No sick days without documentation

[afox]

How on earth could an employer be so idiotic as to think that this is a good policy? Employees will certainly respond by wasting at least 16 hours of the companies time for every 8 hours that they get docked or couldn't use sick leave when they actually needed it.

[Caoineag]

If I had spent the last several hours vomiting and had passed out from exhaustion, I didn't leave the house.

I would seek an adjournment. I don't think I've ever been that sick in my life, tahnkfully.

My attorneys did a pretty good job at not getting sick before trials (I was a trial paralegal) but we had several that ended up sick the week after (and I mean really ill, as in out for days). We all knew to take good care of our health prior to a trial as you can't afford to be sick then. But if I had a migraine that I hadn't treated fast enough and I wasn'tgoing to a trial, I stayed home. Messing up an important document when it can be done the next day without error is just idiotic. Most projects can wait a day, especially since I didn't procrastinate so that gave me more leeway.

The few times I got sick was usually when another coworker brought it to work. My last law firm did not want you in the office sick. They couldn't push you out the door fast enough. If something was time critical and I could function while ill, I would ban my coworkers from my office while I was still ill to avoid giving it to anyone else. Unfortunately there is always that one typhoid Mary who comes to work and takes out the whole work force. I have seen a whole law firm catch the same bug because of one person before. In America, we don't take enough sick days. We share instead. Bleh.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

How on earth could an employer be so idiotic as to think that this is a good policy? Employees will certainly respond by wasting at least 16 hours of the companies time for every 8 hours that they get docked or couldn't use sick leave when they actually needed it.

the point of the policy is not to retrospectively punish employees who fail to get sick certificates (and I suspect it may not even be enforced strictly). It's to deter employees who are not sick from chucking a sickie, because they know they'll have to at least go to the GP and fake an illness rather than just calling in from home.

I think it's a sound policy from an employer point of view, simply to have in the contract but not enforce except for problem cases.

Just like non-compete clauses are generally unenforceable but are useful deterrents if you make employees sign them.

[JLee]

How on earth could an employer be so idiotic as to think that this is a good policy? Employees will certainly respond by wasting at least 16 hours of the companies time for every 8 hours that they get docked or couldn't use sick leave when they actually needed it.

the point of the policy is not to retrospectively punish employees who fail to get sick certificates (and I suspect it may not even be enforced strictly). It's to deter employees who are not sick from chucking a sickie, because they know they'll have to at least go to the GP and fake an illness rather than just calling in from home.

I think it's a sound policy from an employer point of view, simply to have in the contract but not enforce except for problem cases.

Just like non-compete clauses are generally unenforceable but are useful deterrents if you make employees sign them.

Meanwhile my perspective as an employee is if my employer can’t trust me, what the fuck are they paying me for?

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

They may trust you, but the policy is designed for all employees, not just you. There are good and shitty employees. There are plenty of employees who aren't worth a dime but who are too expensive to fire.

[JLee]

They may trust you, but the policy is designed for all employees, not just you. There are good and shitty employees. There are plenty of employees who aren't worth a dime but who are too expensive to fire.

Still though, who cares? You said yourself you used every bit of sick time you had - getting a note is simply a pointless formality. Anyone properly motivated to abuse sick time can find a way, and if you’re not working with an unlimited sick time policy there is already a limit to any potential abuse.

If people taking unwarranted sick time is problematic, simply use a blanket PTO policy and subject your employees to people showing up to work sick because they don’t want to waste time off...

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Yeah I used 15 weeks of sick leave because I knew how to get away with it. I also smashed my billables targets so the firm didn't care. The sick leave policy, like all firm policies, didn't apply to me. It's aimed at the lowest common denominator, for whom getting a note may not be a pointless formality at all.

Anyone smart and motivated can abuse any policy. The policy is there to deter people who are not smart or not motivated.

simply use a blanket PTO policy

Nice in theory, but again open to abuse at the low end. You end up with bad employees taking all PTO as holiday days and then needing to take unpaid leave (or not using leave at all) when they genuinely get sick.

