# Paid Sick Leave



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

B.C. becomes first province to introduce five days of permanent paid sick leave (msn.com)

Discussion on paid leave for all workers was a hot topic at the height of the pandemic. BC has introduced legislation. Any guesses to which provinces/territories will follow suit and which ones won't?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ I highly doubt any other province will generously follow.

Just speaking for Ontario here, Ford don't even have the guts to put his foot down with the vaccine-mandate and he's going to force employers to allow "5" "permanent" "paid" sick days or extend that from the current 3. No way.

And definitely not Quebec, boy is it ever stingy with the current 2 (didn't know that).


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Wait for an election....promises promises. A dip in the polls prior to, or during an election, can make even the most fierce opponents change their collective minds if it gains them a point or two with the luckless taxpayers.

Anything to buy voters with their own money!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Everyone should get as much time off as they need when they are sick.

What do employers want.......people coming in and making everyone else sick too ?

Have we learned nothing from covid ? If you are sick.......stay home.

Everyone should contribute to an employer fund and benefits only get paid upon receipt of a doctor's note.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

^ Doctors will give a note for just about anything - stress, headache, etc. They have no choice. It's all so subjective, not much a doc can do about it. 

How much is enough and how do we prevent abuse. It's already rampant. It turns into 6-10 extra vacation days for some.

Track things closely enough and you will see patterns. Monday and Fridays are very popular sick days. I wish I knew how to solve the problem. A lot of people take advantage of the benefits and ruin it for those that really need the paid time off.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

Deleted


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

According to the article the average number of sick days used was 5. My company has 15 days medical leave. Many of the employees burn them at a rate as fast as they earn them then complain that they can't use other paid leave for medical appointments or sick time. A review found that the majority of sick days were Mondays and Fridays and the days following vacation. some staff were even so bold to use sick days for vacation time that was refused. As an employer how do you prove they weren't ill. The provision of a doctors note, unfortunately, puts unnecessary cost and strain on an already overburdened health care system. Like Synergy I wish I knew the solution. Sadly, like many things in life there are those that will take advantage and don't need it, those that need it and don't have it, and those that have it and never use it. In comparison to other parts of the planet this is a minor issue in the big scheme of things.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

When I worked in the US, there were no sick days whatsoever. Instead the company gave us extra generic days off (a few more vacation days). So if you wanted to rest when sick, you used up a vacation day.

As a result, nobody ever wanted to take a day off when sick. Everyone came to the office, hacking and coughing. Better to drag yourself to the office when sick rather than waste a vacation day.

As a result, sick people always came to work and infected each other.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> When I worked in the US, there were no sick days whatsoever. Instead the company gave us extra generic days off (a few more vacation days). So if you wanted to rest when sick, you used up a vacation day.
> 
> As a result, nobody ever wanted to take a day off when sick. Everyone came to the office, hacking and coughing. Better to drag yourself to the office when sick rather than waste a vacation day.
> 
> As a result, sick people always came to work and infected each other.


I know companies like this.
It really comes down to two different concepts.

1. Why should a company pay you if you're not working? 
It makes no sense to force them to.
If you hire someone to mow your lawn, and they don't, you don't still pay them.
2. Should a company spend money to deliver higher productivity.
I believe that for many cases the company is going to be better off with a small number of sick people staying home for a day or two, than an entire team sick and barely productive "in the office"

I know when I'm really sick I might only be 10-20% effective. Much better for the company to pay me to stay home for 1 day and let me get better than to have me work 2 days at 20% for full pay.

I think paid sick time makes sense, but I think the government directives should stop at protected leave, forcing them to people if they don't show up for work doesn't make sense.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

james4beach said:


> When I worked in the US, there were no sick days whatsoever. Instead the company gave us extra generic days off (a few more vacation days). So if you wanted to rest when sick, you used up a vacation day.
> 
> As a result, nobody ever wanted to take a day off when sick. Everyone came to the office, hacking and coughing. Better to drag yourself to the office when sick rather than waste a vacation day.
> 
> As a result, sick people always came to work and infected each other.


If you got extra generic days, then those were your sick days. But people used them as vacation time instead. Giving them more days off wouldn't solve anything, would it?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> If you got extra generic days, then those were your sick days. But people used them as vacation time instead. Giving them more days off wouldn't solve anything, would it?


I prefer a few paid "personal days".
If they're sick days and you don't use them, you lose out.

It's even better if they let you cash them out, like the company has already accounted for the expense, and if you cash out, they still gain the benefit of your work!


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

My former employer, TD, didn’t have a set number of “sick days”. We paid employees anytime they called in sick. No proof of illness was requested unless you were off for 5 consecutive days or if there was a pattern of suspected abuse. I too, found a couple of employees over my years, who had a habit of being sick on Mondays, Fridays, Saturday.

the policy did cause some heartaches……the bank because so lean in my last few years, that If a teller called in sick…it hurt……you might only have 3 or 4 tellers working all day. And the “health pay” was still part of your weekly staffing budget so you couldn’t back fill and call someone in to cover them…or you’d go over budget.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I think sick days should be provided by all employers, to a fairly high number (3 weeks+ I'd say), followed by whatever STD and LTD benefit plan may be provided (also by the company or through group insurance).

