CAN SICK LEAVE BE MANDATED FOR EE ONLY

Dorothy

The administrator wants to mandate that sick leave can only be for the employee and not to take care of say a sick child or relative. Is this legal? Thanks.

Terry

Yes

njjel

Yes, it's legal (they don't have to give ANY sick time if they elect not to) However, if an employer wishes to attract good employees it's a good idea to consider the concerns of the employee and a child's illness is definitely one that should be considered, so you might point this out to the boss!

Carol CA

Not in the state of California! Here you must allow an employee to take up to half of their regular sick leave (for example 5 days if they usually get 10 days of sick per year) for the care of a sick family member. I would suggest you check your state laws.

Don D

In MS neither sick leave for ee's nor sick leave for family members is required by law. However, our company sick leave policy does state that if necessary for the care of an immediate family member due to their illness, an absence can be charged to the ee's sick leave. We also extend that to parents if the ee is the only one who can care for the parent during that illness.

Gillian

Of course the answer is yes, except for us in California or other states that mandate something different. The problem, though, is that work, sickness, family issues are all mixed in together today and a wise employer will consider sick leave for family members as a wise thing to do.

neveradull

Not in the State of Washington.

Margaret Morford

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-18-02 AT 11:31PM (CST)[/font][p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-18-02 AT 11:30 PM (CST)[/font]

Let me offer a more practical reason to allow the employee to use it for a sick child. You simply encourage the employee to lie to you and call themselves in sick when it's really their child that's sick. Honest employees get less flexibility in using their sick time than dishonest ones.

Margaret Morford
theHRedge
615-371-8200
[email]mmorford@mleesmith.com[/email]
[url]http://www.thehredge.net[/url]

Rockie

I agree with Margaret. If you have a sick leave policy, then you have to realize it will be abused. People will call in for sickness other than themselves and they will also call in when they need a day off rather than take their vacation time. I feel if there is a separate policy for sick leave, then at least a portion of it should be set aside for sick relatives. (I like the 1/2 time idea). This, however, will not take care of the abuse problem.

moneyman

That is one reason why we chose to go with a PTO policy. You accrue time to be used in any fashion that you want. You don't have the issue of employee's lying to be able to use their paid time.

San Francisco

I agree with Margaret. In our company, sick leave is to be used only for the employee's illness. It punishes honest employees and teaches them be dishonest. Those of us in HR are against it,but have not had success in having a change approved.

We have considered PTO, but in California, we must pay all accrued and available vacation at time of termination, but not sick leave. We have over 22,000 employees, so PTO would be a considerable cost to us.

ritaanz

Are you really Dorothy from Kansas?

Pork

Your mandate would fly in the face of FMLA; if otherwise qualified, the employee has the absolute right to take care of loved ones for up to 12 weeks. Tell your seniors to express their concerns with their congressmen, we got it thanks to the dishonorable President "Bill Clinton". Now we have to live with it! "Sorry bout that"

Don D

Pork: Normal SICK leave, not FMLA. I believe the question was about a company's normal 'sick leave' policy and not allowing me to take sick leave if my kid is home with a cold. Some policies do, some don't. Clinton also was in favor of extending FMLA to caring for the family pets and attending school plays. I expect that will resurface shortly.