[frugalnacho]

They only give 5 days for the entire year.  The most rampant abuse possible is someone not getting sick at all, but taking off 5 days throughout the year.  The employment is at will so they can fire anyone at any time, so if someone abuses the policy, or even if they don't but they just rub them the wrong way, they can just fire them.  This seems like solution to a non problem. 

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

At will employment doesn't give the employer open slather. The employer still has to show cause - particularly to avoid a suit for discrimination, etc. There are also protections for medical leave, which is why the requirement for substantiation comes in.

[frugalnacho]

At will employment doesn't give the employer open slather. The employer still has to show cause - particularly to avoid a suit for discrimination, etc. There are also protections for medical leave, which is why the requirement for substantiation comes in.

In United States labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning,[1] as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race, religion or sexuality).

Also in my experience employers can break the law and discriminate anyway, as long as they don't list it as the official reason and they aren't blatantly obvious about it.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

That's consistent with that I said. The employer still has to be careful to establish cause to avoid a lawsuit.

It's a contractual matter as between employee and employer.

Just like everything.

If you don't like it, quit - like I did.

[2Birds1Stone]

That is complete and utter bullshit. There are a million different reasons you would be too ill to work yet not require a visit to a MD.

[Metalcat]

I get why Bloop is saying what he has said, because I worked in an industry where any time staff called in sick it was a fucking nightmare, and as the employer, it was just atrocious to deal with whenever it happened.

However, I frequently sent people home if they seemed even a little bit sick, and fully support people having a certain amount of no questions asked, paid days off with an MD note after 3 consecutive days.

Most people have illness or other shit that comes up in their life, and the stress of not being able to take a day off of work when it's really needed leads them to becoming embittered over time.

Now for me, taking a day off of work, like Bloop, was an ENORMOUS problem, so I never took days off unless I was violently ill. I just found a way to get there. But that's because I was doing high level, high paid, very satisfying work that I highly valued.

It was easy for me to prioritize my work over my own health because of what my work meant for me.

For most staff, that level of dedication is unrealistic and unreasonable. For a lot of jobs it's also totally unnecessary.

Bloop's response is to mandate staff into obligation, my response is to recognize that unless you are in a role like mine or Bloop's, minor illness and life shit just *is* more important to people than showing up to work sometimes.

If I had a staff member who was using up all of their paid time off days aka sick days, and got sick and had to take unpaid time off, then I would reassign that person to a role where them taking unpaid time off wouldn't damage the function of the business, perhaps reduce their hours and give them more flexibility if they're an otherwise valuable staff member.

Overall, when staff felt like their needs were respected, they called in sick less often, especially when they were in roles where it would hurt the business to be absent. The more loyalty they feel from their employer, the more loyalty they have to their employer.

Or you can just rule with an iron fist and foster a culture of resentment. That's usually the option people go for.

[Paul der Krake]

Overall, when staff felt like their needs were respected, they called in sick less often, especially when they were in roles where it would hurt the business to be absent. The more loyalty they feel from their employer, the more loyalty they have to their employer.

Or you can just rule with an iron fist and foster a culture of resentment. That's usually the option people go for.

I doubt most companies start out with an iron fist employee manual. What happens is that a group of workers, at one point, decide to all call in sick for whatever reason, a manager felt like they're the butt of the joke, and the screws got put on.

[frugalnacho]

That's consistent with that I said. The employer still has to be careful to establish cause to avoid a lawsuit.

It's a contractual matter as between employee and employer.

Just like everything.

If you don't like it, quit - like I did.

No it's not consistent with what you said, it's literally the opposite. Employers do not need to establish any cause, they can just fire you for no reason.

I'm aware that it's illegal if the reason given is specifically against discrimination laws (ie I fired you because you're black), but those reasons are never directly given.  Even if that actually is the real reason it's unlikely that a successful suit would be brought. I've seen scores of people fired and have never seen an actual wrongful termination suit. 