Hopefully the coronovirus will push the concept of sick time and staying home from work when ill to become the new normal. It's pretty sad that we're in the 21st century with finely honed economic machines via massive corporations, but poor workers who are sick and contagious need to slog it into their workplaces when they feel like death. That's pretty uncivilized - I think we can "do better" as the narcissistic, entitled left-wingers like to says.

If someone's sick all the time and using lots and lots of sick days, it's no different than if you have a dud employee for some other reason...Some people are more productive than others, it's a fact of life. The corporation needs to figure it out and budget accordingly for normal time away for illnesses for their workers.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

peterk said:


> I think sick days should be provided by all employers, to a fairly high number (3 weeks+ I'd say), followed by whatever STD and LTD benefit plan may be provided (also by the company or through group insurance).
> 
> Hopefully the coronovirus will push the concept of sick time and staying home from work when ill to become the new normal. It's pretty sad that we're in the 21st century with finely honed economic machines via massive corporations, but poor workers who are sick and contagious need to slog it into their workplaces when they feel like death. That's pretty uncivilized - I think we can "do better" as the narcissistic, entitled left-wingers like to says.
> 
> If someone's sick all the time and using lots and lots of sick days, it's no different than if you have a dud employee for some other reason...Some people are more productive than others, it's a fact of life. The corporation needs to figure it out and budget accordingly for normal time away for illnesses for their workers.


the thing is, if an employee is "worth" paying $50k/yr, they'll take that, subtract out all the benefits, sick days etc and pay you that. Those "paid sick days" aren't free, they're already part of the cost of employing you.
Just like giving another paid holiday, it increases the cost of keeping your around.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

peterk said:


> Hopefully the coronovirus will push the concept of sick time and staying home from work when ill to become the new normal. It's pretty sad that we're in the 21st century with finely honed economic machines via massive corporations, but poor workers who are sick and contagious need to slog it into their workplaces when they feel like death. That's pretty uncivilized - I think we can "do better" as the narcissistic, entitled left-wingers like to says.


Absolutely. Well said!


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

peterk said:


> I think sick days should be provided by all employers, to a fairly high number (3 weeks+ I'd say), followed by whatever STD and LTD benefit plan may be provided (also by the company or through group insurance).
> 
> Hopefully the coronovirus will push the concept of sick time and staying home from work when ill to become the new normal. It's pretty sad that we're in the 21st century with finely honed economic machines via massive corporations, but poor workers who are sick and contagious need to slog it into their workplaces when they feel like death. That's pretty uncivilized - I think we can "do better" as the narcissistic, entitled left-wingers like to says.
> 
> If someone's sick all the time and using lots and lots of sick days, it's no different than if you have a dud employee for some other reason...Some people are more productive than others, it's a fact of life. The corporation needs to figure it out and budget accordingly for normal time away for illnesses for their workers.


There are a lot of very large corporations run by entitled left wingers (your words). Why haven't they stepped up to offer generous sick time?


----------



## reccoso (Dec 16, 2010)

Expanded sick leave set to become a pandemic legacy, even as federal, provincial programs flop


Growing momentum for paid sick leave ignores underperformance of programs launched during the pandemic




www.theglobeandmail.com





Has anyone thought about the impact 10 paid sick days will have on small businesses? This is in addition to 2-3 weeks paid vacation and 9 paid stat holidays. That’s almost 7 weeks paid time off.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

reccoso said:


> Expanded sick leave set to become a pandemic legacy, even as federal, provincial programs flop
> 
> 
> Growing momentum for paid sick leave ignores underperformance of programs launched during the pandemic
> ...


 ... yes, small businesses are those least able to afford this. Btw, where do you get 10 paid sick days. In Ontario?


----------



## reccoso (Dec 16, 2010)

“Now, the federal Liberals are preparing to legislate 10 permanent employer-paid sick days for federally regulated employees, up from the current requirement of three days”

If certain ppl get their way, that’s what they’re going after


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Well, government employees are always special with the Feds being more special than the provincial ones.

As for legislation on on paid sick leaves on employers (non-governmental), I believe it's up to each province. So for Ontario, I don't think Ford has the guts to impose it. So far I haven't even heard of a squeak on this topic from the Ontario government.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Well, government employees are always special with the Feds being more special than the provincial ones.
> 
> As for legislation on on paid sick leaves on employers (non-governmental), I believe it's up to each province. So for Ontario, I don't think Ford has the guts to impose it. So far I haven't even heard of a squeak on this topic from the Ontario government.


Okay 2 weeks paid sick leave is going to be another 2 weeks of paid vacation for most people. This is basically a 4% increase on labour expenses. 

