Phased return to work

Fire_Fox

tea_lover wrote: »

Not at all. Much like I wouldn't dream of discussing an employee's health issues on the internet with strangers.

An employee? I don't recall the OP saying that. So if you don't make assumptions and dress up opinion as fact at work why do you persist in doing so here?

12sapphire

I wish there was a 'thumbs down' button. Members could just press that if they disagreed rather than being scathing of other people's opinions

(sorry Lizzybop, I digress:))

Fire_Fox

euronorris wrote: »

I asked you, because you listed those reasons as possible alternatives. It's more a way of 'I can't see why xx would do xx. Can you?' question.

I didn't say the OP is incapable of telling the truth. Now who's jumping to conclusions? I was merely questioning how much truth there is in the statement 'I don't work with him'. There's nothing wrong with that, and I haven't categorically said that is the case. I could be wrong of course, but as this is the internet, and we aren't communicating with the OP face to face, impression and interpreation is the best we can do.

And I don't expect everyone to agree with that. But I am entitled to voice my opinion, just as everyone else is.

The OP can't offer proof that they don't work with them (and even if they could, it wouldn't be advisable). Nor can they offer proof that the person doesn't work hard etc etc. As with all threads, and especially claimed '3rd party re-telling' of stories/situations/issues, I take everything said with a pinch of salt.

Possible reasons NOT TO LEAP TO CONCLUSIONS. At which point you ask me to LEAP TO CONCLUSIONS. Logical.

Why does the OP need to offer proof? What proof could they offer anyway? Minutes of confidential meetings? :rotfl: Since when did ANYONE on these forums have to offer proof when they ask for advice or support?

j.e.j.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Yet more leaping to conclusions.

I would say 'reading the thread'..

Anyway, there's really not much more to be gained by contributing any more to this thread, methinks. The question has been answered, and can be asked again on the employment board if necessary.

OP is being enigmatic about the situation, but belligerent in their attitude towards the man concerned. Who cares :rotfl: I'm not wasting any more time on it.

euronorris

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Possible reasons NOT TO LEAP TO CONCLUSIONS. At which point you ask me to LEAP TO CONCLUSIONS. Logical.

Why does the OP need to offer proof? What proof could they offer anyway? Minutes of confidential meetings? :rotfl: Since when did ANYONE on these forums have to offer proof when they ask for advice or support?

I didn't leap to conclusions, I stated possibilities. I didn't ask you to leap to conclusions either. It was just a discussion. You stated reasons why the OP could know this info without working with them. They weren't totally convincing to me, so I asked some questions back. It was actually about me to trying to understand another interpretation of the facts presented.

Jeez......

The OP doesn't need to offer proof. But like I said, I take everything with a pinch of salt. I never asked for proof, but nor do I have to believe everything at face value.

The OP took offence to being questioned about their relationship to the man in question, and I pointed out that just stating that they don't work with them, doesn't make it fact. Just like someone SPECULATING (not stating) that they do work with them, doesn't make it fact.

There's no need for anyone to get worked up by this, the OP included, it's just the internet. It doesn't affect us directly.

Though, I would suggest that IF the OP does in fact work with the man in question, then they would benefit from some advise about not presenting this attitude to the man, or his/her employers. So, from that angle, it's a very relevant point IMO.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Let's just hope that the person this thread is the subject of doesn't use MSE.



Or somebody closely connected to him in the company is going to be enjoying the close attention of senior management themselves.


If I recognised myself from such posts, I wouldn't hesitate in taking this as high as is necessary - including outside the company.

So, if somewhere out there, the person subject to this breach of privacy is reading this, here's the information you need;

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/Employmentsupport/YourEmploymentRights/DG_4001073

tea_lover

Fire_Fox wrote: »

An employee? I don't recall the OP saying that.

Sorry if that wasn't clear, I meant an employee as in the person has a job (which they clearly do) rather than a specific employee of the OP.

