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

dori2o

Why has another post been deleted.

Forum team I want to know why my last post on this thread was deleted. There was nothing in it that could be considered offensive, illegal, racist, libellous etc etc.

So much for being an open forum. It seems we are being censored.

Wyndham

dori2o wrote: »

Employers. Imagine you were in the process of recruiting, or that you had received an unsolicited letter inquiring about job opportunities.


If someone had a health problem which meant they had previously had a significant amount of time off over the past 4 years, and the condition was such that the applicant was likely to continue needing a significant amount of time off, would you hire then if they demonstrated they could do the job, and when discounting the sickness absence, they were the best person for the job.

I would look at the disability legislation which talks about 'resonable adjustments'. I've recruited a few staff (but not loads), one of whom had a disability, but it was something we could work around. She was one of the best workers I've ever had. But, she was in every day, we could plan etc. My current employer has lots of part time staff, mostly around school holidays and childcare committments - but again, we know when the people will and will not be in, so can plan for that. I think the problem in your scenario is that the absences will be more random, and possibly at very short notice? I don't think there are 'reasonable adjustments' that can reaslistically be made to accommodate that and continue the business.

dori2o wrote: »

Same scenario as the first, but the condition is such that they could not guarantee being in work from one day to the next.

Again, same answer. Can 'reasonable adjustements' be made? I suspect not.

I'm interested if in your sceanrio we are using the disability legislation or not - does the person you describe consider themselves disabled under the definition?

dori2o

Wyndham wrote: »

I would look at the disability legislation which talks about 'resonable adjustments'. I've recruited a few staff (but not loads), one of whom had a disability, but it was something we could work around. She was one of the best workers I've ever had. But, she was in every day, we could plan etc. My current employer has lots of part time staff, mostly around school holidays and childcare committments - but again, we know when the people will and will not be in, so can plan for that. I think the problem in your scenario is that the absences will be more random, and possibly at very short notice? I don't think there are 'reasonable adjustments' that can reaslistically be made to accommodate that and continue the business.



Again, same answer. Can 'reasonable adjustements' be made? I suspect not.

I'm interested if in your sceanrio we are using the disability legislation or not - does the person you describe consider themselves disabled under the definition?

As you have pointed out, I personally don't think it matters.

Yes reasonable adjustments should be made (IMO whether cover under the EA applies or not), but as you say I don't think you can adjust for random, uncontrollable absenteeism.

[Deleted User]

I used to run my own small business. I had 6 members of staff (some part-time) - there had to be at least 2 of us there at all times so if someone was sick i had to pay someone else to come in and cover (if I could even get someone in at short notice). So it would have been a big no, no for me! Small businesses just can't carry people who don't pull their weight

jobbingmusician

dori2o wrote: »

Why has another post been deleted.

Forum team I want to know why my last post on this thread was deleted. There was nothing in it that could be considered offensive, illegal, racist, libellous etc etc.

So much for being an open forum. It seems we are being censored.

Absolutely honestly??

I can see when posts have been deleted, and I can read them if they haven't been edited. Sometimes the forum team put an understandable reason ('personal abuse' is a common reason) when they delete a thread, and sometimes they don't.

However, I cannot see ANY deleted posts in this thread. Are you absolutely sure you posted it successfully and the computer or site didn't throw a wobbly before it appeared on the site?

Incidentally, this may be a good time to explain that board guides are not supposed to delete any posts, unless they are spam. I have been known to do so (very rarely, and never on this board) from time to time, if I feel someone has posted information that may put them at risk, for example, but I have always been told off for it! :eek:

LE3

It partly depends on the job. If you are, for instance, a web designer, and your role is to update the company website but it's not going to affect the day to day work of the company if you aren't there & the work can wit till you are back, then it would be less of a problem than if you were say the receptionist or payroll officer Where the work is essential to the day to day running of the business and if you aren't there somebody else has to cover your work as well as theirs.

We are having a problem at the moment with a member of staff who has been with us for 6 months & has had over 5 weeks off sick (2 weeks, 1.5 weeks, and several 1-3 days) and 2 periods off on compassionate leave in that time - we brought them in as there was too much work & we could justify an extra person, if they are not there the work either doesn't get done or it means everyone else has to do several hours of unpaid overtime in the week to get the work done - the role this person has is fairly junior so other people can do it, unfortunately the tasks are essential so they need to be done which means it's the more strategic/long term tasks that end up getting pushed aside - you know, the specialist ones that we pay people a good salary to do! We can't function like this so the person is on a final warning and if their attendance doesn't improve they will be out - i would be very happy to employ somebody with a disability who is able to do the job, but we just can't afford to pay someone who isn't actually here doing the work that needs doing!
If someone is only able to work some days, I think I would be suggesting they look for a part tifreelancer his often suits people with illnesses like ME) or freelance type work that they could do when they are well enough - most employers in the current economic climate are like us - if they are paying somebody to do a job, they need that person to be there doing the job!

