Declaring sick leave on application form

MissSarah1972

marybelle01 wrote: »

It isn't about sickness - it's about disability. They would have to be very sure that the sickness wasn't a result of a disability - which is pretty hard to be sure of.

D'ya know - people get awfully hung up about "leaving blanks" on application forms, and I don't know why. Just because someone in the depths of time thought that this looked like a good question to stick on an application form doesn't mean that recruiters actually read the answer or even notice the blank. Interviewers are focussed on whether the person meets their employee requirement and seldom care much about anything else - especially before the interviews.

Of course, if someone at interview asks you the question as to why there is a blank, you could politely point out that you are helping them to not break the law by not answering a question that shouldn't be on the form

I understand about the disability thing but if they ask you anything in an interview that may be a bit illegal or out of order you would still have to answer it unless you were like me who would then refuse or ask them the same question like I have been asked in the past 'do you have a boyfriend' 'are you planning on having children', 'do you drink' etc.

SandC

CCFC_80 wrote: »

If you were the interviewer, would you not be a bit sceptical if someone said they never had any sick days off. I know its feasable. I myself hardly have any sick time off but always stated at an interview when this question was asked that I had about 2 days sick off in the last 12 months.

Also to reiterate, even if you had no sick time off, it would put pressure on you with your new employer as they will never expect you to go sick at all.

No. I haven't had a day off sick in over 9 years and I'm proud of that - I have been ill but it always tends to fall at weekends and Xmas times and the odd cold I've had has never been enough to keep me off (mainly because by the time I've decided it's a full blown cold and not just sneezes I'm over the worst and I'm lucky enough to be in a position where I can come from work, retire to bed straight away and be much improved the next day).

We have many many people where I work with 0 days sick each year.

SandC

marybelle01 wrote: »

It isn't about sickness - it's about disability. They would have to be very sure that the sickness wasn't a result of a disability - which is pretty hard to be sure of.

D'ya know - people get awfully hung up about "leaving blanks" on application forms, and I don't know why. Just because someone in the depths of time thought that this looked like a good question to stick on an application form doesn't mean that recruiters actually read the answer or even notice the blank. Interviewers are focussed on whether the person meets their employee requirement and seldom care much about anything else - especially before the interviews.

Of course, if someone at interview asks you the question as to why there is a blank, you could politely point out that you are helping them to not break the law by not answering a question that shouldn't be on the form

I think there are certain establishments, and I'm thinking along the lines of public sector where they are working to strict guidelines, who will use an incompletely or incorrectly filled in application form as a good enough reason to bin it! It is, after all, the very first impression.

Having said that, firms should be wise to what they should be asking on their forms by now...... doesn't stop them asking in a roundabout way during an interview (i was asked, for instance 'how's your health?' - and okay I could have said 'nothing to do with you' but at interview stage do you really want to be labelled 'that bolshy one'? ).

Ashles

SandC wrote: »

No. I haven't had a day off sick in over 9 years and I'm proud of that

This is just a general observation, but I've never really understood this pride about not having a day off sick in x length of time. It's not like it's a conscious decision or anything and it sort of implies that other people who have been off ill could have somehow chosen not to.

It is also quite irritating when someone comes in to work when really they should be at home. Nobody likes to hear someone else coughing and sneezing, and there is a high chance they will end up infecting other people who may in turn infect their friends and families...

As an employer, I much prefer if someone feels ill that they stay at home.
I don't think particularly better of any of my team who have 0 days holiday over those who have had some sickness - I assume any sickness is all genuine and unwanted.

SandC

Granted that does come across as a bit like I'll struggle in sick just to keep up my record... I assure you that's not the case.

I know darn well that not all sickness is genuine and that actually some of it is down to people's perceptions of how ill you should be to not be at work. I can give several examples first hand of some attitudes towards absence from work - my brother used to work on a factory floor and their policy was that if you were off that period was one absence (after 3 you were called to a counselling meeting). That absence could be one day or however many weeks (continuous). So he and his colleagues pretty much took it as read that if you were going to have a day or two off cos you weren't well you may as well extend to one week (before you needed a GP note) and if anyone saw you out and about within that time you turned up the next day. Another friend was out with me one Friday night and was worrying about seeing anyone from work cos she'd been off sick all week with a bad back she'd made up. Then the major one some years ago I was talking to a colleague and I suddenly realised I hadn't had a day off sick for a couple of years - her response to that was 'well who's fault is that then?'.

