Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Certified Sick Leave

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    implausible
    Registered Users Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    rainbowtrout wrote:
    In terms of knowing if someone was sick or retired, oh we knew the difference. If a person has retired they have resigned their job, you hear about stuff like that. Much different if they have gone on sick leave for a year. Also the person replacing them has a contract based on sick leave or their own hours. It's very clear cut. In the example I gave above the teacher coming in knew the teacher was going to be out on sick leave for the year, and that they were retiring afterwards and that the job would be theirs the following year.

    I would've known too, but I'm trying to understand why other teachers have never heard of this - perhaps in larger staffrooms maybe it was hush hush and younger staff didn't know about it or know what contracts colleagues were on.


  • Options
    #33
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    Never heard of this happening. I find it strange that people who get very angry at any suggestions of widespread nepotism or dodgy hiring practices are happy to generalise about serious abuse of sick leave being commonplace.


  • Options
    #34
    implausible
    Registered Users Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    Nova High Box wrote:
    Never heard of this happening. I find it strange that people who get very angry at any suggestions of widespread nepotism or dodgy hiring practices are happy to generalise about serious abuse of sick leave being commonplace.

    Perhaps it was just VECs then, where it's harder to get away with nepotism, but where this 'entitlement' was definitely taken up (at the very least in two VECs).


  • Options
    #35
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    implausible wrote: »
    Perhaps it was just VECs then, where it's harder to get away with nepotism, but where this 'entitlement' was definitely taken up (at the very least in two VECs).

    Well my experience would be the opposite on both counts. I've seen widespread nepotism in VECs but little abuse of sick leave - certainly nothing of the scale described here.


  • Options
    #36
    implausible
    Registered Users Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    Because it was part of terms and conditions and wasn't technically wrong - you could be sick for one year in four and still get full salary, as long as you were medically certified. There are still GPs who will issue sick certs without ever seeing you, but the new system doesn't take the GP's word for it at all and you're down to half salary after 3 months.

    It was the same logic as teachers who felt they could 'use up' their uncertified sick days as they were 'entitled' to them.

    The old system was very open to abuse, but this new one hammers everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users Posts: 15,382 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    Nova High Box wrote: »
    Never heard of this happening. I find it strange that people who get very angry at any suggestions of widespread nepotism or dodgy hiring practices are happy to generalise about serious abuse of sick leave being commonplace.

    Who's generalising? I'm certainly not but I have experienced what I describe where I work.

    More to the point if a VEC or Dept or Ed, prior to the changes to sick leave, were getting in certs for long term illness surely it wasn't beyond them to send a teacher to medmark for verification?

    I agree that the sledgehammer approach that has been implemented is wrong but absenteeism wasn't tackled beforehand and perhaps it needed to be.


  • Options
    #38
    mirrorwall14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,751 ✭✭✭mirrorwall14


    The one that I find outrageous is the removal of the exemption for pregnancy illness. I used up 6 weeks of sick pay two years ago on maternity hospital admissions. I actually missed the deadline for the change by 1 day. If I had been hospitalised on the 31st of August rather than the 1st of September then that month of illness wouldn't have been counted. As it is I'm still waiting on that 6 weeks to drop off my 4 years. And it has impacted on my decision to have another as if it wasn't for being able to take maternity early due to the time of year I was pregnant I could potentially have used up a lot more of my sick leave before switching to maternity


  • Options
    #39
    mahoganygas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,488 ✭✭✭mahoganygas


    amacca wrote:
    Give me some actual reasons why non working days are recorded in the total of days missed that go beyond "it happens in other jobs"

    I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it. I'm just saying its not an anomaly confined to the teaching profession.

    Every job I've had was the same. I'm sat at a table here with 6 people - an engineer, two bank workers, a teacher, a receptionist and a fast food manager. All bar one of us have the same clause in our contracts.

    It seems to be the norm.


  • Options
    #40
    icebergiceberg
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭icebergiceberg


    mirrorwall14 wrote: »
    The one that I find outrageous is the removal of the exemption for pregnancy illness. I used up 6 weeks of sick pay two years ago on maternity hospital admissions. I actually missed the deadline for the change by 1 day. If I had been hospitalised on the 31st of August rather than the 1st of September then that month of illness wouldn't have been counted. As it is I'm still waiting on that 6 weeks to drop off my 4 years. And it has impacted on my decision to have another as if it wasn't for being able to take maternity early due to the time of year I was pregnant I could potentially have used up a lot more of my sick leave before switching to maternity

    If a teacher has to go to the doctor now for a prenatal check up, is that now classified as a certified sick day?


  • Options
    #41
    implausible
    Registered Users Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    icebergiceberg wrote:
    If a teacher has to go to the doctor now for a prenatal check up, is that now classified as a certified sick day?

    No. It's separate leave.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    icebergiceberg
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭icebergiceberg


    implausible wrote: »
    No. It's separate leave.

    Just to be clear. It is not certified?

    So what category of leave does a pre-natal visit come under?


  • Options
    #43
    mirrorwall14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,751 ✭✭✭mirrorwall14


    icebergiceberg wrote: »
    If a teacher has to go to the doctor now for a prenatal check up, is that now classified as a certified sick day?

    Antenatal appointments are not sick leave. Thats law across the whole workforce asfaik


  • Options
    #44
    mirrorwall14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,751 ✭✭✭mirrorwall14


    icebergiceberg wrote: »
    Just to be clear. It is not certified?

    So what category of leave does a pre-natal visit come under?

    I'm not sure what leave it comes under but all workers are entitled to attend their antental appointments and it has to be paid leave. That comes under the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 and 2004, the Maternity Protection (Time Off for Ante-Natal Care and Post-Natal Care) Regulations 1995, and the Maternity Protection (Disputes and Appeals) Regulations 1995 according to citizensinformation.ie


  • Options
    #45
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,962 ✭✭✭amacca


    mahoganygas wrote: »
    I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it. I'm just saying its not an anomaly confined to the teaching profession.

    Yeah I suppose I wasn't saying its anomaly confined to teaching either (although tbh I was considering it in isolation - not knowing if it was commonplace or not)

    just that it is an anomaly/unfair full stop imo regardless of how common it is....a logic anomaly imo
    mahoganygas wrote: »
    Every job I've had was the same. I'm sat at a table here with 6 people - an engineer, two bank workers, a teacher, a receptionist and a fast food manager. All bar one of us have the same clause in our contracts.

    It seems to be the norm.

    Some legacy historical/legal reason for it which is no longer all that relevant maybe?


  • Options
    #46
    TheDriver
    Registered Users Posts: 12,518 ✭✭✭✭TheDriver


    There's a difference between a pregnancy related appointment and pregnancy related illness


  • Options
    #47
    icebergiceberg
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭icebergiceberg


    TheDriver wrote: »
    There's a difference between a pregnancy related appointment and pregnancy related illness

    Yes, this is true. Yet I think-and am very much open to correction here and please do if I am- that when the former is being reported officially it's described as certified sick leave. Though there is no sickness as such, the teacher is absent for the day and can be replaced by a sub.


  • Options
    #48
    TheDriver
    Registered Users Posts: 12,518 ✭✭✭✭TheDriver


    No, its the latter though it has a different weighting


Advertisement