Wyndham

dori2o wrote: »

I'm interested if in your sceanrio we are using the disability legislation or not - does the person you describe consider themselves disabled under the definition?

My employer supports the two ticks system, but my understanding is that the person needs to declare themselves as disabled under the definition:

"You’re disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities."

It happens that I have a substatial and long term condition myself which flares up from time to time and does result in me having time off work. However, I'm on around 2 days a year, and when I looked at the definition I decided that couldn't be classed as a negative effect on my ability to do normal daily activities - though on those two days a year it most certainly is!

My understanding is also that 'reasonable adjustment' actually does only apply when the Act is quoted - though employers may want to work in a wider context than that. And reasonable adjustment doesn't mean 'bend over backwards no matter what'.

I just don't see how you can run a business of any kind if you do not know from one day to the next whether someone will be in or not.

zzzLazyDaisy

dori2o wrote: »

As you have pointed out, I personally don't think it matters.

Yes reasonable adjustments should be made (IMO whether cover under the EA applies or not), but as you say I don't think you can adjust for random, uncontrollable absenteeism.

The employer only has an obligation to make reasonable adjustments when the reason for absence relates to a health condition that meets the criteria for disability under the Act.

Say for example an employee suffers a complex fracture in a horse riding accident that takes a long time to heal and a year later they are still having above average time off. The medics confirm that he is expected to make a full recovery with no lasting effects, but that it will take time. That is not a 'disability' under the Act and the employer is entitled to treat that employee in the same way as it would treat any 'normal' employee with a poor absence record.

Compare that to someone (say) undergoing treatment for or recovering from cancer. That person may have exactly the same absences but because they come under the protection of the Act, the employer is required to make reasonable adjustments.

Going back to the OP. When I have a relapsing/remitting condition. When I was in practice, if I was unwell and representing in court or tribunal, I would go in no matter how bad I felt. But if it was an office day, I would call in and have the switchboard divert my calls to my home phone, and work from home. It was a seamless switch and the clients had no idea I was not in the office. This was before the days of the DDA/EA, so there was no obligation on my employer to make those adjustments, but I was good at what I did and they preferred to work around my condition, rather than lose me. And really that is what it boils down to - if your employer values you and wants to keep you, they will make the necessary adjustments. If they refuse, you may be able to complain to a tribunal, but it won't help the working relationship.

Unfortunately, in all walks of life, there is often a disparity between 'legal rights' and real life.

dori2o

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

The employer only has an obligation to make reasonable adjustments when the reason for absence relates to a health condition that meets the criteria for disability under the Act.

Say for example an employee suffers a complex fracture in a horse riding accident that takes a long time to heal and a year later they are still having above average time off. The medics confirm that he is expected to make a full recovery with no lasting effects, but that it will take time. That is not a 'disability' under the Act and the employer is entitled to treat that employee in the same way as it would treat any 'normal' employee with a poor absence record.

Compare that to someone (say) undergoing treatment for or recovering from cancer. That person may have exactly the same absences but because they come under the protection of the Act, the employer is required to make reasonable adjustments.

Going back to the OP. When I have a relapsing/remitting condition. When I was in practice, if I was unwell and representing in court or tribunal, I would go in no matter how bad I felt. But if it was an office day, I would call in and have the switchboard divert my calls to my home phone, and work from home. It was a seamless switch and the clients had no idea I was not in the office. This was before the days of the DDA/EA, so there was no obligation on my employer to make those adjustments, but I was good at what I did and they preferred to work around my condition, rather than lose me. And really that is what it boils down to - if your employer values you and wants to keep you, they will make the necessary adjustments. If they refuse, you may be able to complain to a tribunal, but it won't help the working relationship.

Unfortunately, in all walks of life, there is often a disparity between 'legal rights' and real life.

I know that legally they only have to consider adjustments if the meet the considerations set down by the EA. What I am saying though, is that where possible, even if the employee doen't meet the EA definitions, it is in the employers interest to make some small adjustments rather than saying 'Tough, you don't meet the criteria'.

Afterall it's far better to have a happy, healthy (as healthy as possible) and comfortable workforce than to have a resentful, unhealthy workforce.

Thats what I meant by 'IMO they should offer adjustments regardless of the EA'. Though I appreciate that these adjustments would only be those which are very reasonable i.e. chairs, footstools, specialist pc equipment etc, not such things as considerations on sickness absence, additional leave for medical/treatment appointments etc.

I do think more need to be looked at however with reasonable adjustments.

I'd love to work from home as travelling is the biggest problem I have in that I am restricted by it, and it can cause significant amount of pain even before I get to work. But, my employer will not entertain it, using Data Protection as the basis for their refusal.

Many others will be in a similar position either ue to the complete refusal of employers to allow working from home, or because the work simply cannot be done anywhere but in the workplace.