Canadian Money Forum banner
61 - 76 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,999 Posts
Yes, I literally took the actual words from the title of the thread as the subject of the thread.
... which means your participation is simply to derail the thread to ... your next re hash below:

Well the feds just did double the provincial policy, as such it's a better example of the cost of this policy. It's important to note you starting this thread with BC asking who else would do this, it really seemed like this was a thread on "Paid Sick Leave".
... the "who else" was underlined as "which other "P-R-O-V-I-N-C-E or territory" and I answered Ontario ain't because Ford doesn't have the guts to first. [And later, if needs to elaborate on, he ain't stupid enough to.] As said, if you want to expand on the effects with taxation and the woeful 9 yards of the subject on extending a "Paid Sick Leave" -open another thread and blah there.

You're upset that people are using the literal words you type? Are we supposed to mind read some other thoughts, and just magically know what your real intent is?
... why am I upset that you're using the words literally when I'm not the least surprised of you changing or mincing with words.

I guess that's why you keep getting confused on what I mean when I type words. I'll give you a hint, I mean what I say.
... no i'm not confused at all. You're great at words-mincing and I'm definitely sure that you mean what you say so need for the hint. I have seen enough real life examples in my career of your type of modus operandus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,649 Posts
Yes, I literally took the actual words from the title of the thread as the subject of the thread.
... which means your participation is simply to derail the thread to ... your next re hash below:
Huh? Do you realize how nonsensical you sound?

My comments were on the topic, as laid out in the title of the thread, and you think that's derailing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,194 Posts
There are things to consider. Some businesses operate on a shoestring. They are not all well capitalized large corporations.

Some people take advantage of benefits like this and it can ruin it for others who only use the benefit when needed. Workers comp is an example.

I know of one employee who went on workers comp three times for back issues (these claims push up ers WCB premiums). HR decided to have it checked out. The agency came back with photos of the employee working for his brothers roofing company. Climbing the ladder, on the roof working, caring bundles of shingles over his shoulder.

Employers do not want people coming to work and infected others. But they also do not want employees skiving off when they are fit to work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,999 Posts
Huh? Do you realize how nonsensical you sound?

My comments were on the topic, as laid out in the title of the thread, and you think that's derailing?
... yes, I'm nonsensical and you're perfectly sound, boss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,729 Posts
If there is anyone screwing anyone around here.......it is the WSIB screwing the disabled workers.

Since they began "deeming" that workers had a pretend job with pretend wages, the WSIB just cuts them off and they end up on welfare.

Anyone who gets severely hurt in Ontario is SOL. They gave us WSIB and took away the right to sue employers for unsafe conditions.

The disabled end up on welfare most of the time, as it pays more than CPP disability. The WSIB make their own rules and judge their own appeals.

You could lose your arms and legs in a workplace accident and be a stump, and the WSIB would "deem" you can be a Walmart greeter.

The only people affected are those disabled workers, and most people don't think it will happen to them, so they get away with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beaver101

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,194 Posts
Do you understand how write offs work? It doesn’t mean free. And it still effects profitability and the bottom line. Just because an expense doesn’t get taxed doesn’t mean it’s free.

I wish more people would understand this basic issue.
So....here are the numbers sags. An employee earns $100 a day. After employer pays tax, at lets say, 20 percent, that pay has a basic our of pocket cost to the employer of $80.

But that is not the end of it. Add on 5 percent for employers CPP, another 3 percent for employer EI payments. Then add on the other benefits such as vacation, medical. More often than not those benefits add up from 15 to 40 percent depending on the company, the industry etc.

That does not include the cost of a replacement (if required) or other such loss.

I am not saying that I am against sick leave. But for certain it is not as straightforward as one would imagine from an employers perspective and a business affordability perspective.

My understanding is that there are more people employed by small business than there are in corporate environments. Not everyone works for a GM. It is really easy to say it is simply a tax write off when you do not have to pay the bills every month and balance the books, and remain competitive with products from other jurisdictions. I know of business owners who have struggled to make payroll, let alone pay themselves a decent amount for their own labour and for a return on their capital investment that they risk every day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,729 Posts
So....here are the numbers sags. An employee earns $100 a day. After employer pays tax, at lets say, 20 percent, that pay has a basic our of pocket cost to the employer of $80.

But that is not the end of it. Add on 5 percent for employers CPP, another 3 percent for employer EI payments. Then add on the other benefits such as vacation, medical. More often than not those benefits add up from 15 to 40 percent depending on the company, the industry etc.

That does not include the cost of a replacement (if required) or other such loss.

I am not saying that I am against sick leave. But for certain it is not as straightforward as one would imagine from an employers perspective and a business affordability perspective.

My understanding is that there are more people employed by small business than there are in corporate environments. Not everyone works for a GM. It is really easy to say it is simply a tax write off when you do not have to pay the bills every month and balance the books, and remain competitive with products from other jurisdictions. I know of business owners who have struggled to make payroll, let alone pay themselves a decent amount for their own labour and for a return on their capital investment that they risk every day.
So 20% of the cost is paid by the taxpayer, and the remaining 80% should be paid by the employee.

