No, I do not understand this "logic". Going away from women with children’s hospitals, I want to understand the overall picture. This employee works for a whole month, and he is given a prize for it. Is it given to all employees every month? If so, why should this employee, who has been hospitalized for half a month, lose that same premium altogether? Half of the month he worked honestly, like everyone else, and should get half the prize. The second half of the premium, which the employer encouraged him for a month of work, should be given to the employee who replaced him. Of course, nobody does that, fat hurts, this half is just not paid. Overall: half a month worked, half a month received a salary plus a premium. In my opinion, it is fair.
So what is your logic? In the fact that if half a month did not work due to illness, then the second half of the month could not do anything? According to your logic, it turns out that the manager encourages the "premium" not for the work, namely for the presence at work for a full month? Or is it still about the fact that the self-sufficient manager so avengers the employee for the fact that he dared to get sick, and let him rejoice that he was not fired at all?
Z is. I’m not talking about refinancing, refinancing, etc. This is, in essence, a prize, and it is absolutely wrong to expect it in the absence of the work done.