Employers Please - Sickness absence. How much would put you off?

LondonDiva

ILW wrote: »

Public sector will generally be more favourable. Private sector quite often cannot afford to take the risk as their competiton will gain a competitive edge.

Public sector can't afford to carry this as staffing has been cut to the bone. Unfortunately, staff who are most likely to abuse the safeguards knwo the system backwards and will push until managers give in for peace.

getmore4less

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Dor

Very few employers would be happy intentionally employing someone to work 260 days in a year (full time)

FUll time(5bdays) is only working 232 days, 28 are holidays.

notanewuser

A friend of mine has MS and works full time in a specialist role in the public sector. She has a 1.5hr commute each way to work by public transport. Because of the specialist role, her managers agreed that she could work from home 2 days a week. No doubt this will have to increase as her condition deteriorates. As it is she spends her free time in a wheelchair because of the strain working puts on her.

OP, is this an option you could ask your employers about?

dori2o

notanewuser wrote: »

A friend of mine has MS and works full time in a specialist role in the public sector. She has a 1.5hr commute each way to work by public transport. Because of the specialist role, her managers agreed that she could work from home 2 days a week. No doubt this will have to increase as her condition deteriorates. As it is she spends her free time in a wheelchair because of the strain working puts on her.

OP, is this an option you could ask your employers about?

According to the employer, No.
Neither is working 2 days a week at a local office.
Neither is transferring to DWP which again is closer to home.
Neither is transferring to any of the other departments that are closer to home.

However, lets not let this thread get off course. PLease keep the thread on topic and lets get more opinions on the questions posted in the first post.

CFC

stix62 wrote: »

I'm not an employer but a definate No to both questions.
From an unemployed point of view I wouldn't expect to be offered a job either.

You can't be 'the best person for the job' if you're not there doing the job - simples.

Honest opinion - see above.

Takeaway_Addict

getmore4less wrote: »

FUll time(5bdays) is only working 232 days, 28 are holidays.

Pedant ...

dori2o

Thank you so far for your input. Hopefully we will get a few more answers over the next couple of days.

TBH the answers are going as I expected them to.

I'm not having a dig at employers when I say that, just that I expected, in the current financial climate, and with employers having such a large pool of applicants to choose from, it's to be expected that they take on someone who meets all their expectations and is likely to be there more often than not.

It does however highlight just how much more difficult it is for people who have illnesses/disabilities etc which mean they have to take time off work either to treat the condition, or simply because it prevents one from going to work either for long periods or for days at a time.

skintandscared_2

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

However, under the equality act employers are not allowed to ask health questions until an offer of a job has been given. If they then dismiss because of answers from the questionnaire they can lead themselves into trouble via tribunal. They are supposed to use the information to make reasonable adjustments but remember that now they can dismiss you for any reason in the first two years of employment and I would guess its fairly easy to make a reason up (ie, work not up to standard)

This may be true, but I have literally NEVER been given a job offer (or offered a job) without it being conditional upon receiving satisfactory references. And in all reference requests I've seen, they've asked for sickness records. It is completely feasible that a job offer could be withdrawn on receipt of an unsatisfactory reference as regards sickness, and that is perfectly legal.

ILW

You do have to bear in mind that for a small, private sector employer, a single "unreliable" member of staff in any key position can literally bankrupt a firm. Best to stick to public sector who generally do not have to compete.

Uncertain

skintandscared wrote: »

This may be true, but I have literally NEVER been given a job offer (or offered a job) without it being conditional upon receiving satisfactory references. And in all reference requests I've seen, they've asked for sickness records. It is completely feasible that a job offer could be withdrawn on receipt of an unsatisfactory reference as regards sickness, and that is perfectly legal.

I would change "is" to "can be" or if you wish "may well be".

The point here is that if an employer reaches a decision on making an offer without the sickness record then it is harder for them to be accused of unlawful discrimination. If the reason for the above average sickness happens to be due to a disability, for employment law purposes, then refusing the person could be discriminatory under some circumstances.