Clean It Up
UK Window Cleaning Forum => Window Cleaning Forum => Topic started by: David Beecroft on November 29, 2016, 10:26:54 pm
-
Hi Everyone,
okay, after talking with my accountant I'm considering becoming an employer again, (sigh).
The one stumbling block I'm struggling with is the risk of long term sickness with an employee, Statutory Sick Pay is currently running at £88.45p per week, add to that the loss of income from an employee and it seems an intolerable burden for a small business.
Question is how do you employers handle this?
I would really appreciate some input.
-
This only came in 2 to 3 years ago, before then you used to claim back SSP from your PAYE bill, which was a much fairer way for small businesses. I had an employee dislocate his shoulder whilst playing football, he had only worked for me for about 3 months before it happened, he was off for 8 weeks so it cost me about £700 in SSP( which is obviously tax deductible ) On his return to work he lasted about 3 weeks before quitting.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
I'm not sure its as simple as that, employment law makes it difficult to dismiss people unless there's a legitimate reason.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
I'm not sure its as simple as that, employment law makes it difficult to dismiss people unless there's a legitimate reason.
Long term sick is a legitimate reason. You have to follow a process, but you can do it.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
I'm not sure its as simple as that, employment law makes it difficult to dismiss people unless there's a legitimate reason.
Long term sick is a legitimate reason. You have to follow a process, but you can do it.
You can let go of an employee at any time, what the employee does after that is another matter, being sick is not an legitimate
reason so I would have you in court.
Having a sick pattern can be grounds for discipline, in other words taking every Monday off or a week at certain times every
year and so on.
But even this requires you to go through a discipline procedure, verbal, written, final, dismissed.
Remember if the employee is off long term he will have a doctors sick line stating he's not able or safe to work.
-
are you saying if someone you employ ends up ill or injured for a long time you cant just get rid of them? ::)roll
the worlds gone mad.their no use to you if their ill or injured.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
I'm not sure its as simple as that, employment law makes it difficult to dismiss people unless there's a legitimate reason.
Long term sick is a legitimate reason. You have to follow a process, but you can do it.
You can let go of an employee at any time, what the employee does after that is another matter, being sick is not an legitimate
reason so I would have you in court.
Having a sick pattern can be grounds for discipline, in other words taking every Monday off or a week at certain times every
year and so on.
But even this requires you to go through a discipline procedure, verbal, written, final, dismissed.
Remember if the employee is off long term he will have a doctors sick line stating he's not able or safe to work.
If someone is unfit to do their job it is legitimate to dismiss. It's a fact. Ofcourse you can challenge it, but if proper process is followed it would be a costly waste of money.
-
are you saying if someone you employ ends up ill or injured for a long time you cant just get rid of them? ::)roll
the worlds gone mad.their no use to you if their ill or crippled.
Yes. It's a business, not a charity.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
I'm not sure its as simple as that, employment law makes it difficult to dismiss people unless there's a legitimate reason.
Long term sick is a legitimate reason. You have to follow a process, but you can do it.
You can let go of an employee at any time, what the employee does after that is another matter, being sick is not an legitimate
reason so I would have you in court.
Having a sick pattern can be grounds for discipline, in other words taking every Monday off or a week at certain times every
year and so on.
But even this requires you to go through a discipline procedure, verbal, written, final, dismissed.
Remember if the employee is off long term he will have a doctors sick line stating he's not able or safe to work.
If someone is unfit to do their job it is legitimate to dismiss. It's a fact. Ofcourse you can challenge it, but if proper process is followed it would be a costly waste of money.
Where do you get this nonsense from ? an employee is entitled to 28 weeks statutory sick, even if that person is diagnosed
with something that means they wont be able to return to work, they still get the 28 weeks.
As soon as he went to sign on they would highlight this fact and help him sort it out.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
I'm not sure its as simple as that, employment law makes it difficult to dismiss people unless there's a legitimate reason.
Long term sick is a legitimate reason. You have to follow a process, but you can do it.
You can let go of an employee at any time, what the employee does after that is another matter, being sick is not an legitimate
reason so I would have you in court.
