question about sickness

citykid5

SarEl wrote: »

Rubbish. It may not be good management, it may not be what you would do - but it isn't harassment.

if the companys policy,causes recentment between employes,how is that harassment?
every company in this country no matter how big or small,has a responsability,to stop any bullying and harassment.if i worked for a firm that published such a list,for public view,and then had to take time of sick,and then when i returned to work.was sent to coventry,and treated with recentment.i think i would have a very good case at a employment tribunal.
but i'm open minded,so would be interested to hear why you think publishing such a list would be usefull?

ILW

citykid5 wrote: »

if the companys policy,causes recentment between employes,how is that harassment?
every company in this country no matter how big or small,has a responsability,to stop any bullying and harassment.if i worked for a firm that published such a list,for public view,and then had to take time of sick,and then when i returned to work.was sent to coventry,and treated with recentment.i think i would have a very good case at a employment tribunal.
but i'm open minded,so would be interested to hear why you think publishing such a list would be usefull?

Would you prefer if it was kept secret why bonuses are not paid?

SarEl

citykid5 wrote: »

if the companys policy,causes recentment between employes,how is that harassment?
every company in this country no matter how big or small,has a responsability,to stop any bullying and harassment.if i worked for a firm that published such a list,for public view,and then had to take time of sick,and then when i returned to work.was sent to coventry,and treated with recentment.i think i would have a very good case at a employment tribunal.
but i'm open minded,so would be interested to hear why you think publishing such a list would be usefull?

Because there are too many "if's" in your whole argument! You have not a shred of evidence that there is any resentment, that anyone is taking out anger or fristration on people who have been off sick, or that the employer is encoraging that to occur. You have even "made up" a supposed bonus upon which the employees are now resenting each other because of the sickness rates! This is piffle. Yjere is not a single sgred of evidence that harassment is taking place, and piblishing a list is not harassment. Some employers routinely publish lists of top performers - is that harassment? No, of course it isn't.

I did not say that publishing sucj a list would be "useful" - in fact if you had read my posts I said that I didn't think it particularly good management. But bad management styles are not unlawful and not harassment.

dacouch

As a previous poster has already mentioned, it's easy enough for the staff to know another colleagues sickness by simply noting when they are off anyway

eamon

In a previous employment a guide dog came joint top (no absences) and was presented with a gold star!

moremore

dacouch wrote: »

As a previous poster has already mentioned, it's easy enough for the staff to know another colleagues sickness by simply noting when they are off anyway

Staff can be off for all kind of reasons, holidays, special leave, unpaid leave and maternity leave

One place where I worked it said the reason why you are working so hard is because your colleagues are off.

In the end that person left her post and went off sick herself and did not retune to her job, not good management is bad for everyone.

Comyface

eamon wrote: »

In a previous employment a guide dog came joint top (no absences) and was presented with a gold star!

Ah, bless! (I'm assuming the person who came joint top was the owner and also received a prize!);)

LittleVoice

ILW wrote: »

I cannot see the problem. It is only stating fact.

As far a value to the employer goes, reason for absence is irrelavent.

I would be interested in the Information Commissioner's office's view on this matter.

Stating "facts" can be a problem when it is personal data. I would have thought that sickness (whether or not the cause is specified precisely) is personal.

Home addresses and phone numbers are "personal" and protected from broadcast in company-wide memos without permission: why not sickness absence data?

ILW

LittleVoice wrote: »

I would be interested in the Information Commissioner's office's view on this matter.

Stating "facts" can be a problem when it is personal data. I would have thought that sickness (whether or not the cause is specified precisely) is personal.

Home addresses and phone numbers are "personal" and protected from broadcast in company-wide memos without permission: why not sickness absence data?

It is information that is already public. All the list does is collate it.

LittleVoice

ILW wrote: »

It is information that is already public. All the list does is collate it.

How is it public? Perhaps because the employer has already broken confidentiality in passing on the information at the time.

People can be out of the workplace for all sorts of reasons not just sickness and it is not the business of other workers if they are not directly involved.

If I'm out of the office attending a conference or visiting a client or another branch, those who need to know the reason are informed. To everyone else I am simply not in the building. Someone being off sick does not have to be a matter of "public" knowledge.