Disciplinary over sickness absence!

bendix

marcowil wrote: »

There is also a big difference between someone saying they are stressed and someone actually suffering from stress to such an extent that they cannot do their job.

Precisely my point. Stress is just another way of saying 'I can't cope'. I suspect the public sector not only is a more natural home for such employees to gravitate towards, but that the very cultural and pseudo-politically correct environment of the public sector actually encourages such wishy washy-ness.

SarEl

bendix wrote: »

I'd have much more sympathy for your views except for two key facts. The cuts that are due to happen in the public sector have already happened in the private sector, and people there have - by and large - just gone on with it without too much whinging and without an institutionalised reliance on sick leave for stress to help cope.

Second: it's a fact that average productivity levels in the private sector are much higher than in the public sector.

We just get on with it.

Whilst I have some sympathy with the "stress is a British disease" lobby - I see and hear of more than enough cases of people going off with stress when I and others know damned well that there isn't a damned thing wrong with them - the claim that this is a "public sector" thing is demonstrably incorrect. The days lost through stress related illness in this country would require a public sector six times the size it currently is to get anywhere near! "Facts" are only true in the eye of the interpreter - facts can be interpreted in all sorts of ways to prove the case you want to make.

I personally find it interesting that employees are prepared to rip each other to shreds, and "dance on the graves" of other people who are working hard for very little, whatever sector they work in. Is it really the fault of public sector workers - ordinary workers and not the fat cats - that we are in a mess? I am old enough to recall exactly the same arguments been used about a wide range of private sector workers, over and over again, by those in positions of power, to explain the "sad state" of the economy and the "unproductiveness of the private sector British worker". Been here before, got several T-shirts...

"Stress" is a proven medical diagnosis, and it has serious - very serious - health risks. Whilst this is the case, I am very much aware that it is seldom easy to pin it's cause down to specific actions of employers, and at the same time it is not always solely a result of things that happen in the workplace. It is also proven to have strong affinity with job satisfaction. I also work long hours in a legal framework - although I do not deal with billions of dollars, pounds or yen. And it is stressful at times. But what makes the difference is that I believe in what I do, I love what I do (most of the time), and I am quite satisfied with my recompense - I won't be bankrupt anytime soon.

But not everyone is lucky enough to be in this position, whatever sector they work in. Yes, there is a certain amount of having to "suck it up" in any sector. There's no such thing as an easy ride for anyone these days. But is someone earning a wage in the public sector really that different than someone earning a wage in the private sector, that we can blame them for not coping with too much work and not enough people to do it, or facing looming redundancies, or whatever? Because I don't notice any of the fat cats on here worrying about their position or how to make ends meet or how much work they have to do. Maybe because they'll always be ok???

teabelly

If someone wants to pull all nighters (now against WTD if they come in at normal times) and delude themselves into thinking they will get anything other than an early demise then more fool them. Stress in the workplace is partly down to the issue of control. Managers take it away from workers so it causes stress. If you are able to manage your own workloads and your manager respects your decisions then you aren't stressed. If on the other hand they completely ignore it when you tell them you cannot possibly do everything and won't get it into their heads you're not an octupus nor are you going to put your health, safety and family life at risk for their business that is when the problem starts. My health and family life will always come first. Just because there are a load of saddos out there that want to spend their lives at work as their home life must be awful they think the rest of us are the problem. It's all about work life balance. If you refuse point blank to do this extra work then you are branded a trouble maker, or lazy or whatever. There is nothing wrong with doing some extra now and then. It's when it becomes an expected habit and an excuse to avoid recruiting necessary staff that the rot sets in. The more employees cope the more the work load increases. At some point you have to say 'enough'. If management won't listen then they'll lose staff to other companies or to sickness. It's the gullible few that will work all night that are as much of a problem as the work shy - both lead to inadequate staffing levels.

bendix

SarEl wrote: »

Whilst I have some sympathy with the "stress is a British disease" lobby - I see and hear of more than enough cases of people going off with stress when I and others know damned well that there isn't a damned thing wrong with them - the claim that this is a "public sector" thing is demonstrably incorrect. The days lost through stress related illness in this country would require a public sector six times the size it currently is to get anywhere near! "Facts" are only true in the eye of the interpreter - facts can be interpreted in all sorts of ways to prove the case you want to make.