Having a sick pattern can be grounds for discipline, in other words taking every Monday off or a week at certain times every
year and so on.
But even this requires you to go through a discipline procedure, verbal, written, final, dismissed.
Remember if the employee is off long term he will have a doctors sick line stating he's not able or safe to work.
If someone is unfit to do their job it is legitimate to dismiss. It's a fact. Ofcourse you can challenge it, but if proper process is followed it would be a costly waste of money.
Where do you get this nonsense from ? an employee is entitled to 28 weeks statutory sick, even if that person is diagnosed
with something that means they wont be able to return to work, they still get the 28 weeks.
As soon as he went to sign on they would highlight this fact and help him sort it out.
It's not nonsense:
http://www.firstpracticemanagement.co.uk/blog/posts/can-an-employer-dismiss-an-employee-due-to-long-term-sickness/
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/problems-at-work/employment-tribunals-from-29-july-2013/making-an-employment-tribunal-claim-is-it-worth-it/employment-tribunals-unfair-dismissal-claims/legal-tests/employment-tribunals-legal-tests-for-unfair-dismissal-claims-long-term-sickness/
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
I'm not sure its as simple as that, employment law makes it difficult to dismiss people unless there's a legitimate reason.
Long term sick is a legitimate reason. You have to follow a process, but you can do it.
You can let go of an employee at any time, what the employee does after that is another matter, being sick is not an legitimate
reason so I would have you in court.
Having a sick pattern can be grounds for discipline, in other words taking every Monday off or a week at certain times every
year and so on.
But even this requires you to go through a discipline procedure, verbal, written, final, dismissed.
Remember if the employee is off long term he will have a doctors sick line stating he's not able or safe to work.
If someone is unfit to do their job it is legitimate to dismiss. It's a fact. Ofcourse you can challenge it, but if proper process is followed it would be a costly waste of money.
Where do you get this nonsense from ? an employee is entitled to 28 weeks statutory sick, even if that person is diagnosed
with something that means they wont be able to return to work, they still get the 28 weeks.
As soon as he went to sign on they would highlight this fact and help him sort it out.
Ah SeanK. What b******s you speak.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
I'm not sure its as simple as that, employment law makes it difficult to dismiss people unless there's a legitimate reason.
Long term sick is a legitimate reason. You have to follow a process, but you can do it.
You can let go of an employee at any time, what the employee does after that is another matter, being sick is not an legitimate
reason so I would have you in court.
Having a sick pattern can be grounds for discipline, in other words taking every Monday off or a week at certain times every
year and so on.
But even this requires you to go through a discipline procedure, verbal, written, final, dismissed.
Remember if the employee is off long term he will have a doctors sick line stating he's not able or safe to work.
If someone is unfit to do their job it is legitimate to dismiss. It's a fact. Ofcourse you can challenge it, but if proper process is followed it would be a costly waste of money.
Where do you get this nonsense from ? an employee is entitled to 28 weeks statutory sick, even if that person is diagnosed
with something that means they wont be able to return to work, they still get the 28 weeks.
As soon as he went to sign on they would highlight this fact and help him sort it out.
It's not nonsense:
http://www.firstpracticemanagement.co.uk/blog/posts/can-an-employer-dismiss-an-employee-due-to-long-term-sickness/
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/problems-at-work/employment-tribunals-from-29-july-2013/making-an-employment-tribunal-claim-is-it-worth-it/employment-tribunals-unfair-dismissal-claims/legal-tests/employment-tribunals-legal-tests-for-unfair-dismissal-claims-long-term-sickness/
That has nothing to do with the situation above, nobody is saying you need to keep an employee indefinitely with long term
health problems or that you cant sack an employee who's playing the system.
Seriously mate one of these days you will be right about something at least Soupy used to be right but seems to have peaked. lol.
-
can you not take on a person as a sub-contractor and let them be liable for any mishaps they have, you have no written contract of employment with them,
also take some one on as them being self employed as above, making them liable for any work related issues.
if you are a one man band and get extra work on, and you find it a minefield to just take someone on for a couple of days a week, what would be the best outcome for yourself to cover you from any mishaps the chap has, injury or sickness they ocur..
As in Scaffolding, a lot of scaffolders are actually Self Employed, even though they are with big companies.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
I'm not sure its as simple as that, employment law makes it difficult to dismiss people unless there's a legitimate reason.
Long term sick is a legitimate reason. You have to follow a process, but you can do it.
You can let go of an employee at any time, what the employee does after that is another matter, being sick is not an legitimate
reason so I would have you in court.
Having a sick pattern can be grounds for discipline, in other words taking every Monday off or a week at certain times every
year and so on.
But even this requires you to go through a discipline procedure, verbal, written, final, dismissed.
Remember if the employee is off long term he will have a doctors sick line stating he's not able or safe to work.
If someone is unfit to do their job it is legitimate to dismiss. It's a fact. Ofcourse you can challenge it, but if proper process is followed it would be a costly waste of money.
Where do you get this nonsense from ? an employee is entitled to 28 weeks statutory sick, even if that person is diagnosed
with something that means they wont be able to return to work, they still get the 28 weeks.
As soon as he went to sign on they would highlight this fact and help him sort it out.
It's not nonsense:
http://www.firstpracticemanagement.co.uk/blog/posts/can-an-employer-dismiss-an-employee-due-to-long-term-sickness/
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/problems-at-work/employment-tribunals-from-29-july-2013/making-an-employment-tribunal-claim-is-it-worth-it/employment-tribunals-unfair-dismissal-claims/legal-tests/employment-tribunals-legal-tests-for-unfair-dismissal-claims-long-term-sickness/
That has nothing to do with the situation above, nobody is saying you need to keep an employee indefinitely with long term
health problems or that you cant sack an employee who's playing the system.
Seriously mate one of these days you will be right about something at least Soupy used to be right but seems to have peaked. lol.
This from the bloke that thinks it's possible to have less than nothing. Sums you up actually.
-
Johnny its a whole lot of worry over nothing, for a start how many guys are going develop a long term health problem
and even if they do its a maximum bill of around £2500 or £2000 with the Tax saving removed. ( Sick Payments)
Plus you have to be off for more than three days before getting a penny which will stop most guys just looking to steal a lazy week.
There's not enough money in the statutory sick to temp anybody but the most useless layabouts which to be honest should be
weeded out in the interview process.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
I'm not sure its as simple as that, employment law makes it difficult to dismiss people unless there's a legitimate reason.
Long term sick is a legitimate reason. You have to follow a process, but you can do it.
You can let go of an employee at any time, what the employee does after that is another matter, being sick is not an legitimate
reason so I would have you in court.
Having a sick pattern can be grounds for discipline, in other words taking every Monday off or a week at certain times every
year and so on.
But even this requires you to go through a discipline procedure, verbal, written, final, dismissed.
Remember if the employee is off long term he will have a doctors sick line stating he's not able or safe to work.
If someone is unfit to do their job it is legitimate to dismiss. It's a fact. Ofcourse you can challenge it, but if proper process is followed it would be a costly waste of money.
Where do you get this nonsense from ? an employee is entitled to 28 weeks statutory sick, even if that person is diagnosed
with something that means they wont be able to return to work, they still get the 28 weeks.
As soon as he went to sign on they would highlight this fact and help him sort it out.
It's not nonsense:
http://www.firstpracticemanagement.co.uk/blog/posts/can-an-employer-dismiss-an-employee-due-to-long-term-sickness/
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/problems-at-work/employment-tribunals-from-29-july-2013/making-an-employment-tribunal-claim-is-it-worth-it/employment-tribunals-unfair-dismissal-claims/legal-tests/employment-tribunals-legal-tests-for-unfair-dismissal-claims-long-term-sickness/
That has nothing to do with the situation above, nobody is saying you need to keep an employee indefinitely with long term
health problems or that you cant sack an employee who's playing the system.
Seriously mate one of these days you will be right about something at least Soupy used to be right but seems to have peaked. lol.
