Days off sick

SueC_2

Vader123 wrote: »

:banging head:

Its not about their medical past!

Its about their absence from work!

Vader

A minority of two lone voices in the crowd then! Thank you, it was cold out here on my own.

Witchfinder_General

SueC wrote: »

A minority of two lone voices in the crowd then! Thank you, it was cold out here on my own.

You are most definitely not alone SueC - I totally understand your logic. Unfortunately I have to work with my unfair share of sickbay rangers who are never in work when the workload ramps up.

SandC

Thanks for this info:

Pre-employment health questionnaires should only be sent to candidates once a conditional job offer has been made (the questionnaire can be included with the job offer). Since the launch of the Equality Act 2010, employers may no longer use any information about a candidate's health, whether gained from pre-employment health questionnaires, or questioning at interview, to inform their selection decisions, unless there is a Genuine Occupational Reason (GOR) for this.

However, I see this as some other posters do - you are not asking about health you are asking about absence from work. 5 years does seem excessive, but it's the most useful way to assess any patterns in absence and benefits the prospective employee as well as the employer. If you have had an incidence like a previous poster of having to have 12 days off for one thing but barely a day off previously then the employer can see that.

If you can't remember from 5 years ago then take a guess. It is obvious that you must have been off at some point for at least a day otherwise you would remember wouldn't you?

So far as equality act goes, to me it's still not an unreasonable question but then I've had 0 days off in the last five years so maybe that influences me. Remember, nobody is asking anything but how many times you've been off sick in 5 years, not how your health is.

Strangely, at my interview for this job I think they had something about not asking about time taken off cos I was just asked 'how is your health?'. I guess the same interviewer is not allowed to ask that now?

All I can say is with all this stuff making life difficult for employers to glean any info about prospective employees it's a good job that they can still be got rid of in the first 12 months if they just don't perform to their satisfaction (whether that be by not being good enough at the work or not turning up for work on a regular basis).

SueC_2

SandC wrote: »

it's a good job that they can still be got rid of in the first 12 months if they just don't perform to their satisfaction (whether that be by not being good enough at the work or not turning up for work on a regular basis).

Indeed. But wouldn't it so much less painful all round if it didn't have to reach that stage!

Uncertain

SandC wrote: »

Thanks for this info:

Pre-employment health questionnaires should only be sent to candidates once a conditional job offer has been made (the questionnaire can be included with the job offer). Since the launch of the Equality Act 2010, employers may no longer use any information about a candidate's health, whether gained from pre-employment health questionnaires, or questioning at interview, to inform their selection decisions, unless there is a Genuine Occupational Reason (GOR) for this.

However, I see this as some other posters do - you are not asking about health you are asking about absence from work. 5 years does seem excessive, but it's the most useful way to assess any patterns in absence and benefits the prospective employee as well as the employer. If you have had an incidence like a previous poster of having to have 12 days off for one thing but barely a day off previously then the employer can see that.

In the absence of a test case I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this one. To my mind asking in detail about the amount of sickness absence comes dangerously close to "health / medical" questions.

I've no doubt that OU are being very cautious in their advice as these type of organisations tend to err that way.

Uncertain

SandC wrote: »

All I can say is with all this stuff making life difficult for employers to glean any info about prospective employees it's a good job that they can still be got rid of in the first 12 months if they just don't perform to their satisfaction (whether that be by not being good enough at the work or not turning up for work on a regular basis).

In most cases somebody applying for a new job knows they are giving up the (limited) protection they have gained by being employed for more than a year. They are balancing this risk with whatever benefits the see in the new position. If they are desirable enough they can of course negotiate contractual terms that give them protection by other means........

Googlewhacker

I agree with Vader and SueC and I have said any times before that a better way would be that people who reach a certain level of sickness are put on a sickness contract or something similar when starting a new job and for the first 2 years they are only allowed a maximum of say 2 x the national average of time of sick and if the exceed this then they are allowed to be dismissed without retribution.

This way the employee gets the chance to prove themself which is what most of them want and the employer is not risking a pain that is costing the company alot of money by being absent.

bristol_pilot

Absence from work on sickness when not actually sick is gross misconduct, therefore it should be assumed that when a candidate was off sick that they were actually sick. Thus asking about sickness absence is the same as asking about medical history. I work for a large company and our HR department have issued guidance that no-one is to be asked for number of days off sick until the offer stage is reached.

The reason that asking about days off sick is potentially discriminatory is that a large part of sickness is often down to disability or pregnancy. If it gets as far as the offer stage and someone has taken a lot of days off due to disability then the employer is obliged to make reasonable adjustments to support that person in the job. Of course if someone was 'sick' everytime Man U were playing at home, the employer has the option to choose another candidate.

I appreciate that many employers and posters on these boards may not agree with the new law, but their opinion is not relevant to what the law actually is. So tough cheddar.

bristol_pilot

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I agree with Vader and SueC and I have said any times before that a better way would be that people who reach a certain level of sickness are put on a sickness contract or something similar when starting a new job and for the first 2 years they are only allowed a maximum of say 2 x the national average of time of sick and if the exceed this then they are allowed to be dismissed without retribution.

This way the employee gets the chance to prove themself which is what most of them want and the employer is not risking a pain that is costing the company alot of money by being absent.

An employee can be sacked in the first year for no reason anyway (unless unlawful discrimination). This could be for sickness if the employer chose to do so.

bristol_pilot

At my company, we lose part of our bonus for each day off sick and I'm afraid this policy encourages people to come into work when unwell. They do so and thereby infect everyone else with their colds and flu. I think Googlewhacker's suggestion would have the same effect.