It's like they want inflation to be higher

I think 10 days of job protected leave is fine, but dumping all these costs on business just doesn't seem well thought out.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

As outlined above there are many residual impacts of implementing such legislation. from a financial operations perspective cost increases for tax payers/consumers is a big one. Studies show that workplaces that have these type of benefits can see increased job satisfaction and productivity. I think the extent of which is determined by existing work place culture. I know of a couple in Alberta that do not have good benefits with their current employer that were already considering a move further west. This should help sweeten the deal for them. I know there are many factors to consider in relocating and it is a big decision. This however, will help attract some workers in sectors that do not already have sick leave.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

londoncalling said:


> As outlined above there are many residual impacts of implementing such legislation. from a financial operations perspective cost increases for tax payers/consumers is a big one. Studies show that workplaces that have these type of benefits can see increased job satisfaction and productivity. I think the extent of which is determined by existing work place culture. I know of a couple in Alberta that do not have good benefits with their current employer that were already considering a move further west. This should help sweeten the deal for them. I know there are many factors to consider in relocating and it is a big decision. This however, will help attract some workers in sectors that do not already have sick leave.


I also agree that for many jobs this will result in positive impacts, and many companies have such policies.
Some companies have gone as far as unlimited PTO, but I don't think that will work for all companies and all employees.

I imagine that if Tim Hortons offered unlimited Paid Time Off, they'd have a lot of trouble running.

Netflix doesn't seem to have that problem.





11 companies that have adopted unlimited holidays (and what they found) | Workstars


The premise is simple. Get all your tasks done then spend as much time on paid vacation as you'd like. But does offering unlimited holidays work?




www.workstars.com





I think it's good to set out safety requirements and basic working conditions and rights in law. But requiring so much paid time off under law is getting a bit troublesome. The legislated benefits are becoming an increasingly large portion of the employee cost. 
This is part of why people are switching to "on demand" jobs. 

What type of taxi company can handle all this overhead that Uber doesn't?
You hire a temporary driver for the Xmas rush, and they spend the time on "paid sick leave". 

All this red tape and increased benefits HURTS LOW WAGE WORKERS. The high wage guys at Netflix already get these benefits.


----------



## reccoso (Dec 16, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I also agree that for many jobs this will result in positive impacts, and many companies have such policies.
> Some companies have gone as far as unlimited PTO, but I don't think that will work for all companies and all employees.
> 
> I imagine that if Tim Hortons offered unlimited Paid Time Off, they'd have a lot of trouble running.
> ...


All are very wealthy big tech companies. How about we amalgamate all sorts of paid leaves into a single paid time off classification. Use it for whatever you want. It’s abusive for governments to pass on their fantasy plans down to businesses who don’t have unlimited taxing powers or borrow indefinitely like the govt does.

Asking small businesses to pay a high wage (which btw is what all employees focus on) and the have stat holidays, vacation pay, sick pay,match cpp and EI and higher municipal tax rates etc is all overreach.

Some employees are now asking to be classified as contractors to take home more and employers find it beneficial as well.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

peterk said:


> I think sick days should be provided by all employers, to a fairly high number (3 weeks+ I'd say), followed by whatever STD and LTD benefit plan may be provided (also by the company or through group insurance).
> 
> Hopefully the coronovirus will push the concept of sick time and staying home from work when ill to become the new normal. It's pretty sad that we're in the 21st century with finely honed economic machines via massive corporations, but poor workers who are sick and contagious need to slog it into their workplaces when they feel like death. That's pretty uncivilized - I think we can "do better" as the narcissistic, entitled left-wingers like to says.
> 
> If someone's sick all the time and using lots and lots of sick days, it's no different than if you have a dud employee for some other reason...Some people are more productive than others, it's a fact of life. The corporation needs to figure it out and budget accordingly for normal time away for illnesses for their workers.


To require all employers to fund 3+weeks of sick days, plus expensive STD and LTD plans, sounds ducky for employees, but I can think of a fair number of small operators who are already not clearing much who would find all that enforced largesse just too burdensome. 

I am no labour market economist, but I have to wonder whether that will just provide more potential employers with incentive not to hire employees, but to engage only freelancers/independent contractors. Yes, I know that government can look behind the labels to make its own determination as to the nature of the relationship, but I am not sure that will help in many cases and, even where it does, it will simply cause some small fish to throw in the towel.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Precisely.
Employers look at total compensation package or cost of hiring an employee
Salary is only one component of it, and in some cases not even a majority.
If there is higher cost of hiring because of higher paid time off, then either wages go down, other benefits go up, or inflation goes up.
Just look at the effect of inflation on wages in US:








US midterm elections: What's happened to economy under Biden?


President Biden has rejected suggestions the US economy is weakening.



www.bbc.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The EI program already includes sick pay, so why not expand it to cover any day that an employee is off, vacation, unemployment, sick, stat holiday, bereavement etc ?

We could debate the contribution level for employers and employees, but it seems to me to be a simple solution.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> The EI program already includes sick pay, so why not expand it to cover any day that an employee is off, vacation, unemployment, sick, stat holiday, bereavement etc ?
> 
> We could debate the contribution level for employers and employees, but it seems to me to be a simple solution.


Why? Because EI is for when you're unemployed.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

My employer falls under the new federal 10 paid sick days legislation, but luckily (or unluckily?) I almost never get sick, so the direct benefit to me is zero. 

Unfortunately, it's "use 'em or lose 'em", so naturally a lot people will be in the "use 'em" camp. As a supervisor, I expect to see an increase of employees calling in sick. That just makes my job more difficult, particularly in regards to scheduling.

