Sickies: a national pastime?

By Simon Longstaff

This article was published in Living Ethics: issue 75 autumn 2009

Rightly or wrongly, Australians are notorious for taking ‘sickies’, with one recent study finding that around 40% of respondents surveyed expressed no guilt indulging in an occasional ‘mental health’ day. But are there ever grounds for not using other forms of leave entitlements for this purpose? Simon Longstaff considers the ethical grounds for faking it.

A rare thing happened to me last year. For the first time in seventeen years I was required to take a few days off – due to illness. It probably makes me a national disgrace – for, in all those years, I had never indulged in the great Australian sport of taking a ‘sickie’. Yet, I know plenty of people who do – sometimes for relatively selfish reasons (the desire for a long weekend) but also in order to make time for the benefit of another person – attending a school assembly, standing by an ailing parent and so on. So, what are the ethical issue associated with taking a ‘sickie’?

The first thing to admit is that my lack of practice has nothing to do with personal virtue on my part. To be frank, I have not really been tested because I have the kind of job that allows for a fair amount of flexibility. Even so, I think that I would be reluctant to take a sickie – even if for an apparently good reason. But that’s just me.

In terms of the larger picture, it is important to keep sight of the fact that access to sick leave is no small thing for the working people of Australia. It’s not so long ago that people lost all income when they fell ill in Australia. It is a signal achievement of the labor movement that sick leave was secured as a benefit for employees. You only have to travel to many countries in our region to find the alternative – where illness can mark the end of a family’s access to food. That’s why so many sick people will struggle into work – even if every indication is that they should be taking rest.

I think that our relatively casual approach to sick leave may be due, in part, to the fact that we have lost sight of how significant a benefit it is to be able to recuperate. Instead, I know of some people who treat the allocated days as an entitlement – able to be used as leave for any purpose. The only weak argument that I have heard in favour of taking ‘sickies’ at will is that it is a non-cash form of remuneration that can be taken in lieu of a pay rise. Full marks for inventiveness!

However, it is a weak argument (at best) unless there is some form of explicit agreement between employer and employees. What is especially odd about this approach is that it takes no account of the fact that there may be times when sick leave will be needed to cover a genuine illness or injury – only the ‘sick leave cupboard’ will be bare. Apart from this, there is the more general question of honesty that needs to be addressed. Calling in sick when you are perfectly well is, by any measure, dishonest.

So, is such dishonesty ever justified?

The strongest reason that I can think of for taking a ‘sickie’ would be that to do so is necessary in order to meet some higher obligation than that owed to an employer. This is not to say that such a reason is good enough – just that it it may be the strongest. As noted above, an example might be the need to accompany a family member to hospital, or be present to see a child receive a special award. The fact that obligations may be owed to others is not, in itself, sufficient to justify a ‘sickie’. Even in those circumstances, it is important that there be no reasonable alternative.

So, a person contemplating a ‘sickie’ is positively obliged to do things like: seek to reschedule the obligation to free time or to receive another type of leave – with the consent of the employer. That is, every option other than taking a ‘sickie’ should be explored.

Sensible employers will see in this approach an opportunity. It is often a smart move to have increased flexibility for employees that really need to take time off to discharge broader family (or even community) obligations. Indeed, I reckon that employers who are consistently decent in their own conduct are less likely to be cheated. In turn, employees should try to make it easy for their employers to say ‘yes’ by offering solutions rather than just presenting the problem of an unanticipated request for leave.

Still, the truth is that some employers are real dags – never giving an inch. Some feel bound to be like this because of commercial necessity. Some are just mean. Unfortunately, the duty of honesty owed to an employer remains even if they are a mean dag.

In the end, taking a ‘sickie’ for a really serious reason may be a little like acts of conscientious objection – done as a matter of principle in full knowledge of the fact that a penalty may have to be paid. It is the willingness to accept the penalty that makes the decision virtuous rather than selfish.