Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
TO MAKE EMPLOYERS pay up to the first four weeks of sick pay is unfair. As it stands, the State currently pays. When an employee calls in sick they must sign onto the social welfare – and it can tend to focus the mind of the employee as to when they will be returning back.
If the Minister for Social Protection’s measures are brought in, the employer will now have to pay the staff member that is out sick and may also have to hire a temporary worker and pay that wage also. Businesses are already trying to keep their heads above water and this is a blow to businesses that many will not be able to take. If this comes into effect it will be an additional cost to the employer – one that many will not be able to afford.
The business community are resilient – we have survived five years of this downturn – who knows how many years are left. There is only so much of the burden businesses can take. The small business community will continue, but there is a need for support too. There is a lot of discussion about the government’s job initiative and while there is change, it is slow to happen – that is the main problem, but the government can’t make the changes over night either and we understand that. Businesses recognise that the country is in a dire situation at the moment, but job creation is the only way forward and this will not encourage that.
Not only is this an unfair measure to impose on businesses, for smaller businesses it will be a major administration issue. If you are a small business you will have a system in place on how you pay your staff. It could be the beginning of the month or the end of the month. If this sick pay plan is implemented, employers are going to have to start readjusting their payrolls before they can pay people.
There are other impracticalities too. If you are an employer, employing people on a part time basis – two hours here and there – you can imagine the difficulty trying to calculate the sick pay for that said worker for someone who has been missing for one or two days, not to mention for the people who may also be receiving social welfare benefits.
There has been significant reaction in the business community on this – we are not very happy about it. There has been no dialogue about it, we haven’t been given the chance to sit down with the minister and discuss the issue. She is imposing these measures and we need to discuss the practicalities if this is going to happen. The minister is quoting other systems stating that we are out of line with other countries in relation to sick pay. She is saying - well this happens in Europe or the UK – but this is simply not true, our system is totally out of kilter with what is happening in the UK, they operate differently altogether.
I’ve had times where my staff have been sick and we have had to get in additional workers to cover their work load. Why should we as the employer also have to pay. Employers and their employees already contribute significantly to the social welfare bill through the PRSI system and placing social welfare costs onto business is simply an additional cost on employment and it is completely unacceptable.
Small businesses are already struggling to maintain jobs and any measures that add directly to the cost of employment will result in job losses and will act as a strong disincentive to job creation. It may force employers to revisit any sick pay policies which they offer, its not fair.
This initiative will be the final nail in the coffin for job creation by small businesses and it will cost jobs for sure – there is no doubt about it.
A presentation to TDs and Senators on the sick pay issue took place today in Leinster House. The presentation was hosted by Senator Mary-Ann O’Brien (Lily O’Brien Chocolates) and Senator Fergal Quinn. Ian Martin is the business-owner of Martin Services and Chairman of the Small Firms Association. Speaking at the seminar today he highlighted the practical implications this proposal would have for his business.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Why don’t the government look at public sector sick pay first…6 months full pay..before hitting small businesses that are actively trying to create employment and get the economy back on track
Because small businesses don’t have the unions batting for them.
Thought the 6 months was reduced a while back and it is now cumulative so if someone is in and out on sick leave they lose their pay sooner?
@ vocal outrage….6 months is what it has been reduced too!!!!
It is reduced to three.
This is nuts. Small businesses rely heavily on their employees ( often only one or two) for productivity.In many cases these people are trained specifically for a task. It’s bad enough that productivity suffers when an employee goes sick but to have to cover the cost whilst also paying a temporary worker is a stretch too far for many small businesses, the money is simply not there and with avenues of credit almost squeezed shut this will result in even longer dole queues . Minister, not every employer in this country is a wealthy multi-national corporation. Many small businesses are on their knees as it is and now this, you need to get some sense.