One of my previous employers offered 5 paid sick days, which, if unused, were paid out in a lump sum at the end of the year. That was nice because employees didn't feel they were losing anything by not using them.

On the subject of paid time off in general, Canada ranks quite low compared to other OECD nations. I've had friends in Europe who reacted with disbelief when I told them I only got 10 days of paid vacation.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

reccoso said:


> Has anyone thought about the impact 10 paid sick days will have on small businesses?


Sure. Your employees won't be sick as dogs, so they will be healthier, happier and more productive.

Obviously there's a middle ground here, but my point is that it's really not good for a business when everyone is sick. In Canadian winters, people in a workplace can be chronically sick, just passing the same bugs around, endlessly.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> Why? Because EI is for when you're unemployed.


When people are sick or off work for any reason, they aren't employed.

EI already pays sick pay, so the only change would be to start benefits on the first day. EI currently pays up to 15 weeks of sick pay benefits.

Employers and employees already pay into the EI, so why not expand the program ? They both benefit from it, so they can both contribute and fund it.

Critics said the CPP couldn't be expanded for years, but the Liberals managed to do it quite easily and the world hasn't fallen apart.


----------



## reccoso (Dec 16, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Sure. Your employees won't be sick as dogs, so they will be healthier, happier and more productive.
> 
> Obviously there's a middle ground here, but my point is that it's really not good for a business when everyone is sick. In Canadian winters, people in a workplace can be chronically sick, just passing the same bugs around, endlessly.


Sure, and all the other ones will take it off anyways bc it’s extra vacation days for them. Call it what it is, 10 extra vacation days. Oh and it’s all on the back of the business. So here we go, 7 weeks of vacation. Now we’re just like Europe! Cuz you know how great things are there.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> When people are sick or off work for any reason, they aren't employed.


LOL. You're not unemployed when you take a sick day.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ I think by " ... aren't employed" meaning to be "not working" and he's referencing in his post above on that to being "long term sickness (or more than your employer's sick days leave policy". If you're sick for than 10 days or after the expiration of your employer's generous sick days leave, then what? Still working? Technically by law still employed but once your EI runs out ... still employed (with luck or if you're related to your employer or the boss is your buddy), then what?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ I think by " ... aren't employed" meaning to be "not working" and he's referencing in his post above on that to being "long term sickness (or more than your employer's sick days leave policy". If you're sick for than 10 days or after the expiration of your employer's generous sick days leave, then what? Still working? Technically by law still employed but once your EI runs out ... still employed (with luck or if you're related to your employer or the boss is your buddy), then what?


sags said if they're off "for any reason" they're unemployed. He also said (above that comment) that it should apply for any particular day that an employee might be off. Nothing was said about 10 exceeding days, that's a different scenario.

You're arguing with me for something that wasn't even stated.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If an employee is "employed" while at home sick, what is your issue with paying them their wages then....since you know, they are still employed ?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> sags said if they're off "for any reason" they're unemployed. He also said (above that comment) that it should apply for any particular day that an employee might be off. Nothing was said about 10 exceeding days, that's a different scenario.
> 
> You're arguing with me for something that wasn't even stated.


 ... why am I arguing with you? Let sags clarify his statement then.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> If an employee is "employed" while at home sick, what is your issue with paying them.......cause you know, they are still employed ?


Employees are paid when they work, not when they're at home.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... why am I arguing with you? Let sags clarify his statement then.


Yet you're the one who tried to clarify their statement (incorrectly) instead of staying out of it. Your comment added nothing of value.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> Yet you're the one who tried to clarify their statement (incorrectly) instead of staying out of it. Your comment added nothing of value.


 ... then why don't you stay out of my responses to other posters then? Adding lots of value with the conspiracy theories injections, right. Nice try.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> Employees are paid when they work, not when they're at home.


 ... then why the hell do workers need sick pay leave then? Or are you expecting them to be reporting to the work place, and spread germs when sick. No value added, just opinions. You get to add the value(s).


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... then why the hell do workers need sick pay leave then? Or are you expecting them to be reporting to the work place, and spread germs when sick. No value added, just opinions. You get to add the value(s).


For someone who doesn't want me to respond to them, you can't stop directing comments to me. 😅 

I never once said people should to go work when sick. You're making things up.

Here's a tip: Stop putting words in my mouth and I'll stop correcting you.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> For someone who doesn't want me to respond to them, you can't stop directing comments to me. 😅


 ... same here. You're the one who is b1tching.

FYI, I have no one on ignore so don't expect me not to respond, at anytime and anywhere. This is also known as application of Free Speech (for short) here.



> I never once said people should to go work when sick. You're making things up.
> 
> Here's a tip: Stop putting words in my mouth and I'll stop correcting you.


 ... not putting words in your mouth. I asked you the question, rebutting or trying to clarify your statement:



> > HappilyRetired said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 ... and here you still haven't answered yet and now claiming I'm putting words in your mouth (which is a need to put in an assumption there).

