Worried- sickness & warnings from employer?

teabelly

I think there may be a health and safety issue here also. If workers are not taking necessary time off which puts others at risk of picking up infections then I think the employer needs to think very carefully about their sickness policy if it is encouraging ill people into work to spread germs and when they are not fully fit. Mistakes in an office probably aren't serious but if this is across the board do you really want a flu'd up nuclear reactor worker making mistakes??

mazza1970

I used to have a part time job working for a well known department store. A few days before last Christmas I came down with the flu, so phoned in sick, my next shift was the day after boxing day, i still wasn't well but i forced myself to go in - BIG MISTAKE!! I ended up getting pneumonia. My next shift was the saturday after new year and I phoned in again, they didn't believe me, called me a liar and kept phoning me at home to check I was in the house, which I was as I didn't have the energy to move! They told me that I needed a doctors note, which I had no problem in getting, my doctor was disgusted with the way I was getting treated by them, when she asked me the name of the store and I told her, she was shocked.

When I went back to work with the note they were surprised that I had one.

Don't work there anymore thank god! :j

ceridwen

Well...its got to be worth checking whether this "3% threshold" IS 3% threshold - OR 3% of a full workweek. If you were being penalised for going over 3% - when it wouldnt BE over 3% if you were a full-time worker then that would be discrimination against you for being a part-time worker IYSWIM.

Discrimination against part-time workers is illegal as I understand it - but I have the horrible feeling that maybe that discrimination wouldnt count because your length of service is less than 1 year. Worth making the point though and appealing to their conscience - that you HAVENT had more than 3% according to the part-time hours that YOU personally do.....

(and...of course...it does tend to be WOMEN who do part-time hours if you get my drift......Dont know whether sex discrimination claims are allowed in the first year of service or no - you would need to check that....)

ceridwen

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You couldn't possibly have had flu for just the one night! Employers frown on these odd days off rather more than they do for longer periods of certificated illness.

Well...I guess that depends on what days O.P. was contracted to work. Maybe they werent due to work for the next few days after that day anyway? I've had flu before and it lasted exactly one week as I recall - so it would have been possible that I just had 1 days sick leave with flu - if I hadnt been due to work during the next 6 days anyway. Though thats talking in practical/logical terms - and we dont know what policies this employer has about a day's sick leave at the beginning or end of days off anyway...

ceridwen

teabelly wrote: »

If I knew a supermarket treated its staff like the have treated you then I'd seriously consider whether I'd ever shop there if I used them already. People get sick. It is a byproduct of employing people and they should expect staff to be off a couple of times a year usually. If you have flu then you are much likely to catch something else in the few weeks after a your immune system is weaker. Some will manage less and others do more. Stressing people out and making them fearful of being off just makes them more likely to catch things as they are down and more likely to spread them when they come into work when they shouldn't. Stupid, stupid employer. Bet they'd tell people with norovirus to come into work and cause an epidemic. It seems to me that sickness is the new stick to beat employees with. They can't have a go at them for race, religion, age or anything else so now they bully people over being sick instead.

Very very difficult situation I know. On the one hand employers getting petty and bullying people for low levels of genuine sickness (good excuse to get rid of people cheaply). On the other hand - some employees "swinging the lead" and taking loads of "sick leave" when they arent actually ill at all.

If only the "leadswingers" worked for the "harsh" employers and the rest of us could get treated fairly - ie in accordance with the (genuine) sickleave we had no option but to take....:cool:

LittleVoice

SomeBozo wrote: »

Whilst I understand the situation you are in, you have had 2 absences in 3 weeks.

Whilst I understand you were ill and how bad and stressful it is, any employer that does not flag up 2 absences in 3 weeks would not be doing themsleves or the employee any favours.

Bozo

Two absences in three weeks can certainly be something to "flag up" but do you really think that a single day's absence requires a disciplinary, oral warning, with really no real investigation of the circumstances? And procedurally it has to be wrong - no notice that it is a disciplinary, no indication that the OP could be accompanied at a disciplinary meeting.

And if the percentage threshold for a disciplinary is really 3% rather than 30%, then, if it is in relation to a week, an absence of a couple of hours for a full-time worker would warrant the same treatment.

Minxz

Thanks guys, you have given me some points to think about, and write down ready for going in tomorrow!

Question.. what do I do tomorrow, if they do they same thing with another 'meeting'.. only to change it? Would i get penalised for saying' no, i'll come along to your meeting when you have given me due notice', and go back to my counter,or can i refuse to sign the typed version of the verbal warning if i'm given one?

Maybe I should tell them i'm being tested for swine flu.. and watch them back away.. <grin>!!

fiendishly

Here's how it works:
the company (I know who the OP is talking about as I worked for them for 10 years) calculates the percentage of time off sick over 26 weeks.
So, lets say the OP works 7.5 hours on a Saturday and 5 hours on a Wednesday, their total hours per week would be 12.5, this is 325 hours over 26 weeks. A Wednesday off sick would result in a percentage of 1.54% and 12.5 hours off sick would be 3.85%, over the 3% threshold (as it would be for anyone who had a whole week off). The OP will have no problem whatsoever, I wouldn't have thought, she doesn't seem the type who wants to swing the lead, so we can assume she won't be off sick again soon. If she were, the company policy would give her a time period to 'improve her attendance' before there were consequences.

LittleVoice

fiendishly wrote: »

Here's how it works:
the company (I know who the OP is talking about as I worked for them for 10 years) calculates the percentage of time off sick over 26 weeks.
So, lets say the OP works 7.5 hours on a Saturday and 5 hours on a Wednesday, their total hours per week would be 12.5, this is 325 hours over 26 weeks. A Wednesday off sick would result in a percentage of 1.54% and 12.5 hours off sick would be 3.85%, over the 3% threshold (as it would be for anyone who had a whole week off). The OP will have no problem whatsoever, I wouldn't have thought, she doesn't seem the type who wants to swing the lead, so we can assume she won't be off sick again soon. If she were, the company policy would give her a time period
to 'improve her attendance' before there were consequences.

Interesting. Thanks.
But it makes you wonder what was happening in the situation described by the OP in post #1.

Minxz

LittleVoice wrote: »

Interesting. Thanks.
But it makes you wonder what was happening in the situation described by the OP in post #1.

??
Sorry, don't quite get what you mean here.