As far as spreading coughs and colds go, I agree with you entirely. However I've always had very sensitive nasal passages and can be very sneezy but it's not a cold. So it takes me some time to work out whether I've developed one or not, by which time I've probably had the worst day over and done with and if I feel slightly better than I did the day before then I'll go in to work. I also have my own office and don't have to have much contact with others. I had an allergy to the chlorine in the pool earlier this year and had the symptoms of a cold for a good month or so before findin that nose clips erradicated it. Everyone thought I as suffering from a cold all that time but I knew it couldn't be - even though i did feel quite grotty with it (drained due to sneezing and sniffing).

Anyhow, I don't think that people are not genuinely ill but I do know people use sickies for their benefit from time to time - it is surprising how few sick days self employed people have compared to those who get full pay!

Judith_W

I'd put N/A in that section. This may imply you've had no sick, but at the end of the day, you can interpret that to mean - not relevant (as illegal question)

Ashles

SandC I agree with your comments.

And I don't doubt some sickness might well in reality be dubious, but if an employer has a good, solid sickness policy then there is no reason for the employer to make a judgement on an instance.

Previously we have used a calculation called the Bradford factor which multiplies number of days ill x number of instances x number of instances. This means that long occasional periods of absence will not send the number up as quickly as lots of short absence.
Over a certain number you have a meeting to see what's going on. Over another and you become ineligible for overtime and it may affect your appraisal score, over another number sickness pay might be withdrawn.
Because it's all pre calculated and the policy is available to all to read, then no-one can say it's unfair or the employer thinks they are not telling the truth.

It does mean that if someone is off for a day, they might consider having another day off as well, but the number will still be going up and is cumulative over a rolling year.

Anyone can pull a few sickies, but those occasional days off send the Bradford Factor up v quickly and who knows when you might be ill next.

Managing sickness can be a tricky area, but I found it so much easier with a strict and transparent process in place like above.

And any management who are overly suspicious of the veracity of their people's sickness probably needs a better policy.

CCFC_80

Ashles wrote: »

This is just a general observation, but I've never really understood this pride about not having a day off sick in x length of time. It's not like it's a conscious decision or anything and it sort of implies that other people who have been off ill could have somehow chosen not to.

It is also quite irritating when someone comes in to work when really they should be at home. Nobody likes to hear someone else coughing and sneezing, and there is a high chance they will end up infecting other people who may in turn infect their friends and families...

As an employer, I much prefer if someone feels ill that they stay at home.
I don't think particularly better of any of my team who have 0 days holiday over those who have had some sickness - I assume any sickness is all genuine and unwanted.

Agree with you this on this one...

Having been in employment for nearly 35 years I have worked with some very bad employers. These employers think more about their employees if they have a bad sick record rather than the people who like myself hardly had any time off for sickness. That is because they are dependent on the people who regularly throw a sickie to turn in for work as they take it for granted that the employees with 100% attendance records will turn up every day.

marybelle01

SandC wrote: »

I think there are certain establishments, and I'm thinking along the lines of public sector where they are working to strict guidelines, who will use an incompletely or incorrectly filled in application form as a good enough reason to bin it! It is, after all, the very first impression.

That isn't how their "strict guidelines" work - assuming they were stupid enough to have asked the question illegally anyway. Incomplete or incorrect forms do not get binned for that reason, and the "tick boxes" have nothing at all to do with the number of section completed. Their guidelines are to see whether the information on the application form matches the job specification which has been supplied to candidates. You would be surprised how often the bear no relationship! I recall one "infamous" application for an admin manager for a CAF team (Children's Social Services), with requirements for admin experience (preferably in a Childrens Services setting); good IT skills and excellent experience of Office applications; ability and experience of training methods; experience working with partner organisations eg the NHS. What I got back was an application that said "I work as a care salesman and I am very good at selling high end cars having met all my tragets for the past two years. I haven't any experience of admin work and I am not very computer literate but I am willing to learn if you teach me. My wife is a teacher and thinks I would be better off working for the council because then I would get better pay and a pension". He did not get an interview - but did actually phone for feedback on why he hadn't been shortlisted!

SandC

Oh dear!