when they're sick (which is probably partly the employer's intention in withholding sick pay) and a lot of managers will take the chance of letting the employee work so that the work gets done. You could also have situations where an employee feels strongly that they're fit to work and is sent home, then goes and sees a doctor who declares them fit to work. The company would then have a job not allowing the employee to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the major reason that my former employer introduced it was to stop the 'can't be bothered today' brigade. I definitely noticed a difference in a small cell of employees who routinely missed lots of single days through things like headaches over the course of a year.

 

It definitely has it's problems, though - stomach bugs could be a nightmare because after the D&V stopped they were supposed to leave 48 hours before returning. I had half a department that would come in while they were still infectious because they didn't want to lose their pay (and subsequently give it to everyone else!), and half a department who thought that since they weren't getting paid for the first three days they might as well take the whole week and stay at home for a couple of days on full pay!


"Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me". Martin Niemöller

 

"A vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting can't be done. A person ignorant of the possibility of failure can be a half-brick in the path of the bicycle of history". - Terry Pratchett

 

If I've been helpful, please click my star. :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...