So I ask the question again to your statement above: "... then why the hell do workers need sick pay leave then?" to mean - why are employees being paid at home sick then? versus your requirement that employees are paid when they work (presumably need to work at home) when they're sick at home or that they're not to be paid to be at home or must be at work (even when sick). 

Reminder: the subject of this thread is "Paid Sick Leave", not the excuse of playing hookey. Your chance to add value here.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> So I ask the question again to your statement above: "... then why the hell do workers need sick pay leave then?" to mean - why are employees being paid at home sick then? versus your requierment that employees are paid when they work (presumably need to work at home) when they're sick at home or not to be paid to be at home when sick. Reminder: the subject of this thread is "Paid Sick Leave".


Paid sick leave is a benefit not a right. Some employees get it and some don't. I don't think it should be mandatory, but then again I have friends who own businesses and struggle with expenses at times so I can see their side of it.

If you give sick time to minimum wage low entry jobs it will be abused.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> Paid sick leave is a benefit not a right.


 ... true.



> Some employees get it and some don't.


 ... not exactly sure of what you're saying here. You can't discriminate within a company with the "some employees get it and some don't". Perhaps you're saying different companies have different sick days leave policies here? But provincial legislation requires employers to provide the minimum.



> I don't think it should be mandatory, but then again I have friends who own businesses and struggle with expenses at times so I can see their side of it.


 ... see above on legislation re the voluntary part. I don't disagree with your 2nd statement about businesses struggling with it - particularly "small" business who can least afford it. I've already stated that in my first post of this thread of what I think of mandating a 5/10 sick days leave. As for "large" corporations, they can well afford it. [I answered the OP's question/request for opinions.]



> If you give sick time to minimum wage low entry jobs it will be abused.


 ... a good possibility but I have also seen paid sick days leave being abused by a 500+ employees corporation because I was in one.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... not exactly sure of what you're saying here. You can't discriminate within a company with the "some employees get it and some don't". Perhaps you're saying different companies have different sick days leave policies here? But provincial legislation requires employers to provide the minimum.


I don't think it's discrimination for a company to give some employees paid sick days and others no sick days. It's no different than rewarding a long time and skilled employee with higher wages or more vacation time. As long as each employee gets the minimum required by law they have the right to give additional benefits to any employee that they consider to be higher value.

Example: An experienced foreman of a construction crew maybe get sick time and 4 weeks of vacation while a new employee pounding nails and sweeping floors will get no sick time and the minimum 2 weeks of vacation. It's perfectly legal and happens all the time.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> I never once said people should to go work when sick. You're making things up.
> 
> Here's a tip: Stop putting words in my mouth and I'll stop correcting you.


Certain posters tend to make up lots of stuff, or they claim you hold a position you don't.
They think arguing against a position you don't even hold is somehow "winning" a debate.

If you feel like wasting time, you can go for the multi day thread where I made a clear factual statement, and stuck to it, while a certain other poster insisted I was a flip flopper, despite never changing my position.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> As for "large" corporations, they can well afford it.


Some can, some can't, which is the point. The government is mandating expensive things for political gain, while not directly paying the cost of those policies.

They always say taxation can be used to discourage certain behaviour.
Ever increasing employment taxes is one way to discourage employment.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> I don't think it's discrimination for a company to give some employees paid sick days and others no sick days. It's no different than rewarding a long time and skilled employee with higher wages or more vacation time. As long as each employee gets the minimum required by law they have the right to give additional benefits to any employee that they consider to be higher value.


 ... say it again with the "_I don't think it's discrimination for a company to give some employees paid sick days and *others no sick days.". *_ That's like saying the company is blind to any legislation on a minimum # of sick days. Which province is that since this is a first I have heard.



> Example: An experienced foreman of a construction crew maybe get sick time and 4 weeks of vacation while a *new employee pounding nails and sweeping floors will get no sick time* and the minimum 2 weeks of vacation. It's perfectly legal and happens all the time.


... first time I have heard of no sick days whatsoever for new employees. Please be clear that sick days are not "vacation" time which can vary depending on seniority based on company's policy.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

If sick leave is not mandatory by law then it's not discrimination to not offer it to new employees even though other employees may have sick time.

If it's mandatory then employers have to give everyone the minimum allowed, but they still retain the right to give more sick time to any employee they choose.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Certain posters tend to make up lots of stuff, or they claim you hold a position you don't.
> They think arguing against a position you don't even hold is somehow "winning" a debate.


 ... who's arguing? who was trying to "win" a debate? who was trying to set a bar to "add value" when the original post requested "opinions". So is this a case that no one else can give their opinions except those who thinks they can "add value" which is based on what? Their licence or profession or what? As said, I'm not an engineer, not a doctor, not a financial adviser, not a lawyer, not a fill-in-the-blank here to be "qualified" to dispensing "value-added" "advice" to constitute "contributions" either. I'm just an average Jane here giving my experience-based opinions. Don't forget your famous need for "freedom of speech", no/less censorship plus your support of "individual rights" via hot air on this forum.

As for those who're supposedly "qualified" to add value or make contributions based on their what? professions- some of these posts are embarassing to say the least.