I think in reality the ability of the employer to fire an employee in an at will employment state in the usa is far easier than you think it is. 

[Metalcat]

That's consistent with that I said. The employer still has to be careful to establish cause to avoid a lawsuit.

It's a contractual matter as between employee and employer.

Just like everything.

If you don't like it, quit - like I did.

No it's not consistent with what you said, it's literally the opposite. Employers do not need to establish any cause, they can just fire you for no reason.

I'm aware that it's illegal if the reason given is specifically against discrimination laws (ie I fired you because you're black), but those reasons are never directly given.  Even if that actually is the real reason it's unlikely that a successful suit would be brought. I've seen scores of people fired and have never seen an actual wrongful termination suit. 

I think in reality the ability of the employer to fire an employee in an at will employment state in the usa is far easier than you think it is.

I suspect Australia is like Canada where you cannot terminate anyone without cause unless you pay them severance.

In Canada it can be very difficult or expensive to try and terminate a problem employee.

[Metalcat]

Overall, when staff felt like their needs were respected, they called in sick less often, especially when they were in roles where it would hurt the business to be absent. The more loyalty they feel from their employer, the more loyalty they have to their employer.

Or you can just rule with an iron fist and foster a culture of resentment. That's usually the option people go for.

I doubt most companies start out with an iron fist employee manual. What happens is that a group of workers, at one point, decide to all call in sick for whatever reason, a manager felt like they're the butt of the joke, and the screws got put on.

Oh absolutely, many companies have no idea how to manage their staff without resorting to squeezing them. People have hired me to help their businesses resolve this because we've had a staffing shortage in Canada, so staff retention has suddenly become an important thing here, and the old school management approaches keep causing problems when staff can easily leave.

[frugalnacho]

Overall, when staff felt like their needs were respected, they called in sick less often, especially when they were in roles where it would hurt the business to be absent. The more loyalty they feel from their employer, the more loyalty they have to their employer.

Or you can just rule with an iron fist and foster a culture of resentment. That's usually the option people go for.

I doubt most companies start out with an iron fist employee manual. What happens is that a group of workers, at one point, decide to all call in sick for whatever reason, a manager felt like they're the butt of the joke, and the screws got put on.

Or you downplay and ignore a pandemic to the point that you have multiple staff legitimately out with covid including some in the hospital on ventilators, then you introduce this policy in January 2021.

[ender]

They only start employees off with 1 week of vacation as for the first 5 years of employment (2 weeks after 5 years, 3 weeks after 10 years).  I got 3 weeks because I said I wouldn't take the job without it, but the standard new hire only gets 1 week, so if they burn one day that doesn't even leave then with a full week of vacation.  Probably not a problem for a mustachian, but for the low level standard hire they make here that seems like it could definitely be a problem.  Imagine needing your whole paycheck every week in order to pay your bills, so you are unable to take a full week of vacation because you got diarrhea once and had to burn a sick day in order to not get docked pay.

I have found that shitty benefits correspond to shitty policies like this.

I was surprised your employer would do this until I saw this vacation policy. Then... I wasn't surprised.

[Metalcat]

Overall, when staff felt like their needs were respected, they called in sick less often, especially when they were in roles where it would hurt the business to be absent. The more loyalty they feel from their employer, the more loyalty they have to their employer.

Or you can just rule with an iron fist and foster a culture of resentment. That's usually the option people go for.

I doubt most companies start out with an iron fist employee manual. What happens is that a group of workers, at one point, decide to all call in sick for whatever reason, a manager felt like they're the butt of the joke, and the screws got put on.

Or you downplay and ignore a pandemic to the point that you have multiple staff legitimately out with covid including some in the hospital on ventilators, then you introduce this policy in January 2021.

IIRC, your company has generally pretty awful management?

[JLee]

That's consistent with that I said. The employer still has to be careful to establish cause to avoid a lawsuit.

It's a contractual matter as between employee and employer.

Just like everything.

If you don't like it, quit - like I did.

Posts like this remind me that you’re not an attorney in the US :p

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Bloop's response is to mandate staff into obligation, my response is to recognize that unless you are in a role like mine or Bloop's, minor illness and life shit just *is* more important to people than showing up to work sometimes.

To be clear, I don't advocate for employers literally requiring every 1 day of sick leave to be substantiated. But I do advocate (if I put my employer hat on) for a policy which allows employers discretion to request substantiation whenever they want. If it's a good employee or a clear case of genuine sickness the discretion can be used to not require substantiation.

Simply not requiring substantiation at all, for example up to say sick leave of 3 days at a time, will just result in a lot of employees taking 2 days' leave whenever they feel like it. I saw it in my old firm way too often for it to be a coincidence. Heck, I abused it myself.

Having the policy in place allows managers to pick and choose which fights they want to engage.

[shelivesthedream]

@Bloop Bloop Reloaded It seems like your view is the same as that of most posters: sometimes sick days need documentation, sometimes they don't. The difference is that you think the default should be documentation and managers should waive that requirement when appropriate. Most posters think the default should be that you can take one sick day without needing documentation, but that if managers think people are abusing the policy they can then require it.

Personally, I have little respect for an employer that doesn't enforce their policies. If their policy is that all sick days require documentation, then that's what should happen. They shouldn't "turn a blind eye" to some employees just because they're high performers. The policy should reflect reality. Otherwise all "policies" become matters of opinion.

[ender]

Personally, I have little respect for an employer that doesn't enforce their policies. If their policy is that all sick days require documentation, then that's what should happen. They shouldn't "turn a blind eye" to some employees just because they're high performers. The policy should reflect reality. Otherwise all "policies" become matters of opinion.

Ehh. I think it's more common that some managers recognize the corporate policies are dumb and some managers choose to not care.

I have worked at numerous companies with sick leave that you are supposed to take PTO for. But I've also worked for managers that said variants on, "unless you're capped at PTO and losing it anyways just take the day off."

[Weisass]

That’s certainly how it works at my kids school...

What does that mean?  Your kids don't get paid for a sick day unless they have documentation?

Sorry I was out living life and missed your question for clarification. They get an unexcused absence, which is not all that different, actually. They get a certain amount of sick days, but only with a doctors note. The school district allowed a few extra absences for covid, but they still want documentation.

[Weisass]

So I'm finding conflicting info re: Michigan.  This one looks promising:

https://www.zenefits.com/workest/new-michigan-sick-leave-law-starts-march-2019/

Some employers many currently require a sick note from a doctor for each sick day taken by a staff member. The new law can only require documentation after three consecutive sick days. To accompany this change, employers will be held responsible for all fees incurred during sick leave. For example, out-of-pocket costs for providing documentation, attorney fees, or back pay for litigation actions will all fall on the employer.

If you're a qualified employee under that law and if that's how it is actually written, I'd be really tempted to send HR/payroll an email (or certified letter) asking if they are going to resolve this on their own or if you should have your attorney reach out.

However, I also found this:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/Paid_Medical_Leave_Act_FAQ_003_644567_7.pdf

Can an employer require an employee to provide notice of and documentation for the use of paid
medical leave?
Yes. Employees must follow the employer’s usual and customary notice, procedural, and documentation
requirement for requesting leave. The employee must be allowed at least 3 days to provide documentation.

Soooo I dunno. In any case I would be looking for a new job too. The moment my employer starts treating me like a child is the moment they no longer deserve to have me working there.

I don’t think that last quote applies. Paid medical leave is similar to FMLA and has totally different rules, at least as far as I understand it from managing my own staff.

[JLee]

So I'm finding conflicting info re: Michigan.  This one looks promising:

https://www.zenefits.com/workest/new-michigan-sick-leave-law-starts-march-2019/

Some employers many currently require a sick note from a doctor for each sick day taken by a staff member. The new law can only require documentation after three consecutive sick days. To accompany this change, employers will be held responsible for all fees incurred during sick leave. For example, out-of-pocket costs for providing documentation, attorney fees, or back pay for litigation actions will all fall on the employer.

