Hacker News Reader

Comment by calcifer | Hacker News Reader

> why should workers get paid for sick days?

This is such an American thing to say. The question wouldn't even occur to most European folk.

To be clear they are referring to the "being paid for sick days not actually taken" not the general concept of "still being paid while you are sick". It's a reasonable question IMO, you should be incentivised to use your sick days not try to bank them for a cash out at the end. They are as much for your fellow workers as you.

Are you allowed to cash out your sick days in Europe? It seems actually anti-worker in a way, giving people a financial incentive to go into work anyways when they're sick.

There's no allotment of sick days in European countries. If you're sick, you don't go work, for as long as needed.

You do get guaranteed holidays, but sick days explicitly do not count as holidays. If you quit, you get paid for unused holidays.

> If you're sick, you don't go work, for as long as needed

For reference, I can only be legally fired if I'm sick for more than 186 days in a 365 day period.

Oh that's interesting. That's how a lot of jobs here work too (more common with white collar ones).

Although some jobs (especially those with a pension) that have a sick day allotment will give you a credit for unused sick days. Eg my dad retired one month early because he had unused vacation and sick days.

Some jobs also give you a lump of time off and say "this is paid time off, you can use it for sick time OR vacation". But that's only for short sicknesses, like if you need 1-2 days for a cold. If you're sick for more than 5 days you get paid by the government instead of your employer

The average Union Pacific rails employee makes 3 times as much as "most European folk."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com