I don't entirely understand this. It seems to me that it's the equivalent of taking days off without pay. At my school, we get X number of paid sick days. If we go over that number, we can take additional time off without pay. That is, they'd calculate what I make daily, and subtract that daily amount from my salary. That's the same thing, more or less, is it not? Only difference is that they are told what that amount is that will be deducted daily. My heart goes out to that teacher, however most jobs would work this way.
Actually, when you think about it that way, the teacher would actually earn money...while most of us just lose all of our daily pay when we go over our sick days (as otterpop said), this teacher is only losing the equivalent of the sub pay and retaining the rest of her daily rate. So, she actually comes out ahead. Just playing devil's advocate here...I absolutely think she should not have to worry about this issue while she is recovering. That is just cruel.
I can see why it seemed a good idea at the time, and in many ways it's rather appealing. I think this case highlights the more dramatic consequences. If I had the power for the district, I'd have set up some sort of catastrophic event plan to hang around for such events. Every place I've worked at had sick leave banks. Not always perfect, but useful. It sucks for the teacher, but with budgets being what they are, I can't think of a better option other than quitting or the theoretical catastrophe benefit not in place. I've heard lore of teachers paying for the sub no matter the situation or the number of sick days, and if that's true I feel worse for them.
That is normal here. If you go over your allotted sick days/personal days, then you don’t get paid for that day. It is essentially paying for your sub.
I think this teacher actually got a really good deal. Anywhere else that I've heard of, if you run out of sick days, you're not getting paid at all. The sub is going to make far less daily than the teacher does, so she's still getting whatever the leftover pay is, even though she's not working. For me, this would mean I would still be netting at least $2,000 per month. I think it's actually generous of the district to allow that.
We are docked our daily rate if out of days. The sub pay is taken out of that amount. I assume the district banks the balance. We do have a program where people can donate days, so I doubt it gets to that point often.
Only in America does getting a disease like cancer have to equal a financial catastrophe. Honestly, I have a pretty thick skin, but a few of the answers here are actually a little gross to read.
Wow I never realised you were so hard done by. In the UK we get 6 months sick leave on full pay them another 6 months on half pay.
I didn't realize that. I know the health care system here is terribly expensive and backwards, but the job side of things never crossed my mind. It never occurred to me that not having months of sick leave in the event of serious illness was uncommon, even if there are better alternatives. That said, my husband and I have specifically held off on starting a family because of horrible and scarcely existing maternity leave policies. That topic really gets me heated, fast.
The life of having non-socialized care. I lean conservative-ish, but I like the idea of socialized medicine. Preferably a system that still allows for optional private care as needed, as people in my groups for my daughter's condition say they get subpar treatment for the disease without a private option.
Socialized medicine sounds nice in theory, but in practice it is a disaster. It also stifles innovation and medical advances — the vast majority of medical breakthroughs came from places like the US where there are free markets. Countries like Canada and the UK have huge waiting lists for emergency care and patients are coming to the US in a lot of cases to get the care they need because they aren’t getting it in their country of origin.
My district is exactly the same. The problem comes if you are a new teacher and at the bottom of the pay scale. In order to keep your medical insurance and retirement ect you may have to start paying the district money to keep medical insurance, since they deduct taxes, retirement/pension payments and, other fees first thens they deduct sub pay. Sometimes that comes out to more than they are paid in a month....especially when paying long term subs which cost more than short term ones.... In California teachers cant pay into state disability so if they want disability coverage they have to apply for that and pay for it monthly as well.... Imagine having to pay your place of employment from your savings because you missed too many days to cover the sub and you owe them more than you are paid.
I once had a coworker at a non-profit who was transferring money over for insurance... On an insurance tangent, I may have messed up my district's insurance for them...
This is what happens in my district- they deduct sub pay from teacher’s paycheck once sick days are depleted. I have 156 sick days on the books and would love to donate a few to a colleague in need but that’s not allowed.
We are allowed to donate sick days as long as we don’t drop ours below 15. I have donated days to coworkers with terminally ill spouses, parents, or children. I haven’t donated in the past few years since my mom is sick.
As I see it, their only complaint should be their union negotiated inability to have short term disability and long term disability policies. But if on average the teacher makes 82,000 a year, having to pay the sub at 200/day still give the teacher 50-60% of their pay which is on-par with most short term disability policies. As others have said, most times when you are out of personal and sick days, you get paid nothing for the day. Seems they have it better than most, especially since there is a sick bank they can pull from.
This is what my district did. First we had a sick leave bank you could use if you were in bad shape and out of days. We all would donate a day,. IF It ever emptied we donated another. The last few years the gave that up and then sent out an email asking for donations. I donated a long time cause I had so much. More to close colleagues........I liked the old bank better.
I live in Canada and I've seen this happen. You don't just lose a day of salary, they actually deduct the maximum amount a sub COULD cost (tenured teacher with master's degree, say $420/day), even if the ACTUAL teacher who covers your class is a newbie making the lowest figure on the salary scale. So, if you are a beginning teacher and don't make nearly that much in a day, your actually losing more than just the money you would have made that day... they deduct more than your salary and then just pocket the difference and call it "administration costs".
I teach in a district just north of San Francisco, and yes, this is the "norm." I have a colleague who went over her sick time because her child had an autoimmune disease -- now she can't take time off when she is actually sick. And it's not just major illnesses -- pregnant teachers usually end up paying for subs, too, because our family leave policy is so pathetic.
Have you ever actually lived in a socialized health care country? I lived in France where as a part-time assistant teacher, all my health care was totally free, and I have a couple of health issues that require ongoing prescriptions. Also, I hear more about elderly people going from the US to Canada for their scripts, than the other way around...
