Bradford Factor - Your opinion?

InsideInsurance

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Imagine you are unwell on a Monday and take the day off.
Feeling just about ok to work on the Tuesday you go in.
Go downhill again and need to take the Wednesday off.

But counter balance that to the person that has already had 4 days off over 3 occurrences... they wake one morning with a bit of an upset stomach, probably the shrimp the night before, and question if they will going in or not. Currently they are on a score of 36 but if they decide to take the day off it goes up to 80

Thus it encourages people who are borderline to come into the office.

So the question is if you think it is more often that people have an illness that has peaks and troughs such that they are too ill one day, fit the next and too ill the day after that again or if its more common for people to decide to take a day off here and there because they are a little unwell/ hungover etc but actually probably fit to work

kathrynha

I had issues with it in my old department. I would sometimes be not totally well, but not really ill enough to have time off, but as the week went on I would get worse, and end up having to take a day off a then being ill all weekend. If I had taken off the time when I first started to feel ill, then I would of probably only of be ill for a couple of days as opposed to a week or more.
Also got stung by the starting to feel better and going back to work too soon so the illness relapsed and one lot of illness could leave me with 2 absenses from work.

New department is a lot more flexible. Feeling a bit ill, work from home and keep your germs to yourself, and therefore only needing a days sickness when you really can't work.
In the last few years I have managed to work through viruses, d+v, bad asthma. Only thing that stops me is a migraine.

Another_not_new_user

But again I have to point out - the point is not whether it is fair or not. Or whether some other system that is probably no different in practice is fair or not. The point is that employers, whether you like it or not, expect workers to be in work and not off sick. The law requires them to have a system to manage this - otherwise they are not able to "dispose" of those taking the proverbial. As a result they may not enter into any distinction between the "genuine" and the "not so genuine". They actually used to be able to do this - whether they were "right" or not is not relevant. But employers have been badly stung by using their judgement. So now no sensible employer uses their judgement. They use a system and apply it to everyone. It no longer matters whether you are the guy who takes every fourth Monday off due to the hangover you have, or the guy who thinks sick leave is extra holiday, or whether you happen to have genuine illness caused by one of those pesky viruses that you ignored for four days thus making yourself more sick. Because, let's face it, most employers know the differences. But it is a case of, if you want to be lenient with the latter, you must accept the first two also.

FBaby

I am generally quite a well person, however occasionally get short periods of dizzyness and sickness for a few hours that then pass. My doctor is currently investigating why this is, however advised me that the day this happens should be taken off and an appointment booked with them, as it could just be flu which obviously I don't want to pass on - best to not risk it.

You are joking! Are you an airline pilot or similar? I suffer from diziness and sickness on a regular basis. In my case it's an illness called 'time under pressure' and certainly doesn't justify taking a whole day off.

I am amazed that a doctor would advised to take a whole day off for it and to demand an emergency appointment as a result. If they thought it was flu (which ironically is only 1 of many other illness it could be the start off, including a cold!), the last thing a doctor would want is to have you in their practice contaminating the old generation.

Once again, unless your job is a position where such symptoms could put you or the public at direct risk of injury, I can't see how your employer should give you special treatment for it.

persa

I've always had mixed feelings towards the Bradford Factor.

If someone takes a lot of time off for one illness, then they'll need a doctor's note and it will be a real and probably ghastly condition - but a few weeks off unplanned can be hideously disruptive to the business.

If someone takes a few days off here and there, they may not be seriously ill - or they may be coming back to work too soon and suffering a little but working nonetheless because they know they're needed. One day off is generally never a disaster - losing a key member of staff for a week can be.

Some people clearly take the mickey and they should be punished - one of my coworkers has created an extra 2 weeks of holiday for himself every year through "manflu" when he's blatantly only had a minor sniffle if that. However, if you fall ill on a Friday night (viruses love to attack just before "your time" starts!) and take Monday off as you're still ill, struggle in on Tuesday, realise that's a mistake and stay at home on Wednesday, why should you be punished?

The Bradford Factor is a formula and that's why it's so popular as it seems impartial. However, as everyone knows, a more accurate test (but sadly one which would lead to tribunals etc) would be to just ask the ill person's immediate coworkers if that person was sick or not. Everyone knows when a colleague is lying.

I've never worked in an environment which uses the Bradford Factor. We don't get paid for overtime, and I'm fairly sure my overtime each year has covered my sick leave, so I would be pretty damn annoyed if my sick leave was ever questioned. Unplanned absence/presence cuts both ways. If you do unpaid overtime for weeks on the trot and therefore don't have any time to yourself, chances are you'll exhaust yourself and be more prone to picking up a virus. In those circumstances, I think counting a day in bed to recover against the employee would be deeply unfair!

Nicki

I've never worked anywhere using the Bradford factor either but I agree with the poster who says that co workers know who is genuinely ill and who is a slacker and in my experience it is those who are known slackers who whinges loudest when pulled up by management and asked to explain their absences. There is a category of person who thinks a certain number of days sick leave is their right every year to be added to their annual leave entitlement (and I have heard people in the past actually say : I've used up all my annual leave but I have 4 sick days left this year, or words to that effect). I've also known of people who take time off for minor ailments with no thought or understanding of how many such days they take and are completely astonished when they are told that their odd days add up to 15 over a year (3 extra weeks) against a company average of about 8.

I've had one long period of work off when I was seriously ill (by long I mean several months not days or weeks) over a working life of 17 years but most years I have no sick days or certainly not more than a working week. Colds, minor viruses, hangovers, injuries aren't good reasons to take time off work IMO (unless the injury prevents you doing your job) but a lot of people seem to use them as a reason for a day off particularly if their company has a more generous policy than SSP. When numbers need to be cut though, it is only fair that these types should be the first to go.