I suggested the EI fund administer it.......because it already provides up to 15 weeks of sick pay, after a waiting period.

I don't expect the employer to pay anything. A new benefit would only cover the waiting period, not already covered by EI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,194 Posts
So 20% of the cost is paid by the taxpayer, and the remaining 80% should be paid by the employee.

I suggested the EI fund administer it.......because it already provides up to 15 weeks of sick pay, after a waiting period.

I don't expect the employer to pay anything. A new benefit would only cover the waiting period, not already covered by EI.
EI is paid by the employee and the employer. There is also the max EI payout is 55percent of salary to a max of approx 600 per week. That works out to about 31K per year. And it is taxable. Is that a limit that you would place on it or would you be in favour of increasing the ee and er EI contribution rates?

And what about the significant burden in administration costs and inspection costs? Very easy to say just do it, once done those same people would be complaining that everyone is taking advantage of it.

My point is that this is not as straightforward as it sounds. No magic wand. Lots of funding and and admin issues.

Yeas ago, while in a union job, we did have something like this. Not a large amount but it was there. It was a benefit that the union negotiated with the company. It paid by and administered by an insurance company. Not much different than dental.

No matter what type of plan is considered it will have the obvious costs associated with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,649 Posts
No matter what type of plan is considered it will have the obvious costs associated with it.
I think that's something that's often missed with all these programs and policies.
While there is a clear stated benefit, there is always a cost and I'm not sure people are thinking about that.

Everything has trade offs. For sick days I see a spectrum.
No days is clearly problematic.
Unpaid time has less dollar cost for the employer, but does offer scheduling problems.
paid time has the scheduling problems and a dollar cost for the employer.

My concern is constantly dumping costs on employers will make it tougher for them, and we'll end up with fewer. Look at the rise of gig work competing with employment.
The big savings from Uber is getting rid of all that overhead.

We've seen how increasing the costs on landlords has led to the drastic reduction in rental housing, do we want to repeat this mistake with employment too?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,654 Posts
So 20% of the cost is paid by the taxpayer, and the remaining 80% should be paid by the employee.

I suggested the EI fund administer it.......because it already provides up to 15 weeks of sick pay, after a waiting period.

I don't expect the employer to pay anything. A new benefit would only cover the waiting period, not already covered by EI.
You have remember not all employers are for profit and there is no write off. Think about people who hire care providers. My nannies were all paid sick days and vacation days, plus a whole bunch of other days such as going to school/study/exam days (and I paid for their education too). I didn't need to have the government mandate it. I could write any of it off because there is a low limit on child care. While they were off, I also had to either take time off of my work, or find relief care at a higher cost. I can tell you it's a much higher cost than just their wage. I end up paying more than double usually.

If you don't think this matters, consider senior care. We may have to hire additional care for my parents. Part of it will reduce their tax bill in form of a credit of 18% (I think). How do you expect seniors on fixed incomes to pay this extra amount. I calculated the going rate which will be about $2500 more a year for 10 days. That's also means that's 10 days less care or that they will have to hire someone else for $3500 IF they could find someone. Do you feel that seniors that hire someone for their care can afford this?

How about other people who require medical aids? Much of this isn't covered, people hire them out of necessity, sometimes really straining their budgets. This could put mean someone not being able to afford care.

I am all for sick days and I think employers should provide them for those legitimately sick. However, I don't think a government mandate one size fits all is the right answer. Individual companies and scenarios need to be looked at. I generally think when the government mandates something, there are many unintended consequences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,729 Posts
Read my proposal again. There would be NO additional cost to employers at all.

I propose that "individual" sick days be included in the existing EI program which already has a sick day benefit for up to 15 weeks.

All that would change is the waiting period to start collecting benefits would be eliminated.

As noted by another poster....EI pays 55% of the salary to a limit of $600 a week. I would leave it at that.

To pay the additional cost of the sick days, I would raise the "employee" contribution if necessary.

Given the labor situation for many employers, the likely scenario is they do nothing and watch their employees leave to work somewhere else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,729 Posts
The other day, not a single dining room server showed up for work at my wife's employer (retirement home), so the CEO, supervisors, and a couple of housekeepers had to serve the meals. The residents pay to have a dining room experience and people to clean their rooms, and they are starting to complain.

Normally the company would have a couple of job openings. They now have over 60 openings and nobody is responding.

If they do hire someone.....they either don't show up or quit.

The same company is also our landlord and they said they have 600 maintenance tickets backlog and won't get to them until next year.
They have no maintenance people either.

I think there are going to be big changes in the way employers have to think about their employees.

Maybe we also have too many businesses given the demographics and some of them are going to get weeded out.

When I look around......there are pizza stores, payday loan stores, fast food franchises, and all kinds of businesses that never existed before.

Some professions as well. It seems like we have new dental offices on every city block now. Was there a sudden need for all these dental offices ?

This at a time when our population is getting older and heading towards retirement.
 
61 - 76 of 76 Posts
Top