Feeling ill, dragging myself to work as don't want disciplinary

12467

Comments

  • vegasvisitor
    vegasvisitor Posts: 2,295
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    I know someone who has a 'condition' which had to be assessed by Occupational Health at their work, and was considered a disability. This means that if they are off with that particular illness then they are 'covered' under the disability so wouldn't get warnings. They also get a flu and pneumonia jab because flu would be more dangerous because of the condition. However, if they have a cold and go off work then they are off with a cold, and not their disability. Same would happen with asthma. Unless you had a cold and put on your sickline that you were off due to asthma instead of a cold.

    A disability doesn't have to be debilitating. It just has to be something that can affect your ability to be in good attendance at work (if that makes sense). So the person I know goes out running every week, however has also been in hospital with their condition and not able to run for a while after that, but then appears to be well again.

    Hope that makes sense. Occupational health at the workplace would be the decision makers on this.
  • theoretica
    theoretica Posts: 12,256
    First Post Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    daytona0 wrote: »
    I genuinely don't know what the truth is, but you need to back up that claim with evidence I'm afraid :( What does the UK law say on asthma and disability?

    With a very few exceptions (such as cancer, HIV) UK law on disability does not specifically mention medical conditions. It mentions their affect on the person.

    https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/protected-characteristics/disability-discrimination/

    You will see asthma is mentioned in this guidance as being potentially a disability, depending on the person.
    But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,
    Had the whole of their cash in his care.
    Lewis Carroll
  • robatwork
    robatwork Posts: 7,086
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Grumpygit wrote: »
    At my place of work there is a 6 day limit in a 12 month rolling period for uncertified sickness. Any more than that and they deduct it from your pay.

    It doesn't work - it means that the sickie club just need to be careful about how many days they take and when; The people who are genuinely ill but maybe need one or two days to get over a cold either come in and spread their germs or they go to the dr and get signed off for a week.

    If you were in charge at your work and made the sickness policies, what policy would you make?

    I'm not making a point, I am genuinely interested in a "working" sickness policy.
  • Tigsteroonie
    Tigsteroonie Posts: 24,954
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    I often think these policies are counter productive. No one seems to have a day off now, it is always a full week.

    Obviously, there are those who do take the mick, but I think overall the number of sickness days would go down if certain workplaces reverted back to treating people like adults and trusting that if they were well enough to be in work they would be there. I am sure that would happen where I work.
    Except that you still need policies in order to deal with those who don't behave like adults and start taking the proverbial. No policies, no grounds for warning and then disciplinary.
    :heartpuls Mrs Marleyboy :heartpuls

    MSE: many of the benefits of a helpful family, without disadvantages like having to compete for the tv remote

    :) Proud Parents to an Aut-some son :)
  • andygb
    andygb Posts: 14,631
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    I sympathise with the OP, because I have worked at places where sickness - genuine sickness - was looked on as skiving, because the boss was fortunate enough never to fall ill.
    I had two bouts of bronchitis in six months, and then I got another more serious bout (little did I know that I had not recovered from the initial bout, and that there was a far more serious condition causing this). The doctor put me off for two weeks, and I went back to work, to be informed that I was facing disciplinary action. I had a temperature and was sweating buckets, and I don't ecven remember what they said to me. I had a blackout in the office and then had to see the company doctor. He seemed to think I was making it up but referred me to a BUPA hospital to have further tests. The tests revealed that I had pneumonia on one lung and hepatitis.
    I was then put off work for a month, which really pleased my boss.
    At the end of the day your health is the most important thing you have.
    As others have already said, bosses who intimaidate their staff into going to work whilst they are ill, simply risk contamination and other people going off sick.
  • Nicki
    Nicki Posts: 8,166 Forumite
    Not relevant at all then that OP did go to work, and managed just fine. In fact she said her cold receded into the background and she was able to concentrate on getting the job done? So in reality although she would have taken the day off had it not been for her employers policy, she was fit for work.
  • FredG
    FredG Posts: 213 Forumite
    edited 17 October 2016 at 8:41AM
    My employer uses the Bradford Factor. Prior to working here I'd had one day off work with illness in 6 years. The last 3 years here I've had about 10. I'm not a habitually sick person and my work ethic is that unless I'm totally incapable of working I'll be here. I've just had an unlucky period however a portion of the sickness I mentioned lead to an informal warning under sickness policy.