I personally find it interesting that employees are prepared to rip each other to shreds, and "dance on the graves" of other people who are working hard for very little, whatever sector they work in. Is it really the fault of public sector workers - ordinary workers and not the fat cats - that we are in a mess? I am old enough to recall exactly the same arguments been used about a wide range of private sector workers, over and over again, by those in positions of power, to explain the "sad state" of the economy and the "unproductiveness of the private sector British worker". Been here before, got several T-shirts...

"Stress" is a proven medical diagnosis, and it has serious - very serious - health risks. Whilst this is the case, I am very much aware that it is seldom easy to pin it's cause down to specific actions of employers, and at the same time it is not always solely a result of things that happen in the workplace. It is also proven to have strong affinity with job satisfaction. I also work long hours in a legal framework - although I do not deal with billions of dollars, pounds or yen. And it is stressful at times. But what makes the difference is that I believe in what I do, I love what I do (most of the time), and I am quite satisfied with my recompense - I won't be bankrupt anytime soon.

But not everyone is lucky enough to be in this position, whatever sector they work in. Yes, there is a certain amount of having to "suck it up" in any sector. There's no such thing as an easy ride for anyone these days. But is someone earning a wage in the public sector really that different than someone earning a wage in the private sector, that we can blame them for not coping with too much work and not enough people to do it, or facing looming redundancies, or whatever? Because I don't notice any of the fat cats on here worrying about their position or how to make ends meet or how much work they have to do. Maybe because they'll always be ok???

Nicely argued.

I don't know whether I qualify as one of your 'fat cats', but I can assure you that even the fat cats in a major law firm constantly worry about their positions, their prospects, losing their job, and worrying about how to make ends meet. As you will know, the legal sector - like any profession including, yes, the dreaded bankers - is built on extreme competitive pressure. If we arent productive and competitive, we disappear as a firm. Unlike, of course, the Ministry of ThisThatAndTheOther.

And yes we're stressed too. Intensely.

But we suck it up. We get on with it. We don't have breakdowns. We don't go crying to unions. We don't strike.

We work. We pull through. We try to compete and succeed.

In short, we thrive on stress rather than doing the easy thing which is take time off work because of it just because it's 'enabled'.

bendix

teabelly wrote: »

If someone wants to pull all nighters (now against WTD if they come in at normal times) and delude themselves into thinking they will get anything other than an early demise then more fool them. Stress in the workplace is partly down to the issue of control. Managers take it away from workers so it causes stress. If you are able to manage your own workloads and your manager respects your decisions then you aren't stressed. If on the other hand they completely ignore it when you tell them you cannot possibly do everything and won't get it into their heads you're not an octupus nor are you going to put your health, safety and family life at risk for their business that is when the problem starts. My health and family life will always come first. Just because there are a load of saddos out there that want to spend their lives at work as their home life must be awful they think the rest of us are the problem. It's all about work life balance. If you refuse point blank to do this extra work then you are branded a trouble maker, or lazy or whatever. There is nothing wrong with doing some extra now and then. It's when it becomes an expected habit and an excuse to avoid recruiting necessary staff that the rot sets in. The more employees cope the more the work load increases. At some point you have to say 'enough'. If management won't listen then they'll lose staff to other companies or to sickness. It's the gullible few that will work all night that are as much of a problem as the work shy - both lead to inadequate staffing levels.

