Whanau leave
June 6th, 2010 at 11:56 am by David FarrarThe SST reports:
CHUCKING SICKIES could be a thing of the past if the Service and Food Workers’ Union’s call for “whanau leave” to give people time off work to care for dependants is adopted.
But we already have whanau leave. S65(1) of the Holidays Act states sick leave can be used for you, your partner or dependents.
Massey University Albany psychology lecturer Dianne Gardiner said the idea should be adopted because the law does not reflect the realities of life, including looking after sick children and parents.
I think the lecturer should read the Holidays Act.
While countries such as Japan and Australia provide 10 days for personal sickness, bereavement or to care for dependants, New Zealand legislates for just five, which have to include any time off to care for family.
Now this is a different issue. This is about the quantity of leave available, which is different from whether one can use sick leave for family members – which is currently allowed.
The union’s northern regional secretary Jill Ovens said her 23,000 members were this week expected to ratify a clause calling for five whanau leave and 10 sick days, on which the union would campaign.
She said the statutory minimum is inadequate because people could easily use five days on dependants and have nothing for themselves. “Even with 10 days a year, it’s quite difficult to manage if you’ve got children or elderly dependants. A lot of people who are still working have elderly parents.”
I have some agreement with the union, in that the legislative minimum of five days is rather low. In fact I don’t think I know of an employer who doesn’t provide for at least ten. I would be open to persuasion that the minimum should be 10.
Going beyond 10 (which is around one day in 20) would be going too far in the other direction I think. Some employees do see sick leave as a target, not a safety net, and maximise their sick leave. Many employers do react with compassion to someone who is genuinely sick for longer than 10 days a year, and don’t force them to start taking annual or unpaid leave, even though they could.
Businesses need staff working, in order to make money. Aready of the 250 “work days” a year, staff get 11 days of public holidays, 20 days of annual leave and normally ten days of sick leave. That averages out to a worker not being at work one day in six (on top of weekends).
Tags: employment law, sick leave, SWFU
June 6th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Errrr David, that’s 260 days.
Last time I looked we still had 52 weeks in a year but I guess you republicans will want that chopped back to fifty for the dumbarses who can’t comprehend any number not a multiple of ten. Next you’ll be telling me four weeks is a month so we’ll just regularize that along the way and have 48 weeks in the year. But hell, whatever you do DON’T YOU DARE reduce the number of paid no work days in the year.
[DPF: For fuck's sake take a chill pill. I used a ballpark number which doesn't change the point I was making. And what the fuck does republicanism have to do with this]
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Won’t be long and we will be like Greece. No one will want to work but will expect to get paid. Does the word beneficiary mean anything? Is borrowing $250 mil a week a problem?
Unpaid leave is always at the discretion of an employer and in my experience most employers are people with feelings and understandings. If you allow the employer to make a lot more money then with better productivity etc then these days really become a non issue.
For you socialists out there, we don’t need anymore legislation on how to run our lives. Most of the crap thats there in now is an impediment to raising our standard of living.
Youth rates, ETS, RMA etc etc.
Bring back individual contracts again and allow employers and employees to determine what works for them.
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
With ideas like the union’s we soon will be on our way to become Greezealand.
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
This was brought up by a psychology lecturer. FFS. I suggest we get Bob Jones to sort her out.
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Get used to it guys, as the baby boomer’s start to retire there is going to be more and more of this shit.
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
While countries such as Japan and Australia provide 10 days for personal sickness, bereavement or to care for dependants, New Zealand legislates for just five, which have to include any time off to care for family
We want to be just like Aus don’t we?
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Why not give unlimited sick leave but make it clear it won’t be abused and BTW, we’re watching the Friday and Monday call-ins.
Most employers would find this makes no change to what already happens but is a free morale-booster.
[DPF: I think this is what effectively happens in most smaller workplaces]
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
I think my last sick day was 3 years ago. I know, it feels like pissing in cordoroys. I get a warm wet feeling but know one seems to care.
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
David – you’d be open to legislating 10 days?
Um, why? You’ve just finished saying that contracts usually specify 10 anyway. How does it help to make it illegal to write a contract with an employer for five?
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
We want to be just like Aus don’t we?
You may or may not know that levels of entitlements aren’t what people mean by that.
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Is this leave for Maori only? If not why is it “Whanu” leave and not the family leave that a lot of other places already have?
And no “whanu” is not a common usage term. Its race specific.
Either way do we not have more than enough reasons for peopel not employ other in this country already? People keep accepting jobs then when they have they want to hold their hand out for more than was agreed to and jump up and down about how hard done by they are.