> If you feel like wasting time, you can go for the multi day thread where I made a clear factual statement, and stuck to it, while a certain other poster insisted I was a flip flopper, despite never changing my position.


 ... no, you never change your position but you sure change your words. Works like charm for a typical manager or director or vice-president. The always right boss.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> If sick leave is not mandatory by law then it's not discrimination to not offer it to new employees even though other employees may have sick time.
> 
> If it's mandatory then employers have to give everyone the minimum allowed, but they still retain the right to give more sick time to any employee they choose.


 ... I asked "which province doesn't have mandatory by law sick leave" as I'm not aware of one.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Some can, some can't, which is the point. The government is mandating expensive things for political gain, while not directly paying the cost of those policies.


 ... I didn't say "all" large corporations but some large corporations sure can! And if they can't, then they have the shareholders' to answer excuse instead of the "political angle" ... oh, here comes the legislation is all due to JTrudeau, Liberals, blah blah blah.



> They always say taxation can be used to discourage certain behaviour.
> Ever increasing employment taxes is one way to discourage employment.


 ... who said anything about increasing taxation or even remotely gone there? Now it's your turn to make things up.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

reccoso said:


> Now we’re just like Europe! Cuz you know how great things are there.


Yes Europe is an excellent place to live and work, and we should aspire to be more like them. Especially Scandinavia.

It's good to hear that you understand. If you're ever in doubt about which country is a great model for us, look at Sweden and Norway.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Yes Europe is an excellent place to live and work, and we should aspire to be more like them. Especially Scandinavia.
> 
> It's good to hear that you understand. If you're ever in doubt about which country is a great model for us, look at Sweden and Norway.


Soo good to live and work that you've chosen not to live their either.

Funny thing is that many Europeans I know who worked in Canada or the US, a large percentage stays here due to the higher quality of life.

Now part of that is they're more educated wealthier people, but I'm not sure the poor doo much better.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... who said anything about increasing taxation or even remotely gone there? Now it's your turn to make things up.


The subject of the thread.

10 days of paid sick leave is a pretty signifcant "tax". It's roughly a 4% the cost of labour. Throw in the extra stat holiday and they've already hiked the cost of having an employee by approximately 4.4%.
Of course Trudeau doesn't care about economics and you guys don't realize that if you increase the cost of labour by 4.4% in less than a year, it's going to have an impact.

Now, what tactic will you employ, "They can afford it", "I don't care about economics", "You're flip flopping", or "Increasing the financial burden of employing people isn't taxing"?




Beaver101 said:


> ... oh, here comes the legislation is all due to JTrudeau, Liberals, blah blah blah.


Yes the Prime Minister is responsible for government legislation. The person in charge, and the group that passes it into law are literally the people that make this happen.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> The subject of the thread.
> 
> 10 days of paid sick leave is a pretty signifcant "tax". It's roughly a 4% the cost of labour. Throw in the extra stat holiday and they've already hiked the cost of having an employee by approximately 4.4%.
> Of course Trudeau doesn't care about economics and you guys don't realize that if you increase the cost of labour by 4.4% in less than a year, it's going to have an impact.


 ... no, the subject of the thread got derailed to the Feds of which you gladly took the opportunity to debate ... The way you read the "subject of the thread" was at face-value, literally from its title "Paid Sick Leave". The "subject" of the thread or "specifically" reposted for you from post no. "1" was:



> _Discussion Starter · #1 · 4 d ago
> 
> B.C. becomes first province to introduce five days of permanent paid sick leave (msn.com)
> 
> Discussion on paid leave for all workers was a hot topic at the height of the pandemic. BC has introduced legislation.* Any guesses to which provinces/territories will follow suit and which ones won't?*_


 ... of which I answered. But then someone threw in about 10 days from Fed of which I commented too but the topic is specifically on the provincial level, related to (or due to) (gasp!) the sickness of employees during the pandemic. No flip-flop here or derailing, how's that.



> Now, what tactic will you employ, "They can afford it", "I don't care about economics", "You're flip flopping", or "Increasing the financial burden of employing people isn't taxing"?
> 
> Yes the Prime Minister is responsible for government legislation. The person in charge, and the group that passes it into law are literally the people that make this happen.


 ... open your own thread then to debate this then. And see who'll participate.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... no, the subject of the thread got derailed to the Feds of which you gladly took the opportunity to debate ... * The way you read the "subject of the thread" was at face-value, literally from its title "Paid Sick Leave".* The "subject" of the thread or "specifically" reposted for you from post no. "1" was:


Yes, I literally took the actual words from the title of the thread as the subject of the thread.

Well the feds just did double the provincial policy, as such it's a better example of the cost of this policy. It's important to note you starting this thread with BC asking who else would do this, it really seemed like this was a thread on "Paid Sick Leave".


You're upset that people are using the literal words you type? Are we supposed to mind read some other thoughts, and just magically know what your real intent is?

I guess that's why you keep getting confused on what I mean when I type words. I'll give you a hint, I mean what I say.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Wages are tax deductible for the employer.


----------



## reccoso (Dec 16, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Yes Europe is an excellent place to live and work, and we should aspire to be more like them. Especially Scandinavia.
> 
> It's good to hear that you understand. If you're ever in doubt about which country is a great model for us, look at Sweden and Norway.