With all due respect, your signature is probably the reason for this attitude.

teabelly

Just because as a graduate with years of work experience I don't want to work my guts out for less than I did when I first graduated I have an attitude? I had a well paid job and was worth every penny. Pardon me for not wanting to be another sucker being paid peanuts! Employers get the staff they deserve. If you want a happy motivated workforce then don't pay them the bare legal minimum and don't give them the lowest level of decency you can muster.

SarEl

bendix wrote: »

Nicely argued.

I don't know whether I qualify as one of your 'fat cats', but I can assure you that even the fat cats in a major law firm constantly worry about their positions, their prospects, losing their job, and worrying about how to make ends meet. As you will know, the legal sector - like any profession including, yes, the dreaded bankers - is built on extreme competitive pressure. If we arent productive and competitive, we disappear as a firm. Unlike, of course, the Ministry of ThisThatAndTheOther.

And yes we're stressed too. Intensely.

But we suck it up. We get on with it. We don't have breakdowns. We don't go crying to unions. We don't strike.

We work. We pull through. We try to compete and succeed.

In short, we thrive on stress rather than doing the easy thing which is take time off work because of it just because it's 'enabled'.

Yes, it's competitive as a field, and no, there is no such thing as a simple life. And yes, we do have breakdowns - I know of several colleagues in other firms who have. And as for me, I am a lifelong union member and will die a member of my union. Despite being self-employed effectively, since I am one of the partners and own the firm! And yes, because of that, over the last couple of months whilst I was recovering from surgery on a phased return I still worked hard. But that is my choice. You cannot make assumptions about anyone based on what they do for a living.

You have no idea what the OP's situation is. She has a medical condition, and this is worsened by stress. That's just a fact of life. She may have a family and other responsibailities. Also a fact of life. It does not mean that she or anyone else has to sell her soul or her health for work. Nor does it mean that she does not work hard. I am not making excuses for the OP. She's passed the theshold for managing sickness absence procedures, and that is also a fact of life. But you suggest that she and others are "weak" or "skiving" simply because you assume that anyone working in the public sector must be. That isn't advice. It isn't even an opinion. It's prejudice.

ceridwen

Tell them you cant come in for ANYTHING - whilst on Annual Leave - as you are going away on holiday (previously booked and paid for);)

I would not have thought an employer could make someone "break in" to their Annual Leave to come in for work purposes. The title gives a clue - you "leave" work behind you for a while.

Not to mention the little factor about how do they plan to recompense you for any time they want you to "break off" your Annual Leave for and come into the office?:cool:

.....errr...you really would have been wise at the outset in the current economic climate to join the Union (particularly with a health problem) - oh well....thats spilt milk its no use crying over now....

ceridwen

bendix wrote: »

With all due respect, your signature is probably the reason for this attitude.

But then - there is a saying "Pay peanuts..get monkeys".

I can see both sides of that argument - both the "Minimum Wage = minimum effort" one and the "Pay peanuts - get monkeys" one.

Obviously too we can all quote (many) instances where we have been trying to buy some item/get some service and have been the subject of a low level of service and the corresponding frustration because the employee of the firm we are dealing with either cant or wont do their job properly - be it a question of they CANT do their job properly because they are simply not up to it (as the employer wouldnt pay enough to get someone who IS capable of doing the job properly) or they WONT do their job properly because they know ARE capable of doing it properly but cant be bothered to do so.

Of course the biggest frustration of the lot is when you're dealing with an employee that falls into the CANT do their job properly/not up to it standard and you are unemployed yourself at the time and knowing you would do their job so much better than them (but the employer wont pay enough to get someone of your - higher - standard):mad:

sandraroffey

my sister has had major surgery onher shoulder and cant work yet. her consultant has signed her off. and she cant work for another at least 6 weeks. this week her manager at tesco called her and told her she had to call her consultant and tell him to sign her off so she can go and stand in the store foyer to talk to people about their club cards. then he asked her about her med certs. 'is your doctors name on there. i will be phoning her', i really dont think he can do this!!!!

another example of harrassment when you are off sick. although technically she isnt sick - she is recovering from major surgery.