God help us...

I have to admit I'm shaking my head again.  This time over the latest gafuffle with Toronto's Unionized City Workers...bankable sick days.  If you're not familiar with this deal, in a nutshell it means that a city employee can 'bank' unused sick days and then when he retires, get paid for them.  Sweet huh?  What century was that little item negotiated in?  And while we're asking questions, what planet do these people think they're living on?  As a self-unemployed actor/writer, I have issues with guaranteed sick days, let alone being able to bank them.  Union officials claim the rationale for this plan is that "... the sick-bank system rewards good attendance and, therefore, serves the public by limiting absenteeism."
Rewards good attendance???  Are we dealing with twelve year olds here?  You know what else rewards good attendance?  The very real possibility of getting shit-canned for being an absentee stiff.  How do you like them apples?  The first assumption upon being fortunate to actually get and hold a job these days is that you will show up on a fairly regular basis.  Attendance should never be a negotiable item.  'Rewards good attendance'...God help us.

Comments

[michaela koch]

In response to Tom's question...Absolutely not. Banking sick days when you have no STD or LTD benefit makes sense.

Sick benefits are there to help you "keep the lights on" when you are sick. I have no issue with banked sick days used to cover illness.

sick days are not equal to vacation days

sick days are not an entitlement - they are a benefit/insurance offered by benevolent employers (many do not get paid sick days)

here is the parallel...if my company dental plan pays $1400 for one employee at my workplace to have get bridgework done, the rest of the employees don't get to paid the cash.

[Andrew]

Oops, made a mistake I meant "People should not be paid for not working when they should be working." Not people shouldn't be paid for working :P haha

[Andrew]

Hey Mike, no, it is not a bad thing that happened. For your situation, thats perfectly acceptable - I think what Neil meant, was that people shouldn't get paid for working when they should be working.

For your situation, disability programs should be in place to have you get paid regardless of how many sick days you've taken or not taken.

I worked with a woman who saved up three years worth of sick days, and took them all in the month of December. In retail, thats one of the busiest times of the year. Sick days are not vacation days, and should not be treated as thus.

[Tom Pike]

I am certainly glad something like this comes in handy. I think it would be a handy thing for everyone. But what everyone else has is called savings. You live in such a way that you put money away in a "money" bank in case bad things happen. The problem is most businesses can't run with an employee who isn't at work for a large swath of time. I'm certain the government has trouble in lots of situations where someone just disappears for a while and the disappearance costs way more than the salary involved. I'm sure nobody asked me if this is a worthy benefit just for the few. If you can't put money away in a bank you are living too large and I don't want to pay for everybody doing that either. To tell if something is correct or incorrect I revert to a childhood book called "This is what would happen if everybody did". Should be required reading for government negotiators.

[Mike Gaiger]

I work for Toronto Fire. The sick bank helped me out tremendously when I shattered my Tibia in my left leg, off duty, and was unable to work for 4 months. It provided me with pay so that my family and I could get through until I could return to work. Without it I probably would have lost my house and who knows what else. I had "saved" enough time in the bank to allow me to be paid for 69 days, with some left over. Is that wrong?

[Argosy]

Wonderfully put Neil!
Shame on these people and their ridiculous demands.