Besides Scandinavian countries with super high taxation, the rest of Europe has always been a shitty place throughout history. Look up history. They’ve had to steal, murder and plunder around the globe to fund their “lifestyle”.


----------



## reccoso (Dec 16, 2010)

sags said:


> Wages are tax deductible for the employer.


Do you understand how write offs work? It doesn’t mean free. And it still effects profitability and the bottom line. Just because an expense doesn’t get taxed doesn’t mean it’s free.

I wish more people would understand this basic issue.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Yes, I literally took the actual words from the title of the thread as the subject of the thread.


 ... which means your participation is simply to derail the thread to ... your next re hash below:



> Well the feds just did double the provincial policy, as such it's a better example of the cost of this policy. It's important to note you starting this thread with BC asking who else would do this, it really seemed like this was a thread on "Paid Sick Leave".


 ... the "who else" was underlined as "which other "P-R-O-V-I-N-C-E or territory" and I answered Ontario ain't because Ford doesn't have the guts to first. [And later, if needs to elaborate on, he ain't stupid enough to.] As said, if you want to expand on the effects with taxation and the woeful 9 yards of the subject on extending a "Paid Sick Leave" -open another thread and blah there.



> You're upset that people are using the literal words you type? Are we supposed to mind read some other thoughts, and just magically know what your real intent is?


 ... why am I upset that you're using the words literally when I'm not the least surprised of you changing or mincing with words.



> I guess that's why you keep getting confused on what I mean when I type words. I'll give you a hint, I mean what I say.


 ... no i'm not confused at all. You're great at words-mincing and I'm definitely sure that you mean what you say so need for the hint. I have seen enough real life examples in my career of your type of modus operandus.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I asked "which province doesn't have mandatory by law sick leave" as I'm not aware of one.


 ... I'm waiting for an answer to the question above.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

reccoso said:


> Do you understand how write offs work?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I literally took the actual words from the title of the thread as the subject of the thread.
> ...


Huh? Do you realize how nonsensical you sound?

My comments were on the topic, as laid out in the title of the thread, and you think that's derailing?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

There are things to consider. Some businesses operate on a shoestring. They are not all well capitalized large corporations.

Some people take advantage of benefits like this and it can ruin it for others who only use the benefit when needed. Workers comp is an example. 

I know of one employee who went on workers comp three times for back issues (these claims push up ers WCB premiums). HR decided to have it checked out. The agency came back with photos of the employee working for his brothers roofing company. Climbing the ladder, on the roof working, caring bundles of shingles over his shoulder.

Employers do not want people coming to work and infected others. But they also do not want employees skiving off when they are fit to work.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Huh? Do you realize how nonsensical you sound?
> 
> My comments were on the topic, as laid out in the title of the thread, and you think that's derailing?


 ... yes, I'm nonsensical and you're perfectly sound, boss.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If there is anyone screwing anyone around here.......it is the WSIB screwing the disabled workers.

Since they began "deeming" that workers had a pretend job with pretend wages, the WSIB just cuts them off and they end up on welfare.

Anyone who gets severely hurt in Ontario is SOL. They gave us WSIB and took away the right to sue employers for unsafe conditions.

The disabled end up on welfare most of the time, as it pays more than CPP disability. The WSIB make their own rules and judge their own appeals.

You could lose your arms and legs in a workplace accident and be a stump, and the WSIB would "deem" you can be a Walmart greeter.

The only people affected are those disabled workers, and most people don't think it will happen to them, so they get away with it.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

reccoso said:


> Do you understand how write offs work? It doesn’t mean free. And it still effects profitability and the bottom line. Just because an expense doesn’t get taxed doesn’t mean it’s free.
> 
> I wish more people would understand this basic issue.


So....here are the numbers sags. An employee earns $100 a day. After employer pays tax, at lets say, 20 percent, that pay has a basic our of pocket cost to the employer of $80.

But that is not the end of it. Add on 5 percent for employers CPP, another 3 percent for employer EI payments. Then add on the other benefits such as vacation, medical. More often than not those benefits add up from 15 to 40 percent depending on the company, the industry etc.

That does not include the cost of a replacement (if required) or other such loss.

I am not saying that I am against sick leave. But for certain it is not as straightforward as one would imagine from an employers perspective and a business affordability perspective.

My understanding is that there are more people employed by small business than there are in corporate environments. Not everyone works for a GM. It is really easy to say it is simply a tax write off when you do not have to pay the bills every month and balance the books, and remain competitive with products from other jurisdictions. I know of business owners who have struggled to make payroll, let alone pay themselves a decent amount for their own labour and for a return on their capital investment that they risk every day.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... yes, I'm nonsensical and you're perfectly sound, boss.


Well, I guess even you get moments of lucidity.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

ian said:


> So....here are the numbers sags. An employee earns $100 a day. After employer pays tax, at lets say, 20 percent, that pay has a basic our of pocket cost to the employer of $80.
> 
> But that is not the end of it. Add on 5 percent for employers CPP, another 3 percent for employer EI payments. Then add on the other benefits such as vacation, medical. More often than not those benefits add up from 15 to 40 percent depending on the company, the industry etc.
> 
> ...