I've heard it both ways. Seriously, I have. In many ways I suppose it's a testament to personal options for needs and individual situations. In my daughter's case, insurance in the states tends to cover, at least partially, a very expensive medical device that is considered pretty standard. What I've learned is that the device is moderately rare in socialiized health countries where it simply cannot be covered by the government health plan. (it's an extremely useful device, but not, strictly speaking, absolutely necessary.) These parents are the ones usually digging into personal private insurance or holding fundraisers to pay for the device. Same goes for certain very-nice medication. My point being, it's not truthful to say socialized medicine will cover everything in every case.
You would be the exception then because the data suggests otherwise: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...ld/europe/uk-national-health-service.amp.html https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...-the-british-love-their-universal-health-care https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...to-curb-dems-enthusiasm-for-single-payer/amp/ https://www.investors.com/politics/...ocialized-health-care-an-unmitigated-failure/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...lion-while-waiting-for-medical-treatment/amp/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/is-canadian-health-care-as-great-as-we-like-to-think-1.3641544
This issue came up during my second year with "Teach for America." I was in an eastern North Carolina high school, following a year in south Texas. At orientation in the NC district, they told us there was no money available for field trips, but we were still allowed to take them as long as: 1. We paid for the sub. 2. We paid our own way on the trip. 3. We used one of our sick or personal days. Needless to say, the first words out of my mouth were, "Well, no field trips for my classes under those circumstances this year." One of my colleagues was horrified, "You can't deny your children a learning experience just because of those roadblocks." (I love how they invoke the adjective "children" when they're trying to play on sympathies) I replied to her, "Lady, the bottom line is that this is a job. No other school district is subject to these conditions. The least we can expect this school district to do is to conduct business in a normal manner, not rely on never-ending financial sacrifice by the teaching staff."
That is an awesome response. Did she have a comeback to that? In such circumstances, I could possibly see myself hitting up some donations or grants, but never would it come out of my pocket and benefits.
I have very occasionally taken a personal day for school-related business. For example, we had to return our costume rentals to a nearby city, and due to some weather delays this had to be done on a school day. My husband and I both took personal days so that we could stay the whole day and shop and eat and relax, as is our tradition when returning costumes. One day I took a personal day to go to a workshop that I really wanted to attend, but our school's (very generous) PD fund was almost completely exhausted, and I had already used funds that year for a different workshop.
No. She considered herself the "ultimate dedicated professional." I, on the other hand, was always more willing to draw a line in the sand. So, she more or less looked down her nose at someone who was more pragmatic.
Socialized health care can be as hit-or-miss as private healthcare except for the fact that there are few choices if there is no one in your country you can go to if your socialized health care isn't working for you.
Awhile ago I read a Canadian's experience with their healthcare system. He was pretty open about it, admitting problems that can pop up here and there with respect to the different provinces and voting and budgets. Eye-opening wasn't the right word, because it wasn't so much pro or anti as just giving the experience and the facts. Again, I actually quite like the idea of socialized medicine in some form or another, mostly for boring, budgetary reasons (I'm already getting the money taken out of my paycheck sort of reasoning), but I realize it's not necessarily perfect.
When I visit the US I am always entertained by your ad breaks on TV (well be honest the ads are better than the programmes) as 50% of them seem to be for pharmaceuticals. Friends have told me that when you visit your doctor you tell them what medicines you need whereas in the UK we accept the suggestions of the trained professionals. Thus med adverts are never seen in the UK. Plus in all your adverts the disclaimers at the end always say risk of death!
What I don’t understand is why anyone would want to pay upwards of 50% of their salary for healthcare that they will probably hardly ever use in the off chance that they need emergency care? How is a lifetime of diminished salary more cost-effective than paying for health insurance yourself through a private insurer? Is there something I’m missing? For example, I’ve read cases where people have to pay something along the lines of 47% of their income in taxes just to pay for socialized healthcare. For me, that comes out to $63,450 of my gross salary (starting next year). Now, if I pay that for 10 years (let’s pretend my salary stays fixed to keep the math simple) that comes out to $634,500 over 10 years. Now, let’s say I require a life-saving surgery that costs $75,000. I would rather pay $75,000 out of pocket, which I can easily do, than $634,500. Wouldn’t you?
I don’t tell my doctors what to prescribe. I’ve had them ask me specific questions, like if I’ve ever taken a particular medication or if one works better than a other, but other than that I don’t ask for a medicine.
In the UK we have a tax called 'National Insurance'. This is approx 6% of our income. It pays for our healthcare and also in part our social security. There may be some top up from other taxes. However what it means is that low income earners only pay a small amount of money, high earners pay more but everyone gets health care! If I need to see my doctor every week for 6 months then it costs me nothing above what I pay in taxes. When I cease working I shall no longer pay national insurance but will still receive healthcare (and a pension based on how many years I paid my NI contributions)
Some countries have a hybrid system (France) where everyone has national healthcare, but you can also obtain private insurance (through employers) and see private doctors if you want.
But doesn't your system only pay for more basic treatments? I actually have no problem with your country's system, but I do know a few people in the UK who are cystic fibrosis parents who still have to pay for a lot of stuff out of pocket.
I'm not awate that CF sufferers have to pay. I have taught quite a few kids with permanent medical conditions such as CF and Diabetes and as far as I know their treatments and medications are covered. Kids under 18 get free medications. Over 18 and we pay a nominal charge (about 12 dollars) for a prescription if we are in employment.
