Bradford Factor advise

sangie595

robatwork wrote: »

We do a yearly round-up internally about which days are the "sickest". Amazingly to everyone's surprise, Monday and Friday have come top the last 15 years.

What this means is, unless someone can put in some medical evidence as to why this may be, staff (not shirkers by any means) almost all throw sickies, or are too hungover come Monday morning.

We have put it out to suggestion in the past how staff think the best way to change this is. Nobody suggested anything at all.

That's a surprise. Although what is more surprising is that this doesn't fall within your sickness absence policy as a trigger. For many employers it would. Even going back quite a few years, I recall having one person in capability for too many Friday/ Monday absences. And many policies are much sharper these days.

Wacatone

"That's a surprise. Although what is more surprising is that this doesn't fall within your sickness absence policy as a trigger. For many employers it would. Even going back quite a few years, I recall having one person in capability for too many Friday/ Monday absences. And many policies are much sharper these days"

Good point they know who is abusing the system but rather than confront the culprits they hide behind a system that is inherently unfair

sangie595

Wacatone wrote: »

Good point they know who is abusing the system but rather than confront the culprits they hide behind a system that is inherently unfair

No, actually they don't. As I have pointed out frequently, the system is there because the law has told them that they are not allowed to "confront the culprits". Employers have always known who was taking the Michael with sickness and who wasn't, but thanks to those "culprits" winning tribunals, employers have been forced to adopt policies which treat every person the same, regardless of whether the employer thinks they are genuine or not.

But the point remains that if you are not one of the culprits then it won't affect you, so there is nothing to worry about.

robatwork

sangie595 wrote: »

Employers have always known who was taking the Michael with sickness and who wasn't, but thanks to those "culprits" winning tribunals, employers have been forced to adopt policies which treat every person the same, regardless of whether the employer thinks they are genuine or not.

This.

And if it's almost everyone on occasion "taking the michael" then the employer may choose to live with it rather than take the demoralising action of reducing or abolishing paid sick days or sacking everyone.

sangie595

robatwork wrote: »

This.

And if it's almost everyone on occasion "taking the michael" then the employer may choose to live with it rather than take the demoralising action of reducing or abolishing paid sick days or sacking everyone.

Or they may not

FredG

sangie595 wrote: »

No, actually they don't. As I have pointed out frequently, the system is there because the law has told them that they are not allowed to "confront the culprits". Employers have always known who was taking the Michael with sickness and who wasn't, but thanks to those "culprits" winning tribunals, employers have been forced to adopt policies which treat every person the same, regardless of whether the employer thinks they are genuine or not.

But the point remains that if you are not one of the culprits then it won't affect you, so there is nothing to worry about.

Agree entirely with your point but as an honest worker who doesn't take the proverbial Michael, I've been caught out on Bradford one year due to swine flu, a busted ankle and food poisoning in the space of six weeks. Extreme case, yes. But it happens.

Unfortunately as you say, bureaucracy has replaced common sense and protects those playing the system by giving them a handy framework to plan sickness around but it's a really difficult thing to enforce and prove.

sangie595

Yes, there are occasional "really c**p" periods that can catch people out with any system. But it is hard to manage a balance on this. If you have no system then you cannot now fairly dismiss someone for repeated or convenient sickness. So even if you only have SSP, you still end up paying people for swinging the lead, or losing out on work / production because of their absence, or paying extra to replace them. If you have a system, then you risk having to dismiss someone who you know for a fact is genuine, and may prefer not to dismiss. But the problem is, it is impossible to return to a point where the employer decides - because that was never fair either. Joe gets sacked for taking a week off sick, but Tony is free and clear with three weeks off, because Len, the supervisor, likes Tony but not Joe. Wendy is certain that Alice is lying about her bad back and dismisses her, but doesn't dismiss Trudy for having even more time off with her bad back because she believes Trudy. You see?


No system is perfect. None of them work for every situation. But I'd rather see the rules laid out clearly and openly for everyone, and to reduce, as far as possible, the opportunity for people to be treated differently simply based on whether a manager likes them or not.

Xbigman

Back to the OP. Are they counting weekends for Bradford points or going the whole hog and calling them actual sick days?
I suspect its the points only and being done to stop Fri sickies. A Friday off is effectively triple points.

Generally the Bradford system is so open to abuse its unreal. Lots of companies are trying to tweak it to combat particular issues. This is one example and its far from the worst.



Darren