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
well doesnt Dime feel like the asshole! we give 5 days.
in saying that, im sure a couple had 10 days last year.
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I think any sick/family leave in excess of the current five days should be at the discretion of the employer. Good employees that don’t abuse sick leave are likely to get it, whereas those that abuse existing sick leave will likely not get more than the basic five days. On that basis the existing legislation surrounding the current five days sick/family leave should stay as it is.
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Dime
Don’t the hookers get five days off in every twenty eight?
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Old public sector rules allowed 365 days sick leave during a 40 year career with an interesting quirk that if you took Firday and Monday off sick you got donged 4 days. Probably about half of the sick leave was accrued in the first 10 years to allow for a serious illness early in the career and I think that caring for sick children was admisible. Most would have retired with unused sick leave, but those who got chronically ill I think were permitted to consume outstanding sick leave before resigning / retiring. Early retirement on medical grounds was permitted without stuffing up superannuation arrangements. If you died in office you were denied superannuation except bare employee contributions at 0% interest being paid to estate. So you made sure you retired first.
With greater worker mobility such a sick leave arrangement is a potential bother for employers.
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
So these locusts wish to demolish another crop just as the shoots of another spring emerge.
Vote:Classic case of necessity, desire and entitlement colliding and threatening good relationships, loyalty and good work place behaviour for what?
Indulging in needless posturing to justify a useless job for the parasitic union reps , causing unnecessary polarisation of attitudes and at best reducing employment opportunities thereby increasing the pool of the misguided who will vote for the cause mindlessly.
Along with MmcCartin and the hospitality workers wanting increased reward from the possiblities of added riches during the Rugby World Cup, this represents another pointless action that will only lead to tears.
The best way to increase income and benefits for all employees is for them to work harder, longer and/or smarter, communicate with management and/or owners and everyone benefits.
The class war has gone the way of the Berlin wall, it is no more, it only exists in the minds of those who will not hear. Transparency, modern communications, job portability, mobility and many employment options have created an environment where the power now is often with the employee rather than the employer.
Why is it that shearing, fruit picking, grape pruning and many other jobs are increasingly being done by temporary immigrants as they have the necessary work ethic and commitment.
Mindless parasites such as Ovens, McCartin et el, still think a government can legislate for higher youth rates, without reducing opportunities for the lower skilled, increased distress leave without employers on the margins moving to avoid the increased costs and more annual leave without reducing employment opportunities for all.
June 6th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
How many sick days do the employees pay their employer when he gets sick?
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Do what they do in the US. We currently get, what, 3 weeks annual leave a year? Make it 5 weeks, call it paid time off (covers both sick leave and annual leave), and bob’s your uncle. Those who don’t get sick get more leave. Those who do get sick, can use their annual leave to cover it. Don’t use either, employer has discretion to pay it out in cold hard cash at the end of the year.
Vote:June 6th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Since I worked under the PSA rules my sick leave was carried over from year to year and despite two serious illnesses when I was made redundant after 26 years I still had a swag of sickleave available to me, which of course I ‘lost’. The crux is not to think of it as an extension of annual leave but rather an insurance policy. I may be wrong, I hope I am, but my impression is that in many cases if you do not take it you loose it at the end of the year. I think the American example is wrong becuase one doesn’t plan for serious sickness and your family needs the holiday as much as the worker does. Having a sick person in the house is no holiday for the family.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 9:23 am
If I’m caring for dependent children who get sick, I shouldn’t have to give up the time put aside for when I get sick to make sure they get someone to look after them. And a worker shouldn’t have to use their annual leave (meant to give them a break which actually benefits the employer too as it should boost a worker’s productivity upon return) to put themselves in an extremely stressful and often distressing situation – that’s not going to benefit anyone.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Having dependent children is a choice. Other people make different choices. Why should you get more paid leave than someone without children? What about people who choose to go skiing, and break a leg? Employers should subsidise that choice too?
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
People should be cared for in that situation too, yes. That’s why we have ACC.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
What Murray said.
Whanau leave = PC BS.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I only get 5. FFS.
Vote:Other point to note is that bereavement leave is only limited by the number of immediate relatives.
June 7th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Further to this:
Some see it as a target. Some only use it when necessary. Different work ethic.
So as GPT1 intimates, it depends on how close and how many. David Bain would have qualified for 15 days bereavement leave in one lump if he chose as was able to use it.
What I don’t know is how step-relationships are considered, but I expect they can be included in the “close” category. Only parents-in-law are included as close relatives, not brothers and sisters-in-law.
Many employers are sympathetic to reasonable need for bereavement leave, at least to attend funerals.
Vote: