[David Beecroft]

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.

[KS Cleaning]

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.

[8weekly]

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.

[David Beecroft]

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.

[8weekly]

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.

[SeanK]

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.

[dazmond]

are you saying if someone you employ ends up ill or injured for a long time you cant just get rid of them?

the worlds gone mad.their no use to you if their ill or injured.

[8weekly]

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.

[8weekly]

are you saying if someone you employ ends up ill or injured for a long time you cant just get rid of them?

the worlds gone mad.their no use to you if their ill or crippled.

Yes. It's a business, not a charity.

[SeanK]

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.

[8weekly]

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/

[Soupy]

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.

[SeanK]

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.

[johnny bravo]

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.

[8weekly]

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.

[SeanK]

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.

[SeanK]

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 ?

[8weekly]

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.

[SeanK]

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.

[ascjim]

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.