That’s a very generous approach but it’s also quite costly. Not all employers can comfortably absorb that cost but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re any less compassionate.
That’s a very generous approach but it’s also quite costly. Not all employers can comfortably absorb that cost but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re any less compassionate.Or they are a good employer and look after their staff like the company i work for. They give 10days for parents,6 weeks+ for a child, 2 3 days for grandparents, i was asking on behalf of my daughter.
Yep, SME's don't make the sort of profits Multinationals or Banks do. They also have to pay their taxes. That means many don't have the money to offer longer holidays or bereavement leave. Maybe the 11.05% social insurance the employer pays could be used to fund a State scheme that paid for bereavement leave.That’s a very generous approach but it’s also quite costly. Not all employers can comfortably absorb that cost but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re any less compassionate.
Yep, if an employer wants a good relationship and flexibility from their employees then they should remember that it works both ways.Most employers are decent enough or would show a bit of flexibility and allow people to take annual leave as well if needed.
Force majeure is the most misunderstood and incorrectly applied form of leave in existence. There are very few circumstances in which it should properly apply. For example, it doesn’t (or at least isn’t intended to) apply in the case of a sick child so neither would it be appropriate for funeral leave.It doesn't apply in the case of death but people should also remember that they have a legal entitlement to Force Majeure leave. I did once have to tell someone that the dog was not a reason for FM leave though !
Most employers are decent enough or would show a bit of flexibility and allow people to take annual leave as well if needed.
Very well put. We have people popping out to dentists, doctors, parent teacher meetings etc all the time. They get paid and it's no big deal. The same people will stay late or work through a break or whatever when the need arises.Regular recourse to Force Majeure reflects an absence of trust where staff are required to invoke formal mechanisms to receive an accommodation that should really be a matter of mutual goodwill.
Hi Purple, I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of Compassionate Leave; I'm just advising of Compassionate Leave entitlements of places where I used to work.@Leper. I think it is important to remember that many businesses just can't afford to offer such generous perks. If they can then fine but for most employers it's just not possible.
Where I work people take whatever time they need. If they have holidays left they take them, if not they take personal days and they get paid anyway.
I think people should try to die on a Wednesday. That way the removal can be Friday evening and the funeral on Saturday. They should also give a minimum of two weeks notice if they are going to die.Hi Purple, I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of Compassionate Leave; I'm just advising of Compassionate Leave entitlements of places where I used to work.
I should add in previous years if the death/funeral took place over a weekend - the Saturday and Sunday counted each as a day of Compassionate Leave. Later this was rescinded to allow 3 days Compassionate leave (Mon - Fri irrespective of the day of death/funeral) where people did not work weekends.
I'll try to accommodate you just in case your posting history here is interrupted in case I suddenly depart.I think people should try to die on a Wednesday. That way the removal can be Friday evening and the funeral on Saturday. They should also give a minimum of two weeks notice if they are going to die.
Force majeure is the most misunderstood and incorrectly applied form of leave in existence. There are very few circumstances in which it should properly apply. For example, it doesn’t (or at least isn’t intended to) apply in the case of a sick child so neither would it be appropriate for funeral leave.
It’s a statutory entitlement to cover circumstances where an absence is unavoidable and where an employer would otherwise seek to treat it as an unauthorised absence. and withhold pay. Where an employer allows a person to take annual leave in lieu of the absence, or to work the missed hours at another time, then Force Majeure shouldn’t apply.
Regular recourse to Force Majeure reflects an absence of trust where staff are required to invoke formal mechanisms to receive an accommodation that should really be a matter of mutual goodwill.
Where I work, we've increasingly moved to an output based approach as opposed to standard 9-5. As an example, one of my team now works from home from 6.30am-8am, then gets the kids ready and takes them to school(or at least she will next week), then back in to work until school hometime and then she is done. As long as she does what is needed to be done workwise and gives us a bit of flexibility for, let's say, a call with the client at 4pm on very odd occassions, we're all happy and she is saving money on child minders as a result.Yep, if an employer wants a good relationship and flexibility from their employees then they should remember that it works both ways.
I've told people to go home and that I'll pay them when they turn up after a family crisis. The people in charge are paid to take responsibility for the big issues and act accordingly. People on low wages aren't. If you want someone to shoulder that burden then pay them accordingly.
It would be good to see unions actually representing those who they were founded to represent but the question is what's the line between pro-employee and anti-business. It would probably be good for Unions to be involved in the hospitality sector and other low wage sectors as the need to balance the needs and wants of their members with the medium to long term viability of the business they work in would become part of their mindset. At the moment they only really operate in the protected sectors of the economy where there is a limitless amount of other people's money to fund their demands. Exposure to the real world would probably help them gain a more realistic expectation of what's possible and a more constructive attitude to structural change and thereby give them more credibility in the real private sector.Whereas it would be great to see Unions representing more low paid workers particularly in areas such as the Hospitality sector with it’s noticeably parsimonious employers they are hamstrung by the fact that whilst workers can join Unions employers are not required to recognise or negotiate with same , indeed IBEC who are a registered Trade Union themselves fight arduously and hypocritically against extending that benefit to others.
Given that the Shinners are now odds on to become by far the largest Government party in the State following the next election despite the fact that I would never vote for them I will be fascinated to see if they are in power will they introduce pro worker , pro Union legislation- softly , softly catchee
Lovely trade union platitudes from Purple there. Just on a flittering point:- Are you a member of a trade union?It would be good to see unions actually representing those who they were founded to represent but the question is what's the line between pro-employee and anti-business. It would probably be good for Unions to be involved in the hospitality sector and other low wage sectors as the need to balance the needs and wants of their members with the medium to long term viability of the business they work in would become part of their mindset. At the moment they only really operate in the protected sectors of the economy where there is a limitless amount of other people's money to fund their demands. Exposure to the real world would probably help them gain a more realistic expectation of what's possible and a more constructive attitude to structural change and thereby give them more credibility in the real private sector.
ThanksLovely trade union platitudes from Purple there.
No, neither a labour or an employer one. I'm not a member of any vested interest group.Just on a flittering point:- Are you a member of a trade union?
It’s absolutely hilarious to think that people feel that more should be done for low paid workers when effectively such workers are sidelined by the State who legislate that although such workers can join a Union their employers can refuse to negotiate with such Unions.Lovely trade union platitudes from Purple there. Just on a flittering point:- Are you a member of a trade union?
The problem is that Unions don't help low paid employees. They hurt them. They perpetuate the waste and inefficiency that plagues the delivery of State services, services that low paid and marginalised people rely on more than most. I don't find that hilarious.It’s absolutely hilarious to think that people feel that more should be done for low paid workers when effectively such workers are sidelined by the State who legislate that although such workers can join a Union their employers can refuse to negotiate with such Unions.
A Catch - 22 situation which hopefully will not continue indefinitely.
Hmmmmmmmmm! Amazing how many non trade union members want to run trade unions.No, neither a labour or an employer one. I'm not a member of any vested interest group.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?