This from the bloke that thinks it's possible to have less than nothing. Sums you up actually.
Do you need a hanky ?
-
Johnny its a whole lot of worry over nothing, for a start how many guys are going develop a long term health problem
and even if they do its a maximum bill of around £2500 or £2000 with the Tax saving removed. ( Sick Payments)
Plus you have to be off for more than three days before getting a penny which will stop most guys just looking to steal a lazy week.
There's not enough money in the statutory sick to temp anybody but the most useless layabouts which to be honest should be
weeded out in the interview process.
This is very true. And, if you do decide to dismaiss, as long as you've done it reasonably well in terms of process the fact that the employee has to pay the court fee is a huge disincentive.
-
Johnny its a whole lot of worry over nothing, for a start how many guys are going develop a long term health problem
and even if they do its a maximum bill of around £2500 or £2000 with the Tax saving removed. ( Sick Payments)
Plus you have to be off for more than three days before getting a penny which will stop most guys just looking to steal a lazy week.
There's not enough money in the statutory sick to temp anybody but the most useless layabouts which to be honest should be
weeded out in the interview process.
This is very true. And, if you do decide to dismaiss, as long as you've done it reasonably well in terms of process the fact that the employee has to pay the court fee is a huge disincentive.
So much for EU employee rights then. (wink) lol.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.
Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.
Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.
Wrong.
www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4240
Sorry the link didn't work but an employee has rights from the start of employment, including paternity, sick pay , gender and sexual discrimination and so, this includes unfair dismissal for any on the list.
The link works now.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.
Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.
Wrong.
www.acas.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4240
Dead link.
-
Johnny its a whole lot of worry over nothing, for a start how many guys are going develop a long term health problem
and even if they do its a maximum bill of around £2500 or £2000 with the Tax saving removed. ( Sick Payments)
Plus you have to be off for more than three days before getting a penny which will stop most guys just looking to steal a lazy week.
There's not enough money in the statutory sick to temp anybody but the most useless layabouts which to be honest should be
weeded out in the interview process.
This is very true. And, if you do decide to dismaiss, as long as you've done it reasonably well in terms of process the fact that the employee has to pay the court fee is a huge disincentive.
So much for EU employee rights then. (wink) lol.
It was budget cutting by the government. It's the same as tightening up on free legal assistance.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.
Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.
Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.
Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.
Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.
You can get rid of them if you don't think that they will be fit for work in an acceptable timescale. As Sean said above it's unlikely anyone would want to stay on SSP for any period of time anyway.
To add, if you've ever been in a position where you need to take an employer to court, in most cases the reward is so small it's not worth the trouble and risk of hefty court fees.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.
Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.
Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.
You can get rid of them if you don't think that they will be fit for work in an acceptable timescale. As Sean said above it's unlikely anyone would want to stay on SSP for any period of time anyway.
To add, if you've ever been in a position where you need to take an employer to court, in most cases the reward is so small it's not worth the trouble and risk of hefty court fees.
I was replying to James Purewash who stated that you can get rid of employees for any reason as they have worked for less than 2 years, this isn't the case if they are on SSP. As I said, I spoke to ACAS who advised me not to pay off employee at that time, then re assess the situation after 6 - 8 weeks. If it was early in his SSP period and I had lost a big contract and there was no work for him, then yes I would be able to pay him off and would win the case should the employee take it to court, on the other hand if I paid him off soon after he claimed SSP and I then employed someone else to do his work I could find myself in trouble should it go to court.
-
their ill or crippled.
do you think Dazmond that the word "crippled" is ok to use.words like that are abusive and offensive >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.
Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.
Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.
You can get rid of them if you don't think that they will be fit for work in an acceptable timescale. As Sean said above it's unlikely anyone would want to stay on SSP for any period of time anyway.
To add, if you've ever been in a position where you need to take an employer to court, in most cases the reward is so small it's not worth the trouble and risk of hefty court fees.