    The Bradford Factor is designed as a guide to spot and eradicate habitual sickness, however the way it's implemented at numerous places makes it totally unfit for purpose and no substitute for actually knowing and managing your staff.

    There is a gentleman here who admits to making his own calculations to ensure he stays under the cusp of any enforcable Bradford Factor thresholds and waits until he's "entitled" to more sick time before taking some. You don't get more habitual than that, however HR have stated that they can't touch him because there is no "concrete proof".

    Businesses really need to sort this out because it can be massively demotivating to be treated like public enemy no1 for a run of ill health while someone lines their pockets with extra sick pay intentionally to play a broken system.
  • I remember going into work in spite of having a rather high temp.., because I was two days into a job and didn't think I'd be believed about taking time off. Turned out I had flu, and yes I gave it to another person who took a full week off. My filing was unbelievably bad as well that week lol.

    But I do have asthma.., I also have two special needs children which can lead to periods of not getting a lot of sleep so I totally dread colds as typically, you get more of these illnesses when a bit run down. They can take me weeks to get over. I don't work, but if I did, I know I would go into work, I've done it in the past. You can't afford to take time off work unless something is imminently life threatening, even if you know it could exacerbate a condition like asthma if you don't 'rest'. It might be selfish, but even sick, bills have to be paid. And taking the amount of time off required to be non infectious with an illness when you don't know in advance if its going to be serious or not (some colds are just a little snuffle) is just impractical - however much it protects your colleagues.

    Glad the OP is feeling better though.

    Mind you, I was the one who was only allowed 24 hours in bed when Swine flu was in the household. Both kids had it, then I got it (it was definitely swine flu). I just had to keep going.., even though I could barely breath at the time. I'll never forget it. I think you just have to get on with it at times. There was no choice and you do get over these things with time normally.
  • FredG wrote: »
    My employer uses the Bradford Factor. Prior to working here I'd had one day off work with illness in 6 years. The last 3 years here I've had about 10. I'm not a habitually sick person and my work ethic is that unless I'm totally incapable of working I'll be here. I've just had an unlucky period however a portion of the sickness I mentioned lead to an informal warning under sickness policy.

    The Bradford Factor is designed as a guide to spot and eradicate habitual sickness, however the way it's implemented at numerous places makes it totally unfit for purpose and no substitute for actually knowing and managing your staff.

    There is a gentleman here who admits to making his own calculations to ensure he stays under the cusp of any enforcable Bradford Factor thresholds and waits until he's "entitled" to more sick time before taking some. You don't get more habitual than that, however HR have stated that they can't touch him because there is no "concrete proof".

    Businesses really need to sort this out because it can be massively demotivating to be treated like public enemy no1 for a run of ill health while someone lines their pockets with extra sick pay intentionally to play a broken system.
    There is no perfect solution, those that want to swing it will do. Your colleague would clearly swing it alot more if they could get away with it but the Bradford method prevents this.
    Don't trust a forum for advice. Get proper paid advice. Any advice given should always be checked
  • FredG
    FredG Posts: 213 Forumite
    There is no perfect solution, those that want to swing it will do. Your colleague would clearly swing it alot more if they could get away with it but the Bradford method prevents this.



    Nope, the Bradford method is giving him wonderfully timed additional holiday to play whichever video game is on his to-do list.


    No amount of statistics will ever be of more use than common sense and knowing your staff. All Bradford appears to do is force sick people into the office to spread germs while taking its place as a stick to beat those that really don't need beating, all in the name of group policy. It's archaic and poorly implemented almost everywhere I've worked.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards