this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024

27 points (100.0% liked)

NZ Politics

561 readers

1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Dave

RaoulDuke

Major change Govt wants to make to workers' sick leave (www.newshub.co.nz)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Xcf456 to c/politics

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Longpork3 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The obvious solution that seems to be overlooked every time sick leave comes up, is to roll it up into ACC, and have sick leave paid out from there, instead of having employers fund it directly.

The sum of costs to employers and pay for employees would be unchanged, but it would eliminate the uncertainty on how many sick days your particular employees take, making life easier for businesses, and it would allow for sick leave to be taken right from day one in the job, making like easier for workers.

[–] Xcf456 4 points 5 months ago

The UK has something like this, where you're paid or part paid out of their National Insurance scheme (but payments still come through the employer).

[–] Ilovethebomb 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's quite an interesting idea actually, one issue I can think of is employers encouraging employees to pull a sickie, instead of taking leave, as sick days aren't a cost to them.

[–] Longpork3 3 points 5 months ago

That's a possibility, but I think with some degree of oversight, and checking up on businesses with significantly above average leave rates, it could be avoided. A lower amount of leave taken is generally indicative of a healthier workplace, so perhaps there might be an incentive system where companies get reductions in their levies for low rates of sick leave... although that just turns the problem you described on it's head...

[–] liv 2 points 5 months ago

That's fraud though so it would probably be the same employers who commit other kinds of fraud.

[–] Dave 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 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 2 points 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.

[–] Dave 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Let's be fair, this is about the best case outcome we could have hoped for. I was fully expecting a drop back to 5 days.

However, I find it a bit funny their selling argument is that it's too hard for people making payroll software 😆.

[–] Xcf456 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I don't think they deserve any credit for not being even crueler.

But lol yes won't someone think of the payroll developers?! That's been a common complaint across the numerous attempts to sort out the holidays act.

I can't see how this would even help on that in this case, but I am not a software guy. Like isn't this just introducing another category with different rules that you have to account for?

[–] Dave 4 points 5 months ago

Yeah, also not a developer, but it seems the rules for sick days are not complex, it just requires a separate set of logic. i.e. it takes longer but it's not hard.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 3 points 5 months ago

In my experience as a user of payroll software; I suspect its a combination of things.

Developers could customise the logic for New Zealand's legislation better, but corporations think magically about software and try to buy "out of the box" solutions, even if they don't quite fit right.

Then they rely on HR staff to try to configure their way around logic limitations so it ends up just as kludgy but in a way more reliant on people knowing why something was done some given way than just in the tool.

I've run into stuff you would think is really really simple - like marking the NZ public holidays as not a work day; but if those holidays change - like the addition of Matariki, or you move so you have a new provincial holiday its usually months, years or never that it gets updated.

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For annual leave, having an accural system is so much simpler. The current system seems simple, but it is far from it, the main complications come around working extra to cover for others, every instance that this occurs requires a recalculation of your entitlement, in an accural system this kind instance is a non-issue.

I'm not sure about the sick pay changes, I'd have to look into it more.

[–] Dave 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How does working extra affect sick leave entitlement? My understanding is you just get paid what you otherwise would have been paid on that day, but don't have to work it. I don't understand how sick leave entitlement changes from extra shifts?

(Annual leave is a whole nother ballpark, and is definitely affected by extra shifts).

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not sure, at the moment it is "10 days", but what constitutes a "day". For salaried employees, it is really simple. For wage workers it is the normal rostered shift, but I'm not sure that it is fair.

Should you accrue sick days at 1/2 (10 days Vs 20 days) the rate of annual leave? Would that be better? This way any extra work you do would accrue extra sick leave.

[–] Dave 1 points 5 months ago

Yes, I think that makes sense. However, from a National/Act point of view, you get into dangerous territory. What if someone works 6 days a week? Under the old system you'd get 10 days regardless. But under this new accruing system, you are still working 8 hours a day but you're accruing at whatever the hourly accrual is times 48 hours per week. You'll end up with 12 sick days a year!

Another potential issue is all the contracts out there that X days of sick leave. The government is saying how much easier it will be for payroll software providers, while the payroll software providers are probably fainting at the thought of now having to handle employees grand-parented in on an old system with new employees starting on a completely different calculation system 😆

It will be interesting to see how the actual bill shapes up once it's released.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The cynic in me thinks its only so hard for employers to figure out what someone's leave entitlement is because they account for it as a liability and try to minimise how much anyone can take while maximising the times when they are forced to take it.

I can't remember now, but wasn't the context for the law change that shift workers who did 4 days of 12 hours, then 3 days off only getting paid the equivalent of 8 hours when they took a day of leave?

[–] Dave 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But in this case they should be paid 12 hours, because a "day" is not defined as 8 hours, but as what they would have normally worked.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah - but did sick leave ever get the same clarification? The language in the forms I use at work is half day, full day off sick.

But in effect you're asking for your shift off work - so if a shift is 12 hours then yeah I would think it would be sensible for 12 hours, I just don't know if sick leave actually gets paid the same way.

Because its definitely not paid out as "days" - in the 24 hour sense. Like if you're a part timer doing a 4 hour day, I can't imagine the current law lets you have 20 shifts off right? Its more like "day" in that sense means, times not working due to being sick.

