Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
I'm assuming you also don't work in a prison and that the stress of your job isn't nearly as high as that of people looking after violent inmates who are living in close quarters in which it is well known that rates of illness are significantly higher.
I am actually impressed with someone who has built up 402 days of sick leave as it says in the Macleans article, if it is true that they get 15 days of sick leave a year and it builds up, that means that the employee has worked every single day in a physically demanding job for the past 27 years without taking a single sick day.
People will take the sick time either way - if someone knows they can't bank it for future years then I am sure there will be more people taking sick days for less urgent reasons. There is no motivation to not use those sick days otherwise other than the good of their hearts.
|
Don't give me that B.S. every job has a different type of stress, but for the most part pretty much all jobs have a high stress level.
You don't think that somebody in sales doesn't have stress for example? Knowing that every blown deal means that you lose income.
Or how about people that work in retail that can be incredibly stressful. People in road construction who work under the beating son all day?
Is working with prisoners stressful? Absolutely, but I contend that if the job creates that much stress that you need to take that much time off due to stress related illness then you should find something better suited to you.
It seems that its only civil servants that get to carry over sick days, you don't see it in the private sector all that often where people can carry over or bank sick days.
And as far as the person that went 10 years without taking a sick day, that's great and he should be applauded for it, but the expectation in the work place is if your not sick you work, so in essence he was living up to his end of the employment contract and an illustration of why he doesn't need banked sick days.