Cutting part time workers’ sick leave entitlements from the 10 days everyone currently gets to being pro-rated based on how much they work.

*** Also covid vaccines will apparently no longer be free for most people after this month.*** EDIT: this was circulating yesterday, but isn’t true so that’s good.

And this during the biggest covid wave in 18 months, where hospitals and schools are having to close or reduce capacity because so many staff are sick. What a bunch of ghouls.

  • Dave@lemmy.nzM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    How does it work when a business wants to provide more sick days or unlimited sick leave, as some do? Or would ACC have unlimited sick leave?

    • Longpork3@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think the reason we cap sick leave at the moment is because it is employer funded. It would be unreasonable to burden a business with paying for the long-term illness of someone just because they happened to be an employee when they got sick.

      When ACC was first set up, the working group that put it together had actually recommended that non-inury sickness be covered as well, but it was not implemented because of the political situation of the time.

      If we move the burden of supporting workers who become ill from individual employers, then I think it makes the argument for long-term or indefinite sick leave a lot more palatable.

      • Dave@lemmy.nzM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, it would be interesting to see a proposal for this. If you’re gonna do it, the first step might not be to push all sick leave onto ACC but instead do something like continuous sick leave of more than 30 days is covered by ACC (perhaps under ACC rules, 80% of pay up to a cap I think is how it works). Basically make ACC for all long term sick leave not just accidents. It seems a reasonable starting point, and is an easier jump to covering all sick leave.

        The benefit of this is you don’t have to mess with the current employer funded system yet, you can leave it in place for the time being while still having better support for people who get cancer or whatever.

        I’m not sure what this would do to ACC levies, but it would be interesting to at least see it calculated and considered.

        • liv@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          They would have to cap ACC sick leave though or you would end up with people like me on the books, and 80% of my former salary, or anyone’ really, is a lot more than 50% of minimum wage.

          I guess if it was built into ACC levies as well it would work though.

          • Dave@lemmy.nzM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            You could probably adjust the levys, but maybe you wouldn’t do 80% initially. But if you did, you’d probably disrupt the income protection insurance industry. I wouldn’t mind paying higher ACC levy’s and not having to pay income protection insurance.

            • liv@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              What you could do to avoid too much disruption is adjust the levies and then cover everyone for a percentage but with max and mins.

              The people who have income protection probably have a large overlap with those who have health insurance. They tend to be higher income, so if the cap were low, they would still need income protection insurance.

              That way people who are in new jobs, and casual contract workers, are still covered.

              • Dave@lemmy.nzM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yes that would be a more palatable way to do it. If it can replace benefits for some people the savings could be fed into the scheme as well, to limit the levy increase.

                • liv@lemmy.nz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  That’s a good point. I think long term it could even save money. So many people go into work with a bad back or whatever and damage themselves much worse.

      • liv@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        When ACC was first set up, the working group that put it together had actually recommended that non-inury sickness be covered as well, but it was not implemented because of the political situation of the time.

        Aaah that’s so interesting. Would have been a radically different system.