[–] Dave 1 points 5 months ago

It's not based on any particular number of hours, but rather on what they would have earned that day. So an employee working part time 4 hours a day will be paid 4 hours for a day off, so their 10 days only costs the employer half as much as an employee working full time (i.e. it ends up proportional). But funky stuff starts to happen if someone's part time hours are 2.5 full days instead of 5 half days.

An employee gets paid their relevant daily pay (with a backup method if that's not possible), which is laid out here.

It says it's what they would have earned, and clarifies things like taxable allowances and overtime are included if they would have otherwise earned them that day.

[–] Fizz 3 points 5 months ago

Does sick leave stay the same for people working 40 hours?

[–] Dave 3 points 5 months ago

Just thinking about the current rules, if you work 4 hours a day across 5 days a week, don't you get a smaller number of paid hours off on sick leave than if you work two full days a week?

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I had been planning to move to NZ if the USA election goes the wrong way, but news out of there in the past month or two has not been encouraging.

[–] Dave 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Politics comes and goes. This article is talking about a change to how the statutory minimum if 10 days of sick leave is calculated, which may disadvantage some (but not all) part time workers. This 10 days is on top of the 31 (or is it 32 now) other days off for public holidays (in NZ everyone gets them, or a day in lieu, not just government workers) and annual leave.

The US has approximately 0 days of sick leave or other paid time off as a statutory minimum, if I understand correctly.

It's probably best not to let news articles sway your judgement. With steps backwards, sometimes we forget all the steps forward. This applies to the US, too.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well put. In a way you could argue that the current government is making changes that will make NZ more like the USA. That may or may not be true, but the implication is that we are currently less like the USA too.

So the things you like about NZ will still be there in some amount, just perhaps just a bit less than it would have been a few years ago. And as you say, governments come & go so in 3, 6, 9 years things can just as readily change the other way again anyway.

And yes its 11 national public holidays, plus 1 provincial public holiday, plus 20 days annual leave for 32 in total, then 10 days sick leave on top for 42 in total. It can get slightly complicated in terms of accruals & entitlements. NZ has a bunch of different leave that may or may not be foreign to a US citizen!:

12 Public holidays - must be taken on the day they happen, or if you can't you get a day in lieu to take at your leisure. Usually you will want to ensure you use the lieu day before you use any of your annual leave entitlement as the former doesn't get paid out to you when you cease employment.

Annual Leave - there's two counts for this, from the date you start working for an employer you begin accruing an annual leave balance, and then 12 months later you become entitled to four weeks of annual leave, and your accrual balance starts again from 0. The difference matters as I think technically the employer only has to allow you to take entitled leave, not accrued; and conversely if they have a customary closedown period then there's a bunch of different rules about what happens. Typically nowadays most employers (big corporates anyway) will see your annual leave accrual as a liability and will be encouraging you to use it so its pretty rare to have much of an argument about having leave. Both sides have to be reasonable in giving notice and rearranging things to covering when you're not there.

Sick Leave - this is the 10 days that's mentioned in this article, like Public holidays sick leave doesn't get paid out when you leave, and unlike annual leave sick leave doesn't continue to accrue. So it is each 12 month period of employment that you get a new up to 10 days per year sick leave. Some employers do accrue sick leave as well though - I think my balance caps out at something like 40 days, so good news if I ever get the big C or something I suppose!

Bereavement Leave - you get a minimum of 3 days per bereavement for funerals if its for people in your immediate family, or miscarriages and then there's a bit of flexibility where you can have another 1 day per bereavement if they're not immediate family but there's some specific reasons why you gotta be there responsibility wise.

Parental Leave - im not as up with the play on this one, but its available for both parents, just to differing amounts I think.

Family Violence Leave - employees affected by family violence have the right to up to 10 days of paid leave per year, and can ask for a short term rearrangement of their work schedule.

Other Leave - there's all sorts of other rules for Jury service, disasters, leave to go vote in an election and some employers have other stuff too like I worked somewhere where you got an extra 2 weeks a year if you represented NZ in a sport (even an obscure one) and were going to an international tournament.

[–] Dave 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

So it is each 12 month period of employment that you get a new up to 10 days per year sick leave.

You can accrue up to 20 days by law (two years worth). But employers don't have to let you accrue any more.

Some employers do accrue sick leave as well though - I think my balance caps out at something like 40 days, so good news if I ever get the big C or something I suppose!

We've had a lot of cancer in the family over the past few years, 40 days isn't gonna be nearly enough I'm afraid.

Edit: oh and

im not as up with the play on this one, but its available for both parents, just to differing amounts I think.

While the wording is a bit funny, the entitlement can go to either parent (but not both). There is unpaid time off (up to a year) and there is paid parental leave (up to 26 weeks, proportionally replaces time off so you can only get 1 year total).

The entitlement is for the primary carer, and the other parent can get "partner's leave" which is super shit, like 2 weeks unpaid. Everyone I've ever heard of has just taken annual leave.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No 40 days wouldn't go far at all, but 8 weeks paid before having to chew into annual leave would still help ease the stresses a bit. Of course, im lucky to have that much.

[–] Dave 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah for sure, 8 weeks is better than 4 weeks!

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago

It’s probably best not to let news articles sway your judgement. With steps backwards, sometimes we forget all the steps forward. This applies to the US, too.

Well said.