I was replying to James Purewash who stated that you can get rid of employees for any reason as they have worked for less than 2 years, this isn't the case if they are on SSP. As I said, I spoke to ACAS who advised me not to pay off employee at that time, then re assess the situation after 6 - 8 weeks. If it was early in his SSP period and I had lost a big contract and there was no work for him, then yes I would be able to pay him off and would win the case should the employee take it to court, on the other hand if I paid him off soon after he claimed SSP and I then employed someone else to do his work I could find myself in trouble should it go to court.
But that's a different situation. You lost a contract and wanted to make him redundant. If you told ACAS that, ofcourse they are going to say you are on sticky ground.
-
their ill or crippled.
do you think Dazmond that the word "crippled" is ok to use.words like that are abusive and offensive >:( >:( >:( >:(
are they?i didnt know you couldnt use that word nowadays? ::)roll
not fit for work then! ;D
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.
Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.
Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.
You can get rid of them if you don't think that they will be fit for work in an acceptable timescale. As Sean said above it's unlikely anyone would want to stay on SSP for any period of time anyway.
To add, if you've ever been in a position where you need to take an employer to court, in most cases the reward is so small it's not worth the trouble and risk of hefty court fees.
I was replying to James Purewash who stated that you can get rid of employees for any reason as they have worked for less than 2 years, this isn't the case if they are on SSP. As I said, I spoke to ACAS who advised me not to pay off employee at that time, then re assess the situation after 6 - 8 weeks. If it was early in his SSP period and I had lost a big contract and there was no work for him, then yes I would be able to pay him off and would win the case should the employee take it to court, on the other hand if I paid him off soon after he claimed SSP and I then employed someone else to do his work I could find myself in trouble should it go to court.
But that's a different situation. You lost a contract and wanted to make him redundant. If you told ACAS that, ofcourse they are going to say you are on sticky ground.
Either I am wording it badly or you can't read ;D. I was putting forward two scenarios, 1 where you would be justified in paying off an employee on SSP and 1 where you could find yourself on sticky ground if you paid him off. The scenario that you have referred to would actually be seen as a justifiable reason to pay someone off even if they were on SSP
-
their ill or crippled.
do you think Dazmond that the word "crippled" is ok to use.words like that are abusive and offensive >:( >:( >:( >:(
Franky there is nothing wrong with the word crippled in the context Dazmond has used it. Look it up.
If he had called someone "a cripple" as in "you're a right cripple" in a jocular or offensive manner that would probably be offensive - but it is a legitimate word.
-
If there's a long term issue within the first two years you could just "let go" of the employee. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do.
This is correct. You can get rid of anyone for any reason if they have worked for you less then 2 years.
Don't let something like this get in the way of what you want to do. To make big bucks you have to take risks, there is no way around it.
Speaking from experience you can't get rid of anyone for any reason who is on SSP irrespective of how long you have employed them. I phoned ACAS on this very subject and they said it would be very risky to pay employee off who was on SSP as it could involve court action should that employee so wish.
You can get rid of them if you don't think that they will be fit for work in an acceptable timescale. As Sean said above it's unlikely anyone would want to stay on SSP for any period of time anyway.
To add, if you've ever been in a position where you need to take an employer to court, in most cases the reward is so small it's not worth the trouble and risk of hefty court fees.
I was replying to James Purewash who stated that you can get rid of employees for any reason as they have worked for less than 2 years, this isn't the case if they are on SSP. As I said, I spoke to ACAS who advised me not to pay off employee at that time, then re assess the situation after 6 - 8 weeks. If it was early in his SSP period and I had lost a big contract and there was no work for him, then yes I would be able to pay him off and would win the case should the employee take it to court, on the other hand if I paid him off soon after he claimed SSP and I then employed someone else to do his work I could find myself in trouble should it go to court.
But that's a different situation. You lost a contract and wanted to make him redundant. If you told ACAS that, ofcourse they are going to say you are on sticky ground.
Either I am wording it badly or you can't read ;D. I was putting forward two scenarios, 1 where you would be justified in paying off an employee on SSP and 1 where you could find yourself on sticky ground if you paid him off. The scenario that you have referred to would actually be seen as a justifiable reason to pay someone off even if they were on SSP
I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting using his illness as a way of avoiding redundancy pay. But you're right - I can't resist.
