What I'm not clear from what the Govt is saying is whether or not this is making it mandatory for employers to pay sick pay for the first 4 weeks or if not, that a sick person will not be able to claim SW for the first 4 weeks either.
Would it be better if PRSI was scrapped altogher and nobody was paid sick leave at all? Why should an employer or the state be out of pocket if an employee is sick? Afterall, they are down a man/woman and also have to pay for the inconvenience of it as well? If PRSI and sick leave were abolished then people could freely take out sick pay insurance in the market place.
Surely that is why employees pay PRSI to the government? People pay Social Insurance to cover them for when they are sick...
But why not scrap PRSI altogether? Then there would be no burder on the state (aka the taxpayer) or the employer. If people want to insure themselves let them do it privately in the market just like they do with other insurances.
Firstly, would everyone get cover? Depending on the nature of the job, some insurers may be reluctant to cover people (Gardai for example) or unless you have universal measures like you have on health insurance, they may not cover people over certain ages (or make the premiums prohibitive). PRSI is standard, private may not be. It's quite possilbe the premiums for some people could be way above PRSI which are standard
Secondly, my experience of any private insurance is that there are always loopholes to try and cover the insurance company and prevent payout.
Why should the state ...have to be out of pocket if an employee is sick?