So 20% of the cost is paid by the taxpayer, and the remaining 80% should be paid by the employee.

I suggested the EI fund administer it.......because it already provides up to 15 weeks of sick pay, after a waiting period.

I don't expect the employer to pay anything. A new benefit would only cover the waiting period, not already covered by EI.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

sags said:


> So 20% of the cost is paid by the taxpayer, and the remaining 80% should be paid by the employee.
> 
> I suggested the EI fund administer it.......because it already provides up to 15 weeks of sick pay, after a waiting period.
> 
> I don't expect the employer to pay anything. A new benefit would only cover the waiting period, not already covered by EI.


EI is paid by the employee and the employer. There is also the max EI payout is 55percent of salary to a max of approx 600 per week. That works out to about 31K per year. And it is taxable. Is that a limit that you would place on it or would you be in favour of increasing the ee and er EI contribution rates?

And what about the significant burden in administration costs and inspection costs? Very easy to say just do it, once done those same people would be complaining that everyone is taking advantage of it.

My point is that this is not as straightforward as it sounds. No magic wand. Lots of funding and and admin issues.

Yeas ago, while in a union job, we did have something like this. Not a large amount but it was there. It was a benefit that the union negotiated with the company. It paid by and administered by an insurance company. Not much different than dental.

No matter what type of plan is considered it will have the obvious costs associated with it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> No matter what type of plan is considered it will have the obvious costs associated with it.


I think that's something that's often missed with all these programs and policies.
While there is a clear stated benefit, there is always a cost and I'm not sure people are thinking about that.

Everything has trade offs. For sick days I see a spectrum.
No days is clearly problematic.
Unpaid time has less dollar cost for the employer, but does offer scheduling problems.
paid time has the scheduling problems and a dollar cost for the employer.

My concern is constantly dumping costs on employers will make it tougher for them, and we'll end up with fewer. Look at the rise of gig work competing with employment.
The big savings from Uber is getting rid of all that overhead.

We've seen how increasing the costs on landlords has led to the drastic reduction in rental housing, do we want to repeat this mistake with employment too?


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

sags said:


> So 20% of the cost is paid by the taxpayer, and the remaining 80% should be paid by the employee.
> 
> I suggested the EI fund administer it.......because it already provides up to 15 weeks of sick pay, after a waiting period.
> 
> I don't expect the employer to pay anything. A new benefit would only cover the waiting period, not already covered by EI.


You have remember not all employers are for profit and there is no write off. Think about people who hire care providers. My nannies were all paid sick days and vacation days, plus a whole bunch of other days such as going to school/study/exam days (and I paid for their education too). I didn't need to have the government mandate it. I could write any of it off because there is a low limit on child care. While they were off, I also had to either take time off of my work, or find relief care at a higher cost. I can tell you it's a much higher cost than just their wage. I end up paying more than double usually. 

If you don't think this matters, consider senior care. We may have to hire additional care for my parents. Part of it will reduce their tax bill in form of a credit of 18% (I think). How do you expect seniors on fixed incomes to pay this extra amount. I calculated the going rate which will be about $2500 more a year for 10 days. That's also means that's 10 days less care or that they will have to hire someone else for $3500 IF they could find someone. Do you feel that seniors that hire someone for their care can afford this?

How about other people who require medical aids? Much of this isn't covered, people hire them out of necessity, sometimes really straining their budgets. This could put mean someone not being able to afford care.

I am all for sick days and I think employers should provide them for those legitimately sick. However, I don't think a government mandate one size fits all is the right answer. Individual companies and scenarios need to be looked at. I generally think when the government mandates something, there are many unintended consequences.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Read my proposal again. There would be NO additional cost to employers at all.

I propose that "individual" sick days be included in the existing EI program which already has a sick day benefit for up to 15 weeks.

All that would change is the waiting period to start collecting benefits would be eliminated.

As noted by another poster....EI pays 55% of the salary to a limit of $600 a week. I would leave it at that.

To pay the additional cost of the sick days, I would raise the "employee" contribution if necessary.

Given the labor situation for many employers, the likely scenario is they do nothing and watch their employees leave to work somewhere else.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The other day, not a single dining room server showed up for work at my wife's employer (retirement home), so the CEO, supervisors, and a couple of housekeepers had to serve the meals. The residents pay to have a dining room experience and people to clean their rooms, and they are starting to complain.

Normally the company would have a couple of job openings. They now have over 60 openings and nobody is responding.

If they do hire someone.....they either don't show up or quit.

The same company is also our landlord and they said they have 600 maintenance tickets backlog and won't get to them until next year.
They have no maintenance people either.

I think there are going to be big changes in the way employers have to think about their employees.

Maybe we also have too many businesses given the demographics and some of them are going to get weeded out.

When I look around......there are pizza stores, payday loan stores, fast food franchises, and all kinds of businesses that never existed before.

Some professions as well. It seems like we have new dental offices on every city block now. Was there a sudden need for all these dental offices ?

This at a time when our population is getting older and heading towards retirement.


----------