-
their ill or crippled.
do you think Dazmond that the word "crippled" is ok to use.words like that are abusive and offensive >:( >:( >:( >:(
Franky there is nothing wrong with the word crippled in the context Dazmond has used it. Look it up.
If he had called someone "a cripple" as in "you're a right cripple" in a jocular or offensive manner that would probably be offensive - but it is a legitimate word.
The word cripple has long been in use to refer to ‘a person unable to walk through illness or disability’ and is recorded (in the Lindisfarne Gospels) as early as AD 950. In the 20th century the term acquired offensive connotations and has now been largely replaced by broader terms such as ‘disabled person’
Origin
-
their ill or crippled.
do you think Dazmond that the word "crippled" is ok to use.words like that are abusive and offensive >:( >:( >:( >:(
Franky there is nothing wrong with the word crippled in the context Dazmond has used it. Look it up.
If he had called someone "a cripple" as in "you're a right cripple" in a jocular or offensive manner that would probably be offensive - but it is a legitimate word.
The word cripple has long been in use to refer to ‘a person unable to walk through illness or disability’ and is recorded (in the Lindisfarne Gospels) as early as AD 950. In the 20th century the term acquired offensive connotations and has now been largely replaced by broader terms such as ‘disabled person’
Origin
To call someone a "cripple" is offensive, but to describe someone who has lost the use of limbs is crippled is not offensive. In my opinion.
-
Crippled with laughter.
-
Cripple Cock. Don't drink the stuff myself but I hear some like it.
-
Cripple Cock. Don't drink the stuff myself but I hear some like it.
There used to be a cider from Dixies cider mill in Bristol that brewed a rough cider called crippled cock.
-
I may be wrong but I think you can tell him to claim direct from DHS or what ever its called these days ?
-
I may be wrong but I think you can tell him to claim direct from DHS or what ever its called these days ?
They way it used to work was the employer would claim it back, before that you could sign on the sick and receive the same
benefits as the unemployed long term sick including help with rent and so on.
This was all craftily changed so that the employer would have to foot the bill for 28 weeks but the employee would still be
employed so entitled to nothing else.
You have to pay it but to be honest I feel more for a genuine employee who ends up in this situation.
-
https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave
You can sack someone on ssp. They can't take your money forever!
-
https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave
You can sack someone on ssp. They can't take your money forever!
No one is implying that you can't 'sack' someone on SSP, both the employer and employee has rights and there will be situations where termination of employment is justifiable, but you said in a previous post that you can sack someone who was on SSP for any reason due to the fact they had been employed for less than two years, this isn't the case.
-
https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave
You can sack someone on ssp. They can't take your money forever!
No one is implying that you can't 'sack' someone on SSP, both the employer and employee has rights and there will be situations where termination of employment is justifiable, but you said in a previous post that you can sack someone who was on SSP for any reason due to the fact they had been employed for less than two years, this isn't the case.
De facto it is the case. At one time any aggrieved ex employee could take his former employer to a tribunal, or start the process in the hope of a settlement. These days they have to pay the court fee, which is quite a lot so don't tend to bother.
The employee has lots of rights, but there is no longer a free court system.
-
https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave
You can sack someone on ssp. They can't take your money forever!
No one is implying that you can't 'sack' someone on SSP, both the employer and employee has rights and there will be situations where termination of employment is justifiable, but you said in a previous post that you can sack someone who was on SSP for any reason due to the fact they had been employed for less than two years, this isn't the case.
De facto it is the case. At one time any aggrieved ex employee could take his former employer to a tribunal, or start the process in the hope of a settlement. These days they have to pay the court fee, which is quite a lot so don't tend to bother.
The employee has lots of rights, but there is no longer a free court system.
That's where we miss the trade unions they covered the court fees, that said I think the no win no fee guys have started to take these type of cases on.
-
Remember paying an employee up to 28 weeks SSP is a legal requirement no different to paying tax, when this guy turns
up at the dole to sign on the sick there's bound to be issues.