Sick leave as a criterion

jjlandlord

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

It really depends on what you think the real world is. The real world I inhabit would make it a legally unfair selection to distinguish between the two as redundancy criteria, and lands the employer in an employment tribunal. In law, sick is sick - medical note or not.

Fair enough, then sick is sick and they both count. Who loses?

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

As for your opinion on sickness absence, I don't make generic statements without facts. Especially not about whether 5+ periods of illness are genuine or chronic illness (something also commonly referred to, if over a period of a year, as "disability"). That would be because I am not medically qualified to make such sweeping statements. What are your qualifications in this matter?

A normal, healthy adult serious about his job does not call in sick 5+ times a year.
I am very sorry but that is the real world.

Consequently, if they do either they are not serious about their job, or they are not healthy.

Undervalued

jjlandlord wrote: »

A normal, healthy adult serious about his job does not call in sick 5+ times a year.
I am very sorry but that is the real world.

Consequently, if they do either they are not serious about their job, or they are not healthy.

I agree but you are missing the point.

What is being discussed here are the LAWFUL criteria for selecting staff for redundancy. Your view (or mine) of the "real world" doesn't come into that.

If, as an employer, you apply your "real world" approach and get caught you will end up in a tribunal and losing.

prowla

5 times in a year is not a huge amount; I think that's too low a cut-off.

That said, I had my first sick day in at least 5 years just before Christmas, with flu; it was the Friday, and I was in bed the whole weekend and the Monday, which I'd already booked as leave.).

The last time I was sick before that was when I had an operation; it was on the company medical scheme, and I had probably a week off recuperating.

I'm working with someone who has the C-word; he recently had time off.

So these blanket 5 days statements are too black and white.

jjlandlord

prowla wrote: »

5 times in a year is not a huge amount; I think that's too low a cut-off.

It's not...

Lousy staff might think it is, though

Undervalued wrote: »

If, as an employer, you apply your "real world" approach and get caught you will end up in a tribunal and losing.

Unfair criteria and criteria based on protected characteristics are unlawful.
It is far from evident that anything OP quoted is unfair.

lisyloo

Just thought I'd mention that after my employer had sickness as a redundancy criterion, I made it my business to get to work if I physically could. If that meant extending the period of illness/productivity, lying down in the meeting room or spreading germs around then so be it.

I don't agree with taking time off when not genuinely sick, but I do believe there are times when it's in the employers interest that you DO stay at home. For example if you give 4 other people the flu.

DH recently had a chest infection for 2 weeks. He's self employed so went to work every day. I don't know how productive he was of how many other people he infected but he got full pay.

Just saying that employers should consider cross infection and productivity.
Sometimes I feel it's better to take 1 day off and recover rather than do a week at 50%.

jjlandlord

lisyloo wrote: »

Just saying that employers should consider cross infection and productivity.
Sometimes I feel it's better to take 1 day off and recover rather than do a week at 50%.

Agreed.

However that does not change the fact that a normal adult is not sick 5+ times a year (i.e. about once every 2 months).

lisyloo

I think your view is fair although sometimes chronic illnesses do count as disabilities and there are laws about that.
5 instances of non chronic illness where you can't soldier on does sound like a lot to me, but I come from the school of "soldier on" unless travel is made impossible.

It's all a moot point really because as getmore4less says, criteria are usually designed to get rid of the people that employers wish to get rid of especially in smaller organisations where it's easier.
Those who take a lot of time off might come into that category either because they are unhealthy or have a low threshold for taking time off.

Another_not_new_user

jjlandlord wrote: »

It's not...

Lousy staff might think it is, though



Unfair criteria and criteria based on protected characteristics are unlawful.
It is far from evident that anything OP quoted is unfair.

(a) Actually the OP didn't ask anything other than "what counts". So nothing at all is "evident".


(b) You stated, and I quote, "has a chronic illness" - singular. A chronic illness that lasts for, or is expected to last for a year (the period that you stated) or more, is a disability. Not a cold or two, and not the flu - nor a hangover.


I am sure there will be many people who are interested in your view that being sick several times in a year makes them "not normal". Does that include or exclude people with mental or physical disabilities? What is "normal"? And just to clarify - your medical qualifications are...?

jjlandlord

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

I am sure there will be many people who are interested in your view that being sick several times in a year makes them "not normal". Does that include or exclude people with mental or physical disabilities? What is "normal"? And just to clarify - your medical qualifications are...?

Now you are just trolling and misrepresenting what I wrote.

I was pretty clear and measured in my claim: "A normal, healthy adult serious about his job does not call in sick 5+ times a year."
I don't think that this is in any way inflammatory.

'Normal' has no negative meaning here, don't play me the politically correct card. I'm referring to a standard, typical adult.
This is no longer the middle ages and a 'normal', typical adult in this country in 2015 is in good health.

If your experience tells you otherwise, please let us know which is that hellhole of a workplace or town you work in so that we can all avoid it at all costs.

dippy3103

If the word "normal" is replaced with "healthy", then by & large I agree that 5 separate instances of sick leave (as opposed to 5 days in one stretch) is good grounds to at least look into why they are off so much. There may well be good reason (which would be a matter of medical record) but I think it's more than reasonable for this to at least be addressed.
I work in the public sector & have little doubt if I was off 5 times in a year my employer would be asking why.