I don’t know why I didn’t write about the absurdity of both, decades ago. Maybe I, like most people, simply accept them because they are commonplace and seem innocuous. Get paid for not working or being sick? Maybe commonplace and expected, but not innocuous.
Sick pay, is nothing more than an extra paid vacation. A worker who gets two or more paid vacation weeks in a year, and is allowed 21 days of paid sick leave, is in reality being allowed five weeks paid vacation. Was this the original intention? Probably not, but that’s what it really amounts to. In maybe 95% of the cases, it becomes an extra-long vacation. Paid sick leave and paid vacations are both idiotic. Raise the pay higher and let anyone who wants to take off and do nothing for his company or be sick, do so, but not get paid for either. I do believe that if an employee becomes really sick, their job should be held for them till they overcome their illness. Pregnancy, for example.
I do feel sorry for the workers who feel they are really too ill to work, but that does not mean the company should pay for it. Companies or corporations should pay for work accomplished, not for sitting home nursing the sniffles, watching the soaps, or going on a vacation. Employers will have to pay someone to cover for them during the time of their illness or vacation. Shouldn’t the time cost of substitution for the ill or vacationing, be deducted from wages of sick pay and paid vacations when they return? If not, the boss is paying twice for the illness and vacations, not just once. Once for the sick or vacationing, and a second for their substitute. I would be glad to give a bonus for a job well done or loyalty, but I would never pay anyone to be sick or take time off. Sick pay only prolongs the illness, or creates illness where none exists. When a person retires, as part of the package, un-used sick pay and unused vacations are always included in the pay-off retirement package. Why not a payment for loyalty or years worked, rather than fraudulent sick pay and vacations, neither of which benefitted the company or corporation?
I just cannot understand the premise of sick pay and paid vacations. Maybe companies or corporations should purchase insurance against the illness of their employees, if they’re going to pay them for being sick. Employees should obtain health insurance for themselves or a plan from their employer for certain. If a union wants to demand five-week vacations, let them come to the bargaining table with this honest request, instead of disguising most of it as sick pay. Paying people to eat lunch, get sick, take vacations, or just goof off, only makes the cost of doing business that much higher, and the cost of everything cost more when it is bought by you. Prices of things made by manufacturers and suppliers giving sick pay and paid vacations, are higher and less competitive than items made by manufacturers and suppliers who do not give either. Is this part of the reason that merchandise made in China is cheaper? I doubt that the Chinese have sick pay or paid vacations. If I have a job, and I have never had one, I would love to have three weeks extra paid leave, disguised as ‘sick pay’. As my kids and I work for ourselves, we all get sick and sign off on our web sites occasionally, and we don’t make any money while we are sick. No sick pay on Colorado Gold. No paid vacations here either. When we get sick, we’ll try to get well as soon as possible, and if we want to take a vacation, our web site will say so, but we don’t get paid to travel. Maybe that’s why our prices are so reasonable. You’re talking to the boss when you call, and we do no advertising. We’re so honest, we’ve had a A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau, for over 40 years.
In an almost free society, efficiency, and cost control mean survival. I wonder how many businesses have been destroyed by such ridiculous practices as paying people for being sick or taking a vacation?
Don Stott- don@coloradogold.com