The Benefits of Not Having a Sick-Leave "Policy"

by Peter Zvalo

Like it or not, the flu season is upon us. There is never a good time to be sick, but clearly some times are better than others. The question of whether to stay home from work can be mired in conflict and indecision.

Large organizations typically grant employees a limited number of days per year in which they are paid while at home with the flu. Smaller firms often do not have such a formal policy on sick leave. For example, employees may not be granted a specific number of sick days per year, but are paid their full salary for days on which they call in sick. Exceptions exist if an employee is absent for more than five consecutive days, at which time their short-term disability insurance takes effect (this may vary according to your insurance policy).

An unlimited number of sick days? To managers of government organizations and large private enterprises, the thought of giving employees carte blanche to stay home at full salary is a scary proposition indeed. But in a small company, where managers and their staff work in close physical proximity, abuse of sick leave is rarely a problem.

In fact, by not specifying a maximum limit for sick days, staff absenteeism can be reduced. It boils down to simple psychology — when no formal limit exists, getting paid for being sick is more likely to be viewed as a privilege. Employees who perceive it this way will not only be more appreciative of this perk, but will be less likely to abuse it. If employees are told that they are entitled to a maximum of five sick days per year, many will view this as a benefit to which they are entitled. So when an employee comes down with the sniffles, he or she might be more likely to stay at home because they are, after all, entitled to do so. The rationale is, of course: everyone else does it so why shouldn't I?

The "no sick-leave policy" can sometimes be too effective and result in the reverse problem of absenteeism — employees who come to work when they clearly should not. While obviously demonstrating commitment to their job, a person who comes into work sicker than a dog is not doing anyone a favour. Depending on the circumstances, such a person should be encouraged to go home until he or she has at least partially recovered. It only makes sense: a truly ill person is unlikely to be productive. Exposing the illness, in close confines, to other staff members will inevitably result in others becoming sick, thereby exacerbating the problem.

In certain cases, however, staying home is not an option: for example, when you are out-of-town on business and your client is paying for your living expenses, not to mention your salary. Unless you can commit yourself to a hospital (which these days may be as difficult as getting a ticket to ride the space shuttle), chances are you will have to carry on with business as usual — including attending meetings, "doing" lunches, and otherwise pretending to have a good time.

In most cases, colds and flus are, thankfully, short-term and relatively harmless illnesses. By applying a common sense approach to managing sick days, employers can minimize the costs associated with illness, and staff can minimize the physical discomfort that the nasty little bugs bring.

NEXT >>