Days off sick

Googlewhacker

bristol_pilot wrote: »

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.

Maybe, how bout changing my idea to the idea that the employee is allowed X amount of days of sick before they are dismissed relating to their disability/previous time of AND a total amount of time of sick and if either are exceeded they are dismissed.

Works for both employee and employer and is better for both parties compared to what has just come in.

However I fear we are getting to a point where employers will not even be allowed to hire on skills at some point.

bluenoseam

bristol_pilot wrote: »

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.

the problem in this case being that it could take up to and over a year for a potential pattern to become provable.

As it pertains to things like this i have absolutely no problems in saying how many sick days i've had off, i have NOTHING whatsoever to hide or be ashamed of. I would have to disclose before an offer was made that i will require scheduled days off to go to consultants meetings etc for the next 4 years. I don't see this as "intrusive" purely because i do not have any problems in people knowing i've been ill - not taking into account my cancer problems my sick days were litterally 3 days in 4 years. That's not something i worry about as it's way below the national average and all of them were for valid reasons.

scooby088

Why can't employers just take into account that life is unpredictable and that sometime during our working life there will be time when we require a certain amount of time of sick.

SueC_2

bluenoseam wrote: »

the problem in this case being that it could take up to and over a year for a potential pattern to become provable.

As it pertains to things like this i have absolutely no problems in saying how many sick days i've had off, i have NOTHING whatsoever to hide or be ashamed of. I would have to disclose before an offer was made that i will require scheduled days off to go to consultants meetings etc for the next 4 years. I don't see this as "intrusive" purely because i do not have any problems in people knowing i've been ill - not taking into account my cancer problems my sick days were litterally 3 days in 4 years. That's not something i worry about as it's way below the national average and all of them were for valid reasons.

I think that's a very valid point. Surely it is best to be upfront about something so that everyone knows where they stand, rather than for employers to 'employ in the dark' and for employees to 'hope it'll all be okay'.

It's all well and good saying that it'll all become apparent once an offer has been made, but besides the point made earlier about the waste of everyone's time and money in the recruitment process, what candidate is going to thank an employer for retracting an offer once they have already taken up references and alerted their existing employer to the fact that they are looking for another job?

It may well be the law, and that may well be 'tough cheddar', but as far as I can see, it's a ruling that appears to make little sense for either the employer or employee.

bluenoseam

the law, as the saying goes, is an !!!! Seriously, some of the stuff on the books right now is just plain stupid and very much bordering on being overly protective when it really doesn't need to be the case if people would stop being idiots and actually be sensible! (which if it ever happens, i will probably drop dead at the very shock of it happening!)

Googlewhacker

scooby088 wrote: »

Why can't employers just take into account that life is unpredictable and that sometime during our working life there will be time when we require a certain amount of time of sick.

Employers do but the point is that most businesses are there to make money and having someone of on long term sick costs a company, makes the other employees more annoyed if someone is of and most likely less productive and indirectly costs the company money.

So, why should a company not try and minimise their risk to cost?

SandC

bristol_pilot wrote: »

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.

I don't believe that companies should use any kind of incentive to not be sick to be honest, although it has to be said that by the stage of you having a day off sick with a cold you've probably already spread the virus around the office unless the first sniffles happen to have been at the weekend.

Uncertain

bristol_pilot wrote: »

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.

I'll second that..........

SandC

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.

My brother's company did this and we introduced it in a former job of mine and it worked. Basically if you have 3 periods of sickness you are placed on record and have to have a meeting to discuss your absences.

What most people's problem is that they always think it's someone else not having 'genuine sickness' when really everyone has different ideas as to what constitutes being unwell enough to have a day off. These meetings quickly let those who don't turn in when they have the slightest thing wrong with them know that they are being monitored. Those who have had 1 day with a cold, 2 days with a stomach upset and then caught chicken pox and had to be off for a fortnight are in no worse off than the person off for 3 odd days with a stomach upset. I have worked with people who will have a day off with a sore throat, with an upset stomach of the 'tummy ache' variety, toothache without attempting using painkillers etc.

Some employees have to be given big nudges to let them know what is and isn't constituted bad enough to have a day off.

Nara

You could do what my boss does, and not pay you for any time off sick! Means your less likely to phone in sick with a simple cold/man flu/headache/hangover etc etc. On the down side you tend to drag yourself in even when your really sick, and try not to infect everyone else, guess its lucky i can wear a mask at work :P