Think it is about time we stopped paying prsi . One check up a year in the dentist no .optical benefits. The government want everyone to have private health insurance. Which is constantly going up in price . And now the employer is expected to pay first four weeks sick pay !! Waste of time working would be better of on long term sickness benefit , free glasses . Free medicine no need to pay dentists and a cheque every week .
absolute rubbish im on long term sick i do not have free dentists free glasses or free medicine in fact some months i cant afford my prescription with two kids still in school there are other bills to be paid your one ignorant thick who doesn’t have a clue what your talking about
Another sambles by our government! why are we paying prsi and usc ? oh wait to pay anglo depts!
shambles
This won’t be a popular one…
I was out of work for over three months this year due to serious injury. 6 weeks were in hospital and the rest home recovery. My employer kept paying me and didn’t make a fuss about it. In fact my boss contacted my wife while I was in ICU to tell her not to worry that I’d still be paid. They didn’t have to do this, but they did. I’ll not forget that generosity and they have my loyalty. If a company actually just can’t afford to then it’s a different story but my opinion is that the company should pay the sick leave in serious circumstances and if can’t afford to then should have to prove this before the state pays.
Just to be clear, what I mean is that small businesses like a local shop or pub that is struggling should NOT have to pay if they are struggling. What I DO mean is that large corporations that are raking in millions or billions in profit should. My employer is in the latter luckily for me and my family.
Problem with this model is that the employer would have to put aside valuable, productive time writing reports/filling applications to prove that they can/can’t afford to pay the sick leave. It might work for companies over a certain size, but absolutely not for small firms. they just don’t have the resources.
I wouldn’t red thumb Barry for his comment. Some companies offer excellent T&C’s because they can afford it. But many others have much tighter margins and simply couldn’t afford this. A “one size fits all” policy ( if that was is envisaged) for this particular issue is short sighted and quite frankly surprisingly naive.
@Barry bit confused PRSI is insurance for such circumstances ,why pay insurance if you’re not going to use it .If you’re house is burgled should you replace the goods yourself if you have the money and not claim against the insurance you’ve been paying ?
This is crazy.Its definitely the one reason I will stop employing people.A few years back I had to go for back surgery.I was told by doctor you need to rest for 6 week after op.I returned to work one week later as my staff member was out sick.Can you imagine if I had to pay them when I count even afford to take time myself.Results permanent nerve damage.Self employed women are not entitled to maternity leave or social welfare when there business don’t work.Yet doctors freely give certs to people and employers have to pay for this.Really encouraging people to be productive and contribution ??
Employers get the profit when a worker is healthy when that worker becomes ill the the taxpayer pays the cost ..strange world indeed !!!
Employers pay PRSI for every employee so why should they also have to pay sick pay….
Spoken like a true sponger…….
I see your comment and have to correct you, as an employer I pay 10.75% of the gross cost of my staff in employers PRSI, that is on top of the gross amount I pay to the staff, so an employee who earns €600 per week from me, also has a contribution of €64.50 paid to the Gov on their behalf, and most have no idea that employers are doing this. To now ask me to pay the employee while they are on sick leave is too much, my business is down 70% in 5 years and my staffing levels reflect this, but I have worked hard to keep the remaining members in jobs, they are like family to me, when I had to let staff go, it broke my heart to let them go, as I knew their partners and their family circumstances. my experience would be typical of small businesses in Ireland.
Sure work for cash in hand while signing on the dole, that way if your sick you have a medical card ;)
Every employee pays PRSI also
employers pay more tax/insurances than the employee so what your trying to say doesn’t stand up.
No they don’t. Employees earning less than €356 per week pay no PRSI
Allowances are here to stay. Let the coping classes cope.Public servants are entitled.Screw the small business men, they are only little people.
Sarcasm?
Until a government elected by the people, find the courage to take on PS unions, Ireland will gradually become more and more bolloxed!
Almost every other EU country requires employers to stand the initial costs of sick pay. Only in Ireland can such employers shirk that responsibility. It’s time that these freeloading employers paid their fair share. They have responsibilities to this republic or does their patriotism only extend as far as their bottom line! Fumbling in the greasy till indeed.
Not every other country that has a mandatory sick pay system has a PRSI equivalent. If PRSI was abolished and replaced with something like this, then maybe employers would be more open to it. But this is just another form of double taxation for, as you put it, “freeloading employers”.