Just wanted to clear that up, and now I really am leaving.

Fire_Fox

euronorris wrote: »

I didn't leap to conclusions, I stated possibilities. I didn't ask you to leap to conclusions either. It was just a discussion. You stated reasons why the OP could know this info without working with them. They weren't totally convincing to me, so I asked some questions back. It was actually about me to trying to understand another interpretation of the facts presented.

Jeez......

The OP doesn't need to offer proof. But like I said, I take everything with a pinch of salt. I never asked for proof, but nor do I have to believe everything at face value.

The OP took offence to being questioned about their relationship to the man in question, and I pointed out that just stating that they don't work with them, doesn't make it fact. Just like someone SPECULATING (not stating) that they do work with them, doesn't make it fact.

There's no need for anyone to get worked up by this, the OP included, it's just the internet. It doesn't affect us directly.

Though, I would suggest that IF the OP does in fact work with the man in question, then they would benefit from some advise about not presenting this attitude to the man, or his/her employers. So, from that angle, it's a very relevant point IMO.

What gave you the impression I was interpreting anything? Why on earth would I pull people up for leaping to conclusions (interpreting based on assumptions) then do the exact same thing myself?

If you are not asking for it and accept there is no need to supply it, why did you use the word proof twice in your last post? Why are you claiming the OP is 'worked up' and offended when they have stated they are not? Leaping to conclusions or intimating they are lying?

euronorris

Fire_Fox wrote: »

What gave you the impression I was interpreting anything? Why on earth would I pull people up for leaping to conclusions (interpreting based on assumptions) then do the exact same thing myself?

If you are not asking for it and accept there is no need to supply it, why did you use the word proof twice in your last post? Why are you claiming the OP is 'worked up' and offended when they have stated they are not? Leaping to conclusions or intimating they are lying?

You misunderstand me FireFox. I was just trying to engage in a conversation with you about it, since you had posted. Seeing as you had already suggested reasons why the OP could know such info without working with them, I thought you would be up for that. Clearly not. But I am not sure why you suggesting reasons the first time is OK, but the next time you refuse to because you say it will be jumping to conclusions. And, for what it's worth, I do not think that speculating is jumping to conclusions. It's speculating. About many different reasons.

You will notice that I did not ask for proof. It is only mentioned to say that proof, either way, cannot be given.

The OP is worked up. They have made it very clear that they are unhappy about this guy going off sick, and wanting to work a 4 day week, and what they perceive to be under performance at work.

Again, I haven't leapt to any conclusions (I have not concluded anything, I have speculated. A conclusion would be to say 'this is definitely how it is', but I haven't done that), or intimated that they are lying. I'm just acknowledging the fact that it's a possibility. It's a possibility with anyone and everyone on the internet, and people do, frequently, lie, or omit facts, or dress things up. Human nature, as I'm sure you know. So I speculated. I do it often online. And I'm not about to apologise or change that.

I'm also not sure why you are so keen to not accept my POV, after telling another poster that you were 'sick to death of some regulars expecting others to conform to a posting style instead of accepting diversity and giving people the benefit of the doubt'. Perhaps you should try it yourself. After all, why should we all conform to how you would like us to behave?

Fire_Fox

euronorris wrote: »

You misunderstand me FireFox. I was just trying to engage in a conversation with you about it, since you had posted. Seeing as you had already suggested reasons why the OP could know such info without working with them, I thought you would be up for that. Clearly not. But I am not sure why you suggesting reasons the first time is OK, but the next time you refuse to because you say it will be jumping to conclusions. And, for what it's worth, I do not think that speculating is jumping to conclusions. It's speculating. About many different reasons.

Maybe reread the thread, what I actually posted and in what context instead of what you erroneously infer from it. Examples of scenarios where why the conclusions leaped to might be invalid. Not an interpretation of the facts nor drawing conclusions nor stated reasons as you variously claim. Huge clue in the repeated use of the words "might be".