If you're a qualified employee under that law and if that's how it is actually written, I'd be really tempted to send HR/payroll an email (or certified letter) asking if they are going to resolve this on their own or if you should have your attorney reach out.

However, I also found this:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/Paid_Medical_Leave_Act_FAQ_003_644567_7.pdf

Can an employer require an employee to provide notice of and documentation for the use of paid
medical leave?
Yes. Employees must follow the employer’s usual and customary notice, procedural, and documentation
requirement for requesting leave. The employee must be allowed at least 3 days to provide documentation.

Soooo I dunno. In any case I would be looking for a new job too. The moment my employer starts treating me like a child is the moment they no longer deserve to have me working there.

I don’t think that last quote applies. Paid medical leave is similar to FMLA and has totally different rules, at least as far as I understand it from managing my own staff.

Perhaps a difference in how different states phrase their laws?  Note this from the document:

How does an eligible employee accrue paid medical leave?
Paid medical leave is accrued at a rate of 1 hour for every 35 actual hours worked; however, an employer is
not required to allow accrual of over 1 hour in a calendar week or more than 40 hours in a benefit year.

That sounds to me like normal sick time (slow accrual, 40 hours a year requirement).

[shelivesthedream]

Personally, I have little respect for an employer that doesn't enforce their policies. If their policy is that all sick days require documentation, then that's what should happen. They shouldn't "turn a blind eye" to some employees just because they're high performers. The policy should reflect reality. Otherwise all "policies" become matters of opinion.

Ehh. I think it's more common that some managers recognize the corporate policies are dumb and some managers choose to not care.

I have worked at numerous companies with sick leave that you are supposed to take PTO for. But I've also worked for managers that said variants on, "unless you're capped at PTO and losing it anyways just take the day off."

When working, I have mostly been self-employed for a reason. My own policies are scrupulously fair and rigidly enforced :)

[fuzzy math]

My employer (hospital) for the first time EVER now explicitly states that you are not to come in to work if you have a fever, vomiting etc. You can actually be written up FOR coming to work sick. I can't tell you how many times I or others would be forced to come in to work because there wasn't enough staff to care for patients, and because their former policies included being written up / terminated if you called in sick too many times in a 6 month period. I broke my finger last year, then got COVID 2 months later and was terrified I'd be written up for it but fortunately the policy changed.

Sorry for your situation Nacho. Give them the minimum notice (or less) when you leave. Also see if your Dr will write you a note proactively so you can waste your other 4 days before you quit.

[TomTX]

It's a contractual matter between you and the employer. If you don't like it you can try to vary the contract or otherwise just play by the rules. I don't think it's unreasonable for employers to require a sick note.

Requiring a doctor's note for a single sick day is idiotic.

You seems to have consistently bad opinions. What's up with that?

I think it's a sound policy from an employer point of view, simply to have in the contract but not enforce except for problem cases.

Yeah I used 15 weeks of sick leave because I knew how to get away with it.

Ah, you're a capricious control freak who historically abused sick leave and scared others will do what you did. Got it.

[frugalnacho]

Not quoting everyone, but

Yes management is wild.  I've posted lots of snippets, but we didn't institute a mask policy until December, which is insane.  No one followed it once it was "official" from management either.   We have a single lunch room facility in one building that is about 60 sq ft, just a tiny room with fridge, microwave, and 3 chairs.  We have 80 employees though, so we essentially don't have a lunch room and employees just eat on the floor which is definitely an OSHA violation.  Safety is my jurisdiction, but how can I tell people not to eat lunch when there is no place provided for them to go to? It's been this way for at least 4 years.  I've brought the issue up multiple times, and they say a lunch room plan is in the works, but here we are years later with no lunch room.  I eat in my office which is in the chemical lab.  Other employees in the lab eat at their desks in the lab.  Again a big no no to eat in a lab, but wtf are they supposed to do?  So that kind of shit which is frustrating to deal with. I could post numerous other examples, but you probably get the idea.