Obviously, owner/managers will be fine though as anyone who owns their own company is a multi-gazillionaire, poor-hating, worker-raping, capitalist.
Des, is it not a bit rich of a trade union official to be tossing about the word “freeloading”?
Hi Nivag … trade unionists EARN their wages, what about you? Trade unionists also brought us the 8-hour day, the weekend, sick pay, annual leave, occupational pensions, safe workplaces and a living wage. These are things you no doubt take advantage of without, it seems, making any contribution to the trade uinions that won and maintain these rights, pay and conditions of work. Who’s the “freeloader” now?
“When an employee calls in sick they must sign onto the social welfare – and it can tend to focus the mind of the employee as to when they will be returning back.”
Stay Classy SFA. My experience of people on extended sick leave is that the illness is often caused by poor work practices or bullying in the workplace by employers. Maybe paying for this sick leave will “focus” the minds of SFA and IBEC members to clean up their act.
Bullshit.
It’s as simple as this, most employees in this country work in small company’s or for self employed individuals who even during the “Tiger Economy’ were making below the industrial average, this would be the straw that broke the camels back for a large proportion of these.
Prsi otherwise known as social insurance, to cover times of social need, such as times out sick, if employers have to cover sick pay then the government should significantly reduce or abolish employers Prsi so that his could cover the sick cover scheme for employers.
People can be ignorant and assume that all employers are well to do, this is not the fact.
The basis of our business society, not a socialist society, is that risk versus reward means that employers who risk a lot by investing in a business deserve to be rewarded for that risk, not the other way around, where employees who only risk there jobs should deserve to have it all with very little risk.
Employees deserve fair pay for fair work and there are a lot of very good employees, unfortunately some think they deserve to get everything for very little and this is what can break a company.
I am sure there will be positive as well as negative to this but I as an employer i have at times had good money coming in and at other times after paying employees and bills could not afford to pay myself, if in those times I had to pay sick employees it would have been the straw form me.
Hi John – people are very fond of comparisons with other countries when they think it suits them – In Europe employers pay a significantly higher social insurance contribution – as well as corporation tax by the way – if employers in Ireland were required to pay at just the EU average it would generate ( wait for it) 9.5 billion – so employers don’t feel they should contribute to central revenue at anywhere near international norms but expect to keep sponging from that same central revenue store ? Only in Ireland – everyone expects to avoid paying taxes but continue to receive money’s that can only be generated through taxation – just like the whingers who expect student grants for their kids while they refuse to pay the property tax – the fact that you advocate cutting PRSI again suggests you have no idea how grotesquely below international norms employer PRSI is in Ireland. Glad you are a hard working employer, but employers have obligations as well as entitlements just like everyone else – and I’m sure you are the first to moan about other sectors receiving government money while not making contributions to the coffers
Oh just to be clear – the extra 9.5 billion relates just to social insurance – nothing to do with corporation tax – in fact the entirety of the deficit relates to lower contributions by business to government funding
While the idea might have it’s merits – though the cost of PRSI would need to be revisited, currently this idea seems totally at odds with the governments claim to want to create jobs. If you were a small business you would have to look very closely at the possible costs involved in employing additional employees.
Customers create jobs, and the demand for products and services that customers generate is the primary driver of whether firms hire people or not. The “cost” of hiring people, the perennial whinge of race-to-the-bottom firms, is very low on the list of determining factors. Companies that get this fact tend to grow faster, produce better products and services, have more satisfied customers, are more profitable and are better places to work than companies that don’t.
