Absence Management Plan - Unfair?

Uncertain

meer53 wrote: »

......... if they make allowances for you they have to do it for everyone. They can't bend the rules just for you.

Technically that is not true.

People tend to forget that discrimination is perfectly lawful as long as it is not for one of the handful of reasons proscribed by law!

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Technically that is not true.

People tend to forget that discrimination is perfectly lawful as long as it is not for one of the handful of reasons proscribed by law!

Meer didn't mention discrimination. But s/he is correct. If any employee can show that a sickness absence policy has been inconsistently applied for any reason other than the exceptions proscribed by law (disability, and accident or work related illness which is proveable, and pregnancy) then the employers argument fails and a dismissal becomes unfair.

QuackQuack_2

Probably not a popular view (but hey ho, that's me) but I really think employment law needs serious change.

If you are consistently sick and unable to work for whatever reason, the employer should be allowed to easily get rid of such an individual. It may not be the employee's fault, but it is not usually the employers fault either.

A 'sick' member of staff often equates to a phone that does not get answered, a bus that does not turn up or that long queue in the shop at lunch time.

It amazes me that the self employed are often rarely sick, but those that work in places with good sick pay schemes (cough - public sector - cough), or in companies with lame sickness discipline, seem to have more than a lions share of regularly sick staff.

Employers rely on the good will of their better, more reliable staff to work on, stay late, work through their breaks, come in on days off etc to cover a 'sick' member of staff that they can't fire - despite there being many fit,able and willing people on the dole queue just waiting to fill the shoes of the absent member of staff.

I'm sure it will throw up social issues if you could easily terminate staff for sickness - but I also suspect it would lead to a sudden improvement in the health of many employees........

chrisvaldez

Probably not a popular view (but hey ho, that's me) but I really think employment law needs serious change.

If you are consistently sick and unable to work for whatever reason, the employer should be allowed to easily get rid of such an individual. It may not be the employee's fault, but it is not usually the employers fault either.

A 'sick' member of staff often equates to a phone that does not get answered, a bus that does not turn up or that long queue in the shop at lunch time.

It amazes me that the self employed are often rarely sick, but those that work in places with good sick pay schemes (cough - public sector - cough), or in companies with lame sickness discipline, seem to have more than a lions share of regularly sick staff.

Employers rely on the good will of their better, more reliable staff to work on, stay late, work through their breaks, come in on days off etc to cover a 'sick' member of staff that they can't fire - despite there being many fit,able and willing people on the dole queue just waiting to fill the shoes of the absent member of staff.

I'm sure it will throw up social issues if you could easily terminate staff for sickness - but I also suspect it would lead to a sudden improvement in the health of many employees........

The point of my post was to ask where I stood legally....not a debate on the rights and wrongs of absence management. Incidentally, I am genuinely sick, but thanks for casting aspersions when you have no real knowledge of the situation other than the above.

QuackQuack_2

chrisvaldez wrote: »

The point of my post was to ask where I stood legally

Then perhaps it would be best to ask a lawyer in private - no for views on a public internet forum?

chrisvaldez wrote: »

....not a debate on the rights and wrongs of absence management.

You brought it up an offered your take and feelings on it to some extent, this is a public forum and people are also entitled to hold a view and feelings on the subject even if this may be somewhat at odds with your own.

chrisvaldez wrote: »

Incidentally, I am genuinely sick, but thanks for casting aspersions when you have no real knowledge of the situation other than the above.

I don't think I was casting aspersions about you - I was generalising as a person, like many other people, who suffers when people they work with go sick over and over again - and in-so-doing supporting 'absence management' or any system (be it Bradford scoring, surveillance etc) that speeds up terminating employees who are no longer fit to work reliably. Like I said, generalising - and I did warn that it may not be a popular view.

chrisvaldez

My post clearly asked for advice and for 99% of the thread that's what I got. I know you warned it wasn't going to be a popular view, but your post comes off as very accusatory and you've offered nothing in the way of advice on the situation.

QuackQuack_2

chrisvaldez wrote: »

My post clearly asked for advice and for 99% of the thread that's what I got. I know you warned it wasn't going to be a popular view, but your post comes off as very accusatory and you've offered nothing in the way of advice on the situation.

It's an opinion on many who take sickies and then expect the law to protect them - a general, but relevant, view to your post that speaks of absence management and supports the need for it.

However you have suggested that I have not offered any direct advice - and that is true. I don't think I'm best qualified to give it - but if pushed I would say this to you:

"Get well, get back to work, or find another job less stressful where you can cope with your ailments." I'd then give you an analogy based on the employment pattern of my local job centre. It employs 2 wheelchair users, a man with one arm, a blind lady and a woman who needs callipers to walk - and that's just on the public facing side of the operation. I'm sure any of them will happily trade lives with you, swap ailments and hold a very different view on absence management.

You have clearly taken offence at what I have posted so there is little point trying to passify you. Personally I tend to hold the same view as Stephen Fry on 'being offended' so therefore I will reply no further. Get well soon.

Uncertain

QuackQuack wrote: »

A 'sick' member of staff often equates to a phone that does not get answered, a bus that does not turn up or that long queue in the shop at lunch time.

Of course one without the inverted commas has exactly the same effect.

SarEl

chrisvaldez wrote: »

My post clearly asked for advice and for 99% of the thread that's what I got. I know you warned it wasn't going to be a popular view, but your post comes off as very accusatory and you've offered nothing in the way of advice on the situation.

Don't rise to it. A quick check of QuackQuack's posts will tell you everything you need to know - a troll who scours the boards looking for people to insult.

chrisvaldez

Should have had my coffee this morning and I would have known to do that in the first place....thanks guys!