Severed-N-Happy
Senior
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 395
- Reaction score
- 0
Between early JAN(eff. date new agreement) and 6/30 of 2005 if someone was sick for 3 days they were paid only 1/2 their normal complement of hours. After 3 days it was full pay. Eff 7/1/05 the policy revised to 1st 5 days are paid at 1/2 rate. So my question is: What was the purpose of splitting the 1st half of the year up apart from the second 1/2? Was it to save more money for 6 months? Was it to deter people from taking sick leave during transformation time? Because as a result any one who is sick with 2 occurrences (one before 6/30 and one after 6/30) gets penalized twice, even if they met the 3 day restriction from the 1st 1/2 of the year. IMO, or the way one could interpret it, someone who already met the 3 day restriction before 6/30 should not be penalized again for another 5 days for another occurrence after 6/30, or at the very least only have to incur the penalty for 2 more days such that their total 1/2 pay penalty equals 5 days for the rolling year which began approx 1/1/05.
Anyone else agree or disagree? Feedback welcomed.
Anyone else agree or disagree? Feedback welcomed.