Do you think its unfair for employers looking at just the past 12 months of sickness?

fionajbanana

Many employers seem to do this and I think its wrong.

A colleague who has been at my work for 17 years in different job positions has only been off sick 6-7 times in that period. The past 12 months she has been off three times.

She was sent to disciplinary and got a verbal warning for 6 months. If she phones in sick again in that period, it will turn to a written warning.

Also I was not happy when I had a routine operation 20 months ago was classed as a sickness! If I did have 2 more sicknesses, they would give me a verbal warning. Without this operation, my life would be more painful and more time off work. If I had a procedure which decreases my chances of being off work, that is a positive thing? I could not go into work as I was on general atheistic and unable to drive and other things.

I think employers should look at the overall sickness record for the employee and that employee may just had an unlucky year with illness.

I had a full blown cold end of January and still went into work - a call centre. Both colleagues and customers I spoke to said I would been better off at home. I already had two sicknesses since 23rd June - a migraine caused by a change in medication (not my fault) and laryngitis (no other tasks to do at work). I have only been off sick 4 times in 6 years - including the operation.

AP007

They have to judge everyone in the same way regardless of how long you have been there.

Over a year is normal and that should apply to everyone in that working year.

breton_2

I was in a call center and was sick maybe twice a year, one day each.
I had a verbal warning and it is very frustrating as well.
I pity your situation but working life is tough.

Takeaway_Addict

No..........................

SandC

Procedures like these are necessary in order to keep a track on employee absence.

Once the disciplinary procedure kicks in most employers look at the bigger picture of what the sickness was for etc. It is highly unlikely that someone would be sacked for having an unfortunate year of health problems following many years of reliability. Remember, the HR department triggers the procedures but they don't make the decisions on firing people. It's not as cut and dried as that.

Of course an operation has to be down as sickness, what else can the absence be explained as?

The problem is that there are differing thoughts on what constitutes being too ill to be in work. Like it or not, some people will have a day off for a sniffle or just waking up feeling a bit under the weather.

skintandscared_2

Most HR departments now use the Bradford scale when working out sickness. It's the number of instances of sickness that cause the higher scores, and reaching a certain figure will trigger a warning.

The formula is S x S x D

where S = instances of sickness and D = days off sick.

Last year, I was off for 10 days straight (one instance), so my score was

1 x 1 x 10 = 10

If I had been off 5 times, 2 days each, I still would have had 10 days off sick but the score would have been:

5 x 5 x 10 = 250

If I had had 10 single instances of 1 days sick (so still just 10 days off over the year) my score would have been:

10 x 10 x 10 = 1000

You can see how its the instances of sickness that make the difference!

blckbrd

As a child, I recall my mother saying that she was 'due some sick leave' and would promptly go off sick. I suppose she saw it as an extention of her annual leave entitlement (dunno what that would have been in the '70s) and I'm sure she wasn't alone in that thinking.

While I detest the culture of fear that surrounds ill health procedures, I have to admit it deters skiving.

fionajbanana wrote: »

I had a full blown cold end of January and still went into work

^^ This, however, gives the the right hump! Sick people should keep their lurgy to themselves, at home or wear some kind of air-tight suit with it's own oxygen supply to work. Oh and they can provide me with ear-defenders if they have one of those coughs that make me want to yack-up in sympathy...

Wyndham

I think the OP only went in as she as worried about a disciplinary, so struggled in with a full blown cold. I object to ill people in the office too (we're open plan, and germs just run riot), but if you don't feel you have a choice, what do you do?

More and more employers are tightening up on this, and while I agree that for some people it is neceassary, for others it will only lead to problems.

Personally, I have an eye condition which flares up now and then, a couple of times a year. I keep it in check with medication, and it's mostly fine, but it's not something I can do anything about and it will never be 'better'. My employer has a '3 strikes, we're having a chat, 4 strikes is more serious' policy, so I just think I'm doomed!

Contains_Mild_Peril

skintandscared wrote: »

Most HR departments now use the Bradford scale when working out sickness. It's the number of instances of sickness that cause the higher scores, and reaching a certain figure will trigger a warning.

The formula is S x S x D

where S = instances of sickness and D = days off sick.

Last year, I was off for 10 days straight (one instance), so my score was

1 x 1 x 10 = 10

If I had been off 5 times, 2 days each, I still would have had 10 days off sick but the score would have been:

5 x 5 x 10 = 250

If I had had 10 single instances of 1 days sick (so still just 10 days off over the year) my score would have been:

10 x 10 x 10 = 1000

You can see how its the instances of sickness that make the difference!

That's a bit crazy. I sort of get the reasoning behind it - to deter people from taking the odd day off due to a hangover or taking a sickie when they actually just have something better to do (e.g. to attend an event), but in effect it means if you have one day off you are then committed to staying off for the entire duration of your illness unless you're sure it won't necessitate any more sick days.

Tenyearstogo

There's never going to be policy that suits all.

I had a illness that lasted about two months. I tried to go in when I could manage (I wasn't contagious). It resulted in me being off sick 3 times in 6 weeks, for five days total.

Another colleague was off at the same time, she had 20 days off, causing far more disruption to the department. Her sickness was in one block.

I got a verbal warning because of the number of occasions, she didn't. Seems ridiculous that i got penalised for struggling in before i was 100% and someone else who had more time off was not penalised. That's the policy though.

skintandscared_2

Some people (like me) will drag themselves into work unless we are totally bedridden because our Christmas bonus is totally dependent on our sickness absence!