It's paid medical leave which I am using interchangeably with sick days.  I get 3 weeks vacation, and 5 days paid medical leave.

I am planning on getting a Dr note for my remaining days purely out of spite.  I have all 5 days remaining though since they docked me pay instead of using one day of paid medical leave.  Based on how frequently I legitimately use sick days I would likely have not used any more for the rest of the year, or maybe just 1 more day.  But now I'm planning to use all 5. 

[Paul der Krake]

It sounds like the shitty policy is just a byproduct of being a shitty employer.

[former player]

It's a contractual matter between you and the employer. If you don't like it you can try to vary the contract or otherwise just play by the rules. I don't think it's unreasonable for employers to require a sick note.

Requiring a doctor's note for a single sick day is idiotic.

You seems to have consistently bad opinions. What's up with that?

I think it's a sound policy from an employer point of view, simply to have in the contract but not enforce except for problem cases.

Yeah I used 15 weeks of sick leave because I knew how to get away with it.

Ah, you're a capricious control freak who historically abused sick leave and scared others will do what you did. Got it.

Bloop: uses the pronouns "I, me".

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

@Bloop Bloop Reloaded It seems like your view is the same as that of most posters: sometimes sick days need documentation, sometimes they don't. The difference is that you think the default should be documentation and managers should waive that requirement when appropriate. Most posters think the default should be that you can take one sick day without needing documentation, but that if managers think people are abusing the policy they can then require it.

Personally, I have little respect for an employer that doesn't enforce their policies. If their policy is that all sick days require documentation, then that's what should happen. They shouldn't "turn a blind eye" to some employees just because they're high performers. The policy should reflect reality. Otherwise all "policies" become matters of opinion.

Generally I believe all policies should be as flexible as possible because of the very wide variety of applications and contingencies. I think an organisation with rigid policies will became a stifling workplace. That's why I advocate for vague/general policies with a broad ambit for interpretation and application (this is how most of the civil law works by the way, so I may be biased as I am a civil litigator).

Turning a blind eye is essential because not all employees are worth the same - therefore not all need to be subject to the same strictures.

[frugalnacho]

It sounds like the shitty policy is just a byproduct of being a shitty employer.

Bingo.

[GuitarStv]

I stand by my belief that if you treat employees well, they'll typically do a better job.  If you try to nickle and dime employees they will develop resentment towards management and develop small, annoying habits that cost much more money than a few sick days here or there.

[Cool Friend]

Yeah I used 15 weeks of sick leave because I knew how to get away with it. I also smashed my billables targets so the firm didn't care. The sick leave policy, like all firm policies, didn't apply to me. It's aimed at the lowest common denominator, for whom getting a note may not be a pointless formality at all.

Anyone smart and motivated can abuse any policy. The policy is there to deter people who are not smart or not motivated.

Have you ever been screened for personality disorders?

[Metalcat]

Yeah I used 15 weeks of sick leave because I knew how to get away with it. I also smashed my billables targets so the firm didn't care. The sick leave policy, like all firm policies, didn't apply to me. It's aimed at the lowest common denominator, for whom getting a note may not be a pointless formality at all.

Anyone smart and motivated can abuse any policy. The policy is there to deter people who are not smart or not motivated.

Have you ever been screened for personality disorders?

N'ah, Bloop is just a really unusual combination of extreme cynicism, but also staunchly idealistic in a lot of ways.

He just builds particularly strong generalized constructs based on his personal experiences, and once a construct is set, he has an extremely high burden of proof for it to be challenged.

It's taken me awhile to wrap my mind around him, but I'm starting to understand his response patterns. From his perspective, he's just pragmatic.

[lutorm]

I don't know what the current situation is in Sweden, but back when I lived there there was a big debate about the fact that the (state-mandated) sick leave policy was going to change so that you did not get any sick pay until after N days (N being something like 3) at which point you needed medical documentation. So nothing prevented you from staying home if you didn't feel well, or from faking being sick, but you wouldn't get PAID for it until it hit those days at which point you needed to at least convince the doctor you were sick, too.

