Go Back   Askaboutmoney.com > The Depths > Letting Off Steam

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 16-11-2011, 07:34 PM
Purple Purple is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Suburbia
Posts: 5,999
Default Employers to cover first 4 weeks sick-pay

That's what the government are now suggesting. What do posters think of this proposal?
__________________
Better to be a man of character than one of means
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16-11-2011, 07:38 PM
DerKaiser DerKaiser is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default

Disgraceful.

Tough on the employers, probably tougher on the employees of small businesses who'll be made walk to work on broken legs!

Why in the name of God are they doing everything to protect handouts at the expense of investment & employment???
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16-11-2011, 09:26 PM
Leper Leper is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 43
Default

Employers to pay the first 4 weeks sick pay - lunacy.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16-11-2011, 09:29 PM
micmclo micmclo is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 155
Default

Where's employers PRSI going so?

Seems businesses are just being treated as tax collectors
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16-11-2011, 09:36 PM
DB74 DB74 is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default

We need a General Election
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16-11-2011, 09:44 PM
Armada Armada is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 487
Default

I employ 6 to 7 people in a small business and have done so for the last 20 odd years.

If this plan is implemented I will not be creating any more employment if a vacancy arises. Its almost like adding on an extra 20 days annual leave for some employees.

I have a female staff of whom 75% of them have young children and unemployed partners/spouses at home. I am working all hours myself to keep the business going for their sakes too as they have been loyal to me in the past. That said I draw the line when it comes to being taken for a fool by a government or otherwise.

Last edited by Armada; 17-11-2011 at 07:43 AM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16-11-2011, 10:01 PM
Amygdala Amygdala is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 80
Default

I think it is an excellent idea. Short-term illness should be between employer and employee and have nothing to do with the state. I also think the first two days of sick leave should be unpaid.
__________________
Live long and prosper
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 16-11-2011, 10:11 PM
The_Banker The_Banker is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Cork City by Th
Posts: 318
Default

PRSI - Pay Related Social Insurance

What is the point of paying this?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 17-11-2011, 12:27 AM
oldnick oldnick is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,411
Default

amygdala - if you think that the state should have nothing to do with short-term illness and it should only be between employer and employee why then is it "an excellent idea" that the state intervenes in this relationship and imposes this law ?

Am so glad that I no longer run a small business - just couldn't afford this and other new laws being proposed.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 17-11-2011, 10:00 AM
Shawady Shawady is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 930
Default

Is the law that the employer MUST pay the first 4 weeks of sick pay or just that the government won't pay anything for the first 4 weeks?
In other words is it still at the discresion of the employer to pay sick leave or not?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 17-11-2011, 10:26 AM
Mpsox Mpsox is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,619
Default

Employers don't have to pay sick pay at the minute. Many do but expect the sick person to claim the relevant SW payment and then deduct that from their wages. 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.

If it's the latter, the real risk is that people who are genuinly sick will come to work because financially they have no option. They could then spread their sickness to colleagues or endanger themselves if they are not in a fit state to work.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 17-11-2011, 10:37 AM
Shawady Shawady is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mpsox View Post
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.
Thats what isn't clear to me either.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 17-11-2011, 10:58 AM
Firefly Firefly is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,409
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 17-11-2011, 11:21 AM
The_Banker The_Banker is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: Cork City by Th
Posts: 318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
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...

I can understand why an employer is annoyed if he or she is expected to pay the forst 4 weeks of sick leave. They already make PRSI contributions for the employee.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 17-11-2011, 11:25 AM
Firefly Firefly is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Banker View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 17-11-2011, 11:55 AM
Mpsox Mpsox is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 17-11-2011, 12:00 PM
DB74 DB74 is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default

There are already options for people to pay into some form of sickness benefit scheme if they want to
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 17-11-2011, 12:03 PM
Firefly Firefly is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mpsox View Post
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.
I agree with all that, but you could say the same about most insurance products. Lots of people don't insure their homes for example while many others do.

Why should the state or the employer have to be out of pocket if an employee is sick?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 17-11-2011, 12:37 PM
DerKaiser DerKaiser is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
Why should the state ...have to be out of pocket if an employee is sick?
Same reason the state is out of pocket when someone turns 66 or if they lose their job; basic social protection. The only difference is that a relatively minor portion of PRSI provides adequate amounts of revenue to the state to cover statutory sick leave whilst covering unemployment benefits and old age pensions would/will require severe tax hikes.

If you only employ one or two people and have a bad run of luck it could ruin your business, and that possibility would be enough to deter job creation.

The saving to the state has been set at €150m for a full year. I wonder would hiking the emplyers PRSI rate from 10.75% to 11 or 11.25% achieve the same thing without leaving small employers vulnerable?

The issue here is insurance (PRSI), I dare say most employers would rather pay an extra 0.5% rather than run the risk of sick employees and the outcome would be revenue neutral to the state.

It's the same point as medical cards for OAPs. Reasonably well off OAPs were rightly horrified by the thought that removing the medical card would lead them to a situation where they might experience poor health and not have enough to pay the bills. Charging say €500 p.a. for the use of the medical card to the people concerned would have been cost neutral to the state and removed the worry of an unforseen illness.

In short (despite working in a private insurance company!) I believe the state should levy relatively minor charges and taxes to provide protection for individuals against illness rather than leave people exposed. We pay enough in taxes for small portions of it to be ringfenced into providing such peace of mind at a relatively low cost when the aggregate amount is divided arcoss the total population.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 17-11-2011, 12:56 PM
Complainer Complainer is offline
Frequent Poster
 
Location: South Dublin
Posts: 4,964
Default

It's funny how employers in the UK and elsewhere in Europe manage to meet this 'onerous' provision without crashing and burning. Maybe they're just smarter employers over there.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 AM.