The state should pay god knows they take enough of our wages with all there extra taxes and I still have to pay for a doctor and meds yet they wonder why there’s so many unemployed stop making it harder on company’s they might be able to afforded new staff
We pay amongst the lowest levels of tax in Europe yet many of us demand European levels of public services. This arithmetic nonsense simply does not add up, John, and it really is time we copped onto it. The biggest influencer on unemployment and whether companies hire new workers is customer demand NOT the costs of hiring such workers. We have mass unemployment in Ireland because the economy has collapsed, courtesy of the wilder elements of the business class and their corrupt handmaidens in Fianna Fail, not because working people get a reasonable wage or have safe places to work or get to take guaranteed amounts of annual leave, sick leave or other benefits. Driving down the costs of hiring labour (i.e. by attacking wages, employment related taxes and benefits) just serves to drive demand for products and services down. Insrtread of trying to cut workers’ pay and conditions, we might actually address ourselves to the real problem … lack of demand in this broken economy.
seriously? employers dont pay the sick leave? that is insane. and people think this is reasonable? ireland never ceases to amaze me
Well public employees seem to get endless days of fully paid sick leave… Of which theres no accountability for any of it, and and reasonable changes to bring them in line with the rest of us are shot down by aggressive unions.
Having one standard minimum for all seems much fairer, small businesses can manage statutory minimums for 20 days holidays… Why not 3-5 sick days a year?
Not true on public servants’ sick pay arrangements, Andrew, which you’d know if you’d been reading the papers or watching the TV news this past month.
Surely if this is brought in then PRSI will need to be reduced significantly. Here in Canada we pay EI which is the same as PRSI and it covers sick pay, so the system does work under efficient controls. This Government seem intent on doing everything but tackle the massive operating deficit in the PS. The mind boggles at how ineffective this FG/Labour Gov has been (this is coming from a FG supporter)
Employers in Ireland pay significantly less PRSI than employers in every other EU country – if they were required to pay the EU average it would bring on an extra 9.5 billion – can provide source if needed – just thought it was important that people be aware of that fact
I wouldn’t bother with the facts, Kevin. Shure, doesn’t everyone with an opinion on trade unions and the public service just get to chose their own facts anyhow.
Maybe the concept of employers paying for sick leave is coming at the wrong time. Maybe this should have been suggested during the Celtic Tiger?
However, I agree… Employers should pay for a portion of sick leave. I have experienced this concept the United States. In the States sick leave is written into work agreement. For example, each employee gets so many sick days. If the sickness turns into something more serious, then the sick days roll into sick leave and the total amount of time given for sick time off is three weeks. During this time the employer is monitoring the time off. The employer can ask for certifications as proof. These certifications can be arranged by the employer or employee. If it is found the employee is cheating the system, the employer can discharge the employee. If the employee’s sickness is legitimate, then an application is made to the state for sick leave payment. I think that this model shares the burden. In truth, models similar to this being used in Ireland. A number of non-Irish company use this model. This goes along with the benefit package that is part of the employee package. Furthermore, Aer Lingus has something similar to this.
so why should I have to be paying through my taxes the cost of paying for strangers sick pay as they claim through the state….let their employers pay for them….
Unless your self employed possible because I pay for you if your sick. Just a thought or would you rather go with out any income while sick?
You haven’t thought this one through, Kevin
ibec, not the troika rule this country. class war is called for
Are you for real?
I presume you are either a troll or a communist?
Another addition to the widening split between private sector workers and the public sector. Public servants’ employer is the State, which will pay for their sick pay still…
why is that relevant? poor employers. my heart bleeds. go cry on pat kennys shoulder.
Have you any idea how the real world actually works? The REAL world, like, as in when push comes to shove, when cash flow is like a tightrope and the banks won’t lend, when you’re lucky enough to have work in in but no-one to do it cos they’re off sick and the client won’t pay for work that can’t be done. That’s when things go wallop because ones and zeroes can’t be magicked up from thin air or by selling 10-year bonds to phantoms. That’s the real world.
LOL…. Just LOL!
This seems to be another example of Ireland’s Nanny State. Of course company’s should share the burden of their staffs non-attendance at work! If nothing else this acts as an incentive for the employer to appropriately supervise and monitor the attendance of their staff. Surely a compromise can be reached by offering a Company and a State system side by side.
How many do you employ
labour laws, immigration, womens rights, childrens health, tenant law. the whole set up is for the benefit of blueshirts. yes, they still exist.
???
have your say