This probably worked better in Sweden where the salary floor traditionally has been a lot higher than in the US, where there are plenty of people who make so little money that not being paid for a day in practice means the same as not having the day off.

[exterous]

Sounds like your leadership or HR needs more actual work to do. I've got better things to do with my time than track or care about documentation for a single sick day. TBH I don't really care about it for 3 days but I realize I am in the position of not having had anyone abuse that and recognize the reason for why the language is there.

[norajean]

I once interned at a large corporation in Texas.  One department manager (who managed an office technical research group) got a memo from HR that his group had well over average sick leave year-to-date. So he issued at edict that nobody was to use any more sick leave through year end.  He said "they can be sick here in there office just as well as they can at home!".   The staff grumbled a bit but got on with their jobs.

[gooki]

I also was not specific and simply said "I'm not feeling well today and will be taking a sick day

Did you send this by email, or txt?

If so, isn't that a form of documentation, and thus you have fulfilled the requirements.

[gooki]

The only time in my career I have been subject to such an ass backwards policy is when I worked for a fast food fried chicken joint.

[efree]

I'll tell you how sick days work in my country (Latvia). It's very different from the US. First off, the number of sick days is unlimited. But - you always need a doctor's note and you don't get paid for your first sick day so if it's just food poisoning (a one day illness) then you just stay home. If you want to get paid for the day you can use a vacation day. Everyone gets 20 vacation days a year so it's a reasonable choice.

The second and third day you're sick, you get paid 75% of your salary. From day 4 onwards, you get paid 80%. The employer only pays you for days 2-10. If you're sick longer than 10 days, you keep getting the same 80% but it's paid by the state.

Now, some (very few) employers offer additional sick days that work the same way as in the US. You can stay home one day and you don't need a doctor's note and you do get paid. It's a real bonus if you can get it because the law doesn't require it. As it happens, my current employer does offer three sick days a year but I haven't taken even one of them although I've worked there for more than four years. I guess it's because I'm not used to this approach, this culture. In my mind, if you're sick you go to the doctor, get a note and stay home for a week. That's what I've been experiencing all around me since childhood.

[DaMa]

If you are an exempt (i.e. salaried) employee, they can't dock your pay unless you miss an entire week.  I know this is true in CA, and I believe this is true nationwide.   I worked for a company in CA that had to payout a hefty amount of previously unpaid overtime, because the employees were in your situation.  3 of them filed a lawsuit where it was determined they were non-exempt, due to unpaid sick days.

[DrinkCoffeeStackMoney]

To the OP:

That's definitely a BS policy.

As a salaried employee I'm basically "on call" 24/7/365. I work when needed and that includes nights or weekends (I was getting work texts at 10pm last night). I knew this when accepting the position and the salary made it worthwhile. With that being said, when I need to be off I take off. If my employer ever questioned that or docked my pay for missing a day I'd immediately be looking for another job. There has to be some give and take. Your job would replace you in a heartbeat if they feel it was needed, and you can do the same to them.

[vand]

Presumably they'll want a death certificate too if you happen to pop your clogs, just to make sure you aren't faking it

[NumberJohnny5]

Presumably they'll want a death certificate too if you happen to pop your clogs, just to make sure you aren't faking it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnHisRxQXgA

Standard NSFW warning (just a bit of crude language, nothing bad imo).

[Sandi_k]

If you are an exempt (i.e. salaried) employee, they can't dock your pay unless you miss an entire week.  I know this is true in CA, and I believe this is true nationwide.   I worked for a company in CA that had to payout a hefty amount of previously unpaid overtime, because the employees were in your situation.  3 of them filed a lawsuit where it was determined they were non-exempt, due to unpaid sick days.

Uh, not true. Exempt employees do not have to account for absences of less than ONE DAY. So if I work 15 minutes in a day, I technically could claim I worked for the day.

But there is no law that says you must miss a week before you're docked.