Question about how number of absences from work are calculated

stuartJo1989 · 9 October 2017 at 7:31PM

custardy wrote: »

Would you say thats a fair way to interpret the attendance/sick policy?

It would be an unfair way to interpret it.

I would personally interpret it in a fair way in line with what sangie said, but I'm not and haven't been a decision maker (relating to sacking) in the workplace.

TELLIT01 · 10 October 2017 at 9:12AM

stuartJo1989 wrote: »

(although one twist is that being so strict in the implementation of the sickness policy means that you could potentially be unfair in regards to people with disabilities; either through being more lenient with the sickness policy for people with disabilities, or through applying the policy to the letter and not really giving them any chance at work).

Most sickness policies are adaptable for those with chronic health problems. Where I worked there were a number of people I knew who were allowed additional days before the standard attendance reviews kicked in due to such issues.

sangie595 · 10 October 2017 at 9:35AM

stuartJo1989 wrote: »

Well, my previous employer evidenced it.... But they struggled to retain talent at times which was probably a driving force.

Not saying I disagree with you though! What you say makes perfect sense.

(although one twist is that being so strict in the implementation of the sickness policy means that you could potentially be unfair in regards to people with disabilities; either through being more lenient with the sickness policy for people with disabilities, or through applying the policy to the letter and not really giving them any chance at work).

Well your previous employer would have left themselves wide open to a claim for unfair dismissal. These policies actually arise from employers having been bashed at tribunals for doing exactly that! So to adopt a policy and not implement it absolutely is pointless.

For people with disabilities, allowing a variation to the policy if required (disability does not always lead to higher sickness rates) is a reasonable adjustment in law, so it is not unfair. And not making such an adjustment may be considered disability discrimination.

badmemory · 15 October 2017 at 8:22PM

And all these pollicies are now the reason why people go to work when quite obviously they should not do & cough & sneeze over everybody else & make them go off sick instead.

xapprenticex · 15 October 2017 at 8:37PM

You blame the policy and not the type of people who created a need for the policies. If you was an employer, you'd change your tune sharpish.

If a person turns up to work and clearly shouldnt be there, they usually get sent home. Should people be having days off because they have a cold? Jury is out on that one, but evidently, not everyone has been taught basic hygiene. Covering ones mouth and having hand sanitiser goes a long way.

Fireflyaway · 16 October 2017 at 1:00PM

Many companies will use something like the Bradford score. Multiple short absences are viewed as worse than 1 long absence. My understanding is the 12 months is rolling, so looking at today then working back 1 year would be the current period. Otherwise if the 'sick' year ran the same as the tax year or from jan to dec you would get a load of people off ' sick' in march or Nov or whatever.

Question about how number of absences from work are calculated

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free